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.

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

The issue here, Mr. Chair, is this. The member has denied that I had the floor, which is a falsehood. The chair has ruled on that, but he will not challenge him. The chair has ruled. The ruling of the chair has been sustained.

Now we see his attempt to drag out a fight with Ms. Lapointe, who I think has held herself with dignity.

This attempt to personalize it with me is.... I am somehow a problem for being denied the ability to participate by these constant attempts to interfere.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, to move on, because I have the floor.

I am certainly ready to start speaking to the motion regarding Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because I have workers who depend on us doing something. If Mr. Genuis's feelings are being hurt because he's being called out for his behaviour, misconduct and disorder, as you said, that is his issue. My issue is speaking for the workers of this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I am going to ask you to hold, Mr. Patzer. We are not going to engage, as I mentioned earlier.

A point of order is for a procedural issue, not for debate. I do have you on the list. At the time when you have the debate, if you would like to debate on the subamendment, you'll have the opportunity to do so, but we have dealt with the point of order.

I've already dealt with the issues of committee disorder earlier in my opening remarks. I think colleagues are quite aware that I've had to suspend many meetings over the last several weeks because of disorder, and I have done so again today.

I would ask members throughout the meeting to allow other members to participate, and to use parliamentary language, because as honourable members we all have the honour and privilege of being on this committee to do important work for Canadians. We'll remind everyone we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, Bill C-50, and on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords. We also have an amendment placed by Ms. Stubbs and we now have a subamendment placed by Mr. Falk on Timmins—James Bay. That is where we're at.

I have Ms. Dabrusin. I know you've been very patient. Thank you.

I have one more point of order by Ms. Stubbs and then we will proceed to.... We'll go to Ms. Stubbs on a point of order.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It is actually great to be here. I know you're probably thinking, “What did he have to drink before he came here”, but I certainly didn't drink anything.

Number one, I'm hoping I get to hear Mr. Angus take the floor, but I also want to highlight how important the motion and Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 are, if I may. In Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia, and in particular in Cape Breton—Canso, where I'm from, the amendment to the Atlantic accord—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think I have addressed your point of order. If you have another point of order, I'll ask you—

Once again, colleagues, I don't need a number of people to tell me who's next or who's not. I heard a point of order on your point of order. I've addressed that. If there is another member, I will address them.

I want to remind colleagues that we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara. We have an amendment by Ms. Stubbs. We have another subamendment on Timmins, for which Mr. Angus last had the floor. He is our next speaker, who hasn't been allowed to speak.

Colleagues, we all discussed last meeting the importance of this bill and the amendments. I hope today we can get through this subamendment on Timmins, go through our speaking order on Timmins—all the members who want to debate this important component of the subamendment—so we can get to the amendment that Ms. Stubbs brought forward. We can debate that and we can get to the main motion.

I'm really hoping that we can work together as a committee, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, studying the motion that Mr. Sorbara brought forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and then the additional amendment that Ms. Stubbs has brought forward.

This is the work of this committee, which Canadians expect us to do. If we can work together, everybody will have an opportunity to participate in debate and we can move forward.

I need all members to be very clear on where we are.

Ms. Dabrusin, you reminded us, and I should remind committee members of where we are as well, so there is no confusion.

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

Thank you.

Under Standing Order 116 and the ability of members to speak, we've had 56 meetings, 133 witnesses and 112 hours on the energy file. We're more than ready to move forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I'm looking at the motion that was provided by the Liberals. Given that we've had this relentless gong show of interruptions, people might not be aware of what we are actually debating. I think it's important to read it into the record:

That given Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, and Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. That is a privilege motion, which is now properly before the committee.

I will now speak on that question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee ultimately to determine whether to forward a report on that matter of privilege to the House. That is a privilege motion and I will now speak to it.

We were undertaking a debate on an important matter, which is Bill C-69, an amendment in relation to a programming motion on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There was an amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Patzer had the floor on a point of order, and that's the ruling.

The committee upheld and sustained the ruling of the chair. With that, I see that the committee members have confidence in what we are doing today and the important work on C-50 and C-49, the motion that was brought forward, the amendments and now the subamendment.

I would like to get back to the subamendment and to the individuals who were speaking so that we can continue to debate the subamendment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

We can spend the whole day naming everyone's ridings and saying we want to add them, but I don't think that'll change much. We can also shout the words "common sense" at each other 15 times, but I don't necessarily think that's "rational".

I see that my Conservative colleagues want to be heard. The best way to do that maybe to conduct the clause‑by-clause consideration of Bill C‑50. If they don't agree, they need only vote against it. I personally voted against Bill C‑50 in the House and did the same with Bill C‑49. I'm nevertheless prepared to hear the witnesses who will be here to express their views on the bill, just as I'm prepared to hear the minister and officials tell us about bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I don't know what my Conservative colleagues are trying to do with this mountain of oddball amendments they're proposing to us this morning, but I know that people are watching us now. Some of them are starting to think my colleagues' conduct is a bit much. The Conservative Party leadership tells the House that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat. Some people in my riding who hear that find it appalling.

There are some MPs here today who, instead of seriously discussing a bill, are proposing oddball amendments and citing the ridings of certain members in an attempt to find an excerpt that suggests those members don't want to listen to the people. I don't think that's a serious gambit. If we're being serious today, this afternoon, we will promptly vote on the subamendment and Ms. Stubbs' amendment. Then we'll decide on the motion before us so we can begin the work we have to do on bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I'm telling you that even though I voted against those bills in the House. I'm prepared to hear witnesses because the mandate given to me by the people in the riding of Jonquière is to act as a legislator, not as a buffoon. I therefore request a vote on my colleague's subamendment.

Perhaps then we can move on to something else.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.

The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.

Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.

Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.

It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.

Thank you.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm a bit puzzled here. I know I missed a few hours of the Conservative filibustering here on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Where in this motion are heat pumps? Clearly, there are issues here where we're looking at inviting the minister to come to speak on both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.

Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:

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

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.

Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.

Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.

That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, the issue of critical minerals is essential to the Canadian economy. We know that the EV battery investments that have been put in are set to create two million cars coming off the line. That is going to dramatically change the economic landscape and the energy landscape, yet the Pierre Poilievre Conservatives get up day after day in the House to ridicule EV technology. They say that these vehicles catch fire, that they freeze. They're really doing everything they can to undermine.... The member for Sarnia—Lambton is always saying how it would have been better to give $10 million to every resident in her riding rather than make these investments. I'm very concerned about this ongoing sabotage against a clean-energy economy.

With regard to Ms. Lapointe's concerns, however, I would certainly support having witnesses come from the base metal regions to talk about their clean-energy investments and the importance of the critical minerals strategy. However, I think that should come in a separate motion. I think that should be a study on its own. I think what we're seeing here is an attempt to hijack the motion that was brought forward to get Bill C-50 done.

We've had over 112 hours of testimony. We've had multiple witnesses. The Conservatives have interrupted time and time again. Any time that we had representatives of workers and workers from western Canada who wanted to speak about getting this legislation passed—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I just want to acknowledge the subamendment that's been made by MP Patzer. I do want to talk about how important the work of this committee is and how important it is that we get to the motion that was tabled this morning by MP Sorbara about our dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. These bills are very important for us all across Canada, as well as specifically for Sudbury, as the subamendment has been tabled.

As I stated and will reiterate, the people of Sudbury certainly want to talk about creating good, sustainable jobs for workers. We also want to talk about economic growth within a net-zero economy. This is extremely important. Critical minerals will be a very important aspect to our reaching net zero, and Sudbury will be a key player in that. We look forward to our role in that. This committee did a study around the Inflation Reduction Act and how Sudbury can position itself in Canada, as well, around being not only competitive but also collaborative with that. It will be very important. Critical minerals present a generational opportunity for wealth for Sudbury and in turn Ontario and Canada.

It is vitally important that this committee get on with the work of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. I look forward to doing that. I look forward to inviting some really good expert witnesses from Sudbury and northern Ontario, as well, to weigh in on this important discussion that Canadians and people from Sudbury want us to have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, prior to having the point of order, I was actually speaking about where the folks of Sudbury are getting their energy, where their power generation comes from and where rural Ontario gets it from. This is why we put that specific common-sense subamendment in place. There was a point of order while I was talking about that. I was merely offering up a quick response to the point of order because I found it quite fascinating myself, to be honest. What I was getting at was the fact that there's over 10,000 megawatts of gas and oil being used for power and energy for rural Ontario and for communities like Sudbury.

It is important, when we have a common-sense subamendment outlining the people of Sudbury, how it relates to the motion, which is its link to Bill C-69. This is because of the reference case by the Supreme Court of Canada making it largely unconstitutional. How's that going to implicate Bill C-50?

Again, let's just pretend for a moment that Bill C-50 was somehow magically going to work. It's not going to work because it's a job-killing initiative, but let's just pretend for a moment that it would. There are going to be issues trying to get the jobs and the energy transition for these workers and for these communities like Sudbury to be able to have reliable, affordable energy going forward.

In order for Bill C-50 to possibly be effective, Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first and foremost. When we see that gas and oil is 28% in Ontario for the high-voltage provincial grid, it is important that we speak to why Bill C-50 has a part to play and what's going to happen to the people of Sudbury—which is what my subamendment is all about.

Providing context to amendments and subamendments is important. That's what I am trying to do. That's the point I'm trying to make and, unfortunately, I keep on getting points of order over that.

I don't know if it's because when people hear how this is going to go and how this will be laid out...because, as I mentioned earlier, there was already an attempt at a coal transition in rural areas of Alberta. I mentioned the thousands of jobs that were lost. Workers were not transitioned into other jobs. They were certainly not given what was mentioned, which was that there would be sustainable, well-paying jobs for everybody.

Again, it's fantasyland to think that the 177,000-plus direct jobs are all of a sudden going to get the same or jobs or greater jobs that are talked about by the minister in the just transition or the Canadian sustainable jobs act.

We know it's not going to be a just transition. That's why the government has moved to try to change the name and the title of it. The Minister of Labour actually admitted that people don't like the phrase “just transition”. I think it's because people know what it actually means. It's just going to be a transition into unemployment for a lot of folks, or into a position where they are going to be out of work or be paid substantively less. We heard a witness the other day say that 34% less is what people will be paid when and if they are transitioned to a different job.

I can guarantee that the people of Sudbury do not want to take a 34% haircut. That's not what people want. The bill actually does nothing to make sure that it is going to say...we've seen government internal documents even admit and say that this is not going to happen.

We have on the record from the government that this is going to be problematic, and we're still ramming through legislation that was time-allocated after minimal debate in the House of Commons. That's what happened back in 2018-19 with Bill C-69. It's what happened with Bill C-50. It's what happened with Bill C-49.

It's also important to talk about the energy transformation going forward for the people of Sudbury. That's why we want to have people at committee to testify to this. It's because when we see what the coldest temperature on record for Sudbury was recently, over the last couple of years, last winter, in fact, the coldest temperature was -37°C.

There was no carve-out for the carbon tax in Sudbury. People are going to need to heat their homes with a heat pump that only works up until -7°, which is about 30 degrees short of what people are going to need to stay warm. This is why we're talking specifically about making sure we get people from a community outside of Toronto to testify at committee.

This committee is also going to study the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the resource sector, and we want stakeholders from Sudbury to be included in that study. That's the main point of the common-sense subamendment that we have.

I think it's important that we let the people of Ms. Lapointe's riding have a say. That's why we moved this common-sense subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I'm waiting for an applause. I'm going to end my remarks there.

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

Thank you.

Sometimes it's fascinating to see how certain points of order end up going and why people want to them bring up. Certainly, government talking points are not what any individuals want to see. They want to see actual results and to see things happen. They want certainty. They want to know what's going to happen to their future. They want to know what's going to happen.

Just as an aside, Bill C-50 doesn't actually have a plan for how to address that. It's a plan to make a plan. We've seen that over and over again with this government.