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

This enactment amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to, among other things,
(a) change their titles to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act , respectively;
(b) change the names of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, respectively (“the Regulators”);
(c) establish the Regulators as the regulating bodies for offshore renewable energy projects;
(d) establish a land tenure regime for the issuance of submerged land licences to carry out offshore renewable energy projects, as well as the revenues regime associated with those licences and projects;
(e) establish a ministerial decision-making process respecting the issuance of submerged land licences and the Regulators’ exercise of certain powers or performance of certain duties;
(f) expand the application of the safety and environmental protection regime and its enforcement powers to include offshore renewable energy projects;
(g) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection;
(h) authorize negotiations for the surrender of an interest, the cancellation of an interest if negotiations fail and the granting of compensation to an interest owner for the surrender or cancellation;
(i) establish the regulatory and liability regime for abandoned facilities relating to petroleum-related works or activities or offshore renewable energy projects;
(j) expand the application of the occupational health and safety regime to offshore renewable energy projects;
(k) allow the federal or provincial governments to unilaterally fund certain expenses incurred by the Regulators as a result of specific requests made by that government;
(l) allow new methods to demonstrate the existence of significant hydrocarbon accumulations in a geological feature and limit the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years;
(m) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs;
(n) establish a new transboundary hydrocarbon management regime to regulate fields or pools that straddle domestic and international administrative boundaries, enabling the implementation of the Canada-France transboundary fields agreement;
(o) remove references to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and, to align with the Impact Assessment Act , clarify the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to the conduct of impact assessments of designated projects as well as regional and strategic assessments; and
(p) specify that the Crown may rely on the Regulators for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada and that the Regulators may accommodate adverse impacts to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
Finally, it makes consequential and terminological amendments to other Acts.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it has only been three minutes, but what I would say is that it is incumbent on all members of Parliament to ask themselves that question. Getting back to this motion, the Conservatives continue to use this as a delay tactic, not allowing other important questions to come before Parliament. When they go home tonight, I would encourage opposition members in the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to ask themselves what they want to get accomplished with the time we have remaining in this Parliament.

On the motion for concurrence on the 10th report, I have read the 10th report. I do not sit on the environment committee, but this did give me a good opportunity to go through the report and look at the recommendations. When the member for Portage—Lisgar stood up this morning to move the motion, it was ironic that he did not talk about the Conservatives' environmental plan or what they would do at all. In fact, an amendment in relation to the net zero accelerator fund was moved and that was turned down by the Speaker. It was ruled out of order. Again, the Conservatives want to use this place to get up on talking points instead of getting work done, instead of actually being able to focus.

If we want to talk about the environment and investments in critical minerals and Canada's clean tech advantage, I will use my remaining six minutes to talk about that. However, I want to highlight the fact that it is remarkable to me that the Conservatives want to get up and talk about an environmental report tabled by the environment committee. I have sat in this place for five years and I have not seen a genuine effort by the Conservative Party whatsoever to tackle the question of environment, to tackle the question of how Canada leverages its strategic assets to make those investments.

We have heard a slogan “technology, not taxes”. That is a great slogan with no substance behind how we get there. How are we going to leverage those opportunities we have in Canada? How are we going to fund them? That is the part about which the Conservatives do not finish their sentences. When they talk about these things, they are not straight and clear with Canadians about what the cost would be to reduce emissions and drive up Canadian competitiveness. They do not have a substantive plan.

I will give Erin O'Toole credit. In 2021, he started to go down this route. Of course, the backbench of his caucus wanted to pull him down for even mentioning the word carbon pricing. The Conservatives have not really given a genuine answer to this. I know right now that the question is around the pocketbook and affordability. It is around defence and international security. However, the environmental question plays into all of those things, and the Conservatives really do not have a serious answer on this.

Let us take an examination of the record of the Conservative Party when we do have legislation that directly relates to economic growth or affordability. I represent Kings—Hants in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. A lot of my constituents still use home heating oil in their homes. It is the most expensive way in the country to heat homes. It averages between double to four times the amount of those who have been able to transition off of home heating oil.

This government worked with the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Prince Edward Island, where the majority of households use home heating oil, to establish a program to help people make the transition off home heating oil, or certainly reduce their reliance on it. It saves thousands of dollars a month in home heating costs.

The member for Carleton said that the program did not exist. He said that it would not do any good. I have evidence in my riding, where energy bills have been reduced because of the efforts taken by this government. The Conservative Party has voted against it at every single turn. The Conservatives have not been there to help support these initiatives.

Let us talk about Bill C-49, which amended the Atlantic accords. This was simply legislation. It was not even necessarily an investment that the government had to make, or an expenditure, but just regulations to allow the possibility for offshore wind to help drive a decarbonization in Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada, and create meaningful jobs in my home province. The Conservatives stood against it at every single turn.

What does the Conservative Party actually stand for? The Conservatives want to suggest that this government has done nothing on the environment. I would remind them that this is the only government in Canadian history, which is far from perfect, by the way, and I sit on the backbenches and do not suggest it is perfect, that has reduced emissions and grown the economy. No government in the history of our country has ever done that. I sit and listen in the House to the extremes from members like the member for Portage—Lisgar, who suggests the government has done nothing. What is he talking about? Although I would agree in some facets about the way the New Democrats present themselves in the House as being more credible, sometimes I hear little to nothing from them.

Have the New Democrats not seen the measures the government has taken? Should we do more? Absolutely. Is it our job as members of Parliament, as parliamentarians, to push the government and the executive, the Privy Council? Yes we should, but let us bring some air of reality to what we are actually dealing with here in this place, and to the complexities and the challenges.

I know that some of my colleagues, including on my side of the House, in my party, when we talk about Trans Mountain, and the NDP, suggest it is in the national interest. Would we rather move oil, gas and bitumen by railroad? The market still is calling for these things around the world. My message to the NDP members when they say we should not have invested in a national interest and a pipeline to move the bitumen that would otherwise be moving on rail cars, do they think that is not a safer way to do it? The government intends to sell the pipeline to indigenous stakeholders to be able to support this. These are some of the complexities and the nuances we do not hear in this place and that we do not actually get in to legitimate debate.

The government does have to continue to focus on the question of Canada's strategic advantage in critical minerals. This matters not only from an emission reduction perspective; I would say that, even more importantly in this context, it also matters for our economy and for defence and strategic interests with the United States. We spent a lot of time in the House talking about the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship. The government needs to continue to highlight it.

All parliamentarians in this place should be focused on the question of how we can push the ability to reduce regulatory burdens that are not necessarily needed to advance the mining of critical minerals, but do so in a sustainable way. There is an ability to align processes, and I support some of the work the government has done in that place. We need to do more.

I think about things like nuclear energy, the agriculture sector and forestry. There is so much we can do in efforts that drive innovation in those traditional sectors, but also reduce emissions at the same time. We have to continue to focus on the question as one of innovation and of economic growth. Of course, at the end of the day, if it reduces emissions and drives environmental benefit, that is the triple bottom-line win we should be looking for.

I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues in this place.

Public Accounts

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

Madam Speaker, when I think of the energy needs of Canada going into the future, I cannot help but reflect on how we can use greener policies. With Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord, we can think of the power generation potential from using our coastlines, the billions of dollars of investment that would be attracted to that and the thousands of jobs, which would be of great benefit to Atlantic Canada. However, I do not quite understand why the Bloc voted against the Atlantic accord. We talk about reducing emissions, and I would suggest that this is one of the ways we can achieve net zero by 2050.

Can the member explain why the Bloc opposed Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord?

Environment and Sustainable Development

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address this issue in two ways. We all, or at least, the government and a number of other members, recognize the true value of nuclear power and having that discussion. Having said that, I am going to tag on to that after a few opening remarks about what I believe are legitimate concerns of Canadians about what is taking place in the House of Commons.

This report we are debating today has been around for a couple of years, but it was a decision made by the Bloc party to bring it forward. I suspect, as we have witnessed more and more concurrence reports being brought to the floor of the House of Commons, it is because members are upset with the Conservative Party and the multi-million dollar game the leader of the Conservative Party is playing. That is the reason we are debating nuclear power today.

I will be sharing my time, by the way, with one of my friends from the Bloc. This is a wonderful compromise, I must say.

I received a letter from someone who has been mailing a number of members of Parliament. This email was a plea to all members of the House of Commons, and it was signed off by some very impressive groups that are in support of Bill C-63. One might wonder why that is relevant; it is relevant because the Bloc has brought forward a motion. It brought forward that motion because of frustration with the Conservative game being played. As opposed to debating the game, members want to talk about the importance of the nuclear industry here in Canada. If everyone stopped playing the game and we dealt with the concerns Canadians have, like the concerns in the email I have received from a long list of organizations, we would actually talk about what it is they are asking us to deal with, and that is Bill C-63, the online harms act.

The lengthy list of organizations includes the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Association of School System Administrators, Children's Healthcare, Canadian Medical Association, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and Empowered Kids Ontario.

What Canadians want us to be talking about is issues they know we can actually deal with, legislation that is before the House. Instead of dealing with that, we are talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power is an important issue, I do not question that. What I question is the motivation in the House to change the channel of what we should be dealing with. We should be dealing with issues Canadians want us to deal with, not the desires of the leader of the Conservative Party to become the prime minister or the filibustering the Conservatives do day in and day out.

That is something that I believe ultimately does need to be addressed. When I think of the issue of nuclear power, I think it is important for us to recognize that it does have a role to play as an industry. We hear a great deal about the benefits of nuclear power; I do not know to what degree people realize there are actually tens of thousands of Canadians directly employed.

We have two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, where nuclear power plays an important role in their economies and their communities as a whole. Ontario's consumption of nuclear power has increased over the years, as we have seen a shift away from emissions-sourced power generation to nuclear power generation. Ontarians have been a great beneficiary of it.

Even though my province and the province of Quebec, which I care very much about, have hydroelectricity in common, and I support green energy sources, there is absolutely nothing wrong in recognizing that nuclear power does have a role here in Canada. We should recognize and support it. When people think of nuclear power, they often think of power stations and that is it, when in fact, we have all sorts of uses for nuclear technology out there and how it is developed.

I would encourage members to reflect on health care, whether it is isotopes or how radioactive materials ultimately advance medicine here in Canada, it is an area of technological advancement using science that will do wonderful things in medicine into the future.

I recognize many ways that Canada could lead the world. CANDU reactors have been of great benefit not only to Canada, but also outside of Canada, where we have seen other countries look to us to see how we have been successful at generating energy through nuclear power production with these small, modular reactors. We have the technology and the expertise for Canada to play a very strong leading role. It is interesting to see the Bloc and their opposition to it.

Bill C-49 was the offshore wind energy legislation, which was huge for Atlantic Canada, and it is green energy. It is something the Prime Minister and the government have put right up front through supporting legislation. Now we have Atlantic provinces that are bringing in, or have brought in, mirror legislation because we have recognized that it is not only better for our environment but also good for the economy and the communities in which we live. It will generate millions, if not billions, of dollars of investment.

Whether it is looking to the future of green energy or taking a look at how it has benefited some of our provinces, in particular Ontario and New Brunswick, nuclear power is a major contributor to our economy in a very real and tangible way. It contributes immensely to our GDP, both directly and indirectly.

Whether it is members from the Bloc or the Conservatives, especially the Conservatives in their destructive approach to the House, rest assured that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians. That is why I would ask, again, about the concerns to stop the filibuster and let us start dealing with the important legislation that needs to be dealt with, along with other issues.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to Halton Hills to see what comes out of a gas-powered electricity-generating station. I can see colour just fine. It was brown effluent. I would invite him to come. I know the member's community still burns coal to create electricity. That is the dirtiest way known to make electricity, and natural gas is not far behind. There are net-zero ways of producing electricity onto our grid. Indeed, sometimes the effluent is brown.

Conservatives who are against doing anything to fight climate change, even though it is hurting our economy and communities, are anti-science. We have seen it with the NDP, which recently flip-flopped on carbon pricing, and we have also seen it with the Bloc Québécois, whose members voted against Bill C-49, even though this legislation enables the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to build offshore renewable energy for the first time, reducing emissions and creating tens of thousands of jobs. It will attract billions in investment and unlock a $1-trillion offshore energy industry. What a remarkable thing to vote against. Conservatives voted against Atlantic Canada and so did the Bloc Québécois. It is astonishing.

The decisions around nuclear waste are being managed properly, following rigorous scientific study, consultation and environmental assessment, and with safety measures in place. It is reckless for the Bloc Québécois to suggest politicians should be making these decisions instead.

This report concludes that Canada is safely managing our nuclear waste according to best practices and best international policies. This will continue to be the case and will only be more important as we utilize this technology to reduce our emissions, fight climate change and support good, sustainable jobs as we go forward.

I would like to transition a bit to a bill that I am excited to have come to this House when we can dispense with the current filibuster that the Conservatives are engaging in. I am looking forward to discussing Bill C-73. Bill C-73 is a bill that focuses on biodiversity, our environment and nature-based solutions for fighting climate change.

I am very proud to live in Halton region. I grew up in Halton region, and it is one of the most biodiverse areas in Canada. It surprised me when I heard that, so I looked it up. It also surprises a lot of people who live in that area because it is home and it does not look or feel like a rainforest or like the most biodiverse area in Canada, but indeed it is. That is something worth protecting. I do a lot of school visits and I hear from kids all the time who are concerned about biodiversity loss and pollution, and the impacts of climate change. We have to fight against that.

As we are fighting against that and trying to make progress, the Conservatives are introducing bills, trivial ones and rather silly ones like a bill to bring back the plastic straw. They are very proud of it. They will applaud. They are very proud of their legislation to promote the use of single-use plastics.

I spend a lot of time on the water. Sometimes when I am on the water, I see Tim Hortons lids and straws—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I certainly believe in a unified country. My question is about Bill C-49, which was quite unifying in my province and I believe in Nova Scotia as well. There is a need to move with speed toward a green economy, a need for wind and a need for protection by the provinces and the federal government in how we move forward with this exciting, important industry for our children's future and for the betterment of all Canadians.

Could the member please tell me why his party voted against this bill every step of the way?

Natural Resources

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the energy transition means an additional 400,000 jobs in Canada by 2030. The offshore wind energy sector will be worth $1 trillion. Hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs will be created, but these jobs are not guaranteed. To get them, we need an ambitious climate plan. That is why we passed Bill C‑49, which will enable us to develop offshore wind energy in Canada. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois sided with the Conservatives to vote against renewable energy. Our government will fight to seize these economic opportunities and create these jobs even if the other parties turn their backs on the fight against climate change.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has passed Bill C‑49. It will create an offshore wind energy sector in my region, bringing jobs, investment and clean energy. Despite this, the Conservatives opposed Bill C‑49 and opposed renewable energy. They chose their ideology over the people of Canada.

Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change explain why we need to seize the economic opportunities of the energy transition?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper referred to Atlantic Canada as “a culture of defeat”. When the Conservative government amended the Atlantic accords, it put our region's interests in the back seat. Just ask Bill Casey.

As it relates to Bill C-49, our government has worked with the Government of Nova Scotia and with Newfoundland and Labrador because the legislation represents billions of dollars in economic opportunity. The Conservatives stood in the way every single time. Can the Minister of Housing provide an update to this House about why this bill matters for Nova Scotia?

Regional Economic Development

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, with a strengthened Atlantic accord, Atlantic Canada is set to become a global leader in wind hydrogen. There are trillions of dollars on the table, and we should all be excited about the good jobs that will create in our region. We can think about the kids who will now get to see their folks work at home.

However, the Conservatives spent months blocking Bill C-49. How could the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame fight against the best interests of his community? Because Conservatives try to stand in the way of progress, but we get it done. Atlantic Canada will produce the clean energy that the world wants.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador came together to sign the historic Atlantic accord. This agreement created an offshore energy sector in our province, delivering economic opportunity and prosperity for generations of families and communities.

Now this government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have come together again to strengthen this accord and kick-start a new offshore renewable energy industry. Bill C-49 has now become law, ensuring that Newfoundland and Labradorians can lead the world in offshore wind and clean energy.

Economic Development

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hydrogen industry in Canada is expected to be worth $12 trillion by 2050. It helped create more than 350,000 Canadian jobs, all the while helping us fight climate change. Together with the provinces, Canada's allies, industry and organizations such as the Canadian Hydrogen Association, Canada will succeed from this enormous economic opportunity.

Canada is making strides with the national hydrogen strategy, hydrogen investment tax credits and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords amendments act. By leveraging our world-class offshore wind resources, we are positioning ourselves as a leading clean energy supplier while boosting our economy and creating thousands of jobs.

This summer, I witnessed a game-changer at Canada's first operational fuel station for class 8 hydrogen trucks. I thank ITD Industries, Walmart Canada and Nikola. They are transforming the trucking industry with lower maintenance and fuel costs, an impressive range of over 800 kilometres and, best of all, zero emissions.

Let us all embrace the hydrogen opportunity. It is a win for both Canada's economy and our environment.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous news for the people of Cape Breton. Bill C-49, our offshore wind bill, is now law. Expanding on the historic Atlantic accords, we have delivered groundbreaking legislation that will enable the construction of offshore renewable energy in Atlantic Canada. While support for the legislation was unanimous in the Nova Scotia provincial legislation, shamefully, the federal Conservative leader directed his party to oppose countless jobs and billions of dollars' worth in investments for sustainable growth.

Bill C-49 sought input from indigenous stakeholders, local businesses, the fisheries and environmental advocacy groups to improve and pass this important legislation. It is a shame that no Atlantic Conservative member was brave enough to stand up to their leader, but, on this side of the House, we will continue to fight for our environment, build the economies of the future and advocate for Atlantic jobs.

Wind Energy

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the offshore wind industry is expected to attract $1 trillion in investment by 2040. With the passing of Bill C-49, Newfoundland and Labrador is poised to lead the way, just as it did for our oil and gas sector. The Atlantic Accord will now ensure that we are the beneficiaries of our wind resources. That means thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment. While Conservatives voted against Bill C-49 every step of the way, we believe in the future of wind.

We understand that the energy market is diversifying. We support a strong and prosperous economy for Newfoundland and Labrador. I will always stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador's future. With Bill C-49, it is looking even brighter.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, Nova Scotians are smart, passionate, hard-working people. Nova Scotians are seizing our strong winds, turning them into big revenue that will drive our economy and produce good jobs for generations to come. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that Nova Scotians should reap the rewards of the multi-trillion dollar offshore wind and clean hydrogen industries. That is why the passage of Bill C-49 represents a huge step for Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians, unlocking a generational economic opportunity for our region. However, just like the Harper Conservatives of the past, who tried to push Atlantic Canada down by taking our offshore revenues, Conservatives are again doing everything they can to block this huge opportunity for Atlantic Canadians.

We will not let them. We are standing up for Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians because our hard-working people deserve to prosper.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, when I sat in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature with former premier Danny Williams, he had to go to Ottawa to fight day in and day out against the Conservative Harper government as it tried to rip up the Atlantic accord, a historic agreement that has delivered jobs and prosperity in the province for generations.

Over the last year in the House of Commons, I have had to fight day in and day out with my Liberal colleagues against the Conservatives again, who tried to rip up the Atlantic accord and kill Bill C-49. For the last year, the Conservatives have stood against the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Nova Scotia, while we fought for them so we could deliver on the promise of the Atlantic accord and the enormous economic opportunities of Bill C-49.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have led the offshore oil sector. We will lead the offshore green energy sector, and we will do it without the support of the Conservative Party.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, our government is working to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the clean economy, especially in Nova Scotia. That is why we passed Bill C-49, which will enable the creation of offshore wind projects in Atlantic Canada for the very first time. This bill alone will attract billions in investments and create thousands of jobs for Atlantic Canadians.

That is why I was so deeply disturbed to see the Conservative Party turn its back on Nova Scotians once again by opposing this legislation in an attempt to stop these jobs, stop economic growth and stop renewable energy projects from coming home to Nova Scotia. Fortunately, the Conservatives failed, and we delivered.

This bill adds to our many investments in the clean economy, our technology tax credits and so on. Through these efforts, we will grow Canada's economy and fight climate change at the same time.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, the passage of Bill C-49 sends a powerful message to all Atlantic Canadians that the future of Canada is green.

I was shocked when the Conservative leader directed his party to oppose Bill C-49 and the amendments to the Atlantic accords. In doing so, Conservatives were positioned to rob Atlantic Canada's economy of investments of millions upon millions of dollars. They stood in the way of provincial governments, municipal governments, local businesses, first nations communities, unions and numerous environmental groups, all of whom lobbied and rallied for the legislation as the key to unlocking our green future.

Conservative politics and Conservatives' climate change denial almost ended the green energy sector before it even began. Nova Scotia has won. Bill C-49 is now law, and we are one step closer to being a world energy leader in green energy production.

Natural Resources

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, our Atlantic accords bill would allow for the development of offshore wind projects. By investing in renewable energy, we are investing in a future for Atlantic Canadians that is green and prosperous, one where we fight climate change and create jobs. The Conservatives are getting in the way of Atlantic Canada by opposing Bill C-49.

What is the government doing to ensure that Atlantic Canada can contribute to the green economy?

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pretty critical point in the legislative agenda that has come up.

I agree with the Bloc Québécois member and her argument that there are many bills we would like to discuss.

I appreciate that this is a critical time right now. We have a lot of legislation that we need to discuss in the House, legislation that our constituents have sent us to this place to get through. It is serious things that are so important, such as Bill C-49, Bill C-59, Bill C-70 and Bill C-64. We have two opposition day motions just this week. We are trying to deliver the help that Canadians so desperately need, including through legislation like the fall economic statement, which the official opposition has filibustered at committee for months and which is something that would deliver a great deal of support in terms of housing.

Something I am particularly proud of as a part of that piece of legislation is actually the removal of the HST on psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that would help those who are working within that profession, and something that I actually had a conversation about just yesterday with a psychotherapist who asked me when we would be getting the legislation passed. I said we are working on it and trying to make sure it goes through. The person I spoke to needs the fairness for the removal of the federal tax to occur. She spoke to me about how important it was for her clients to have equality within the services that are provided to them. We know, of course, that we are in a mental health crisis and that every bit of assistance helps in that regard. That is one piece of legislation that the official opposition has filibustered at the committee.

There are, of course, amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia accord act that we need to get through. There is the foreign interference act, which is of course becoming more and more important as we move through this parliamentary session.

I do not know how many times New Democrats have to talk about how incredibly important pharmacare is. We certainly know that the official opposition does not believe that. I think about the millions of Canadians who rely upon that piece of legislation to help them afford the medications they need, diabetics in this country, and I believe there are 3.7 million of them, who need the legislation to go through so they would not have to worry about the cost of their diabetes medications and devices. So many constituents have written to me thanking me for moving that forward.

Those are the key pieces of law that we need to get moving in the House. Yes, we are sitting until midnight most nights to do that. New Democrats believe in that absolutely because it is for people that it is important. There is an opposition party determined to delay every single one of the bills. Time again, the Conservatives have obfuscated, filibustered, screamed and yelled in outrage and then attempted to delay and stall all of that progress, all of those supports. I find it unacceptable.

The fact is that what the Conservatives are now calling out, in terms of their outrage, is that the Speaker seems to have been caught up in supposed partisan activity that clearly was not of his doing. He did everything he was supposed to do, ran through the permissions that he was supposed to get, and yet mistakes were made. The partisanship that the Conservatives are so outraged about actually fuels their own partisanship fire of trying to find yet some other thing that they can hold on to, so much so that it will delay again all of the incredible supports that we need to get to people.

I see this every day, whether I am at the procedure and House affairs committee or here in the House. The Conservatives are desperate to cling on to anything they can, and destroy whatever we are trying to do in the process, to show that this place does not work, because that fits into their communication strategy. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow something to fit into their communication strategy to disrupt what needs to happen for my constituents.

The member across the way for Winnipeg North did quote the letter, but I want to mention it again. We are here, in this case, over a tweet that was sent out by the Liberal Party without having consulted the Speaker. The letter is very clear. It is from the national director of the Liberal Party, apologizing very clearly to the Speaker. It states, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”

Was there a mistake made? Absolutely. Is it horribly unfortunate? Absolutely. Are we punishing the right person in this instance? No. Should there be more vigilance on this issue? Absolutely, of course. However, calling for the Speaker's resignation is clawing to the communication strategy that benefits one group. It does not benefit the entire House. I do not agree with that. We on this side of the House do not agree with that.

We have to work on the legislation that the people have sent us to work on. We have a very important job, and I have no time for all of the bickering and squabbling. Canadians need this place to work. They need us to get to work. We can make this all about ourselves or we can make it about them. Canadians deserve that. New Democrats want to help deliver the supports they need. The work is urgent, and the official opposition just wants to delay. That is all I have to say on this matter.

Bill C‑49—Time Allocation Motion

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a bit of tortured logic there. This debate is supposed to be about Bill C-49, not about the price on pollution.

My hon. colleague might want to read the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a specific mechanism requiring that a province and the federal government agree on everything and that provinces introduce legislation that is exactly the same as what is going through the federal House. It is something on which we must collaborate. It is something that was attacked by Stephen Harper. It is extremely important for the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

With respect to the price on pollution, we have had this conversation many times. Provinces and territories are very capable of coming up with pricing systems that they can put in place in their jurisdictions if they think they can do it better, as Alberta does with the industrial pricing system and as British Columbia does with the retail pricing system. Provinces have flexibility.

My hon. colleague may deny the reality of climate change. He may continue to put his head in the sand and pretend that he is an ostrich. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, climate change is real. We have to take steps to address it. We have to work in a manner that will enable us to seize economic opportunities, as countries around the world are doing. The Luddite-type behaviour on that side of the House is shameful.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am so happy. I have been listening to the minister's reasoning for pushing this bill forward and bringing in time allocation. It is because the premiers of two provinces agree with his position. I am so glad that the Liberals support premiers when premiers have the same position as other premiers.

I would love the minister to apply that lens to the seven out of 10 premiers who are against a carbon tax. Will he apply the same lens to that as he is applying to Bill C-49, or is that only for special occasions when the Liberals agree with some provinces, while other provinces continue to fight tooth and nail?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, fish harvesters, and the views of fish harvesters, are obviously extremely important.

I would say to my hon. colleague that these kinds of industries coexist in many countries around the world. This is not rocket science. However, it is important to listen. It is important to ensure that we are addressing the concerns that are raised, which is exactly what the regional assessment and environmental assessment is for. It is to hear those questions. Fish harvesters will absolutely be directly engaged in those conversations.

However, it is rich for the Conservatives to actually stand up after filibustering this bill for seven weeks in committee, talking about muscle cars and a range of things that had nothing to do with the bill, simply to try to block its progress. It is a shame.

If the member wants to actually listen to Atlantic Canadians, let me read for him some of the comments from Nova Scotia Conservative Party, Minister of Natural Resources, Tory Rushton, who said:

Offshore wind is Nova Scotia's greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail. There are tremendous opportunities for our coastal communities, for our province and for our country. We cannot afford to wait.

He also said:

In years to come, I think people are going to look back at this. Once this gets moving along, once Bill C-49 is passed, people will look at this decades from now and say, “Here was a move that made Nova Scotia a capital of renewable energy in the world.”

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important that the legislation move forward. As folks who understand how the Atlantic accords work would know, we worked on this in lockstep with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador: every word, every period and every comma. It requires mirror legislation to be introduced in both legislatures after it actually goes through the parliamentary process here in Ottawa.

I will quote the two premiers, in terms of their anticipation of this act. Premier Furey said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the 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 the other federal parties to do the same.”

Premier Houston of Nova Scotia said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary...step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.”

Bill C-49—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with whom I work regularly. With gas at about $1.50 a litre in Ontario, if I am not mistaken, it is a lot cheaper than it is in Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith unilaterally hiked the cost of gasoline by 13¢. She did not provide, of course, the very substantial rebates on the price on pollution we have put on and that the Conservatives would take away.

Of course, that was not his question. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-58, concerning replacement workers, at report stage and at third reading. On Monday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑70 on countering foreign interference, which is already a strong response to the issues being investigated by the Hogue commission. We will hear from the Minister of Public Safety at second reading of Bill C‑70.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Finally, as is only proper, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:

(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;

(b) members speaking during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and

(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, we found out at committee that, for Bill C-49, the Liberals did not even bother to consult first nations when they were pushing the Atlantic accord bill through. It is no surprise.

If we look at what Canadians think, 65% of Canadians think the government does a very poor or a poor job at developing a shared long-term vision for Canada's energy future. This is from a survey that was released just today.

Liberals are out of touch.

The Indian Act also takes control away from indigenous communities by giving reserve land and all dollars to the federal government, so they have to go begging to the federal government to get access to those funds from projects on their own land.

The first nations resource charge is something that can make a huge difference for communities who decide it works for them. Conservatives want to deliver this for indigenous people. Will the government?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on that question I can assure the hon. member that whatever we do, we will do with the elected premier of British Columbia and not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

On the Thursday question, this afternoon we will continue with debate on Bill C-49, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act, which has had great support obviously from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 9, will be an allotted day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 54 to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Natural Resources

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier I heard my colleague from Lakeland answer my question by stating that politicians have to be honest. It seems to me that Bill C-50 may in part address this issue of honesty. If we want to be honest with the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritime provinces, whose economy depends mainly on oil, we must tackle climate change and find solutions. That is what I originally thought a bill on the just transition would do. I thought it would help us find solutions to figure out a way to minimize the impact of a necessary transition on workers.

Everyone recognizes that fossil fuels are largely responsible for climate warming and climate disruption. Everyone recognizes that, except maybe certain Conservatives. Everyone recognizes it, but the way to prove that is by taking action. When my colleague says that politicians should be honest, that applies to everyone. I suspect some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party are going to wake up 10 years from now with a pretty bad headache after blowing up the endless balloon of an oil- and gas-based economy.

As far as I am concerned, Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. I mentioned honesty earlier because I feel that political processes are powerless in the face of the oil and gas sector, which is kind of steering the Canadian economy. As a dispassionate observer, I see the oil and gas sector as a symbol of Canada's identity, such a strong symbol that it makes dialogue on the energy transition impossible. These positions are irreconcilable.

I saw this at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where I witnessed blatant filibustering, incivility, and tactics that I believe are totally unworthy of parliamentarians. That is why the Liberals responded in a way that may have been less than optimal—perhaps one of the worst ways possible, in fact—when they took the undemocratic step of shutting down debate. Did they have any other choice? History will not tell us, but this is how the Liberals responded.

The Liberals are not without their faults, either. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is a good minister. He does not seem too partisan to me, and he is open to dialogue. However, he too is in the stranglehold of the oil sector, so there is only so much he will do to move ahead with the necessary transition.

The minister found another dance partner, the NDP. It was only natural. The NDP even swallowed several bitter pills. I saw members go along with certain things on the energy transition at committee. That kind of undercuts their claim that standing up for the fight against climate change is part of their values. I may come back to this later when I talk about the difference between a just transition and sustainable jobs.

I was saying that Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. With this bill, we saw the full scope of what I call the Carleton method, the member for Carleton's method, which has been in place for a while now. This method can be summed up in one word: intimidation.

We witnessed some fairly major intimidation at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Sometimes, when the Conservative members heckled others during the proceedings, it seemed to me that they were acting like influencers rather than lawmakers. Their goal was to wreak havoc in committee. Then some members recorded themselves on video to show viewers what a great job they were doing defending the public's interests. What an utterly pointless exercise. That is the way things went at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why am I saying this? It is because it feels like Bill C‑50 was never really debated in committee.

Our chance to have a debate by presenting our amendments and getting to discuss them was stolen from us by the Conservatives' attitude. I will repeat this ad nauseam: This attitude of the Conservatives can be explained by what I see as an all-consuming passion for the oil and gas sector.

At the Standing Committee of Natural Resources, I learned that the member for Provencher's argument against Bill C-50 boiled down to the fact that he likes muscle cars and would rather drink his milkshake through a plastic straw. When I learned that, I thought to myself: Our future is guaranteed, this is the way to go, in other words, more muscle cars—I see my colleague nodding his approval—and plastic straws. Is there anything worse than drinking a milkshake through a paper straw? I mean, really.

I also learned from the member for Red Deer—Mountain View that oil could be used to create peace in the world. In my former life, I taught political science, and I used to talk to my students about colonialism. Now I have learned a new concept: eco-colonialism. Apparently, it is eco-colonialist to stop indigenous peoples from developing oil. That is pretty shocking. Can there be a more pernicious reasoning than that? They are basically trying to secure social licence by saying that refusing to develop new oil projects that are affiliated with indigenous communities is a new form of colonialism. Rarely have I seen such twisted logic. My colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View also suggested that oil can bring peace to the world. Supposedly, Canadian oil and gas could stop the conflict in Ukraine and maybe even the conflict in Israel. Apparently, the answer to all the world's problems is oil.

All that is nothing, though. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which includes the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who is a world champion at making us go around in circles, spent almost a month arguing over whose turn it was to speak. As members know, each committee is made up of one member of the Bloc Québécois, one member of the NDP and four members of the Conservative Party, and the others are all Liberals. However, five or six Conservatives showed up, all demanding to speak. They started causing a ruckus, saying that their parliamentary privilege was being breached because they were not being allowed to speak. We spent a month on that. If that is not wasting time, I do not know what is.

The worst part was when we did the clause-by-clause study. The member for Brantford—Brant flew into such a rage that I feared for my whip's safety. I had never seen anything like it. He snapped. He just lost it and started yelling. He really loves the oil and gas industry. In my view, he simply lost it. At one point, I was afraid for my whip's safety. All that happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

In my opinion, a legislator's job is to calmly study bills in order to improve the society in which we live, to change the direction in which society is heading. How can we do that in an atmosphere like that? How can we do that when some people's prime objective is to derail the process and make dialogue impossible? In politics, the watchword is “dialogue”, meaning a discussion among people who have different visions but who are able to reach a consensus. It was absolutely impossible to reach a consensus on Bill C‑50.

The Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry was only confirmed by Bill C-49. They invited Ches Crosbie, an eccentric character who does not believe in climate change and who thinks that all the investments in fighting climate change are bogus. We have it on video. He was invited to testify by the Conservatives, who thought he might contribute something important to the debate by spewing absurdities. Maybe one day we will hear testimony from someone trying to convince us that the Earth is flat.

The Conservatives' all-consuming passion came to the fore in committee. I see that as the member for Carleton's method. The Conservatives' decision to reject everything that has to do with the fight against climate change can be seen in their never-ending attack on carbon pricing. We have actually started saying that the Conservatives are obsessed with the “carbum” tax, because they are acting like bums. Anything goes. They can say one thing, then contradict themselves. They can say for weeks that a tax applies to Quebec when it does not. They can say for weeks that carbon pricing is responsible for skyrocketing food prices. We saw them say that many times. The worst is what I saw them do in recent weeks, when they exploited the increase in the cost of living and the misfortune of the most vulnerable to help big oil push its agenda.

What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is keep the economy stuck in the 20th century. He certainly does not want to end our dependence on oil and gas. We see the proof here every day. When someone asks a question about the oil and gas industry, they get a huge round of applause. No, that is not true. There are two things the Conservatives applaud. The first is the oath to the King. They perk right up when that subject comes up. The second is anything having to do with oil. That makes the Conservatives really happy. That is their bread and butter.

There is nothing more ironic than to hear them say we need to deal with inflation and help low-income people, while at the same time defending the agenda of the most wealthy. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that giving $82 billion in tax credits to the oil industry between now and 2034 is ridiculous and that we should use that money to help people in need. I have never heard a Conservative say that. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that investing $34 billion in an oil pipeline is absolutely ridiculous. These are the issues that should get their blood boiling, not a potential tax on the greedy oil and gas industry. I would just like to remind the House that, in 2022, this greedy industry raked in $200 billion in profits.

Far be it from me to remind my Conservative colleagues that their former leader, Mr. O'Toole, believed carbon pricing was one of the best ways to fight climate change. I will not do that. Rather, I will focus on the reasons the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-50.

The first reason is that, in my opinion, the bill is not actually about a just transition. Just transition is a concept. Everyone in the western world uses the term “just transition” to describe the efforts we should be making to plan a carbon-free economy while mitigating the negative impact on workers as much as possible. Everyone agrees, except Canada.

Why is Canada the only country that does not want to adopt the concept of a just transition? Some less charitable souls told me that one possibility is that we could make a pun with the Prime Minister's name. In fact, our Conservative friends made a not-so-clever pun with the Prime Minister's name and inflation. If that is why, it is pretty childish. I hope that is not it. The other possible reason why Canada uses “sustainable jobs” instead of “just transition” is apparently because the Premier of Alberta cannot stand the thought of talking about a just transition. For that reason, Canada chose to talk about sustainable jobs rather than just transition.

I figure that if we do not call a spade a spade, that makes it difficult to take the bold measures that need to be taken immediately if we want to deal with climate change. How bold can we be if we cannot call a spade a spade? That made it difficult for us to support the bill on just transition.

What made it impossible to support the bill is the federal government's calculated abandonment of the asymmetrical agreement on workforce management between Quebec and Ottawa. Quebec has the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which allows Quebec society to hold debates between the government, the major unions and employers. We thought that, in Quebec, the concept of a just transition should be debated by these partners and abide by the asymmetrical agreements reached between the governments of Canada and Quebec.

Unfortunately, I have had many discussions with the minister. I thought that at some point we could get there. I had a lot of discussions, I met several times with unions to discuss the bill on a just transition. I will admit that some unions were on board. I have friends in the unions who were prepared to put water in their wine and go for sustainable jobs, as a gesture of compromise. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the federal government did not accede to their demands that the asymmetrical agreements between Canada and Quebec be respected and that the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail be given a more important role. That is why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately not be supporting the bill.

However, there are some necessary steps that could have been taken. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Canada is in the oil and gas industry's economic stranglehold. What can we do to make a just transition? What action can we take?

First, the government needs to do away with the strategies that it is currently proposing. When I hear talk of a low-carbon economy in Canada, it is immediately clear to me that the government's and even the opposition's proposals are flawed. Among other things, I am talking about blue hydrogen, which uses carbon capture and storage. That is a key piece of the government's plan to fight climate change.

Many witnesses came and told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that, from a technical standpoint, it is unfeasible to use carbon capture and storage technologies for the volumes that the government is talking about. Many witnesses also told us that it is unfeasible to produce blue hydrogen, or hydrogen from gas, because it is so expensive, and yet the government is investing massive amounts in tax credits and research support for the oil and gas industry's pipe dream.

In Canada, there is talk of developing low-carbon oil. The majority of experts we talk to say that is impossible. However, the Canadian strategy, as I was saying earlier, with its big tax credits, is focused on the pipe dream of producing low-carbon oil. I always tell the same joke: low-carbon oil is like diet poutine. It does not exist. If we want to fight climate change, then we simply cannot insist on economically supporting the oil companies. If we want to go on a diet then we cannot eat poutine. It amounts to the same thing.

I will close with an anecdote. I joined the minister in Berlin where we attended a meeting with people from Siemens. The minister asked them whether Siemens would be interested in producing the technology for blue hydrogen. The people from Siemens answered rather honestly, saying that the production cost would be so high that they would need government support. In addition to that, the technological costs are so high that it is practically impossible. Yet the government's entire strategy is based on a similar pipe dream.

I see that my time is up. Basically, the Canadian oil and gas sector's stranglehold has led us to a dead end. Unfortunately, we will not be able to produce legislation consistent with our goals and a just transition.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. This is the third time I rise in this place to move forward the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and I am frustrated that it has been such a difficult journey to get us to third reading on this legislation.

It is a bill that is only about a dozen pages long and that has been supported by workers and industry. However, it seems to have touched a nerve with the Conservative opposition, so we have had to overcome a massive amount of obstruction to get to this point. Just last week, we faced a voting marathon that took over 12 hours of voting time as resources were taken up with recorded votes forced by the Conservatives. This bill matters, so Liberals did not hesitate to stand up and vote for each one, but let us be clear that the result of that Conservative charade was wasted time and taxpayer resources.

I was not surprised, because this voting marathon was just one more example of the obstruction that we, and I, have faced in this place and at committee. In December, the natural resources committee, on which I sit, faced over 20,000 amendments put forward by the Conservatives, and this was on a bill that is only about 12 pages long. The amendments were not serious proposals, and in all of my years in this place, I have never seen such awful behaviour at committee.

At these meetings, the Conservative members were loud and disruptive, and their tone was like nothing I have ever seen. It was not just a filibuster. That is a normal tool for opposition members. It was repeated, loud yelling of “point of order”, so that nothing could be said or heard. It was filming a video at every point of suspension in pursuit of a social media click and social media videos, rather than in pursuit of getting the policy right.

All of this was while workers from across the country were telling us over and over again that they wanted to see us move forward with the sustainable jobs act and that they wanted the Conservatives to end their obstruction.

At a conference last week, the Conservative energy critic stated that for her, with respect to this bill, a mutual and evidence-based middle ground is not a thing. So much for developing policy on the evidence and for working with each other to get the best results for our communities.

Why does the Conservative Party look to oppose a bill that would empower workers and a bill that acknowledges a need for workers to be at the table as our country charts a path toward a net-zero future? That is what this bill would do. Let me set out quickly what is contained in the sustainable jobs act. It has five parts.

The first part sets out principles guiding a coherent approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help create sustainable jobs, while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to play a leading role in the emerging world of the clean growth industry.

The second part aims to create a sustainable jobs partnership council to provide independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and to engage with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts, including workers, indigenous leaders and industry representatives, are at the table to guide government action.

The third part sets out a requirement to publish action plans every five years, drawing on input from stakeholders and partners as well as expert advice from the sustainable jobs partnership council.

The fourth part is designed to establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action to implement the law across the federal government.

The fifth and final part designates the minister or ministers responsible for implementing the legislation.

Those five things are what have given rise to all of the Conservative furor. This is why they have put up so much time and energy to oppose. That is what it is, legislation that helps workers to seize the opportunities and have a say in how it can be done.

On Thursday, the Minister of Labour asked, if they are not listening to industry or workers, or the environmental community, who are they listening to? That is a good question, because it certainly is not the many who have spoken publicly.

The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals.”

The International Union of Operating Engineers said, “The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.”

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents millions of Canadian workers, said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act signals a crucial milestone in our fight against climate change and the protection of workers' interests. Canada’s unions stand committed to working alongside all stakeholders to ensure effective implementation towards a sustainable and equitable future for all.”

Those statements confirm to me that workers in industry see in the sustainable jobs act an unlocking of opportunities; they see it as a part of our country's commitment to seize global opportunities in sustainable jobs, all the while making sure that workers are at the table as we work together to fight climate change and slow the natural disasters that are impacting our communities through wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other events.

As we strive to reduce the emissions that fuel the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure that our young people have a thriving future in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy.

Both are possible, and they go hand in hand.

All of our communities are feeling these impacts on our clean air, and floods and fires that damage homes, farms and industry. It has been shocking, in this bill's very long journey, to hear the Conservative colleagues from across the way say that they do not believe in climate change. For example, the Conservative MP for Red Deer—Mountain View, during his filibuster of this very bill, claimed that climate change is having no impact on the frequency or severity of wildfires, which is entirely false. The Conservative MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in a newsletter to constituents, simply said that “the global warming gig is up”.

These statements explain why the Conservative Party's plans have been to just let the planet burn. That is not only frightening; it is also out of step with the rest of the world, because the world is looking for clean energy and renewables and to build their businesses in Canada because of our clean electrical grid. These are the opportunities we could seize with the sustainable jobs act.

We have a target to hit net zero, and many subsectors, like cement and electricity, have similar pathways and road maps based on modelling and market trends. All of this means expanding and deploying new technologies using skilled Canadian labour. These range from installing electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, like at Dofasco; finding ways to harness solar and biomass in remote communities, like in Old Crow, Yukon; or using deep-lake cold water from Lake Ontario to cool downtown Toronto's hospitals and buildings through a district energy system operated by Enwave. There are hundreds of examples across this country of innovative projects that are being advanced to create clean power and sustainable jobs.

RBC estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required.

Last summer, I had the chance to talk with people working on wind turbines in Ontario. One of these workers told me how he had chosen to train to work on wind turbines, because he liked the opportunity to be outdoors while doing the technical work he enjoys. He was making a better living, and he was living better.

I met people at George Brown College who are part of a program to provide certification for electric vehicle mechanics. A large percentage of the people who were studying the certification were new to the field of mechanics. One person commented that the workplace for EVs had cleaner air than a traditional shop. Given that my grandfather worked in an autobody shop as a mechanic, Dabrusin Motors, it hits home how no emissions in his shop would have been a much healthier workplace.

On International Women's Day this year, I had the opportunity to join the Millwright Regional Council, AECON and Ontario Power Generation at the graduation of a group women. They had been part of a special program to encourage women to become millwrights, and upon graduation, they were able to get jobs working on the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant. It was inspiring to meet these graduates and the people who had come around them to create this special program.

We are talking about good-paying jobs in nuclear energy, a form of energy that has helped Ontario move away from coal-fired electricity and that is bringing cleaner air to our communities across the provinces. Through the sustainable jobs act, we want to make sure that workers help chart the course to make sure that women, such as those in this graduating class, can find good-paying jobs that are a part of our country's future.

In fact, these are the jobs of our planet's future, and investment is flowing to clean technologies. In 2022 alone, over $2 trillion went to clean technologies globally. This bill would help support coordinating the labour force's development needs in these fast-growing industries. As we rapidly look to expanding Canada's advantage in clean technologies to meet our domestic and global needs, we must also expand the skills and training of Canadians to ensure that high-quality jobs are created here.

I will ask members to allow me to provide two examples of how we are creating sustainable jobs in Canada for Canadian workers and communities while supporting our allies around the world. If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made through a low-carbon manufacturing process, let us attract that investment that helps our workers to fill that gap.

The first example is our nuclear financing agreement with Romania. Romania has been a NATO ally of Canada for 20 years now, and it is strategically placed as a leader in Eastern Europe to supply zero-emissions power to its neighbours with Canadian CANDU reactors at Cernavoda's power station.

Nuclear power and technology is a vital part of Canada's legacy as a tier 1 nuclear nation. We are providing $3 billion in financing to Romania to develop two new CANDU reactors. That is a good deal. It is one that will be paid back with interest, which will flow entirely to Canadian companies. It will create good jobs across Ontario, help Romania to phase out coal several years ahead of schedule and displace Putin's energy blackmail with a steady supply of reliable, zero-emissions power. That is a win for climate action, a win for our allies, for our economy, for workers and for Canada.

The second example is about hydrogen. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources led a delegation to Hamburg, Germany, where Canada became the first country in the world to cement a hydrogen window with the Germans, making the first deal of its kind between any two countries. Part of the reason Vice-Chancellor Habeck had such confidence in Canada is the enormous clean power potential presented by our Atlantic offshore.

As the Minister of Labour mentioned last Thursday, offshore wind power and the hydrogen that it can create represent the largest economic opportunities for the region in a generation. They present us with the potential to economically revitalize entire coastal communities across both provinces. That is an example of strategic investment and partnership being used to create thousands of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers on the path to net zero here and around the world.

If I go back to my frustrations, it has been deeply frustrating. The Conservative members of the natural resources committee have repeatedly talked down the offshore opportunities and stated opposition to Bill C-49, the bill that would allow these offshore wind projects to proceed and create that green hydrogen that is sought after by our allies. These are good opportunities to create good-paying jobs.

We are standing up with provinces to make sure Canadian workers can seize these new opportunities. Workers are at the centre of the sustainable jobs act, and as I have pointed out, unions have strongly supported this bill. When workers organize, they do not just ask more of their employers. They expect more from government too, and that is a good thing. We are advancing replacement worker legislation and investments in union-led training centres because we believe in unions.

Just this weekend, I talked with a unionized worker in my community who was telling me about the importance of his union and his strong support for our replacement worker legislation. He wants a government that supports unionized workers and collective bargaining, and I could assure him that our Liberal government does support those things.

That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative government, in which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister. As a cabinet minister in the Harper government, the Leader of the Opposition championed two of the most anti-union and anti-worker bills the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 was an unconstitutional bill to silence unions by burying them in onerous reporting requirements, including forcing them to show their strike funds to employers, which would weaken the prospect of deals at the bargaining table. Bill C-525 was similarly an attack on workplace democracy, making it very difficult for workers to form unions and easier for the then Conservative government to arbitrarily decertify unions.

In 2017, our government repealed both of these bills, and since then, we have continued to stand up for unions. Despite all of the Conservative games, we have been pushing forward, and we will continue to fight for workers. This is precisely what our sustainable jobs plan and act would deliver.

I will conclude by highlighting the widespread support that exists for this legislation.

First, Equiterre had this to say about the bill: “It is an essential step toward more cohesive climate action and there's absolutely no reason to delay the adoption of this bill. Building a sustainable workforce starts now—not in 2050.”

The executive director of the Pembina Institute stated the following:

Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

A youth-led organization called re-generation said it supports the plan and the bill because:

This Act will help ensure that green jobs are available for anyone who wants one. It will establish a partnership council to directly involve workers and communities in the transition, and allocate critical funding to green skills development and training.

Finally, the vice-president of IBEW International said that, through this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.”

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that would allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

I sincerely hope that every member in the House agrees to choose the first path because, as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure we have a sustainable future and sustainable jobs for future generations.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my hon. colleagues in this most honourable House.

As we continue the debate at report stage of Bill C-50, it is imperative to note that what we are seeing across the world is being driven by technology in response to the climate crisis, what is happening in our environment and the weather: droughts, floods and temperatures increasing, attributable, obviously, to man-made causes. It is an economic opportunity for all Canadians, for all provinces, from coast to coast, that is being seized today by companies here in Canada, whether Cameco, BHP or, in Ontario, with nuclear. There is just so much innovation happening.

We know right now that the lowest cost to generate electricity is actually through solar and wind. It is true. We also know that we need to be able to store the electricity that is generated, and we are getting there. In my years in the private sector, I was learning quite well about the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. We are now adding a fourth dimension, which is storage. That is going to help us to decarbonize Canada and our electrical system. Bill C-50 is a part of this process, to ensure that the workers in Canada would have the tools, the skills and the resources to participate in this. It is an economic opportunity.

As we gather here today, it is crucial that we recognize the evolving nature of the global economy, driven, yes, by the need to address the climate crisis but also by the technological innovation that is occurring across the world. We can look at companies like Brookfield Asset Management, which was on the Hill this week. It has 33,000 megawatts of generating capacity, almost entirely renewable; it has solar, wind, hydro and nuclear being done right now. That capital is being deployed. As someone who loves the private sector, capital, wealth creation and all of that, I am excited by this. It ensures that we will have a profitable and successful future for our kids. The IEA estimated that in 2022, $2.4 trillion globally would need to be invested as we continue this.

We know that climate change and the actions required to fight it are fundamental economic opportunities for Canada's workforce. The world is rapidly moving toward a future powered by clean energy and sustainable technology. This global shift is not just about reducing emissions; it is also about unlocking new avenues for economic growth and job creation. Around the world, countries are seeking clean energy technologies and supplies to power their economies well into the coming decades. Canada is stepping up to support them. A great example is the work we have been doing with Romania to build Canadian CANDU reactors that will help them to both phase out coal, wean eastern European grids off Putin's energy, create jobs here in Canada and in eastern Europe. All of the financing will go back to Canadian companies, creating sustainable jobs here in Ontario.

Unfortunately, Conservatives let down Ukraine by opposing the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think we need to note that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament this week. We will always stand beside the Ukrainian deputies, the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as it fights for its sovereignty and its freedom.

Beyond nuclear, the Minister of Energy recently signed a hydrogen accord with the vice-chancellor of Germany, in which Canada is unlocking the first direct hydrogen trade window into a major European market. Partnerships like this will support thousands of good jobs in Atlantic and eastern Canada to produce renewable hydrogen and ship it to Europe to displace Russian gas. Unfortunately, rabid climate denialism has made the federal Conservatives blind to this opportunity that the Progressive Conservative government of Nova Scotia is championing with us.

Beyond hydrogen, Canada built the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance with many global partners to export the Canadian minerals that are building blocks to clean energy technologies, supporting thousands of great jobs in every part of this country. In British Columbia, for example, the clean energy sector is booming, with investments in hydroelectric power, wind farms, and battery factories like E-One Moli. These investments are both creating sustainable jobs and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, while positioning B.C. as a leader in the development of a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, the party on the opposite side is opposed to all these investments and continues to attack the Government of British Columbia for its climate leadership.

Similarly, in Alberta, the shift towards hydrogen and other forms of clean energy is creating opportunities for workers in the oil and gas sector to use their skills to help build new plants. I visited the industrial heartland in Alberta a couple of years ago and saw the investments that are taking place, literally $10 billion or $20 billion of petrochemical and chemical investments, net-zero investments, are taking place. We are going to ensure that they get done. We actually partnered with the Government of Alberta and invested in these projects, and we will continue to do that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and their UCP allies are holding back Alberta's full potential through their job-killing red tape on the renewables industry.

The Conservatives are holding back Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador by filibustering and delaying Bill C-49. Actually, I should take that back. Today at the natural resources committee, we finished Bill C-49 and have sent it back. Bill C-49 would build an offshore renewable industry in Atlantic Canada. Meanwhile in Ontario, investments in energy-efficient building retrofits are creating jobs for construction workers by reducing emissions and lowering energy bills for homeowners.

We know that in Bill C-50, the creation of a secretariat to coordinate action and the creation of a sustainable jobs partnership council would really bring industry, labour and indigenous organizations to the table, ensuring that workers have a place at the table.

We know that investments are being made in electric vehicle manufacturing plants and battery plants, not only for today but for decades. All the auto companies know that this transition is happening and that EV production will occur. It may not occur smoothly. It may not occur without some bumps along the way, but it is going to occur. They are all going that way, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Toyota or Honda. We see the exciting things happening in Oxford, and in St. Thomas with Volkswagen. I hope the member opposite who represents Oxford gets on board and supports that investment. It means tens of thousands of Canadians will be working, directly and indirectly, around this plant.

As we can see, there are so many new developments across growing clean industries at the moment. Canada is attracting billions of dollars of direct investment, and Canadian innovation is driving new opportunities. As we grow, we cannot allow a shortage of skills, training and tools to stop our workers from achieving their goals and reaching their full potential in building generational economic drivers. The sustainable jobs bill is fundamentally about supporting hard-working Canadian workers and their families in all 338 ridings that we represent, and ensuring that our and future governments will be accountable to deliver for these workers.

Clearly the Conservative opposition to the bill is founded either in opposition to workers or to accountability, or in being anti-union. Unfortunately I can confirm, based on their statements, that it is based on all of those scenarios. The legislation would ensure that workers have access to training programs, job opportunities and fair wages in the emerging low-carbon economy, as they rightfully should. Yet despite the clear benefits of the sustainable jobs bill, the opposition remains steadfast in its opposition. Its stance is not just completely divorced from reality but is also downright dangerous economically.

I love the 100,000 energy workers in this country who go to work every day. We are going to need them, and we are going to need the resources for years to come. However, we know that capital around the world is being placed in the renewable sector. We know that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are here to stay. We need to continue displacing forms of higher GHG-emitting sources with lower GHG-emitting sources. We will continue to do that.

[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.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will start with the member's last question. We do not need to incentivize natural gas. Free enterprise can invest in LNG, build pipelines and send LNG to countries in the world that are burning coal, in order to get their emissions down really fast, to half of what they produce right now.

The fishing industry has grave concerns with Bill C-49, including six fish harvester groups I have been consulting with that the costly coalition did not consult with in forming the bill. They are counting on us. The FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador worked with us to build the amendments to Bill C-49 that the member's side voted down in committee three weeks ago.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. member to take out a pen. I have two quick questions. I know he can handle them, and I will let him take some notes.

First, he talked about the Atlantic provinces' being part of the clean energy solution to reduce emissions, yet he stands in the way of Bill C-49, a bill that is supported by his home government in Newfoundland and Labrador, without reason. It is a bill that would actually drive really important results for energy jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. He talked about technology, not taxes, but then voted against the bill. Can he explain his position there?

Second, can he give an indication to his constituents and the House as to whether or not he believes climate change is real and that we ought to do something to reduce emissions? How would he incentivize the technology he is talking about? Would he spend taxpayer dollars in an inefficient way to do it? How would he go about that?

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to outline my support for Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accord, which has many opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Nova Scotians. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has led offshore oil and gas in this country for decades. It is now looking to lead offshore wind energy in North America.

We might be a small province, but we are an innovative province, one that is ready to move forward with good, environmentally sustainable energy projects. This is the opportunity of a generation to lead in offshore energy in Canada, creating nearly 30,000 skilled trade jobs and a stable economy at home.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives are against this bill. The last time Conservatives tried to axe the Atlantic accord, royalties, benefits and jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was under Stephen Harper in 2006. It is quite obvious that the Conservatives do not support Atlantic Canada.

Oil and Gas Industry

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will return the compliment and say I find the member to be quite a reasonable individual, too.

When it comes to our energy future, I would refer the member to the recent report of the International Energy Agency, which stated that global demand for oil and gas will continue in some form for decades, but overall demand for oil and gas will peak in this decade. At the same time, the deployment rate of renewables and uptake of electric vehicles are soaring.

To the member's original question, the Prime Minister responded by affirming that Canada will continue to push forward to meet our net-zero targets, including our commitment at COP28 to lower the production emissions and consumption of fossil fuels over the coming decades.

Part of that includes the proposed cap on oil and gas sector pollution in December. It was another step in our commitment to creating pollution caps on emissions that are both ambitious and achievable. The emissions cap is one that will ensure that the economic well-being of Alberta's energy sector does not come at the expense of our environment, by incentivizing investments in decarbonization, technological innovation and efficiency.

Canada is the first major oil- and gas-producing country in the world to have done this. Allow me to quote Dr. Robb Barnes from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, who said, “This announcement marks a significant turning point. Canada is the first major fossil fuel-producing country to commit to capping emissions from oil and gas production. We recognize the Canadian government's leadership on this and urge other countries to follow.”

In addition to the cap on emissions from this sector, we are also supporting energy producers in driving down methane emissions by at least 75% through world-leading environmental standards. Despite fearmongering from the Conservatives in this House, 12 major companies said that, thanks to this regulation, they would nearly eliminate methane emissions by 2030. That is incredibly encouraging news for the climate and for the workers in these competitive industries.

We know that the responsible path forward is to invest in decarbonization and clean energy development to ensure that workers have a bright future and communities have clean air. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party's plan is to let the planet burn. Their plan is to axe environmental protections, axe job-creating projects and put moratoriums on renewable energy projects, as they have already done in Alberta and are trying to do in Atlantic Canada. While the Conservatives block vital legislation like the sustainable jobs act and our offshore wind bill, Bill C-49, Liberals are working hard to ensure that communities across this country benefit from the opportunities presented by a low-carbon future.

The Liberal plan has delivered over $200 billion of investment into clean energy and the clean economy, helping to create thousands of sustainable jobs for workers today and in future generations.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that I do not necessarily have the power to persuade the government to do anything in this House, but I can certainly be a voice.

There are a couple of things I would say. The hon. member and I have some shared things I would want to focus on; yes, these are solar, wind and renewable electricity. I presume, or at least hope, that she will support Bill C-49, which is the Atlantic accords act, which would drive the opportunity for green hydrogen.

However, the member and I would differ on the importance of nuclear. The lights in this building right now are generated by 60% of nuclear energy in Ontario. Yes, there are important considerations in each jurisdiction about the cost mechanism and how best to move forward. However, I think it is a technology, among the many she mentioned, that is going to help drive our zero-emissions future. We can have that debate if the House allows us to have it; if not, we can have a nice drink outside and talk about it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the points I was raising just before question period. The Conservatives never talk about the rebates that are given to families and businesses in Canada, nor do they talk about the fact that 100% of the revenue collected from the price on pollution is given back to families and businesses.

There are also costs associated with climate change. Climate change is costing all three levels of government exorbitant amounts and it is also affecting the cost of insurance coverage for individuals and households in Canada. Let us also not forget that 77 jurisdictions around the world have some type of price on pollution or carbon. Canada is not the only one.

Finally, the reality is that it is possible to address climate change and to make life more affordable. The Conservatives do not think that is possible, but we think that it is very important to do both of those things.

I want to bring it back to Kings—Hants, my riding in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk about affordability and environmental action at the same time. We introduced a heat pump program in 2022. It was called, simply, the oil to heat pump program, and it is to help individuals who were on home heating oil to make a transition.

There are one million Canadian households that still use heating oil in this country, and 286,000 of them are in Atlantic Canada, but they are spread all across this country. The evidence would suggest that the majority of people who still use heating oil are people who are lower income and who do not have the ability to transition off that fuel source. That is exactly why the government introduced a $10,000 program to help people be able to make that transition.

When I went out in my riding this past summer, I talked to seniors. They would tell me that this is a great program, but the project cost is about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time they would put the heat pump into their home, get the electricity and upgrade things in their house, it would cost a bit more than the $10,000. They told me that they could really not afford that and that they did not have the money to make the transition.

Because of the leadership of members of Parliament on this side, and because the government listened, we introduced a program that is going to help provide up to $20,000 to households that are below the provincial median income in Nova Scotia. This will also be in New Brunswick, if New Brunswick wants to sign on with Premier Higgs, and certainly in Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know conversations are happening with the Government of Manitoba and the Government of British Columbia. This is a program that would be open across the country, where three-quarters, or $15,000, of the money would be paid by the Government of Canada, and $5,000 would be coming in from the provinces.

I remember having a conversation with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets a few weeks before Christmas, and I compared it to this. Our affordability plan is that we paused the carbon price on home heating oil for three years to help people utilize the program I just talked about to be able to make a transition. I said to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets that his party's affordability plan is to take 17¢ off a litre of home heating oil. Make no mistake, that is extremely important in today's context, but what we are offering is not only that 17¢ a litre right now but also a long-term savings where people can save up to thousands of dollars a year by being able to move over to a heat pump, which is more affordable than home heating oil.

It is not slogans; it is solutions. That is what we are focused on. That is good for the environment and good for affordability, and what I am focused on is affordability for my constituents. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to that.

How about the fact that we have increased the rural rebate? I represent the type of riding in Atlantic Canada where my constituents do not have the same public transit options available to other Canadians, particularly those in more urban areas. I was very pleased to see the government make changes that help ensure greater equity under this system to ensure that, as we return the proceeds of the carbon price, which of course eight out of 10 families receive more money back, we are being mindful of how rural families are impacted.

That is something this government has done. Liberal members of Parliament have been able to adjust policies because we have asked important and intelligent questions. We have not just stood up and said that we want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether in the country. We achieved more, in terms of the adjustments, than the Conservatives had in eight years, just as they denigrated the policy.

Conservatives do not just oppose carbon pricing. They oppose all forms of what this government is doing on climate change, and I will give a few examples.

This is on Bill C-49, and I will give the Conservatives their due in that, in a world of communications, we have to be slick in how we communicate to the public. Not everyone watches the House of Commons, of course, so they have the line “technology, not taxes”, which is the idea that we will look to focusing on renewable energy, I presume, or different types of technology to help drive down emissions. This is great. I believe in that too. I think the price signal is important, and they actually support one another. However, we then have an example in Atlantic Canada.

Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accord, which is the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government. The reason it is a joint partnership is that it was tied to the oil and gas development that happened in the 1980s. This is extremely important to Atlantic Canada, and we take the Atlantic accord seriously. I remember when the legislation was introduced before Christmas, and it is just as simple as allowing those accord provisions to extend to the regulation of offshore wind, which plays into green hydrogen, and we all know that is a technology that could help bring down emissions. It is also really good for jobs. I thought this was going to get unanimous approval. I did not think there would be any issue. However, the Conservatives gave us a gift because they stepped up and basically went against their own slogan. They do not even support the type of technology that can help bring down emissions and drive really good jobs to Atlantic Canada.

My job is not only to talk about why that is important to the region I represent, but also to highlight and parse out what it is that the Conservatives do not like about this bill. I sat at the natural resources committee for two hours this week, and the Minister for Natural Resources appeared, but two hours later, I still had not heard a credible idea from the Conservatives about why they are against the bill.

This is part of a continuing trend because, under the Harper government, members will remember that the member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time, Bill Casey, left the Conservative caucus. Why did he leave the Conservative caucus? It was because Harper was trying to impact and denigrate the Atlantic accords.

Let us not forget that the last Conservative prime minister—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, which is such a pleasure. British Columbia will always have a dear spot in my heart because I lived there myself.

On behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame who have entrusted me to come here and bring their thoughts to this place, I stand today to beg the Liberal-NDP coalition to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1.

After eight long years of the Liberal government, people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired. They say it is has gone past its expiry date. People are hurting; they have had enough, yet the Prime Minister jets off to the Caribbean and has an $89,000 vacation passed on to him for free by one of his rich friends. However, that is not the sad part. While he is taxing Canadians with the carbon tax to slow us down on our burning of fossil fuels, in one week he puts 100 tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, while the average Canadian puts out just 15 tonnes of emissions per year.

People are hurting. The inflationary carbon tax hits the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food, the grocers who sell the food and the consumers who simply drive to the grocery store to buy the food. This is why the Conservative Party put forward Bill C-234, which would take the tax off farmers who grow the food.

We have heard some rhetoric from the NDP-Liberal coalition. My hon. colleague for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, with his famous words last year, said he was sick and tired of people's talking about a cold winter and what they are doing. Then there is my colleague, the member for Avalon, who sometimes does not know whether he is coming or going when it comes to the carbon tax. We will see, I guess, where he stands on Monday. We hope that he does not just turn into a quicker flipper-flopper-upper and that he hangs in there and supports his constituents. I know where I stand; I stand with the people.

Last week, the CBC interviewed me and wanted some comments about the statement from my colleague, the member for Avalon, about the desire for a leadership review. I told them that I understood the member's frustration after seeing his leader being involved in the Aga Khan scandal, SNC Lavalin and the WE scandal. After all, his leader is the son of the guy who brought home the Constitution. It is unbelievable to see the Prime Minister continuously working against the Constitution, which his dad was so proud of. For example, there was the unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act, the single-use plastics ban, the oil and gas emissions cap, the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the environmental impact assessment bill. Now we are being face with Bill C-49 in committee, which references, 73 times, the unconstitutional Bill C-69.

The Liberals want to stop the production of oil off Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact in all of Canada. They want to tax us and surrender the production of our clean, environmentally soundly produced oil with good labour standards and turn that production over to dictators with bad human rights records who produce dirty oil, under no environmental regulations for the most part.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do something about cutting world emissions, it would be turning its attention to coal. In 2023, coal usage in the world set a record. Next year, it is going to go to new record heights.

Meanwhile, Canadians are being punished with a carbon tax. Coal produces 40% of the world's emissions. Natural gas produces half of the emissions coal does. The Chancellor of Germany came last year, begging us to supply Germany with liquefied natural gas to get it off dictator Putin's natural gas and to support the people of Ukraine. The Prime Minister said there was no business case for producing liquefied natural gas on Canada's east coast. Newfoundland and Labrador is the closest point to Europe in North America. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas sitting there, being reinjected, which we could bring ashore—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear some heckling on the other side.

Vaccines are required, and kids get them when they go to school. This is much like what we needed to do to fight COVID.

This is where we are at today; this is the debate, so let us have a debate. We put forward a plan to fight climate change, as well as many measures in this House that are leading us in the right direction. We see the investments in the auto sector here in Ontario, such as the one announced by the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister in St. Thomas, a Conservative member's riding, with the Conservative MP cheering on this massive investment. However, the official opposition does not comment.

It is the same thing with Bill C-49, so let us have a debate.

In terms of putting a price on carbon, when one has an externality, one needs to internalize it and put a cost on it. We need to do that in a way that moves the economy forward and makes life more affordable for Canadians. This is exactly what leadership means.

I look forward to answering some questions from the opposite side. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House. I want to wish the residents back home a wonderful day. To my wife and my three daughters, daddy will see them tomorrow night and we will have dinner together.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this most esteemed House and to see many of my colleagues here this afternoon.

On this opposition day, and in reference to the opposition motion, I have much to say. First off, as I stated yesterday in the House, the IMF has put out its economic forecasts for the year, for 2024-25. With our economic policies in 2024, we will be the top quartile for economic growth in the G7 and, for 2025, we will actually lead the G7 in the economic growth rate, in real GDP.

As a very competitive person, whether it is through sports, working on Bay Street or Wall Street, or in all my experiences, I like to win. When we compete globally, with our economy, we need to win. Canada is winning.

Through the many economic policies and pillars that we have put forward, we will continue to win. We will continue to grow a strong economy from the middle out and from the bottom up, not from the top down. We will grow an economy that works for all Canadians, with inclusive economic growth.

It is February 1. February is my favourite month in many ways, although I prefer summer over winter. We know that, as of today, the Canadian dental program is going to be hitting another milestone. Seniors aged 72 to 76 in this country will be able to enrol in the Canadian dental program. Amazingly, 400,000 seniors had already signed up. Now we will get several hundred thousand more signing up.

This will deliver real savings to seniors, both in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this country. It is a very exciting thing that we are implementing, the way that it is being implemented, with the provider, Sun Life, working with the Canadian Dental Association. Day in and day out, Canadians expect us to do this: to work for them, strengthen our economy, make sure life is affordable and deal with the issues at hand.

Another issue I would like to raise is that I was really happy to see that the European Union has reached a unanimous agreement to provide Ukraine, the brave Ukrainian people fighting for freedom and democracy, with a €50-billion package as they fight against the tyranny of Russia, the unjustified invasion by Russia into Ukraine's sovereignty.

I would hope that, when this House again addresses the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, the opposition party stands with the brave Ukrainian soldiers and the brave Ukrainian people, who are fighting for their freedom and democracy. This would be much like what our allies, our friends and our NATO partners in the European Union are doing. It would be a real shame if the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

Another measure that we have introduced is the first home savings account. Over 500,000 Canadians have opened an account. This combines the great features of a TFSA and an RRSP. Making a contribution is tax deductible. It grows tax-free. When one pulls it out to buy one's first home in the years down the road, the withdrawals are tax-free. Again, this is another major measure that we have put in place.

I could talk about the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I could talk about two middle-class income tax cuts that are literally providing nearly $10 billion of annual tax savings to Canadians.

I could talk about a national early learning and child care plan. By September 2025, here in the province of Ontario, on average, day care fees will be $10 per day. My family is quite blessed in many ways, and our little one, Leia, goes to day care. The annual amount a family was paying at Leia's day care went from nearly $1,600 to $1,700 a month to, now, just a couple hundred bucks. This is in after-tax funds, so we can think about the before-tax calculation. Those are real savings.

This is in collaboration with the Province of Ontario. Ontario's minister of education, who is my neighbour and a good friend, touts this plan and how great it is probably every other day. That is what Canadians expect.

When I turn to pure economic policy, we have a AAA credit rating, of course. We have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. We will have the strongest economic growth. What does that translate into for Canadians? It means strong and real wage growth, strong incomes and strong job growth. This is where we are going. We are going to the economy of tomorrow, and it is happening today. This is what we need to embrace.

This is what climate change is pushing countries to do. It is leading countries to do this, not only here in Canada but also in the United States. Countries like China, Australia and the European Union are all going in that direction. When one thinks about climate change, one thinks about artificial intelligence. Canada is a leader. We are leading and will continue to do so.

We have a great country filled with over 40 million wonderful people; every morning, whether in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge or across the country, these folks get up and want the best for their families and their kids. They want to make sure we keep this country on a track where inclusivity and economic growth are paramount, where every child has an opportunity to succeed and put the best foot forward in life.

The following is with regard to the motion and so forth.

Yes, I am pleased to take part in today's debate. My opposition colleagues want us to once again make it free to pollute in Canada. I wonder, though, how allowing people to pollute without cost would really make life more affordable for Canadians.

How are we helping Canadians? With the carbon rebate, we know that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. We know that businesses continue to grow and 84% of the electricity generated in Canada is carbon-free. We know we are putting forward investment tax credits that will boost economic growth and generate clean electricity.

I see some of my colleagues here from the east coast on the opposite side. There is Bill C-49 for such measures, which the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see put into law, that would generate economic activity. As I have said many times in this place, I love capitalism, growth and wealth creation. That is how one lifts all boats. I love free trade. Canada is a signatory to so many trade agreements.

Up to a point in time, members opposite were in favour of free trade agreements, such as CETA, CUSMA and CPTPP. Now the world is dealing with climate change. In reality, I am not sure most of the members opposite believe in climate change or even in science anymore, unfortunately. Vaccines for polio and measles—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as always, to rise in this House. I have been here 20 years, and I have never seen a time when I feel that our country and our planet are at risk as much as they are now. This is a time when people should be looking to parliamentarians to come together to deal with solutions. Instead, we are dealing with yet another Conservative motion, which shows that the Conservative Party leader's entire economic plan could fit on a lapel button.

I think what is missing in the discussion today is the fact that we are in the midst of a global crisis. Europe is worried that it could be dealing with a massive expansion of a potential war with Putin. There is the need for Canada to be a strong ally. Contrary to what the member who lives at Stornoway says, Ukraine is not some faraway land, as he quotes Neville Chamberlain, but it is the front line in the fight for democracy. This is something we should be coming together on.

We are seeing a mass humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza, with Canada cutting off supplies at a time when people are facing starvation. This is a humanitarian disaster that Canadians could step up for. Instead, we are siding with Benjamin Netanyahu. We are dealing with the fact that every hour 30 million tonnes of ice melt from the Greenland ice floes; that is 30 million tonnes an hour. Last year, 200,000 Canadians were forced out of their homes because of climate fires, yet the Conservative leader flew into the fire zones to brag that he would make burning fossil fuels free.

The Liberals do not really have an environmental plan. That is something we should be arguing; they do not. However, the Conservatives refuse to put forward a climate plan, other than to let the planet burn. That is the sum total of what I have heard from the Conservatives for the last three years: let the planet burn. At a time when our young people are facing a future that is increasingly unstable, we are left with yet another dismal debate in the House of Commons on slogans and bumper-sticker excuses.

When Kelowna was facing a potential catastrophic disaster with fires, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country was bragging that if her party formed the government, it would make fossil fuel burning free. In Alberta, when I was there last week, there was just a little powder of snow on the ground in January. It is above freezing now. It is now coming into the fourth year of a serious drought.

There are 13 counties in Alberta that have declared environmental disasters because they cannot get their crops out. In 2021, the cattle farmers were talking about how only 36% of their crops were in good condition; that was in 2021. They made it through that year by getting the holdover pay from 2020.

Now, coming into 2024 with no snow on the ground, we are seeing rivers drying up, and not a single Conservative from Alberta or Saskatchewan has ever bothered to stand up to defend their farmers in the face of the biggest climate crisis since the dirty thirties. They would throw them under the bus to satisfy their leader, who lives in a 19-room mansion, because it is about letting the planet burn.

The Conservatives from British Columbia will get up and falsely try to mislead their own citizens that they are paying a federal carbon tax when there is not one. Not a single Conservative from British Columbia has dared to stand up in the House to talk about the fact that the rising hydro prices in B.C. are from the depleted reservoirs from the droughts. British Columbia, a hydro superpower, had to import 20% of its energy capacity last year because it could not keep the lights on because of the droughts and the low reservoirs. That is the effect of the climate crisis.

We are dealing with real-time planetary breakdown of the disappearance of the ice shelves and of unprecedented fires, where much of last summer, across from Chicago and across North America, children could not go outside without getting sick. What did we hear from the Conservatives? Let the planet burn.

In all my years, there were times we came together on simple things, like jobs. However, that is not in the Conservative agenda because the Conservatives tell people that Canada is broken, even though we were voted number one in the world. If Canada is not broken, the Conservatives will make it broken.

Bill C-49 is a bill so that Canada could get in the game with the clean energy projects that are taking off in the United States, right now. Since 2021, under the Biden administration, $360 billion in clean energy projects got off the ground, and they are not getting off the ground here for two reasons. While the Liberals are trying to get their tax credits and work it all out, Biden is getting that money out the door. We are also seeing the Conservatives blocking sustainable jobs legislation and doing every kind of monkey-wrenching, idiotic stunt to stop workers from having a seat at the table.

Even more astounding is Bill C-49 where the Newfoundland and Labrador premier and the Nova Scotia premier have called for Ottawa to come to the table because the United States is moving ahead so rapidly on offshore wind development that would set up projects for construction and long-term jobs in the hundreds of thousands of homes that are getting clean energy. However, the Conservatives from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are determined to block jobs because that is what their leaders said: Make Canada broken. If it is not broken, they are going to break it. Their plan is to let the planet burn.

Here is the thing. The Premier of Nova Scotia said that Bill C-49 is the necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential, yet the member for Cumberland—Colchester, a guy who has just been elected for two or three years, is announcing that he is going to oppose offshore development and jobs in Nova Scotia. The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame said that he thought the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador had been hoodwinked and that the premier was not bright enough to negotiate good construction and permanent jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a time when we all would have worked to get those jobs off the ground because we know sustainability in every part of Canada is important. However, these are clean-energy jobs, and that is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to have happen, because his environmental plan is to let the planet burn.

The Conservatives talk about affordability. It was the Conservatives who led the fight against taking the HST off home heating. This is not about making it easier for people; it is about making people angrier. That is his one plan.

However, what really concerns me now is that we are in the midst of a climate catastrophe that is unfolding in real time, and we need to bring our plans to the table. We need to debate them. We need to find out how Canada can, number one, get in the clean-energy market that is taking off in China, in Europe and in the United States while we are sitting at the side of the road. Even more, there is the need to reassure this young generation that we will have their backs in trying to address the catastrophic collapse of the ice shelves and the unimaginable burning that we saw last year. We still have fires burning in northern Alberta today. That is unprecedented. The northern boreal forest burned at an unprecedented rate. What do we hear from the Conservatives? They do not have an environmental plan. They have a bumper-sticker slogan and if people push them hard, it is “let the planet burn”.

I did not come here to tell my kids and their next generation of kids, “Guess what. We let the planet burn because it was easy.” Yes, it is easy to let the planet burn and, yes, it is going to be hard to make sure that we stand up for our kids. Yes, it is going to be hard to stand up to Putin. Yes, it is going to be hard to come together, but we need to do that as a nation right now. This is a nation that will be judged on the absolute failure to put forward a plan in the midst of the biggest existential crisis the human race has faced, and it needs something better than a bumper sticker and a toxic lapel-pin slogan.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding 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.

I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three.

Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple.

The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber.

Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to.

The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward.

Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study.

I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all.

The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way.

When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day.

It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health.

The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil.

Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money.

After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future.

There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass.

This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”.

I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers.

Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations.

As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that.

We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants.

The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.”

In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation.

Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the learned member from the Coquitlam area and the Port Moody area that we have an expression in the language that my parents spoke when they came here. In Italian, we say un grande abbraccio, which means “a big hug”. I see many members on the opposite aisle and I do consider many of them friends. I give them a big hug not on a policy basis but on a friendship basis.

When Canada's Building Trades Unions, LIUNA 183 or 506, or the carpenters' union, Local 27, or Carpenters' Regional Council and their members across the country are here working collaboratively with us on Bill C-50, moving it forward, ensuring that Canadians have the skills, we all know that there are agreements between the federal government and the provinces, labour market accords, ensuring that we are looking at sustainable jobs or jobs with good benefits and good pensions. These are good union jobs. We want them and we want to create more of them.

We know that in the energy sector, both renewable and non-renewable, whether hydroelectric power or small modular reactors or the natural gas sector in Alberta, all of the by-products that are produced from natural gas are so important.

This is what Bill C-50, for me, is about. It is about ensuring that, as we adopt new energy sources, whether they are used for electric vehicles or our electricity system, Canada remains a competitive beacon for its workers and that they have those skills.

I am based in Ontario. I grew up in British Columbia. I understand regional differences and differences in regional views on issues.

What is most important is that we allow for debate. It was so unfortunate that we could not invite witnesses. After I produced the scheduling motion or the programming motion at committee for Bill C-49, which we have not talked about and which is supported by the Atlantic provinces, and for Bill C-50, one or two of the members opposite went on to filibuster for 10 sessions.

We could have called witnesses. The ministers would have been scheduled. The official opposition's duty, because it is its job, is to ask tough questions. It is its job, its duty, to oppose, if it wishes to do so. The members did not even afford themselves that opportunity.

Tonight, we hear speeches about how there was only two hours. That is weak, to be blunt.

We are here to do a job. If one is in opposition, they should do that job and do it extremely well and hold the government to account. I encourage it.

At the same time, we are looking at legislation that all of the private sector unions across Canada signed on to and are supporting, as well as their workers, the hundreds of thousands of workers.

There are 800,000 workers in the energy sector here in Canada and that number is growing, in both renewable and non-renewable, and we want them. We are building new hydroelectric facilities, whether it is in Newfoundland and Labrador or other areas. We want that. We want investment.

At the same time, let us have a serious discussion on Bill C-50. We could have had that serious discussion at committee.

It was very frustrating, to put it bluntly, to have the filibuster. I have been here for eight years and I have many colleagues who have been here for many more years. We go to committee and we do our homework the night before. We do our readings. We want to see witnesses. We had witnesses fly in, ready to come to committee. They could not present. That was unfortunate.

I can go through the bill and read aspects of it and ask questions myself but the fundamental premise of us being here and being on those committees is to ask those tough questions, to ask why. I always want to ask why. I tell my kids to always ask why and to ask, “Can we do better?”

Can we improve as parliamentarians? Can we look at a piece of legislation that is better?

When I think of sustainable jobs, I think about transparency. I think about collaboration with unions and without unions, with workers, with Canadian workers working in certain fields, much like the 700 workers who worked at the pulp and paper mill in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and then the pulp and paper mill closed. Much like across Canada, many pulp and paper mills have closed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a thing to witness this coalition collude to cover-up and take a top-down action to force through a top-down bill. The Conservatives will not stop the fight for the people we represent and for the best interests of all Canadians.

To review, the Liberals rammed through first the Atlantic offshore bill, Bill C-49, which includes 33 references to the five-year-old unconstitutional law, Bill C-69, that the Liberals have not fixed yet. By the way, Bill C-49 would triple the timeline for offshore renewables in the Atlantic provinces. Then was the just transition bill, Bill C-50. This was after fewer than nine hours and eight hours of total debate from all MPs on each.

On October 30, the NDP-Liberals tried to dictate every aspect of how the committee would deal with those bills. They reversed their own order to hold back Bill C-49 and spent a month preoccupied with censorship and exclusion of Conservatives like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Peace River—Westlock.

The extraordinary motion being debated and the debate shutdown today mean the committee will be limited to less than two hours of scrutiny on Bill C-50. We will hear from no witnesses, no impacted workers or businesses, no experts, no provincial or regional representatives, no economists, no indigenous communities, no ministers and no officials, and MPs will only have one partial day each to review and debate this bill at the next two stages.

I never thought I would spend so much of the last eight years having to count on senators to really do the full scrutiny that the NPD-Liberals' bills require after the fact because the coalition circumvents elected MPs on the front end so many times. One would think after the Supreme Court absolutely skewered them all on Bill C-69, which both the NDPs and the Liberals supported, that we would see a change of behaviour and attitude, but no, not these guys. They are reckless and ever undaunted in their top-down authority.

The NDP-Liberals will say that the government has been working on it for years, that it has engaged unions all the time and ask what the hold up is. We heard that from the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier, even though what he did not admit was that at the time the committee was studying the concept of the just transition and the NDP-Liberals moved forward with announcing their legislation before it reported anyway. They will say that we should just get this done so Bill C-50 can give the reskilling, upskilling and job training workers need and want when they all lose their jobs because of government mandates.

I have a couple of points to make. First, it sure is clear the NDP-Liberals have been working together on something for a while since they were all together to announce the bill. Second, everybody needs to know there is not actually a single skills or job program anywhere in this bill at all. Third, cooking up something behind closed doors then being outraged and cracking down on the official opposition when we suggest we should all actually do our jobs, speak to represent our constituents, and most importantly, let Canadians speak so we can actually hear from them on the actual bill, and then analyze it comprehensively and propose changes and improvements, is a top-down central planning approach that sounds an awful lot like the way we have characterized Bill C-50, the just transition itself that has caused some outrage in the last few days.

Bill C-50, the just transition, aims to centrally plan the top-down restructuring of the fundamentals and the foundations of Canada's economy. It aims to redistribute wealth. It is a globally conceived, planned and imposed agenda. It is, in fact, a major focus of a globalist gathering going on right now, the same kind of gathering where it started years ago.

I confess, I do not really get all the consternation about stating that fact since the definition of globalism is “the operation or planning of economic informed policy on a global basis.” That is of course what is happening with the just transition and the many international bodies that bring together politicians, policy advocates and wealthy elites from around the world to plan economic and foreign policy globally. That is while they all contribute significantly to increasing global emissions to get there and back, while they dream up more schemes to tell the folks back home that they cannot drive; live in a house, on any land or farm; or, for those who can afford it, fly. We will all have to eat insects while they all do the exact opposite, even while they bring home agendas that will make essentials and daily life so expensive for all the rest of us that we will have no choice.

Globalism is literally the function of numerous organizations all explicitly heavily focused on imposing the just transition for years. Today, it is linked to the concept of the global citizen and of postnational states with no independent identities, just like the current Prime Minister said of Canada when he was elected.

That is what is happening at COP28 right now. It is in the UN 2030 plan. It is the top priority of lots of many well-known and respected gatherings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization and others. It is bizarre that the NDP-Liberals deny and attack all this now, when globalism is obviously implicit in its ideology. I thought they were proud of that. They have all been outraged about this, but the truth hurts. Anger is often a cover for hurt, so maybe that is what all their rage is about.

Maybe their issue is that I call it Soviet-style central planning, except for this: Bill C-50 really would create a government-appointed committee to advise the minister. The minister would then appoint another committee to plan the economy. This bill would not mandate that any of that would happen through openness and transparency. Neither of the committees would report either to Parliament or directly to Canadians along the way. I guess the coalition members want to say that it is a win that the reports would be tabled in the House of Commons, but that would not guarantee any kind of debate or accountability. The members are proving their true colours through how they are handling the bill now, especially since it is clear that they want to impose it all with little challenge and almost no scrutiny from beginning to end.

Oh right, it is there in the summary, in black and white for all the world to see. When would those plans from the government committees for Canada's economy be imposed? It would be every five years. That is literally the time frame for central planning that Soviets preferred. However, the NDP-Liberals are somehow shocked and outraged, even though the lead NDP-Liberal minister is a guy who is a self-declared “proud socialist”, as came out of his own mouth in this very chamber. Right now, he is at a conference about the progress of the global just transition.

There are no costs outlined in this bill either, even though it would obviously cost taxpayers, just as the NDP-Liberals' mega sole-source contracts for their buddies; infrastructure banks and housing funds that cost billions of tax dollars and build neither infrastructure nor houses, only bureaucracy; and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to tell the government to use fewer consultants. There would be a cost to create and maintain the just transition partnership council, on pages six to 10, that would advise the minister and then the secretariat that the minister would have to create. However, this bill does not tell Canadians about any of the cost that taxpayers would have to pay for all that, up front and after.

It is quite something to see the inclusion of the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the long title of Bill C-50, since it is all actually about government-appointed committees meeting behind closed doors and a minister who would cook up central plan after central plan. It would mandate neither transparency nor accountability at all, whether directly to Canadians or through their MPs, and it would not include an actual outline for one or any kind of skills- or job-training program.

That is how this whole thing was baked in the first place. Their rushed, top-down schedule today is to ram it through with as little analysis from MPs and input from Canadians as possible. It is a little silly for all the NDP-Liberals to be mad now that the official opposition actually wants MPs to do our jobs to debate, consult, amend and improve legislation, especially with such a wide-ranging and significant one such as Bill C-50 and the economic transition it would impose.

What about the tens of thousands of Canadians whose jobs were devastated by the NDP-Liberals' fast-tracked coal transition? The environment commissioner said this was a total failure. It left 3,400 Canadian workers in about a dozen communities completely behind. However, the government members say to just trust them to engineer an economic transition for 2.7 million Canadians and the entire country.

What about the nearly 40,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who were all put out of work completely when they were promised that the government would help them transition from cod? It was the largest industrial shutdown in Canadian history at the time. It was a disaster for all of them: their loved ones, their communities and their province. I hope they see Bill C-50 as the end of oil and gas in Canada bill that it is, because the impact of the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is a quarter of the province's total GDP. It is higher than that in Alberta. It is 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador's exports, and 6,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas service and supply sector have lost their jobs already, just in the last three years, because of the uncertainty and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy policies.

The government's intent now, through Bill C-50, is like nothing Canada has ever seen before. Canadians could be forgiven for knowing that this would not go well.

A truly bizarre point about all this that should be noted, though, is as follows: Despite the collusion between the NDP and Liberals on the bill for about two years, other opposition MPs such as Conservatives do not actually get to see the bills until the government tables them. Despite what I hear really were some round tables and consultation meetings, there is not actually any tangible delivery of what the bill's own proponents say that it does for skills and job training.

It is not in here anywhere, which is one of the many reasons Conservatives say that the natural resources committee must actually do its job and, most importantly, must hear from all the Canadians it would impact. Both union and non-union workers, as well as union leaders, should be outraged about it.

What really did happen with all the time, effort and money that was apparently sunk into developing it behind closed doors between 2021 and 2023? Since the bill sets up committees to plan to set up committees to plan from on high, why the heck did all this require a law in the first place?

Government, unions and businesses consult, develop plans and report. Okay, what is holding this up from going ahead? Why is Bill C-50 even required for that work to happen if they all want it to? How is this actually all the Liberal-NDP government has come up with?

How is any Canadian supposed to trust these guys to deliver on anything, when it took all this time and all these meetings and tax dollars, but there is not even an actual plan or program? They would not even get a recommendation for two years. It is sort of like the ITCs that the NDP-Liberals keep talking and bragging about, as if they are doing anything in our economy right now. Actually, they do not even exist at all in Canada yet.

Of course, Conservatives and more and more Canadians know that Bill C-50 really is all about the just transition and ending oil and gas in Canada as fast as they possibly can. The NDP-Liberals have shown this repeatedly after eight years. A government, of course, that did not want to kill the sector and all the livelihoods it sustains really would not do anything differently from what these guys have done and continue to do.

Everyone can read it. In the 11 pages and 21 clauses of Bill C-50, there is not one single instance of a skills- or job-training program. That is the truth.

Now, because of the NDP-Liberals, neither union nor non-union workers will be able to speak or be heard by MPs at any remaining stage of the top-down agenda for this bill. In fact, nobody will: no workers, contractors, business owners, investors or indigenous owners, partners, workers or contractors. Therefore, I will talk about some of those workers now. I have a few points.

First, the reality is that the biggest growth of well-paying union jobs in Canada right now is actually created by the big multinational oil and gas companies expanding and ramping up new oil, gas and petrochemical projects in Alberta. These are the same companies that made Alberta, by far and away, Canada’s leader in clean tech, renewable and alternative energy for at least 30 years.

For the record, today, Alberta is again Canada’s leader in renewable energy. In fact, the investment commitments for renewables and future fuel development in Alberta have doubled to nearly $50 billion of private sector money planned and ready to invest, since the premier paused to set the conditions, to guarantee consultation, certainty and confidence for all Albertans, while the regulator keeps taking applications. However, the NDP-Liberals will not admit that to us either.

Second, where we are at is that the major oil and gas companies are leading the creation of new union jobs in Canada. However, this is actually the very sector that the just transition agenda would shut down first. The main thing every union worker needs is a job. That is what is at risk.

Third, the anti-energy coalition also refuses to admit the fact that, in Canada, traditional oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies have been, far and away, the top investors in the private sector for decades and, today, in clean tech, environmental innovation and renewables among all the private sectors in Canada, excluding governments and utilities. Likewise, oil and gas is still, right now, the top private sector investor and top export in Canada’s economy. The truth is that nothing is poised to match or beat it any time soon. Nothing comes close. The stakes of the anti-energy agenda imposed by the costly coalition for Canada are exceptionally grave.

Here are some facts about the businesses and workers that would be hurt the most by the just transition agenda, Bill C-50. In Canada’s oil and gas sector, 93% of companies only have up to 99 employees. They are small businesses, and 63% of those businesses are considered micro-businesses, with fewer than five employees.

That is the truth about workers and businesses in Canada’s oil and gas sector, especially the homegrown, Canadian-based ones. They are not union businesses, although their jobs are also sustainable; they are also higher paying, with reliable long-term benefits, than jobs in most sectors.

Large employers, with over 500 people on payroll, account for just over 1%, not 2%, of the total oil and gas extraction businesses in Canada; that is it. Those businesses are mostly union workplaces and support more union jobs than the rest of the sector. However, they are also among the first businesses that Bill C-50’s agenda would kill and that, after eight years, the NDP-Liberals have been incrementally damaging. Again, there would be no oil and gas sector, no businesses and no jobs, union or otherwise. That is the truth. It also means higher costs and less reliable power, especially where most Canadians have no affordable options, as in rural, remote, northern, prairie, Atlantic and indigenous communities, with fewer businesses and jobs. There would be less money for government programs, since the oil and gas sector currently pays the most to all three levels of government, and less private sector money for clean tech and innovation.

Which workers do the NDP-Liberals already know that their unfair, unjust transition in Bill C-50 would hurt the most? If colleagues can believe this, it would be visible minority and indigenous Canadians. Both ethnically diverse and indigenous Canadians are more highly represented in the energy sector than they are in any other sector in Canada’s economy, but the internal government-leaked memo that I am assuming colleagues have seen says they are expected to face higher job disruptions than any other workers. They would also have more trouble finding new opportunities. They would end up in lower-paying, more precarious jobs, as would be the case for all workers who lose their livelihoods to this radical, anti-energy global agenda.

Canadians will know instantly, of course, from these numbers that the top targets to be crushed by Bill C-50 are the 93% and 63% of Canadian businesses, the small- and micro-businesses, their workers and all their contractors. Bill C-50 does not contemplate them at all. There is no consideration about all the non-union workers who will lose their jobs in the just transition agenda. These are the homegrown, Canadian-based and owned businesses with Canadian workers who have been doing their part for environmental stewardship, innovation, clean tech, actual emissions reductions and indigenous partnerships to the highest standards in Canada and, therefore, in the entire world, just like the big guys here.

Since the NDP-Liberals refused to allow this, my office spoke with one of those union workers last week, a worker from Saskatchewan. He said, “I am not happy with the fact that I will be displaced out of a job from a federal mandate.” No matter what the NDP-Liberals try to call this or say about it now, he had it right. That is exactly what would happen to that union worker.

There is nothing, not a single thing, about all the non-union workers, who would obviously lose their jobs first, nor is there any space for union workers who do not want the transition accelerated by the anti-energy, anti-private sector NDP-Liberals. There is nothing about the communities and the people who would be damaged the most, nothing about what sector actually can and will replace the jobs and economic contributions of the oil and gas sector. Of course, right now, there is no such sector. There is nothing about all those hundreds of thousands of oil and gas union workers whose employers would also be put out of work quickly, as is the actual aim of Bill C-50. It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals want to silence Canadians, so they can do this quickly and behind closed doors. They too must know that common-sense Canadians can see right through them, and they are running out of time.

I have a last point about the chair of the natural resources committee, the member for Calgary Skyview. When I congratulated him on his recent appointment, I told him the Liberals have done him no favours by putting him there to help impose their agenda. The people of Calgary Skyview will render their decision in the next election, as is their right, like it is for all Canadians.

I warned a former natural resources minister from Alberta that his constituents would see his betrayal. I said this in our last emergency committee meeting about the TMX, which has still not been built, in the summer heading into the 2019 election. Colleagues will notice that this member was not sent back here. I suspect that the people of Calgary Skyview will feel the same in this instance. In hindsight, I suspect this will not be worth it for the member for Calgary Skyview, but we all make choices and face the consequences.

I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) replacing paragraph (a) with the following:

“(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;

(i) the Minister of Natural Resources and its officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours;

(ii) members of the committee submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning the bill, to the clerk, and that the Chair and clerk create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

(iii) a press release be issued for the study of the bill inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions,”; and

(b) deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

Every member of the chamber has an ability to prove that they actually support democracy by supporting our amendment.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would have welcomed having Luke and Steve come to the committee if the Conservatives had let any witnesses speak at committee. That would have been very valuable. It would also have been valuable to have stakeholders from across the country having a conversation with MPs at committee, as committees are supposed to do. However, the committee was prevented from having any conversations because of a ridiculous filibuster by the Conservatives, who have not allowed people in the House to do their jobs. Taxpayers should be very angry at them for the waste of taxpayer money that we have seen.

With respect to the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, that remains and will continue to be an important part of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. They have focused very much on decarbonization. It is some of the lowest carbon content oil that is produced anywhere in North America. It is certainly an important element, but there are others, such as the development of offshore wind, which the member is opposing through opposing Bill C-49. I would invite him to have a conversation with his premier when he is here tomorrow about his opposition to Bill C-49.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of revisionist history in there. The committee has been blocked by the Conservative filibuster for six weeks, which is 11 meetings and about 25 hours. The committee has been stuck on the same meeting since October 30. The committee could have heard from witnesses on both bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, which were in front of the committee, but the Conservatives blocked it.

In terms of the work that we are doing to ensure that there is a prosperous future for every province and territory in this country, I would point the hon. member to the announcement of the $11.5-billion plant with Dow Chemicals in Fort Saskatchewan, where we worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta; the Air Products hydrogen facility near Edmonton, where we worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta; and the CCUS tax credit, where we have worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta, which will create thousands of jobs going forward in that member's riding.

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not?

Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government. After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are.

The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government. She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years.

Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims. Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later.

Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary. It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals.

Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime, being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison. As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.

To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it.

Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49, a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals. The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade.

That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree.

On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49. The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days. It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.

No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.

When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50, which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021.

They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.

Bill C-50, which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days.

Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else. At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.

However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50, the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49, the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.

Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills.

On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do. I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69, which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49, and then move to Bill C-50, the just transition.

Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians. The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills.

Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop.

For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.

I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that.

That brings us to today, Friday, December 1. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50.

The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy.

I want to make the following point clearly. Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50. No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us.

This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country. They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before.

There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”. The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.”

The article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition.

The article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.

For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all. They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about.

Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election. Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff.

The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later. The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.

I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.

The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept.

I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”. However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too.

It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In this capacity I hold a responsibility to ensure the advancement of our legislative agenda in vital areas of public policy, including the future of our energy system.

I stand here today to provide an update on the status of Parliament's review of two very important bills, Bill C-50, Canada's sustainable jobs act, which this motion specifically addresses, and Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accords.

Both of these vital pieces of legislation passed through second reading and were referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources well over a month ago. Parliamentary committees have a responsibility to Canadians to prioritize the laws that are put before them and to review these pieces of legislation. This is a principle responsibility of members on committee, and I believe that is well understood by every member in this House.

However, I regret to inform the House that after being at the natural resources committee for over a month, with more than 20 hours of scheduled and publicly available meeting time, the committee on which I am proud to serve has been ground to a standstill by Conservative members who are deliberately blocking the work of the committee. We have not even reached a vote yet on a routine scheduling motion to put the study of this bill in place.

Let me set the stage. On October 30, a member of the committee brought a motion for a concurrence study of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords act. This was a routine scheduling motion that would simply allow these pieces of legislation to be discussed and examined in a manner expected of elected officials.

Conservative members sought an amendment to that scheduling motion to add another area of study that was not a review of these bills and was designed to delay the bills that were before the committee for as long as possible. Not only that, they proceeded to stop votes on this motion via filibuster and then resorted to bringing subamendments to call witnesses from specific ridings. To date, our committee remains stuck because of Conservative obstruction. We are on the consideration of the subamendments, with no progress to getting to a decision on the scheduling motion for the concurrence study of these bills.

We are stuck in a scary pre-Halloween world. The Conservative Party continues to waste taxpayer resources with pointless interventions, unrelated amendments and nonsensical ramblings designed to block these bills from being discussed and from allowing workers to have a seat at the table.

For instance, the member of Parliament for Provencher wasted time discussing the challenges of drinking a triple-thick strawberry milkshake through a straw and about his love of muscle cars, including the Chevrolet Vega. I love the Vega. My grandmother had a Vega. That's a great conversation topic at a family table, but that is not on topic at all for something related to the bill, the sustainable jobs act, or the amendment they had proposed to that scheduling motion or the subamendment about calling witnesses from specific ridings. It was just a self-indulgent ramble to waste the committee's time.

The member of Parliament for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a tangent undermining the science of climate change and denying that extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency. I would expect better from a member of Parliament whose own community was blanketed in wildfire smoke this summer and faced severe drought.

The Conservative members were disrespectful, played childish games and did all that they could to ensure the voices of workers were silenced. If most Canadians had been able to watch this display of unpleasant and frankly unparliamentary behaviour, workers would have seen the disregard the members of the Conservative Party showed toward them. They would have been appalled.

Some Canadians were watching. A member of the natural resources committee explained that this horrible and shameless filibuster was being taught in university as an example of how parliamentary process can be undermined. Labour leaders also came to Ottawa to watch these proceedings, and they were not just shocked but outraged by what they saw.

After seeing the Conservatives resort to whatever tricks and conspiracy theories they could think of to block workers from coming to the table, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “What we saw...in the committee meeting last night is the worst kind of performative, deceptive politics.... The Conservative members of the committee...are counting on Canadians not [reading the bill]”.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also in response to this horrible display, said, “By holding up this bill continuously, the Conservatives are not speaking for workers on this issue. They are not making sure workers have a choice or ability to have robust debate as they are holding up this bill. It is incredibly frustrating, it is disrespectful to workers who are worried about their futures and it is disrespectful to communities. We need it to stop.”

It gives me no pleasure to recount all this and what we have seen in terms of the time and taxpayer dollars, frankly, being wasted by the members of the Conservative Party in this nonsensical campaign of obstruction.

The scheduling motion, which we have been blocked from adopting for over a month, would have allowed for the efficient review of both bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, in a concurrent manner, allowing for orderly witness appearances and deliberation.

Unfortunately, here we are today, left with a Conservative Party that has ignored the pleas of workers, labour leaders, industry, environmental organizations, two premiers and all the other recognized parties in the House. They have asked the Conservatives to end the filibuster and allow these bills to at least be discussed. The motion we are debating today is the only option available to ensure that this important legislation moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner.

Before I return to the challenges faced in the natural resources committee, I will first remind the hon. members of what this legislation means for Canada and our future. Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is critical to Canadian workers, to our economy and to Canada's future.

I wonder what part of this bill is so egregious to Conservatives that they would not even be willing to allow us to begin the study at committee. That is where we are at. Is it the “Canadian” part of the Canadian sustainable jobs act? Bill C-50 supports Canadians in every province and territory by bringing their voices to the decision-making table.

The bill supports Canadians by ensuring that they can access the most up-to-date data, resources and staff, to help our growing clean industrial facilities. It supports Canadians, because it allows us to get ahead of the pack and ensure that skilled Canadian workers can lead as we build the future economy today.

Perhaps they are opposed to the fact that it is a Canadian “sustainable” jobs act. We certainly heard an earful at committee from the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires, which we saw in our country just this summer, as a narrative that leads people to believe in climate change, but, as he said, “The facts don't bear it out.” Based on his own statements, I do not believe that sustainability is his top priority.

Perhaps the Conservatives are opposed to the “jobs” part. We already know that they oppose and voted against the tens of thousands of jobs we are attracting to sites such as the Volkswagen gigafactory, Stellantis plants in Windsor and Brampton, Northvolt in Quebec, Michelin in Nova Scotia, Air Products and Heidelberg in Alberta, BHP in Saskatchewan, E-One Moli in B.C. and so many more.

We know that they are not just against job creation but also good-quality jobs, including union jobs. Right now, they refuse to share their stance on Bill C-58, which would ban replacement workers and ensure that unions and employers can negotiate better deals. This is a win for workers and the economy. They also refuse to condemn their Conservative provincial partners in Alberta, who are putting in place a $33-billion moratorium on renewable energy products and the thousands of jobs they create.

It seems that perhaps they oppose the Canadian sustainable jobs aspect of this legislation. I can tell members one thing that they are not opposing: the final word, which is “act”. Acting is precisely what they have been doing over the past 20 hours and, during committee work, for over a month. I would say that they have done so quite dramatically. It has been a month of acting.

They have been acting as though they care about workers, while they actively prevent the union that represents hundreds of thousands of Albertan workers from speaking on the public record. They have even been acting as though they care about due process and democracy, while they shout into microphones in committee and, for weeks on end, prevent members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay, from speaking about the motion and the bill, when he clearly had the floor to speak.

In fact, we know that it is an act because they have almost exclusively used this filibuster to create fodder for social media clips and fundraising efforts. This is all premised on baseless assertions relating to a bill that they have clearly not begun to read or study.

It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in serious issues of public policy and are not friends to working-class Canadians. They have deliberately worked to ensure that Parliament does not work, and they are purposely ignoring Canadian workers, communities, industries and civil society, which are calling for an end to their acting and to begin real legislative action.

That brings me, and all of us, back to today. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress acknowledged recently that there is a lot at stake here in terms of moving this bill forward. She said, “This bill can make a meaningful difference to workers. It can give a real voice to their future.... It can strengthen good jobs and vibrant communities by supporting the decarbonization of good union jobs that exist today in those communities, and it can ensure that...as the rest of the world is attracting investments in future industries and good jobs that Canadian workers are not left behind in those investments.”

This delay is preventing Parliament from conducting an in-depth study of these two important bills. Despite the Conservatives' filibustering in committee, the Liberals and others continued to work with environmental groups and experts, unions, businesses, indigenous peoples and others in order to move forward on shaping our net-zero future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative energy critic publicly committed to blocking, delaying and challenging workers to prevent them from sitting down at the bargaining table and entering the workplace. We cannot let this ideological and obstructionist attitude curb our economic potential. I would like to quote the executive director of the Climate Action Network, who said, “The Conservatives can filibuster this bill but they cannot filibuster the energy transition.”

Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is an essential bill that will help Canadian workers build a prosperous economy. It also builds on the work that our committee did last year when it studied the future of sustainable jobs. During a previous study of this bill in committee, the Conservatives filibustered in dozens of meetings to prevent the witnesses from speaking, because they are obviously afraid of workers being represented.

At the same time, we are taking action. That includes making historic investments in clean technologies in budget 2023 and taking collaborative action with other levels of government and international partners. This solid foundation has put our economy and Canadian workers in a position of strength that will continue to build if we pass Bill C-50.

I would like to share with the House the five key elements that make up this legislation.

First, it would use guiding principles, such as social dialogue, that let us learn from international best practices to get this right.

Second, it would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of workers, industry, experts, indigenous peoples, youth and others who would provide independent advice to the government on an annual basis and engage with Canadians.

Third, it would commit to publishing action plans every five years. The plans would build on the council's expertise and ensure that Canada is able to continue to chart a path forward that responds to our labour needs in decades to come.

Fourth, it would coordinate action across the federal government through a sustainable job secretariat.

Fifth, it would designate responsibilities to ministers for implementing this legislation as a standard practice.

The other side may fearmonger and claim that, with this bill, the sky will fall and pigs will fly. However, the fact is that these are responsible and targeted legislative measures to ensure that workers have a seat at the table and that we get them on job sites that we are building right across this country. The opportunities for workers are enormous, including the opportunities that exist today.

Since taking office, the government has invested in clean growth and building a strong economic future, and our work is being noticed around the world. Companies are choosing to invest in Canada and create jobs here, because of our very clean electrical grid and the work we are doing to support clean technologies. The Conservative delays are risking the once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canadians to take the lead in these jobs and in the innovations that will reduce carbon emissions right across this country.

By the end of this decade, RBC predicts that the global move toward a low-carbon economy will add as many as 400,000 new jobs to the Canadian workforce. To best seize this opportunity, we need legislation that helps us to get the right skills and training to workers today, which Bill C-50 will do. Workers, labour market experts and employers have been clear, and so has this Parliament when we sent Bill C-50 to committee to be studied. Because of the Conservative tactics at committee, we have not been able to do this.

When we talk about the job opportunities, I also want to make sure we remember that some of these jobs are going to be due to offshore wind energy, which Bill C-49 was designed to facilitate. The delays we have faced at the natural resources committee have prevented us from doing the concurrent studies of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, at the very moment when we are being told by Atlantic premiers and residents that they want to see this move forward. Let us not forget that the motion Conservatives have been delaying for over a month was one to concurrently review Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, allow witnesses to appear and allow the committee to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. The witnesses would have appeared by now.

I want to make it very clear that we have an important choice to make today. On the one hand, we can choose, as Conservatives have, to waste our time waxing poetic about the days when it was easier to sip triple-thick milkshakes through a straw and drive around in muscle cars that were not even built in Canada. On the other, we can choose what Canadians and workers want. We can work to build an economy for the future that includes having workers at the table as we decide those next steps. We can build cars here in Canada, with skilled jobs, skilled workers and investments that are being made right here. We have that opportunity to be creating well-paying jobs that are, often, union jobs. It can be about developing the energies the world wants, such as offshore wind in the Atlantic provinces, in Canada. That is going to be the energy that powers our future and creates well-paying jobs.

To me, as I stand here, the Liberals have made this choice very clear: We are rolling up our sleeves to stand alongside Canadian workers and build that economy of the future. We are ready to build an economy that is responsive and has those opportunities put forward.

What the Conservatives have clearly chosen, from what we are seeing at committee, is to spend their time talking about themselves and not talking about Canadian workers and the needs of our country. That is why, today, I am asking the House to support the motion that has been put forward to allow the legislation to move forward and to do the work we need to do. It is important for the House to respect what it has voted upon in prioritizing the legislation to be sent to committee to be studied. It is also about respecting Canadian workers and respecting what Canadians expect to see us do in this place. I would ask that we continue to work together towards that.

Canadians want us to claim our share of the global clean energy market, and the hundreds of thousands of high-quality, sustainable jobs that will result.

Parliament has a duty to study and to advance these two vital pieces of legislation. We cannot allow ourselves to sit back and allow rage farming and social media clips to be happening at committee. We need to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I stand here today asking that this be exactly what we work together to have done. That is why the motion we are discussing today would enable an expeditious review of the much shorter Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill. Then, it would allow for the committee to review Bill C-49 afterwards.

I would remind the House that we have been debating a scheduling motion, actually not even a scheduling motion but a subamendment to an amendment to a scheduling motion, for over a month. Since October 30, we have been debating that simple point. We have not been allowed to study the bill.

The Conservatives have points they want to register about the bill itself. The place to have done it would have been in the study of the bill. However, the Conservatives chose otherwise. They chose to filibuster a scheduling motion. That is not how we get work done here. It is not respectful to the process, to each other, or to Canadians and the workers who sent us here to get the job done. That is what we are asking today: Let us get the job done. Let us make sure that we do what Canadians sent us here to do. Let us get to studying the bill we have before us, Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic to hear the Conservatives pretend to care about Canada's economic future when their campaign on climate denialism has prevented them from supporting even the most popular economic opportunities. The Conservatives are currently using shameful tactics in the natural resources committee to hold back Bill C-49.

Bill C-49 would play a key role in allowing for the development of offshore wind power, a key component for hydrogen and clean electricity. This is critical for improving global energy security and growing the number of good-paying jobs available across all Atlantic provinces.

We have already reached an agreement with the Germans and the Europeans on hydrogen exports. Both premiers support this bill, and the industry has been calling for it to be implemented. The only obstacle is the Conservative Party of Canada and its shameful campaign against all forms of climate action. However—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, companies and countries around the world are making decisions to ensure that they are able to access and deliver energy that is reliable, clean and affordable. That is true in Canada and around the world.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine included significant impacts on global energy markets and supply chains. That is why the European Union signalled that it is looking to secure sustainable sources of energy, stating that it is clean energy that will play the largest role in their long-term energy security. We must be skating where the puck is going.

The Conservatives may deny climate change, but they have to at least acknowledge that is not the case for our partners and allies in Europe.

We know that energy security and climate action go hand in hand. When it comes to supporting Canadian projects to provide energy to our allies, I can confirm to the member across the way that our government has a better record than the Conservatives do on every level.

To give members an example, we have approved, as the member mentioned, the Cedar LNG project in B.C., led by the Haisla Nation. It is a small-scale floating facility and marine export terminal. Beyond LNG, there are many increasingly important resources of low-carbon fuel that we are working actively on. One of the top 10 hydrogen-producing countries is Canada, which has emerged as a leader in developing new hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

Allow me to add that Atlantic Canada will be a significant driver of that as well. The Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance will also export hydrogen to Germany as early as 2025. Just last week, we announced the financing of major hydrogen projects in Nova Scotia using wind power.

Once the Conservatives stop their shameful opposition to Bill C‑49, we can begin to build offshore wind farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. That means thousands of jobs, a lot of clean energy for the power grid and emissions-free hydrogen production for export. While the Conservatives denigrate our economic future, we are taking measures to build the future.

On top of this, I will briefly mention our efforts to bring clean nuclear energy and biofuels to our allies. There are growing opportunities for Canada's CANDU technology. Earlier this year, the minister of energy joined the Romanian minister to announce a $3-billion loan to Romania, which will be best spent on building two new CANDU reactors in Romania.

All of this money will be spent on Canadian companies and good jobs for the clean sector. We will be powering Romania at no cost to the taxpayer. This will help Romania phase out coal and provide clean power to countries that are looking to move away from Russia.

On biofuels, we continue to invest this year in Canadian innovation to support our allies' energy needs. In May, we announced $86 million to save and retool the Come By Chance refinery in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that the former oil refinery can lead the region in sustainable biofuel production. Canada will continue to be a reliable and steady global supplier of clean energy.

Carbon Pricing

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, people may be entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

The commissioner this morning actually said that it was effective and it was working, and so do all of the academics. I do not know where that person gets her facts, but at the end of the day, the facts are the facts.

The fact is that those folks do not have a plan for climate change, but they also do not have a plan for the economy. In fact, right now, in the natural resources committee, the Conservatives are blocking moving forward with Bill C-49, which is about enabling the development of an offshore wind and hydrogen program in Atlantic Canada, something that is supported by the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is bizarre.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend across the way used the word “revolting”. What is revolting are the tactics and the circus act that are going on in the natural resources committee, blocking the passage of Bill C-49. It is endangering the health and safety of the translators in that committee. It is an enormous waste of taxpayer money. It is opposing the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. The bill would create jobs and economic opportunity for the future in a manner that is consistent with fighting the climate crisis. Shame on him.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we have a serious plan, a real policy, that addresses affordability and addresses the climate crisis. The leader of official opposition has no plan. He mouths tag lines like “technology, not taxes”. This is coming from a guy who has zero background in technology and zero background in business. This is coming from somebody who has been opposing the deployment of offshore wind technology through the passage of Bill C-49, which is supported by the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Shame on them for having no plan for climate change and having no plan for the economy of the future.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are not giving all of the information.

There is a rebate provided to Canadians. There is also what we have done: Last week, we doubled the rural top-up to 20%, which is important. If the member cared about jobs, he would have voted for Bill C-49. If the member cared about jobs, he would tell his party to stop filibustering at the natural resources committee so it could pass legislation on Bill C-49. They will not even have the legislation come to committee for debate, to bring in the premiers and to bring in witnesses to talk about it.

It is shameful and it is reckless, and Conservatives are not there for Canadians.

Natural Resources

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, members of the natural resources committee have had their work brought to a standstill by a reckless and wasteful Conservative filibuster. The Conservatives are deliberately trying to stop workers from getting a seat at the table and trying to end Atlantic Canada's offshore renewable energy opportunities by opposing vital legislation.

Can the parliamentary secretary please share with the House the negative impacts that delaying these important bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, will have on the lives of Canadian workers?

Climate Change

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate what a refreshing debate this has been to participate in.

I sincerely wish we could be having conversations in this House about how to fight climate change, not about whether to fight climate change, as with the Conservatives. Climate change is an existential threat. We are in an emergency, and the debate from the Conservatives over whether we should do the bare minimum is beyond the pale.

Fighting climate change is about creating good, sustainable jobs for generations to come and is not beyond our government, but it is so disappointing to see the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering the sustainable jobs act. Earlier today, the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million workers, called on Conservatives to end that debate. The Conservatives are also against Bill C-49.

It is astonishing what we have to tolerate in this House with respect to the level of debate when it comes to climate change. I once again thank my friend and colleague for her extraordinary leadership on this. I appreciate everything she does. I hope we can debate and have a conversation in person sometime very soon.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her hard work for her community and for workers across Canada. The Atlantic accords act and the Canadian sustainable jobs act are key to unlocking generational economic opportunities for Canada.

The Atlantic accords act would allow for the development of an offshore wind industry, which would create thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada. The sustainable jobs act would bring workers to the table and equip them with the tools and skills they need to thrive.

I call upon the Conservative Party to end its wasteful filibuster and allow committee members to consider these bills. It should heed the call of premiers, industry, workers and the House to advance Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is simply wasting time and the money of taxpayers.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the detriment of our economy, the Conservative Party is blocking two vital pieces of legislation that would create sustainable jobs, bring workers to the table and build important renewable energy projects.

First, it blocked workers from speaking at committee. Then it cancelled debate in this chamber, and now it is filibustering the natural resources committee to stop consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Could the minister inform the House of the importance of the sustainable jobs act and the Atlantic accords act?

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government tabled Bill C-49 to unlock massive green energy investments in places like my riding of Cape Breton—Canso. The private sector is positioned to invest $1 trillion in offshore wind and green hydrogen and, yes, that is trillion with a “t”.

Our government believes that Atlantic Canadians deserve their fair share, so why are the Conservatives voting against the Atlantic accord amendments when $1 trillion is on the line?

We should all be working together, working together here with industry leaders, with fishers and with indigenous communities like Membertou, to start our green energy future now.

Instead, the opposition is voting against a generation's worth of economic opportunities for Nova Scotia, all because a win for the Atlantic does not go well in their campaign strategy.

The Conservatives are trying to score a political hit but, with our future at stake, Canadians are the ones who are taking the punch.

This is another example of how they are risky and absolutely reckless.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful that the Conservative Party would use this humanitarian situation to peddle conspiracy theories.

We need to work with our allies to deliver the clean energy they are asking for, whether it is hydrogen or reactors. If the member of the opposition actually cared about supporting Canadian energy and allies, they would not have voted against Bill C-49, which has created good jobs, improved global security and helped our allies.

Wind Energy

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Public Policy Forum concludes that Atlantic Canada's offshore wind potential will make the region an energy powerhouse going forward. Installing turbines around the Sable Island Bank could produce enough energy supply for 6.5 million average Canadian homes, which is almost twice as much as what is being used by Atlantic Canada today.

This boom would mean thousands of jobs and billions of dollars for Atlantic Canada. However, on Tuesday, the Conservatives, including several MPs from Atlantic Canada, voted against Bill C-49, a bill that would allow for the development of the offshore wind industry in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

On this side of the House, people can count on our government to help Atlantic Canadians today and every day.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 had phenomenal support, not only from the House of Commons but also from the premiers in Atlantic Canada. It was all about renewable energy and future clean, green jobs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of potential jobs from there to Bill C-50, and we recognize the future. There is a need to develop, promote and encourage those green jobs. However, the Conservatives, as they voted against Bill C-49, are now going to be voting against Bill C-50.

The member often makes reference to climate change deniers. Why does he feel the Conservatives are challenging these good, futuristic middle-class jobs that are going to be there today and tomorrow?

Second Reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious.

Let us take a look at Bill C-49. The two bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, are fairly close with respect to the environment and jobs.

Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment.

Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading.

Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading.

We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate.

Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-50.

I am never surprised when I see the Conservative tactics, whether it is on Bill C-50 or Bill C-49. However, Canadians are telling us, as parliamentarians, what issues are important to them, one being jobs.

Jobs are so critically important. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know what the Canadian and provincial governments are putting into place so that we have good middle-class jobs well into the future.

Whether it was Bill C-49 or now Bill C-50, the Government of Canada, in co-operation, in good part, with other parties, although not the Conservative Party, has been able to get important legislation through.

As someone said to me, the word that comes to mind when we think of the Conservative Party nowadays, especially if one reflects on its behaviour and the types of things it does to prevent legislation like this from passing, is “reckless”.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not know where it is going. Canadians would be taking a chance, very much a risk, with the Conservative Party today, because it is so reckless in the policies and decisions it makes. We seem to see that more often. The longer the Conservative leader, with the Conservative caucus, focuses on making these policy decisions, people should be concerned. They should be concerned about those middle-class jobs and where the Conservative Party wants to take the country.

Another issue is the environment. This legislation deals specifically with the environment and the need for us to be in a position to build a healthy, strong, net-zero economy, something with which most parties in the chamber are in sync. They understand that this is also a priority of Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the global environment and what is taking place in Canada today.

The number of forest fires, storms and floods have a direct correlation to our environment. Canadians are aware of that. The government brought forward legislation a few years back on targets to get us to net zero. I believe Canadians can get behind this type of legislation and support it.

Today, Bill C-50 not only talks about that net-zero economy of the future; it also talks about the issue of jobs and transition, ensuring that we have strong healthy middle-class jobs well into the future. Clean energy is being looked at in a very serious way around the world today.

Where is the Conservative Party? I made reference to the word “reckless” and we should maybe emphasize that fact. At the end of the day, we saw where the Conservative Party was when it voted against the Atlantic accord.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued advocacy for Atlantic Canadians. He and his Atlantic Liberal colleagues stood up against the Conservatives who opposed Bill C-49. This includes Conservative members from Atlantic Canada whose communities would benefit from the good, sustainable jobs and economic opportunities this bill would bring.

This week, Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to advance collaboration and progress on delivering clean, affordable and reliable electricity while phasing out coal by 2030, driving to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. This would fight climate change and create good jobs and economic opportunity across Atlantic Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on helping Atlantic Canada drive the tremendous economic opportunities that exist for clean energy in our region.

That is exactly why we advanced Bill C-49, in close partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We also have a mutual goal of getting off coal-fired electricity while expanding clean energy grids. Premiers Higgs and Houston were both in Ottawa this week to talk about their provincial plans to do just that.

Could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources explain how our government is working in co-operation with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to support that crucial transition while being mindful of affordability?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that passionate speech. I know he is a hard-working member of his party. We appreciate his work and his suggestions.

I would like to ask him a question. Does he agree that there are several ways to pay off our debts? We can pay off our debts if we grow our country's revenue. Does that not help pay our debt?

If the answer is yes, and I expect it will be, why did he and his party vote against Bill C‑49 today? We asked for changes to the Atlantic accord to open up a market in offshore wind energy with incredible global potential for Canada, and especially for Atlantic Canada.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister knows the debate that took place on Bill C-69. Where is it today? How fulsome have those consultations been with the provinces?

I am looking at the proposed change to subsection 56(1), which basically says that, if there is going to be a future oil development and there is a possibility that it could be turned into a future marine protected area, the Governor in Council could then pull the permit. That is the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. The industry has said to me, “Cliff, this puts in black and white what we feared all along.”

If Bill C-69 could not do the job on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, this bill here will not do the job. Bill C-49 needs to be amended.

Carbon Pricing

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past eight years, we have had a number of opportunities to see where the Conservative Party stands when it comes to supporting measures that are actually going to fight climate change and create good jobs in our region.

Time after time, they oppose reasonable measures that are going to reduce pollution and prevent the kinds of severe weather events that my communities have been impacted by. These events include hurricane Fiona, wildfires such as we have never seen and floods that have literally taken the lives of my community members.

The Conservatives have a chance to support a concrete measure by voting for Bill C-49, which would create well-paying jobs in clean industries. Why does the member oppose well-paying jobs in his community?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Carbon Pricing

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I have 75,000 masters who live in northern Nova Scotia. They are telling me that they want the government to come up with a plan that is going to reduce emissions, so we can protect the environment for future generations. They are telling me that they want me to stand up and support Bill C-49, which is actually going to establish an offshore energy industry in the province where we have the resource.

We have the ability to do the right thing for our planet and create well-paying jobs at home. I will defend well-paying jobs at home, I will defend affordability and I will not compromise the need to protect our environment as that member would.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I stand today in the House to strongly encourage my Conservative colleagues to support Bill C-49, an important bill for Nova Scotia's future. The proposed amendments in the Atlantic accord would create a framework for the offshore renewable energy sector under the act for the province of Nova Scotia.

With an estimated $1 trillion to be invested in the sector globally by 2040, it is crucial that Canada position itself to attract investment and become world leaders in clean energy. Despite having the longest coastline and best wind speed in the world, Canada does not have one commissioned offshore wind project to show today.

Passing Bill C-49 would go a long way towards meeting our emission targets and decarbonizing the power grid, and it would bring great jobs to Nova Scotians.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the subject of the debate, which is Bill C‑50 and not Bill C‑49.

First, I want to say that what I just heard made my skin crawl and it proves that the Conservatives are speaking for the private oil sector, which is made up of billionaires. A recent poll revealed that two-thirds of Albertans polled on the moratorium on solar and wind development disagree with their premier.

Do the Conservatives know that there are other sources of energy other than oil, gas and coal?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question because it gives me the ability to address the reality of Bill C-49 rather than the Liberals' false claims.

Here is the truth about Bill C-49. It imports a number of clauses from Bill C-69 and includes a number of clauses from another bill, Bill C-55. The consequences of both of those bills embedded in Bill C-49 are exactly what has unfolded and what Conservatives warned about in previous debates. Bill C-49 would hold up, delay, road block and gatekeep alternative and renewable offshore development, just as it is also a simultaneous attack on petroleum offshore development.

I am not sure if Liberals do not read bills, do not know what they are talking about or are just reading what someone says, but these issues are grave. They are serious for the underpinning of our economy and our standard of living. We oppose Bill C-49 because it is an attack on energy to end petroleum offshore opportunities, and it would hold up, road block, delay and gatekeep renewable and alternative offshore energy development. Conservatives are going to accelerate approvals, make sure projects can get built, cut timelines and make both traditional and alternative energy sources available at affordable—

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to start our debate on Bill C-50, an act respecting federal accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

By introducing legislation for sustainable jobs, the Government of Canada is providing strong leadership through good governance, strong accountability and effective engagement. We would take action through five key elements.

The first element is to introduce guiding principles that ensure a cohesive approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help to create sustainable jobs, all while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to lead in an emerging clean-growth industry world.

The second element is to create a sustainable jobs partnership council tasked with providing independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and engaging with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts including workers, indigenous leaders, industry and young people are at the table to guide governmental actions.

The third element is a requirement to publish action plans every five years, informed by input from stakeholders and partners, as well as expert advice from the partnership council.

The fourth element is to create a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action on the implementation of the act across the federal government.

The fifth and final element is to designate responsible and specified ministers to carry out this legislation.

Much like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, this legislation would help to ensure that the Government of Canada has every region of Canada and every Canadian worker at the centre of its policy and decision-making with respect to sustainable jobs. The Canadian sustainable jobs act would respect Canada’s workers, regardless of the industry they work in, and would be inclusive of Canadians of all stripes, no matter what their background or where they live.

This legislation builds on the progress we have made over several years, as the government encouraged significant growth in our clean energy industries and other sectors that help us achieve net-zero emissions.

Since 2015, we have invested more than $120 billion in clean growth initiatives and pledged more than $80 billion in tax incentives.

If we had followed the path advocated by some Conservatives—one of austerity and inaction—our constituents and their communities would be at a considerable disadvantage. This head-in-the-sand approach fails to take into account the areas where investments are being made, namely, natural resources, energy, buildings, transportation, manufacturing and many others.

An approach of inaction would let competing nations take leadership roles in the sectors and industries where Canada is a natural leader, letting them innovate and attract global investments, while we wait and simply hope for the best. Such a reckless approach of inaction would put our economic well-being and our environmental stability at risk, but we are not going to let that happen. Instead we are acting decisively.

Whether it is this bill to ensure Canadian workers can seize the economic opportunity in front of us, or Bill C-49, which is helping to deploy an offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada, or our historic budget investments that allowed us to compete with the U.S. IRA and attract new job-creating sustainable investments, initiatives that support the creation of sustainable jobs are happening across government.

Canadians have an opportunity to take the lead in many fields in jobs that play a key role in reducing energy consumption like developing new green housing plans, retrofitting existing homes and buildings, or innovating in cutting-edge low-carbon technology.

These activities will all create sustainable jobs from coast to coast for our people, whether we are talking about a skilled worker at the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas, another who installs heat pumps in Nova Scotia or yet another who builds the batteries of the future at the new Northvolt plant we announced yesterday in Quebec.

We know that such investments are essential if we want to grow the Canadian economy and, consequently, create sustainable jobs.

While we attract industrial development, we are also focused on building out the backbone of Canada's economy, namely, Canada's electrical grid. The federal government is proud to support growing, sustainable industries, like renewable energy, hydrogen and nuclear energy. They are helping us to scale new technologies while delivering clean, reliable and affordable power to Canadian homes and industry.

Canada's clean electricity advantage has helped us to land international investors like Northvolt, Umicore, Ford and many others. We need to keep expanding our electricity system to attract investment, create sustainable jobs and fight climate change. That is why we have invested to deploy job-creating clean energy projects, like the 47-megawatt wind farm we announced yesterday near Medicine Hat, Alberta, or the 45-megawatt Burchill wind project in New Brunswick. These projects are helping to deploy more clean power to our grid every day.

The Government of Canada is also investing to deliver clean power storage, like the 250-megawatt Oneida project being built in the Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario.

All of these projects include indigenous leaders. This kind of work is critical to advancing economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Accordingly, an important commitment in this legislation is to create more meaningful, ongoing, respectful relationships with indigenous peoples. We need more indigenous peoples to lead business as directors, managers and workers. Their skills, knowledge and leadership are helping accelerate the fight against climate change, the modernization of our energy sector and the development of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers, including in the energy space.

As I mentioned earlier, we need a connected, affordable, reliable and non-emitting grid to supply more electrical energy than ever before. Not only will it power our emerging sources of new energy, it will also become a standard part of heating our homes, powering our vehicles and driving all types of industry.

There are lots of jobs associated with this new era of clean-power development. It is no wonder that the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, endorsed our sustainable job plan and this bill. Its vice-president endorsed our plan and said, “The IBEW's almost 70,000 members in Canada are ready to help build the next generation of Canada's vital energy infrastructure to help us reach our net-zero goals.”

The work being done to build out our grid, a job that is so massive that it must be tackled jointly by every level of government, will facilitate the growth of our nation's economy and our jobs, thanks to its status as a multi-trillion dollar market.

The eight years of investments made by our entire government have put us on the road to a strong economy that supports workers and job creation.

As a government, we have made informed choices aimed at supporting and growing our economy and modernizing our industrial sectors so we can succeed in the global race to invest in the clean economy.

The legislation we are debating today complements the billions of dollars in job-creating investments we have released so far, as well as our climate action policies, including pollution pricing and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

That act requires us to set greenhouse gas emissions targets, encourages transparency and accountability, and calls on us to take immediate and ambitious action to reach these targets.

Bill C‑50 builds on that act and on the clean industries strategy described in budget 2023. Thanks to this solid base, Canada and its workforce are in an enviable position compared to most countries of the world.

We are privileged, because we live in a peaceful country that has a wealth of sustainable resources, resources that demand a central role in whether we will be able to reach our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, resources that are abundant and diverse and that provide our workers and communities with opportunities that only come with concerted, determined shifts toward a low-carbon future.

As we focus on driving down the emissions that are fuelling the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure our young people have a bright future ahead of them in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy. Both are possible and they go hand in hand.

As Sean Strickland, the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions said, “If you take climate change seriously, you must, by definition, be pro-worker.”

If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made by cleaner manufacturing processes, let us attract the business that helps our workers fill that gap.

The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required. Some of these are because of action we are taking to partner with industry, communities and others, to pair talent with training.

Last Monday, in Edmonton, we announced support for over 20,000 new green jobs being supported by ESDC. Of the 400,000 jobs that require upskilling, a good percentage of those jobs are thanks to the sustainable development of our natural resources, which includes clean energy and hydrogen.

There is no question we are blessed with an abundance of resources, but to access the potential they provide, we must also ensure our workforce is well equipped. That is exactly what this legislation would do.

During the many discussions we had in the lead-up to this legislation, many of Canada's indigenous leaders, provinces, territories and local leaders identified tangible opportunities to pursue the development of new industries. They are taking concrete steps to realize their economic future. They are facing what much of the world sees as an enviable task of narrowing those options down to the top few that will create good-paying jobs and prosperity in their communities.

Our existing resources and initiatives created an ideal footing for our interim sustainable jobs plan. The strengths of the plan are the concrete actions it contains; notably, this legislation. There is also the start of a lot of work on nine other federal actions that will have a positive impact on the number of good, sustainable jobs in every part of this country.

I would like to speak to some of those actions today with the time I have left. First and foremost, I will mention the call to establish new legislation, the one we are debating today. It offers a framework that would allow us to take sound actions to address both the opportunities and challenges in a low-carbon economy, informed by ongoing engagement between government and Canada's workers, partners and stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples.

This legislation would also put accountability front and centre by designating a lead minister to guide these efforts. This would be accompanied by a requirement the government publish five-year action plans Canadians can use to measure and judge our efforts, supported by regular reporting on our progress, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

The legislation would also make good on another action item from the sustainable jobs plan, which is the establishment of a sustainable jobs partnership council. This would be an independent body that would provide advice to government on how it can best support the shift to a low-carbon economy. If we really want to give workers a voice, if we sincerely intend to empower them to influence the decisions that affect their jobs and their future, then we must create this council.

Through these efforts, workers, rural and remote communities, provinces and territories, indigenous groups, industry, young people, academics and others will be able to provide the council and the federal government with invaluable advice as we continue to move ahead.

What we are talking about is real-world perspectives and information from those individuals in the workplace who are experiencing the transformation of our economy.

The council would apply its own expertise to these lived experiences to provide independent, actionable advice on how to create good-paying, skilled, sustainable jobs for Canada's workers and ensure that workers have the supports that they need to succeed. Through the council, we would have the opportunity to bring many voices to the table, working together in the process known as social dialogue, essentially bringing workers, employers and governments together to find solutions that work for real life.

Some of my colleagues will go into more detail about the other elements in this legislation, like the commitment to releasing regular action plans and the sustainable job secretariat that would be created to work across federal departments and agencies on those plans.

The Canadian sustainable jobs act will ensure that Canadian workers have a clear path to the future. The measures we are taking here will help Canada lead the competition as our economy achieves net-zero emissions.

This plan is based on the thoughts and experiences of thousands of Canadians over more than two years of engagement and consultation. I would like to express our deep gratitude for their work and for their interest in helping us develop this legislation.

It was views like these that helped build the strong bill we have before us today. We even won endorsements from groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million Canadian workers. It said that the plan in this bill would be a big win for workers. We know that when workers win, so does Canada. This legislation is needed to ensure that the interim plan can support workers today while standing up the partnership council and secretariat to ensure an ongoing process.

When I speak about endorsements from the groups that have looked at this legislation, I wanted to also include the voice of the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals. The act is a good step forward in helping equip Canadians with the skills for the jobs for our future economy.”

Today, it is up to us to make the smartest possible choices and to put in place a framework that commits our government to supporting workers as they seek to build the sustainable economy of the future.

This bill reflects consultation with indigenous peoples, union members, new Canadians, industry leaders and community advocates from every region of the country. We owe it to them and to all Canadians to ensure that we are advancing a thoughtful plan to help them ensure that our country succeeds and that we can access great careers for generations to come.

This legislation will be used to create solidarity measures and strengthen training opportunities for all workers in Canada. It will ensure that Canadian workers can participate in discussions and enjoy equal opportunities to obtain and benefit from the jobs of the future. Like many of our government's initiatives, this bill is based on the need to tackle the existential threat of the climate crisis head-on, and to seize once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunities.

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best. I sincerely hope that every member of the House agrees to choose the first path, because as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure and build a sustainable future while securing abundant, sustainable jobs for future generations.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I had to take out a pen because there were about 16 interventions in that question. I hope I will get time to answer.

On the isthmus, we are there with 50%. As I said on Radio-Canada this week, if the courts indeed determine that this is a purely federal responsibility, we will be there with 100% of the cost.

I stand here asking for adjustments to the carbon price. The member opposite suggests that carbon pricing should not exist in Canada, contrary to the fact that 77 jurisdictions around the world point to this as being an effective policy. Beyond that, the Conservatives have provided no credible plan on how they are going to challenge and address the issue before us. Therefore, the member has some explaining to do as well.

On Bill C-49, so that when the member clips this and sends it home to his constituents, this is a generational opportunity for Atlantic Canada for offshore wind. The premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want it. The member stands against it. He needs to go home and explain why he is standing in the way of billions of dollars of generational opportunity, especially when the line from the Conservatives is “technology, not taxes”.

Last, with respect to the 50-cent difference between Maine and New Brunswick, if he goes to Maine, I am sure he will find that there is a 50-cent difference between the price of milk in Maine and in New Brunswick. There are a lot of price differentials. He is tying this exactly to what we are talking about today, which is not necessarily a true reflection of the fact that there is a price differential between Canada and the U.S. on a number of products. Maybe he is saying that he does not want to support the dairy farmers in New Brunswick and across this country and that he wants to get rid of supply management, which we have seen from the Conservative Party. It has not been strong on that policy that matters for rural Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not really know, as I am not responsible for drafting opposition motions. As I said, there are many issues with this Conservative motion. I do not know the answer.

I do, however, want to raise an important question regarding Bill C‑49. The aim of this bill is to create an opportunity for offshore wind farming in the Atlantic. We know that Hydro-Québec has concerns regarding a shortage of electricity and clean energy in Quebec. Members from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have a great opportunity to work together to ensure a very clean and very green energy supply for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

I am very happy to work collaboratively with my colleague.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, after I am done answering this, I am going to walk some Q-tips over to the hon. member and see whether he was able to listen to the 20-minute speech in which I provided very clear answers to where I stand on this policy.

I actually had a conversation with Premier Houston in May 2022 to say that I would hope that the provincial government would implement its own made-in-Nova Scotia carbon pricing plan. The Conservatives stand against that. I believe in the intent of the policy, but there needs to be some serious adjustments. I am on record in the House. The member can look at the record afterward, and he can read it so he can understand where I stand. I have been very clear.

However, where is the member as it relates to Bill C-49 and the great opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador? He will have to answer to the good people of his riding on that one.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.

I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.

I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.

The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.

The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.

I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.

The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.

I asked the member for Calgary Forest Lawn about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.

The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.

From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.

I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.

This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.

I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.

I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.

The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.

The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.

It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.

Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill C-234.

However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.

On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.

The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.

This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.

I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.

I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.

Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.

Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.

This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.

First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.

The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.

On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.

There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.

The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for Long Range Mountains, and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.

I want to go to Bill C-49. The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.

Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.

I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.

To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.

I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.

I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.

On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.

I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as a Nova Scotia member of Parliament, I stood in this House last week and was frankly disturbed by the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada is standing against Bill C-49, which is a piece of legislation that drives Atlantic Canada's offshore future. I was calling on the members from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, who are Conservative, to stand up for their constituencies to be able to make a difference. Of course, the Conservatives like to talk about the carbon price, but they refuse to talk about ways we enable renewable energy and the way that we drive innovation forward.

Can the member for Kingston and the Islands provide some reflections of his surprise about the fact that the Conservatives will not support us on this bill?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill S‑12, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, what does not make sense is that the member voted 23 times to support the cost of living increase. What does not make sense is that the Green/NDP member, trying to make up her mind on what her belief is, is willing to actually vote for a bill that would impose a process on the development of offshore energy in Atlantic Canada using the same process exported from Bill C-69 into Bill C-49. That process has resulted in absolutely no energy projects being developed in western Canada. That same approach would have the same result on Atlantic energy development in Atlantic Canada, which is that zero projects would get approved, even the renewable energy ones that we all want.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, is my colleague talking about Bill C‑49? Yes? Okay.

I find that rather strange. The Conservatives are probably against this bill for their own reasons. What I find odd about this bill is the addition of the term “renewable energy”. To me, oil has never been renewable energy. I do not know what others think, but I do not believe that oil is a renewable energy source.

They can speak for themselves, but I would say to my colleague that we have to be very careful. The Liberal government has a tendency to greenwash the oil and gas sector. Unfortunately, it is a lot like our Conservative colleagues in that regard.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, I will let the comment about my facial hair stand in the record now forever, but I thank him.

I would like to correct the member because the member asked a question in question period that I found really interesting. It was about how there is support for the bill that he referred to. However, he is quick to point to when premiers and stakeholders will support a bill, while failing to acknowledge when they oppose bills.

What is interesting is the bill he refers to, Bill C-49, specifically references provisions that were implemented through Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament. The very premiers who have said they want energy development, which we all do, whether it is new tech or something associated with traditional energy, also asked the government to repeal Bill C-69. The Liberals are now talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the government—

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that the member opposite has a tremendous beard, and I mean that with all sincerity. He has been growing it over the summer and it looks “Tom Mulcair-esque”, but I know he will not appreciate that comment as much.

The government has put forward a number of pieces of legislation this week that are non-cost in nature; they are legislative reforms. One was Bill C-33, but there was also Bill C-49, which is about enabling tremendous economic opportunities in the energy sector in Atlantic Canada.

Has my hon. colleague opposite had the opportunity to talk to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for West Nova, the member for Cumberland—Colchester or the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame about whether they are in support of this bill? This is what the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for, as is the premier of Nova Scotia. Has he had a conversation with them?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his warm congratulations, and as this is my first time at providing the Thursday statement, I would also like to say that I look forward to working with him and the other House leaders to advance legislation.

This afternoon we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-33, which deals with strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada.

I actually have some good news for my hon. colleague. When it comes to affordable housing, debate on the bill we introduced today on eliminating the GST for rental housing will begin at noon on Monday. I am sure he is very much looking forward to that. It was introduced this morning by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. We will continue with this legislation on Tuesday as well, and I hope we can count on the support of all parties in this House to advance it for Canadians to bring down the cost of housing and the cost of groceries.

On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-49, amending the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday, September 28, shall be an allotted day, which I am sure the member will be pleased about.

Natural Resources

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House debated Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accords, which is crucial legislation to drive Atlantic Canada's clean energy future. It is supported by the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, the clean energy industry, indigenous communities and business stakeholders throughout the region, yet there is only one party in the House that has signalled its intent to be against it, and that is the Conservative Party.

Could the minister shed some light on his conversations with Progressive Conservative Premier Tim Houston and, in St. John's, Liberal Premier Andrew Furey, on their perspective of the importance of this crucial bill?

Carbon Pricing

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, certainly ensuring affordability is extremely important in the design of a price on pollution that penalizes polluters but does so in a manner such that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. I would just say that having a relevant plan to address climate change, including a price on pollution, is required to have a relevant economic plan for the future of this country.

Today I was very pleased to speak in the House to Bill C-49, which would develop an offshore wind industry that would be extremely important for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I see across the House a whole range of MPs who spoke against that. My goodness, they are going to need to explain it to the constituents in Atlantic Canada and to the premier of Nova Scotia.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, when we took office, only 1% of our lands and waters were conserved and protected. Now we are at 14%, and we will reach 30% by 2030. We will keep doing this great work.

We are continuing to invest in renewable energy. That is what we did with Bill C‑49. It will provide a lot of renewable energy opportunities in the Atlantic provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have already talked about this, and I want to repeat that those are only exploration licences and not production licences. It is very important to know that. A production project has never been proposed in a marine refuge. It is quite possible that such a project would be rejected.

Furthermore, I would like to speak about the work we are currently doing with Bill C-49. It will make it possible for us to develop renewable energy projects, such as wind energy, in the Atlantic provinces.

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to reiterate that this was an independent business decision made by Equinor; it was not a cancellation. The decision was largely due to market forces.

Let us also talk about the fact that, right now, we have introduced legislation to diversify Newfoundland and Labrador's economy. We have introduced Bill C-49, and it provides huge opportunities for offshore projects, resource projects. That is what we are doing; we are making sure we are diversifying and supporting the economy right across our country.

Natural Resources

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has what the world needs, particularly in our ability to harness our natural resources to power the world. In Atlantic Canada, we have immense opportunities to utilize offshore wind to drive hydrogen and green ammonia production while decarbonizing our electricity grids. There needs to be regulatory certainty to ensure Canada can attract the capital at home and around the world.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources speak to Bill C-49, which was tabled this morning, and the ongoing work he is doing with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to make sure that our region is the best in the world and can drive our energy future?