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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

—by taking the floor away from him on the debate on the programming motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

[Chris Roberts]

Bill C-50 and the sustainable jobs framework contemplate a partnership council that will bring workers, industry and other interests together to address the skills and labour market programming needs to make that transition.

We can similarly fashion institutions that bring workers and their organizations into the process. There is an AI advisory council currently. Unfortunately, it's constituted exclusively by industry and academics. There are no civil society, labour or human rights advocacy organizations, etc.

That would be a starting point—to create a body that can identify skills needs and programs that are required, collaboratively, and instill some of that social licence that's required. Then, I think having sectoral tables as well that identify industry and sector-specific needs in response to AI development and the digitalization of work would take us a long way down the road.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an absolutely fascinating and timely discussion. Today President Joe Biden tweeted about his executive order on AI. I know that tomorrow the U.K. will be hosting an international summit on AI safety. Again, this is a very, very timely discussion. I want to thank my colleague, Michael Coteau, for bringing this study forward to the committee.

Mr. Roberts, I was very interested to read the report that was published by the CLC and the Pembina Institute and that just came out in September, “A Sustainable Jobs Blueprint”. It talks about how Canada can build a framework of supports that can help workers transition to a zero-emission economy. It's a great read. I highly recommend it. It really dovetails nicely with the legislation that's in front of Parliament right now, Bill C-50, which we brought forward.

Can you talk about some of the parallels or lessons from that conversation or from that process and how they might apply to this conversation about the challenges, whether it's AI or whether it's automation or digitization, and about what lessons and parallels we can draw from that?

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

I want to clarify what I heard from Mr. Simard. I want to have this clear so that I understand it going forward.

Mr. Simard said if members, say, Mr. Perkins or Mr. Viersen, who are not voting members of the committee attempt to speak, he will object. That will mean they actually have no right to speak, because their right to speak is contingent upon the committee agreeing to let non-members speak.

Is that what I heard from Mr. Simard? It would make Mr. Genuis's point moot, but he could talk all night about whatever he wants to talk about, because we're dealing with a filibuster against Bill C-50.

On the issue of non-voting members trying to speak, if there's an objection raised, they will not be recognized.

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?

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will continue to push forward on this. This legislation has to be passed.

This committee had 56 meetings with 133 witnesses and over 112 hours of testimony. We know what the energy file is. We know what the sustainable jobs issue is. We need to get this legislation passed.

We are hearing from labour groups across the country who are very concerned. I'm hearing from investors who are looking to shift investment to the United States because they are seeing that Canada is becoming a gridlock, with the Conservatives blocking Bill C-49, when there are such opportunities.

To that, this motion that I read, or my attempt to speak to this, was referred to us because two pieces of legislation were referred to our committee. As someone who has been in Parliament for multiple years and in opposition for all that time, I don't always agree with how government works. I know that when government moves legislation to the committee, it becomes the priority of the committee. The committee has to address that legislation.

What we saw from the Conservatives was an attempt to monkeywrench that motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 by introducing another study on top of that. I reached out to the Conservatives. I said that I'd be more than willing to look at that study, but that study would have to come in order. It doesn't get to pre-empt the work that has been given to us by Parliament. There is a timeline ticking on this. We need to get this done. This is what we're hearing from labour.

We have a series of these amendments that are very.... First, it was Sudbury. Suddenly, we're going to have people from Sudbury. It wasn't really clear who we were going to have from Sudbury, but we were going to get somebody from Sudbury. The Conservatives suddenly were really fascinated. It's funny. They didn't have anybody come when the coal transition happened. It was the New Democrats who brought representatives who went through the coal transition. They didn't bring anybody. Suddenly, they wanted someone from Sudbury.

I believe the motion was that they wanted representatives from the mining industry in Timmins, which I think is a great idea. I would love to have a set of meetings with representatives from the mining region of Timmins, maybe Val-d'Or, maybe Sudbury, but outside of this meeting on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because it would certainly be a huge education to my Conservative colleagues.

If they think that the mining representatives from northern Ontario are going to come down and back their climate-denying anti-investment in EV technology, I think they're going to be in for a big surprise.

We have Alamos Gold in Matachewan that's running 8,000 tonnes of gold a day underground. That's massive. When I go underground at Alamos, we talk about the really important need to move from diesel to electric trucks. That's a huge investment. Those ITCs will be huge for being able to move those kinds of underground pit trucks to battery power.

There's the Newmont mine. I would love to invite Newmont to come and talk about Borden. Borden is a mine that's running almost entirely green now. It is possible.

Again, this is something my Conservative colleagues would not probably know anything about. When you work underground in a diesel environment and work with oil from the drills, the lung cancers and stomach cancers are enormous, just from what you're breathing.

When you go into a clean battery-driven mine, the air is so much cleaner, and it drops your costs enormously. What you pay in battery investments, you actually make up in less cost for underground fans. When you have to run fans, let's say at Creighton, deep, 9,000 feet underground, you're pumping a lot of cool air down at those depths. When you run diesel motors at that depth, you have to run really heavy fans.

I talk to mining representatives, and I'm sure they would love to come to this committee to talk about how ITCs would help in those investments so that we could make switches. For example, I believe Vale, which is not in my region, but is in Ms. Lapointe's region, is running 72-ton haulage trucks now on batteries. That's a really transformative moment. People didn't think that was possible. Certainly the flat earth EV deniers would say that you couldn't run trucks that big. What they can do now, because of how they've tied the batteries to the braking energy on those pit trucks, is run from six hours to 10 hours. A 10-hour shift on a battery hauling 72 tons of ore is a major transformative moment.

I would love to have them come and talk about that technology and why they are absolutely committed to the clean-tech future, because they see the opportunities for mining.

Whenever I talk to people in the mining sector, they get it. If we're going to be competing against China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there are horrific human rights abuses, we need to have a supply chain that is free of the abuses that are happening in places like Congo, but also that has a clean energy footprint. We can't say we're going to be a clean energy superpower and get critical minerals unless our mines are able to start running on clean energy.

That leads to questions on the grid.

I know, Chair, when you were sitting as just one of the members, we were going to study the grid, something my Conservative colleagues don't seem to want to deal with. But the grid is important, because we actually can't move some of this battery technology for big industrial projects without dealing with issues of the grid.

I think it would be really great to have representatives of the Timmins mining industry. They would also explain to the Conservatives that Bill C-69 has really nothing to do with how mine projects are developed. I know Conservatives are going on that it takes 10 to 15 years to get a mine up and running, and they blame the Liberal government for that. Well, it always takes 10 to 15 years for a mine, because when you're talking about a multi-million dollar investment underground, you have to make sure you really know where you're putting your infrastructure. If you put the shaft in the wrong place, you're going to go bankrupt pretty quickly, and you're not going to be able to raise the money on the international market until you've done all the important steps that are necessary.

Take Doug Ford. He announced he was going to run a bulldozer through the Ring of Fire. Well, that didn't go so well. I wouldn't be betting any money on the Ring of Fire right now, because it was Conservative politicians who shot their mouths off about the Ring of Fire. If you go to Neskantaga First Nation, they're saying, “It ain't going to happen, because it's not done properly.” To build a mine properly, you have to have a proper environmental plan, a proper financial plan, the support of first nations, because when you have the support of first nations, things move a lot quicker.

For example, we had representatives from the Timmins mining region come—

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting, because, again, we have not been able to discuss this at all without the Conservatives losing their minds on this, interrupting, demanding that I speak on what they want me to speak about.

I am here to speak about important legislation, two pieces of legislation, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we move Bill C-50 forward. What we've seen is interference by the Conservatives to discuss other things, to move ahead, to ignore something that was moved in legislation. Bill C-49 is absolutely essential, because we are dealing with the need to be able to compete on the maritime east coast when we're losing out to the Biden administration. That is something the Conservatives don't want us to talk about, so I'm not surprised they are interfering and attempting to, again, play gong show games here.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have to say I'm absolutely not surprised that I was interrupted, even trying to read the motion, because this motion instruction is about getting, number one, Bill C-50, which is very important legislation about having workers at the table for the transition that is happening. Every time we have tried to bring workers here, we have seen gong show tactics from the Conservatives that have stopped them from speaking, so I'm not surprised that they're trying to interrupt this important work now.

When the carpenters' union came we had a Conservative gong show and they didn't speak. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers came and there were gong show tactics from the Conservatives. They didn't let them speak. They represent so many people in the oil patch, and they have so much to say, so I'm not surprised that we're dealing with these constant games to stop legislation that is about making sure the workers have a right to be here, because they have stopped workers speaking every moment.

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

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Angus started the meeting with the floor. He was not interrupted until he finished reading the motion, but he conveniently left out the amendment the Conservatives put forward to make sure that Bill C-49 is actually given precedence. We want to undertake a study on Bill C-69, but of consequence, we want Bill C-49 to go ahead of Bill C-50, for the sake of ordering.

I just want to make sure all committee members remember that Bill C-49 should come ahead of Bill C-50, and we would like to see Bill C-49 first.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I want to provide a reminder once again. We had a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the Atlantic accords, Bill C-49. We have an amendment brought forward to Mr. Sorbara's main motion by Ms. Stubbs. We have had a subamendment brought forward by Mr. Falk.

We are on the subamendment by Mr. Falk. Mr. Angus has the floor on the subamendment with many other members waiting.

We have a few folks on a point of order. I'm going to go through the points of order of a few people.

I'm going to go to Ms. Stubbs first on a point order. Then we'll go to the next member after Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, as I reminded other committee members, please be succinct on your point order.

The floor is yours on the point of order.

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

If we can go down that tangent as quickly as possible, Bill C-49 is important for Atlantic Canadians and Bill C-50 is important for all Canadians.

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

Chair, I very much wish to be quite brief.

I put forward a motion, I believe a regular scheduling motion, for our committee to go over Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

It is November 8 today, if I am correct. We would have had the minister here with us today at committee looking at two important pieces of legislation for all Canadians and for all parts of the country. I believe there's an amendment on the table, or a subamendment on the floor, if I could get clarification.

There's a subamendment that is being debated right now. I would hope that all parties can get to a point where we can vote on the subamendment and then vote on the revised amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Falk, I'm going to you on a point of order, but before I do, sir, for committee members, I'm going to give a quick reminder on some important reflections I've had over the last few minutes.

On page 1058, in chapter 20, partway down the paragraph on disorder and misconduct, it states, “If a committee desires that specific sanctions be taken against those disrupting the proceedings, it must report the situation to the House. The House may then take such measures as it deems appropriate.” Then it says, “In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored.” That's what I've done on several occasions today.

In previous meetings and in this one, the health and safety of our interpreters with members speaking over each other with many mikes on was a concern, and it still is a concern. Today, I'm very delighted to see that we have not gone down that path. I know that our interpreters are very grateful for one mike at a time, and I'm very grateful that we are taking the health and safety of our interpreters seriously. I hope that will continue. As mentioned, I will suspend the meeting if I feel that the health and safety of our interpreters is being jeopardized.

Under “Decisions of the Chair and Appeals” on page 1059 of chapter 20, it says, “Decisions by the Chair are not debatable.” It says that very clearly here. It also says, “They can, however, be appealed to the committee.”

Colleagues, every member of this committee has the right to participate in the proceedings of this committee. If you feel that a decision that's made is not one that you believe is the right one, you have the right to challenge the chair and the ruling—not to engage in debate but to challenge the chair. That is a clearly stated rule. I would encourage members to use that if you deem it's necessary.

I would also encourage members to allow members to participate. An important part of this committee's proceedings is that members who have the floor are able to debate the motions that are presented.

I'm going to remind everyone, for all those folks sitting at home who may have just tuned in, where we are. We have a motion on the floor presented by Mr. Sorbara regarding the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the Atlantic accords bill.

We then have an amendment that was brought forward by Ms. Stubbs.

We then have a subamendment that was brought forward by Mr. Falk, which we are currently on, and we are debating. On that subamendment, Mr. Angus has the floor and, as a member of this committee, has not been given the opportunity to participate in debate on an important subamendment that is actually related to his constituency.

I hope that provides clarity to all members. I know that Mr. Falk, who has brought forward this subamendment, would like to see it presented and debated. I know that Mr. Falk also has a point of order.

Before I go to Mr. Falk on a point of order, I would ask members, on points of order, to please be succinct and let's not engage in debate. I want to give you the opportunity to make your relevant points of order.

Mr. Falk, you have the floor, sir, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I've given you an opportunity to present your point of order. I've given Mr. Angus an opportunity to respond. I'm going to ask you to hold for a second.

Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Genuis. I do not find Mr. Angus's intervention unparliamentary, not from what he said and just restated. Clarification was provided.

I will ask all members once again to not use unparliamentary language in this committee room with one another. Focus on the work we are here to do in committee, not on making accusations and using unparliamentary language against one another, whoever that may be. We've had a number of meetings. We should not be resorting to using unparliamentary language. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching our deliberations today.

Focus on the task at hand. I will remind everybody that the task at hand is the motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara regarding Bill C-50 the Canadian sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords bill. The motion was moved by Mr. Sorbara. An amendment was moved by Ms. Stubbs. Then a subamendment was moved by Mr. Falk. That's where we are.

Mr. Angus has the floor. The chair's ruling has not been challenged. This committee is at the point where Mr. Angus has the floor to debate. We have other points of order. I'm going through the other points of order.

Mr. Falk, you have a point of order. Thank you for waiting very patiently.