Bill C-50

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy

This enactment establishes an accountability, transparency and engagement framework to facilitate and promote economic growth, the creation of sustainable jobs and support for workers and communities in Canada in the shift to a net-zero economy. Accordingly, the enactment
(a) provides that the Governor in Council may designate a Minister for the purposes of the Act as well as specified Ministers;
(b) establishes a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to provide the Minister and the specified Ministers, through a process of social dialogue, with independent advice with respect to measures to foster the creation of sustainable jobs, measures to support workers, communities and regions in the shift to a net-zero economy and matters referred to it by the Minister;
(c) requires the tabling of a Sustainable Jobs Action Plan in each House of Parliament no later than 2026 and by the end of each subsequent period of five years;
(d) provides for the establishment of a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat to support the implementation of the Act; and
(e) provides for a review of the Act within ten years of its coming into force and by the end of each subsequent period of ten years.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Minister, your claims that it will create jobs and increase production make absolutely no sense. After nine years, your government has left Canada completely landlocked and dependent on one customer, the United States, which is now our biggest competitor.

Within five years, Canada will be completely out of pipeline capacity. Therefore, production will be cut. Therefore, oil and gas workers will lose jobs. Therefore, a priority group among them, which will be hurt the most, will be indigenous workers in oil and gas. It is deeply alarming that Canada's natural resources minister seems to have no clue about that.

I guess, then, you don't really care that Dale Swampy from the National Coalition of Chiefs says, “If the federal government continues on its path with a 'just transition'”—with Bill C-50, which you know will kill 170,000 oil and gas jobs immediately because your own memos told you so—“an emissions cap”—which is a productions cap—“and other crippling legislation [it will cause] an energy crisis that will have catastrophic effects on our people, especially those living on reserves across this country.”

Shame on you.

Let's talk about LNG, because, of course, you and your government seem to be the only people in the world who think there's no business case for Canadian LNG.

How many countries, Minister, have asked for LNG from Canada?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today reminds me of the theatrics we experienced during our study of Bill C‑50. I have a lot of respect for my colleague, Mr. Genuis, but there are currently five Conservative Party members here instead of the usual four. That happened during the study of Bill C‑50, too. There were five or six Conservative members, and non-permanent members of the committee took the liberty of raising points of order.

For the committee to function as it should, and to break the current impasse, I would like to get a ruling from you, Mr. Chair, about which members of the Conservative Party, and which members of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, may speak. Can only permanent members of the committee speak and raise a point of order, or can anyone do so? If anyone can, my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, has nothing to do this evening, and I would be happy to invite him to come spend his time here with me.

Thank you for clarifying that. I think it's critical.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak right after the leader of the NDP, who gave an excellent speech. He outlined the framework for this discussion and explained where we stand right now as a society, what people need and the risks associated with either the Liberals' inaction or the Conservatives' cuts.

Over the past two years, we have seen what can be achieved when NDP members are on the job. We delivered results by pressuring the government and making real gains for people, for workers, for seniors, for families and for students. That is the contribution the NDP caucus can make, using its position of strength and balance of power to obtain things that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals had ever agreed to before.

With a bit of a wink and a nudge, I would like to point out that, for two years, the Bloc Québécois criticized us for negotiating with the Liberals to make gains. Now that we have torn up the agreement, it is rather ironic to see the Bloc Québécois wanting to negotiate with the government as well, but that is politics, after all.

We were able to achieve tangible progress of historic importance. Think of the 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers, which did not exist before. We saw how important it was to grant workers this right during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the NDP that did that.

The anti-scab law is finally in effect, 50 years after Quebec passed its own law. We fought and forced the Liberal government to introduce anti-scab legislation, which was a historic demand of the Quebec and Canadian labour movement. I am very proud to have been able to negotiate with the then minister of labour. It is an important piece of legislation that is a true hallmark of the gains the NDP was able to achieve. The anti-scab legislation is a victory for the NDP.

The big one is universal public pharmacare. This is so important to so many members of society, in both Canada and Quebec, who are suffering because our hybrid private-public system is flawed. The NDP was able to get $1.5 billion. The bill is currently before the Senate. This will make a difference in people's lives, especially the first phase that provides access to contraception and diabetes medications. Millions of people with diabetes will be reimbursed for the cost of supplies and drugs to fight this terrible disease. This is a victory for the NDP and its work. It is also what the Quebec labour movement is calling for. The FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the Union des consommateurs du Québec all know that a universal public pharmacare program is the best way to get truly affordable drugs to treat people and save lives. That has been proven in study after study over the past few years.

We secured $8 billion for indigenous housing. We forced the Liberals to ensure that the federal child care transfer will go to public and not-for-profit child care run by community groups and non-profits. That is a win for the NDP.

There is also the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, which ensures a just transition, a green energy transition, as well as job creation for workers. The NDP fought to have union and worker representatives at the table to ensure the success of this transition, which is so important to the future of our planet, our economic development, and good jobs for workers. I salute the work of some of my colleagues, including my colleague from Victoria, who is right over there. I also salute my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his very hard work on Bill C-50.

Obviously, the NDP deserves credit for all the work it accomplished on providing people with access to dental care. Some of them had not been able to afford a visit to the dentist in years. We were able to secure these major gains by putting pressure on the Liberals. So far, 3.5 million people in Canada have registered for the program. Some 645,000 people have managed to see a dentist and be reimbursed all or 80% of the cost of their dental care. That is huge. The health and lives of those 645,000 people has changed for the better through the direct efforts of the NDP here in the House. I am very proud to say that those 645,000 people include 205,032 Quebeckers, who were able to see a dentist thanks to the NDP's work and victory.

This means that 32% of the people who have benefited from the program are Quebeckers. The program is therefore very beneficial for Quebec, for Quebeckers, who are participating more on average than people in the other provinces. We represent 23% of the Canadian population, but 32% of the people who have received this service are from Quebec. I would remind the House that not only did the Bloc Québécois oppose dental care, but the Conservatives have always voted against it, and the Liberals also voted against it before the last election. This just goes to show that if we had not been there, if we had not twisted their arm, this would never have happened.

The agreement lasted a while, but we were not married to the Liberals. We were carpooling. We eventually realized that it was time to go our separate ways, so we got out of that car and into our own, to regain our independence and autonomy. Going forward, we will decide on a case-by-case basis how we are going to vote in the House as a political party.

We also put an end to this agreement because of a build-up of frustration with the Liberals' inaction, half-measures and lack of courage on a whole host of issues. We decided that we are going to be completely autonomous. There are some things that we completely disagree with the Liberals on and so we want to be able to exert all the pressure we can and to do our job as the opposition as effectively as possible. I am talking in particular about environmental and climate issues.

One can only imagine how infuriating it is to face the Liberals' inaction and contradictions, when this failure to make the necessary decisions today is going to affect future generations, our children and our grandchildren. In the last budget, the Liberals backtracked on taxing the excessive profits of big oil. Big oil lobbyists came to Ottawa, to the office of the finance minister, and the government decided that it would not tax the windfall profits of oil and gas companies after all.

The fact that there is no emissions cap in the oil and gas sector is shameful. One has to wonder why it still has not been set. Then there are the tax credits for carbon capture, an unproven technology that does not work. It is a great subsidy for the oil companies, but not as great as buying the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost Canadians $36 billion.

That $36 billion means that everyone in the country, whether they are a grandpa, a grandma, a student or a baby, paid $1,000 to buy that pipeline and increase our greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals took $1,000 from every Canadian to buy a pipeline that no one wanted. Even the private sector did not want it.

There is also the matter of the inaction in relation to the housing crisis and the price of groceries, despite the fact that there are solutions. There is the Liberals' lack of courage regarding the genocide in Gaza, the lack of recognition of the Palestinian state, the lack of sanctions against Netanyahu's extremist ministers, and the continued sale of arms to this regime, which has been dropping bombs on ordinary people every day for over 10 months now. Then there is the Liberals' failure to reform EI, despite their promises.

Although we are debating this motion today, the NDP's message is clear. We will not play the Conservatives' game. We are not going to play the Conservatives' game, because we remember the dark years under Stephen Harper.

We remember the attacks on science, the blindness or indifference to the climate crisis and the cuts to culture. We remember the $43 billion in cuts to our public health care system, the repercussions of which are still being felt today. When the Liberals came to power, they did not reverse those budget cuts.

They cut seniors' pensions by increasing the retirement age to 67. They abolished 26,000 public service jobs and closed nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices. They made cuts to employment insurance, to support for indigenous communities, to protection for women and women's issues.

As far as women's rights are concerned, the right to abortion is still under threat. Things are not entirely clear in the Conservative caucus. Statements are vague. There are photos with certain groups, with certain demonstrators here on Parliament Hill. This morning, in the Journal de Montréal we read that the Conservative member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands visited a creationist and anti-abortion, or anti-choice, church in Florida.

He was invited to deliver a speech at an extremist church in Florida, and it was the church that paid for not only his flight, but also all the expenses. A Conservative member went to Florida and was paid by a church to speak against women's rights. After all that, it should come as no surprise that people question whether the Conservatives will protect women's rights or if a private member's bill will be introduced if ever, by some misfortune, the Conservatives form a majority government.

I see that my time is up. I could have gone on. I still have a lot more to say, but I can elaborate in my answers to the questions and comments.

[Alex Callahan]

Thanks for the question.

The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a very important step forward. I would encourage committee members to look at the definition of sustainable jobs, which talks not only about being on a track to a net-zero economy, but also about job quality measures. In particular, it talks about unionized jobs. This is setting a goal for creating unionized jobs in a net-zero sector. That's the two halves here—the two parts of the equation.

It does a couple of important things for unionized workers across the country. The most important thing is having workers' voices at the table. There's the partnership council, which will put workers' voices together with employers, with experts and with indigenous representatives to talk about how we build that economy. I think giving workers a voice in their future in terms of what's coming down the pike at them is incredibly important.

Of course, the other part of this that is going to be important and that I'm looking for all the members of this committee to be behind is the action plans.

For those who may not recall, there are three things that the legislation does. It sets up a secretariat. That's great. It sets up the partnership council that I just referred to, which is giving workers a voice. Then it creates these five-year action plans. It's going to be up to government to come to the table to fund the action plans.

This is exactly the question that I was talking about with Mr. Angus a moment ago, which is making sure that there is money with conditions to train workers to ensure that when they're working in whatever these projects are going to be, they're protected by a union card, their work is safe, their work is fairly compensated and that they have a voice in their work through bargaining, through social dialogue and that sort of thing.

As far as Bill C-50 is concerned, this is a very important piece of legislation in terms of setting what the future can look like. It is ultimately going to be up to the government to make sure that it comes to the table with the kinds of financial and policy supports that will be needed to actually see training and real investments in what that economy is going to look like.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm really glad, colleagues, that we are embarking on this study. It's important for all of us. I'm representing a riding, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, that is feeling the impacts of climate change. I've shared with this committee on numerous occasions how bad it actually is. We had record flooding in my riding in 2017 and again in 2019. We had an ice storm last year that saw tens of thousands in my community without power for days.

Just this past month, Mr. Chair, we had a record rainfall in my riding, when 153 millimetres fell in 24 hours. To give you an idea of how crazy that was, the previous record was 96 millimetres. Because of that, thousands of homes had basements flooded. The average cost is anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000 per basement. Also, right now our chamber of commerce is saying that this is going to cost us tens of millions of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses for these homeowners, but also in insurance costs, and the insurance rates are going to go up.

We need to be talking about this, right? We need to be talking about solutions. One of those solutions is building that modern, clean, affordable and resilient grid. Unfortunately, we don't have agreement from all members and all parties on this. The Conservative Party still to this day refuses to acknowledge that climate change is real and every year for the last nine years has blocked all of the initiatives we've put forward to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and create those incredible well-paid union jobs of the economy of tomorrow.

My question is for Mr. Callahan.

I want to begin here. I'm going to give you an opportunity, because the Conservatives have blocked debate and blocked bringing in witnesses to testify on this. I'm going to give you an opportunity to comment on Bill C-50, the Sustainable Jobs Act, and how you believe those measures to support sustainable jobs will impact workers—the workers you represent.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much.

I hope you can hear me, Mr. Callahan and Mr. Chapeskie.

In your presentation, you talked about the challenges related to jobs in the electrification sector. I'd like to make a connection here to what was done in Bill C‑50 with sustainable jobs. It includes an agreement between Quebec and the federal government on workforce training, but unfortunately we weren't able to draw on that agreement to ensure that the funds go to existing institutions devoted to training the workforce in Quebec.

I believe Mr. Callahan stated that we wouldn't be able to address the shortage of skilled labour through immigration alone, and we would therefore need our own strategies. I know that's a tall order and that we have existing structures. I'm thinking, for example, of the Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Québec, or IREQ, which provides training and does research.

However, I'd like you to tell us whether you feel the government's approach is flexible enough to meet our future labour needs as we move to further electrify our economy.

Mr. Chapeskie can answer first, then Mr. Callahan.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I just want to say, Mr. Winfield, that I appreciate that you ended the last question by saying that the boreal caribou have no chance if an emergency order is not put in place. We may question what the probability of success is of this program, but we know they will not be here. They'll be extirpated if we do not do something.

As you know, from 2002, this species has been on the species at risk list. There's so much work that's been done over the years, and as several witnesses have said, these animals are the most studied of any in Canada. We know a lot about them.

There seems to be this tension attached to short-term profitability and job retention. Of course, jobs are very important. In fact, our government has created more jobs than any other government, but it's the role of government to look at the longer term and not just at short-term profit. I'm wondering if you could put this in context in terms of these jobs in the forestry sector.

When we have a Sustainable Jobs Act in place and we know that there has to be a transition and the health of these forests is so linked to the health of the caribou, are these jobs going to be there longer than another two or three years, say, if the caribou are extinct and these circumstances of climate change, forest fires and all these other things continue to grow? Are we looking at just a short-term solution as opposed to a long-term solution when we simply focus on saving the jobs and the types of jobs that are there today, rather than looking at long-term employment for these communities that are so important?

Energy Sector

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present a petition on behalf of thousands of Canadians who call on the government to stop its divisive anti-energy, anti-private sector, top-down Bill C-50 just-transition agenda, which would cause fuel and power shortages, and even more energy poverty, while hurting Canada's standard of living.

The NDP-Liberal's so-called just transition would hike the cost of living in urban and rural Canada. It would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs, displace 450,000 direct and indirect jobs and threaten the jobs of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces in energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture. It would especially harm remote, rural, indigenous and resource-based communities, provinces and regions; blue-collar and lower-income workers; and indigenous and diverse Canadians, who will face higher job disruptions and more challenges finding new opportunities because they work in Canada's oil and gas sector at a much higher rate than in other sectors.

The NDP-Liberal agenda to phase out Canadian oil and gas compromises Canadian energy and national security. Therefore, Canadians across seven provinces and two territories call on the government to stop its unjust transition and to value private sector-led energy transformation through technology, not taxes, instead of through government-centred plans and subsidies, to bring home Canadian energy jobs, technology and investment, which would benefit all Canadians in every city, town and region.

[Rosa Galvez]

It will enable the sustainable jobs act. Without money, you cannot have your sustainable jobs act.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an amusing question from the member for Winnipeg North. If we could hook up a windmill in front of him, his speaking time, I am sure, could power most of what the Liberals are proposing.

No one believes the Liberals have any intention of helping resource-developing provinces. Whether it is Bill C-50, which is going to have the emission cap and punish Newfoundland as well, Bill C-69, the no-new-pipeline bill, or banning ships off the B.C. coast, the Liberals have zero believability when they say they are there for resource-producing provinces. It is no different in this bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-49. As I have mentioned in the House, I have had the pleasure of living across the country, from one side to the other, from Victoria to northern Alberta and even in Newfoundland for a while. Therefore, Bill C-49 hits a bit close for me, so I am very pleased to speak to it.

To sum up Newfoundland, I will tell members of an experience I had. One day in Edmonton, I was door knocking for the first campaign in 2015. A lot of Newfoundlanders live in my riding of Edmonton West, or as I call it, “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall”. A couple was in the garage. It was a hot day and the garage door was open. They were sitting having a beer inside their garage, and we started chatting. They said they were from Newfoundland, and I said I used to live in St. John's, so we started chatting. They invited me to have a beer, so I sat down with them. We had a nice beer together.

A couple of years later, during the horrible forest fires in Fort McMurray, where, of course, a lot of people from Newfoundland were living, the residents had to evacuate. This couple had taken in a couple from Fort McMurray, who also were Newfoundlanders. I was at an event one night at the Good Shepherd Church. It was a fundraising event. I ran into this couple, and they introduced me to this other couple who they were housing. They were complete strangers, but because they were Newfoundlanders, they were happy to take in this couple. We started chatting and they said they were from St. John's. I said that I used to live there and they asked where. I said I used to live on Bindon Place.

It turned out that they were my former neighbours. This couple lived in the lot right behind our house. Back then, if anyone has ever lived in St. John's, they would know it has very lovely winters with lots of snow. The first year I lived there, we had 22 feet of snow, a record amount of snow. It was not until June that I found out we actually had an eight-foot fence in our backyard. This couple was laughing about living behind us. I had to laugh because, at the time, we had this beautiful dog named Doonesbury. He was the world's greatest dog. He would wander on these huge snowbanks, from yard to yard because, of course, the snow was way above the fence. It turned out that he had often visited their yard to do his business, so it was years later that I had the opportunity to apologize for my dog.

There are a few things I would note about people from Newfoundland. They really never leave the rock. I worked in Fort McMurray for a while, and we had the largest club at the time, the Newfoundland club. When we would meet in Fort McMurray, they all had the same wish; they wanted to be able to go back home to work and to get good jobs, which of course were not available. That is why they were in Fort McMurray. When I lived in Newfoundland, every time I travelled to the mainland or away, usually to Nova Scotia where our regional office was, and then flew back to St. John's, I would land at about midnight at the airport, and there were always about 50 to 70 people, families holding up signs and welcoming back their family members, who were mostly coming from Alberta because of work. Since taking over this job nine years ago, I have probably returned to the Edmonton airport 300 to 400 times, and not once has anyone been waiting there for me with a sign. With Newfoundlanders, it was always like that. It was quite amazing.

It is a beautiful city. I enjoyed my time living there, although I cannot say the same about the weather with the massive amounts of snow. I remember that on the May long weekend, I was flying to Nova Scotia; I think it was May 21. The day before, in Halifax, there was a record high of 36°C. I was waiting in St. John's for my wife to come home with the car and drive me to the airport. We had a snowstorm, and she got the car stuck in the driveway in a snowbank. She walked in with our two kids, who were about one and two years old at the time. With tears streaming, she said that she was leaving me and was moving back to Victoria. That almost sums up the weather. However, I noticed a month later, in late June, that we were shovelling the snow in the driveway, and in the back of the house where there was sun, we were mowing the backyard. That is the weather in Newfoundland.

Everywhere I have lived, I have run into people from Newfoundland who want to get back to the rock, but they want good jobs. Bill C-49 I do not see delivering that. There are quite a few flaws in the bill. I want to go over some of them.

Clause 19 of Bill C-49 would open the door to more red tape and likely to delays. We have heard repeatedly about a lack of investment and productivity in this country. It takes 15 to 20 years to get a mine approval and years to get a housing approval. In Alberta, we see people not wanting to invest in the country because they know the red tape and the approval process make it so slow. Clause 19 is going to add to that and going to discourage investment. It would shift decision-making power and licence approvals to the federal and provincial ministers, while tripling the amount of time the decision can take.

The government often talks about how we need experts to make the decisions, yet this bill will take power away from experts and regulators and put it into the hands of the very partisan and biased natural resources minister. Can members imagine anyone who is involved in resource investment in this country looking at our current environment minister or natural resources minister and saying that Canada looks like a great place to invest in because they can trust their opinions? Of course not.

Clause 28 would give the federal minister, with the approval of the provincial minister, the power to outright ban drilling in certain areas and to even halt projects that are already approved and in progress. That sounds a bit like Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain. That was approved, and it was going to spend billions of dollars just to find out that the government can retroactively change the rules. Who wants to invest in this environment? Who wants to create good jobs in this kind of an environment? If the bill were to pass with clause 28 as written, it would put an end to offshore petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada, killing good-paying jobs for workers and further strengthening eastern Canada's dependence on foreign oil imports from dictatorships like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

We have seen how the government treats resource projects in this country. Section 61 and 62 would invariably be abused by the government, and they would attach so many strings that approval for projects would become unfeasible. Does anyone remember energy east? We have TransCanada ready to spend billions of dollars so we can bring Alberta oil and Saskatchewan oil out east to get the eastern provinces off of U.S. oil and off of dictator oil. Instead, the government threw up so many roadblocks and changed the goalposts so many times, it ended up cancelling the project.

Section 61 and 62 would bring the unconstitutional Bill C-69 into the review process, allowing the minister to attach any conditions they see fit to an approval. Sections from the Impact Assessment Act, previously Bill C-69, also known as the no-new-pipeline bill, have been put into Bill C-49. On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled Bill C-69 largely unconstitutional. The federal government has not fixed those sections to date. If Bill C-49 is passed, as written, it would include 32 references to sections of Bill C-69 that the Supreme Court identified as unconstitutional.

Bill C-49 also includes the discretionary decision-making power of the minister and the entirety of the designated project scheme, both of which are unconstitutional, so components of Bill C-49 may also be unconstitutional. Section 64 of Bill C-69 was deemed unconstitutional, and is referenced throughout Bill C-49, which allows the minister to interfere in a project they think is in the public interest and create any conditions they deem necessary to which the project proponent must comply.

We, in Alberta, know full well what the government does to resource projects. We know full well how it works against resource projects. Of course, we had Bill C-50, the so-called just transition bill, which we called the unjust transition bill. It would be absolutely devastating to Alberta.

I want to give members some numbers the conference board put together. Bill C-50 would destroy 91,000 jobs in Alberta. That is a 58% increase in Alberta's jobless rate. There would be a decline in our GDP of almost 4%, and a 50% bigger hit than the 2008 financial crisis. Alberta revenue would be chopped up to $127 billion over 10 years. That is almost a 20% drop per year.

We see very clearly the Liberal government's intention toward our natural resources. It is kill the resources at all costs, send Canadians into poverty, hurt Alberta, hurt Newfoundland, and hurt resource-producing provinces, which is why we will not vote for Bill C-49.

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

Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost. That way we could pass Bill C-49 because we know that the provinces are looking forward to getting something like this done, and then move on to Bill C-50.

The Liberals basically programmed the committee so we had to do Bill C-50 first and then do Bill C-49. It was done in such a fast fashion. We had industry representatives come in to say that they were not consulted. It is a complete dumpster fire.

I am wondering if my colleague has any explanation as to why the government would want to ram forward something rather than doing our job as parliamentarians, which is to make sure that we get the bill right and make sure we pass a constitutional bill in the first place.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's really great to get back to what I was saying. I was just talking about the good-faith attempt we made to work with the Conservatives to come up with an agenda for this committee that would move us through May and June in an orderly fashion to accomplish all the things we had on our agenda, including some of the studies that were before the committee but haven't been completed. That included, obviously, the first order of priority, which is the budget implementation act.

The Conservatives withheld support for that. That's fine. It's their prerogative to do so, but for them to come to committee and suggest that I somehow table-dropped a motion.... The motion I brought to committee was exactly what we had discussed in our previous meeting, so it wasn't a big surprise. Everybody knew what priorities we had identified. I think the Conservatives knew very quickly that they were in the minority in the membership of this committee. That's why we're in a filibuster today.

The Conservatives put forward an amendment and then a subamendment. The subamendment is what we're debating now. It is exactly what the Conservatives are avoiding a vote on. Really, what we're doing here is listening to five and a half hours—I guess it's now going on six and a half hours just today—of a filibuster from the Conservatives. I'm just pointing out what it is for anybody who's still paying attention and still has the patience to pay attention to these committee proceedings. I hope they are paying attention.

In reality, the Conservatives know the vote isn't going to go their way on the subamendment. Therefore, they're holding this committee hostage by continuing to talk ad infinitum. What we heard from MP Chambers earlier was him reading, for over an hour, the transcript from a podcast of Mark Carney on The Herle Burly. We had him reading that into the record, which is certainly not the most creative filibuster I've ever heard by far. Anyway, I guess some Conservatives lack imagination. That's okay.

In reality, all we want to do is get down to business on the budget implementation act. Why? In my view, that's what the 142,000 members of my community want to see me working on. The budget implementation act entails key supports for Canadians.

Conservatives are citing.... One of their members here did a kind of drive-by, insulting me and then leaving the committee room. It was Mr. Jivani. I would invite him to come back and continue the conversation.

What's interesting is that he talked about food banks and food bank lineups. We hear the Conservatives every day in the House of Commons citing food bank lineups as if they truly care about the people in those lineups. We're putting forward a national school food program, which is going to feed 400,000 children across Canada over the next five years. That's a billion dollars of investment.

How can the Conservatives, while sitting there, literally filibustering and blocking important work on the budget implementation act, tell me they actually care about people in food bank lineups? They're blocking real support for Canadians, such as dental care, additional child care spaces, pharmacare, the national school food program and the Canada disability benefit. These are key supports for those very families they say they care about.

I find it a bit rich. It's hard for me to accept them at face value when they're sitting here, spouting stuff off as if they really care about Canadian families. I don't believe it. It's just misleading. I don't know how I can interpret that as authentic and genuine commitment for their constituents.

I know my constituents care about a national school food program. They care about the clean technology manufacturing and clean hydrogen tax credits. They care about the Canada carbon rebate for small business. They care about enhancing the homebuyers' plan and extending the ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing by two years. They care about the Canada Education Savings Act and the automatic enrolment we're putting forward in the BIA, as well as many of the other things that are included in the BIA.

What's interesting, though, just to go back to last week, which was our constituency week.... I understand the Conservatives wanted to put forward a Standing Order 106(4) to call an emergency meeting. What's interesting is that I had indicated to the Conservatives in the previous week that I was more than open and that our whole side of the committee here, in terms of Liberal members, was open to studying anti-money laundering.

They used valuable committee resources and then came and got upset because they tripped themselves up. Their Standing Order 106(4) motion was during a week that we had previously suspended a meeting, so they ended up having to continue their filibuster on Mr. Morantz's subamendment. They didn't like that, of course. They, again, tried to flip it around—flip the script—and blame the Liberal members.

In reality, the budget implementation act has numerous significant measures to enhance combatting money laundering. I note that several of my colleagues have already read into the record portions of the BIA that deal specifically with anti-money laundering. I won't go into depth on that. However, I do feel that it's important to point out the fact that Conservatives say they want to study anti-money laundering, yet they're blocking the budget implementation act and the study of that budget bill includes anti-money laundering measures that are really significant.

We've also indicated that we would happily study that after we finish the work on the BIA. That's not good enough for them either. Not only are they blocking essential work on anti-money laundering through the BIA, but they're also not willing to concede that we're being reasonable and working in good faith, saying that we're willing to have meetings on anti-money laundering if the Conservatives want to continue work on that topic. We're more than happy to do that. Why? It's because we have a record that, every single year and every single FES and budget bill, there have been additional measures on anti-money laundering. Our government feels confident that we're moving forward and that we take those issues seriously. There are things that we can continue to study and offer solutions and measures on to continue to combat money laundering, which is a serious topic.

I just think it's a bit rich that Conservatives are sitting there claiming that we're essentially not.... They basically claim that we're blocking our own BIA, when the truth is that the Conservatives are filibustering on their own subamendment. That's what's challenging for me to accept.

I'm just pointing out what is, honestly, before the committee. To me, this is eating into valuable committee time and resources that could be dedicated to hearing key witnesses on the budget implementation act.

I had a member from the Conservatives say earlier—I think it was MP Hallan—that he had criticism, critiques and questions for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. She already appeared at this committee and took questions for an hour from the members of this committee on the BIA. It doesn't quite jibe—what the Conservatives have said here at committee today and the actual truth, which is that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has already answered significant questions that have come from opposition parties. I think that's important. We felt it certainly was important that the minister come and answer those questions.

I think the other thing for me is this: When you have members who read the transcripts of a podcast into the record, whether they're related to the subamendment or not, it just shows that they're intent on wasting time and that they're not really interested in studying affordability. They're not really interested in dealing with any of the issues that they say they want to deal with, considering that the budget implementation act deals with affordability issues and anti-money laundering.

We've said that if you want to invite Mark Carney as a witness, go ahead. I understand that their interest is purely partisan.

I think MP Davies when he was here covered that quite well in demonstrating that Conservatives have said from the beginning that they only want to have Mr. Carney come to committee for their partisan purposes. They want to speculate on his intentions, and I just don't see.... Fine, invite him, but working him into a motion clearly has an alternative motive that I think is an abuse of parliamentary power and we shouldn't be doing that unless there's a good reason to do so. We have seen in the past Conservatives use a summons and try to summons private citizens to committee. I think we should only do that in very limited circumstances.

From my perspective—it would be really great—if Conservatives really want to get down to business on anti-money laundering, or any host of other issues that they've cited, then why don't we vote on the subamendment and why won't Conservatives allow us to vote here today on the subamendment that they put forward? Is it because they know they are going to lose that vote, or is it that they just don't really want to get to the study of the budget implementation act?

It's pretty clear to me that they don't want to study the budget implementation act at all, because if they did we could be using the valuable time and resources we have this week to hear from witnesses, which would be, I think, valuable.

I have 300 witnesses I bet would be willing to come before this committee and speak to the national school food program and the importance of it across Canada, not to mention many other witnesses for many of the other measures that are included in the budget implementation act. I think it would serve our constituents well if we were actually doing the work that this committee is tasked with doing, which is actually studying the budget that's before this committee.

I would say let's get to a vote. I don't have high hopes for the Conservatives allowing that to happen because of the obstruction that we have seen throughout this committee and many other committees. I know that it's not just this committee that they are obstructing. We saw it on the sustainable jobs act. We have seen it on the updates to the Atlantic accords. We have seen it in very many other circumstances.

Since I have been here since 2019, I have seen many a Conservative filibuster. They don't want to get down to the work of this committee even though in good faith we have said, yes, let's study AML after we finish the budget implementation act. That's not good enough. They want to have it their way, and they don't want to do the work that is, I would say, the top priority of a finance committee, which is to study the budget implementation act.

Okay, I'll leave it there, Chair. Thanks very much.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024. This budget is about what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build together.

For generations, Canada has been a place where everyone could secure a better future for themselves and their children, and where a growing economy created opportunities for everyone to succeed. However, to ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we know that we must grow our economy to make it more innovative, productive and sustainable. We must build an economy where every Canadian can reach their full potential, where every entrepreneur has the tools needed to grow their business and where hard work pays off.

Building the economy of the future is about creating jobs in the knowledge economy, in manufacturing, in mining and forestry, in the trades, in clean energy and across the economy in all regions of the country. To do this, our government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investment to Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share. Bill C-69 is a crucial step in opening up these new pathways.

Bill C-69 takes us forward on the understanding that, in the 21st century, a competitive economy is a clean economy. There is no greater proof than the 2.4 trillion dollars' worth of investment made around the world last year alone in the transition to net-zero economies. Experts say we are at a global inflection point, with clean energy investments surpassing investments in conventional energy, with the cost of renewable technology dropping significantly, including wind, solar and heat pumps, as technology advancements are made and deployed at scale, and with companies that outperform their peers in decarbonizing more competitive and yielding higher returns for stakeholders.

As the big anchor investment decisions around the globe are being made to secure the global supply chains for the emerging clean economy, we need to ensure Canada is best positioned to compete and lead the way by seizing the massive opportunities to attract investment and generate economic growth that will bring decades of prosperity. That is why our government is putting Canada at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities of the clean economy with a net-zero economic plan that will invest over $160 billion to maintain and extend our lead in this global race.

The cornerstone of our plan is an unprecedented suite of major economic investment tax credits, which will help attract investment through $93 billion in incentives by the year 2034-35. That includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean technology investment tax credit, the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, clean electricity and, added in budget 2024, an EV supply chain investment tax credit. These investment tax credits will provide businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build here in Canada. They are already attracting major job-creating projects, ensuring we remain globally competitive.

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the announcement in Alliston, Ontario, where Honda made the largest investment in Canadian automotive history, investing over $15 billion. This is a huge vote of confidence in our economy. Out of all the countries in the world, Honda chose Canada to build its comprehensive, end-to-end EV supply chain, which will mean thousands of good-paying jobs for decades to come. The federal investment tax credits were essential in remaining competitive and securing that generational investment. From new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses to carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry, our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050.

In November 2023, our government introduced Bill C-59 to deliver the first two investment tax credits and provide businesses with the certainty they need to make investment decisions in Canada today. That bill also included labour requirements to ensure workers are paid prevailing union wages and apprentices have opportunities to gain experience and succeed in the workforce.

With Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024, we would be making two more of these major economic investment tax credits a reality to attract more private investment, create more well-paying jobs and grow the economy.

First, it would implement the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, which would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing and processing, and extraction and processing of key critical minerals equal to 30% of the capital cost of eligible property associated with eligible activities.

Investments by corporations in certain depreciable property that is used for eligible activities would qualify for the credit. Eligible property would generally include machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, processing or critical mineral extraction, as well as related control systems.

Eligible investments would cover activities that will be key to securing our future, including things like the manufacture of certain renewable energy equipment like solar, wind, water or geothermal. It would cover the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and electrical energy storage equipment used to provide grid-scale storage. It would cover the manufacturing of equipment for air and ground storage heat pump systems; the manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, including the conversion of on-road vehicles; as well as the manufacturing of batteries, fuel cells, recharging systems and hydrogen refuelling stations for zero-emision vehicles, not to mention the manufacturing of equipment used to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. These are the technologies that will power our future.

Bill C-69's clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would power the investment that is needed to build them today and build them here at home.

The bill would also make the clean hydrogen investment tax credit a reality, which would exclusively support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit would be available as of March 28, 2023, and could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use at an applicable credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

Eligible equipment could include, but is not limited to, the equipment required to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water, including electrolyzers, rectifiers and other ancillary electrical equipment; water treatment and conditioning equipment; and certain equipment used for hydrogen compression and storage. Certain equipment required to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other eligible hydrocarbons, with emissions abated using carbon capture, utilization and storage, would also be eligible. Property that is required to convert clean hydrogen to clean ammonia may also be eligible for the credit, subject to certain conditions, at a credit rate of 15%.

It is important to realize that these clean economy investment tax credits work to incentivize investment and remain competitive but also do not stand alone. They are just part of the tool box that also includes legislation like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act; the Canadian sustainable jobs act and amendments to CEPA, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; regulations like the clean fuel regulations, the carbon pricing and oil and gas emissions cap; programs like the strategic innovation fund and many others; and the blended finance utilities that the government has launched, including the Canada growth fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These all work together, and that is why we are seeing the results we are seeing.

Bill C-69's support for these investments comes at a pivotal moment when we can choose to renew and redouble our investments in the economy of the future, to build an economy that is more productive and more competitive, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

With Bill C-69, we would not make that mistake. Our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. I could not be more proud of our work in this area.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to rise on behalf of the residents of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and raise their voices here in this chamber. In the last number of months, I have had many people reach out, sharing their concerns regarding the cost of living. They are sharing that they are in crisis or nearly in crisis as they see ever-rising costs of gas, groceries, home heating and everything.

We see so many who are struggling, and all they see is their costs going up under the punishing carbon tax regime and the tax and spend from the NDP-Liberal government. What they have also come to clearly understand is that this is a tax plan that has been sold to Canadians as an environmental plan. However, Canadians can now see it for what it truly is; they have come to understand that it means they pay more, but there is no environmental gain.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal coalition is simply not worth the cost.

A few weeks ago, I had a group of bright young students come for a visit from Ardmore School. Members might not know where Ardmore is. It is in northeastern Alberta, between the communities of Bonnyville and Cold Lake along Highway 28. This is a relatively rural community that has two major economic drivers: the energy industry and agriculture.

The students from Ardmore School saw the wonder of Parliament Hill. It was inspiring to me, and it reminded me of how lucky we are, each and every one of us, to be able to sit here and work hard for the constituents in our ridings. One boy shared that the whole experience of coming to Parliament Hill was the highlight of his life.

These students were able to see the inner workings of Ottawa when they came here. They got to watch question period from up in the gallery and had a wave from the leader of the official opposition. They got to meet many members of Parliament in the hallways of this magnificent building and watch the debate on Bill C-50, the unjust transition bill, a bill that is, simply put, an attack on Canada's energy sector.

These students questioned very succinctly why so many politicians in the chamber constantly attack the energy industry. These students see first-hand, day in and day out, the positive impacts the energy industry has in their community. They understand how hard these people work and how the members of the energy industry are there when it is -50° so we can stay in our homes and stay warm.

One student shared her concerns regarding the increasing cost of living, what it would mean for her future and, specifically, what it would mean for her ability to attend post-secondary education. This is really important to highlight: These were students in junior high, and they could see very clearly that the cost of living, which has been made a crisis under the NDP-Liberal government, is having real impacts on someone that has not even gone to high school yet.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with a group of grade 7, 8 and 9 students from Frank Spragins High School in Fort McMurray, along with their principal, my friend Dan Tulk. They shared their thoughts and fears about what the cost of living crisis would mean for their future. Again, they highlighted their concerns about the cost of groceries and the cost of gas and what these costs would mean for their ability to attend post-secondary education, buy a house and have a family.

One particular student, in very unparliamentary terms, shared his thoughts about our Prime Minister's leadership. When we started to tease through the fact that name-calling was not okay, he said that people cannot afford to live right now. This student, Ryder, had many really intelligent comments about what he saw. He spoke very succinctly, and it was really frustrating to me when this student said that he did not understand why so many politicians hate the oil sands and the energy industry. It was a tough question for me, because I too struggle with it.

I am proud of the work done by our hard-working oil and gas, and, like Ryder, I do not understand why politicians in this chamber fail to understand the opportunity that exists in Canada's world-class energy sector.

We constantly see attacks on our energy sector at every possible opportunity. There are eco-radical politicians who do this at the direct cost of our hard-working energy workers, the future of communities right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Canada, and Canada's economy.

At a time when we desperately need economic growth, eco-radicals guide Canadian policy. They have an intense hate for our world-class energy industry. They sit at the cabinet table and hold the pen on the costly coalition that keeps the government in power, pushing for ever more blows to this industry.

They have made no attempt to hide their distaste for the oil and gas industry. However, in this budget, I think it is kind of interesting that we see the Minister of Finance use a rather rosy benchmark for West Texas Intermediate, the crude oil price of $78 U.S.

It is worth noting that this is a rosier outlook than my home province of Alberta's forecast, which was $74 U.S. At some point, I would be very curious to see the modelling that was used to get to this number. While they attack the industry, they have no issue whatsoever benefiting from the profits.

The anti-energy agenda from the government has been consistent and punishing over the last nine years. Anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, and an outright veto of approved export pipelines have all hurt this industry.

Despite asks to export Canadian liquefied natural gas from Germany, Japan and, most recently, Poland, among others, time and time again, the answer from the Prime Minister has been that there is no business case. At a time when the world is calling, Canada's NDP-Liberal government refuses to answer. It seems more interested in supporting dirty dictator oil and fuelling Putin's war machine than in supporting Canada's world-class energy industry. That is absolutely shameful.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal budget is just more of the same that got us into this mess. The Prime Minister did not do anything to stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop putting our social programs, jobs and economy at risk by adding more debt. Simply put, he is not worth the cost for any generation, despite what he says. He is responsible for record deficits, which are driving up record inflation rates. Both have very real impacts on the budgets of hard-working Canadians.

We see story after story about record-breaking visits to food banks right across the country. Last year, food banks received a record two million visits in a single month. They are anticipating that an additional million people will visit food banks this year, an extra million people having to access food banks.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include over $61 billion in new inflationary spending, costing the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Most families do not have that lying around.

Students from communities right across my riding see the insanity. They understand that, when governments spend more of their money, costs go up. The hard-working energy workers who see the industry they work in under constant attack understand the hypocrisy.

World leaders who are looking for energy solutions understand the potential in Canada's world-class energy industry. Can one imagine a world in which our Prime Minister believed in our economy as much as these world leaders do? Sadly, what else can we expect from a Prime Minister who would rather wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians?

Hope is on the horizon. It is not all doom and gloom. Canada's common-sense Conservatives will support Canada's world-class energy industry. We are ready to stand up and govern. As has been shared by many of my colleagues, it is time to get Canada back on track.

We will axe the carbon tax, reducing the costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will invest in technology, not taxes, to deliver environmental gains. This is common sense.

I would invite all members of the House to vote non-confidence in the Prime Minister, who, after nine years, is simply not worth the cost. We can vote against this budget and deliver common sense for the common people.