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.

Indigenous Affairs

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the PM said he values indigenous people most, but that is only true when they agree with him. After eight years, indigenous leaders fight the NDP-Liberals' anti-private sector, anti-resource, anti-energy agenda.

There are 130 Ontario first nations that will take the NDP-Liberals to court over their colonialist carbon tax. It does what Conservatives warned. Everything is more expensive. Those who can least afford it are hurting the most. Rural, remote and northern indigenous, and all, Canadians can hardly survive. They are forced to choose between heating, eating and housing.

B.C.'s Lax Kw'alaams sued over the NDP-Liberals' export ban, Bill C-48, to make its own decisions about jobs, energy and fish. Alberta's Woodland Cree sued over the unconstitutional “never build anything” bill, Bill C-69. Five years ago, Conservatives warned both bills would hurt indigenous people. The Liberals ignored that; it is death by delay.

Indigenous leaders oppose the emissions cap to cut production and the central plan of the just transition bill, Bill C-50, to kill the Canadian jobs and businesses where indigenous people work the most. The Liberals block indigenous-backed pipelines, the oil sands, LNG and roads to the Ring of Fire. They stop all the deals for education, recreation, health and wellness.

It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals censor and cover up their costly anti-Canada collusion. Common-sense Conservatives will turn hurt into hope for indigenous and all Canadians.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will endeavour to keep it under six minutes. I hope, given the precedence you've highlighted with the range of topics as it relates to the specific motion, you will give me much latitude before the onslaught of points of order from my colleagues across the way.

In addition, we seem to debate for a lengthy period of time a study that isn't in this motion. This motion itself is the government trying to pat itself on the back for a policy that gives it a chance to wax poetic about how it wants to change our country and our economy to some sort of, essentially, planned economy. It's going to make all these investments and it's going to choose winners and losers and sectors that it thinks are more appropriate than the jobs that support the communities I represent and the communities that are supported across this country by our natural resource sector.

Now we get the chance to highlight that the first nations across Ontario are bringing forward a lawsuit against the federal government. I will quote from an article, where Grand Chief Abram Benedict said, “The government has boasted that Canadians will pay a carbon tax, but through the rebates, through the subsidies they will actually receive more than what they have paid. That doesn't ring true in First Nations communities”. It doesn't ring true in the Northwest Territories, where their premier has just said that this is too costly for northerners. It doesn't ring true in any communities that I represent.

My colleagues across the way may choose to tell people “this is helping you” and “please believe us” and that this must be true, but they don't. If you feel differently, I think we should bring the grand chief here. You should tell him that you think he is being misleading in his lawsuit, as well as the Northwest Territories premier, in saying on behalf of their constituents that the carbon tax is indeed making life simply unaffordable for them.

It's part of a long attack on our natural resource sector with Bill C-50, the so-called “just transition”, where we're just going to move jobs around the economy as we see fit because Ottawa must know best. That's not a just transition, but a part of a lengthy approach from this government to try to kill our natural resource sector, and it is unacceptable.

My colleague across the way said we need to debate making changes to our economy and to our society. I look forward to that opportunity, and it will happen in the carbon tax election, where I know Canadians are going to choose to axe the carbon tax instead of quadrupling the carbon tax.

I will say one last thing, because my colleague across the way brought up that I'm expecting a child soon, which is extremely exciting for me, of course. I think we're going to take a somewhat different vision. After that carbon tax election, I'm going to be able to look proudly at my children and grandchildren and say that our future Conservative majority government created prosperity for this country and did our part to solve environmental challenges here and around the world, and I'll be darn proud of it.

Energy Sector

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, my second petition draws the attention of the House to the following: The value of the energy sector is about 10% of Canada's GDP. It pays over $26 billion in taxes at all levels of government, and it paid about $48 billion in royalties and taxes in 2022.

Constituents are calling for Bill C-50, the “unjust transition act”, to be abandoned. They say that a central planning agenda is not fair, just or right. Instead, they would like the acceleration of Canadian energy projects and infrastructure, technology and exports and green-lighting of green energy projects.

Natural Resources

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, in relation to 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.

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Labour

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we brought together labour leaders from all across the country at our new union-led advisory table, which will advise the government on some major macroeconomic issues that have real kitchen-table consequences on a lot of workers in this country, namely the energy transition, climate change and the housing crisis.

We will do that at this table in the same way we will with Bill C-50, an 11-page bill that the opposition has found 20,000 reasons to oppose to prevent workers from having a say at the table. What are they so afraid of? Why are they so afraid of workers?

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Calgary Skyview will hold their MP to account for his betrayal, and he will pay at the ballot box.

Bill C-50 is the top-down just transition that will end oil and gas in Canada in favour of dictator and U.S. oil. The NDP-Liberals know it will kill 170,000 oil and gas jobs immediately and hurt 2.7 million Canadians working in transportation, construction, agriculture and manufacturing on top of it. It will make power and fuel prices skyrocket. The NDP-Liberals also know it will hurt indigenous and visible minority Canadians the worst.

It has never been more clear that Canadians cannot afford the colluding costs of the cover-up coalition.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the chair, the MP for Calgary Skyview, should be ashamed and will pay for his choice to betray his constituents.

Bill C-50 is the top-down global just transition that will end 170,000 jobs—

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax on Farmers, First Nations and Families

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

Mr. Speaker, it is another day that we have the privilege of rising in the House to speak for our constituents back home. I see some of my hon. colleagues who I was with for several hours last night at committee. It was great to finish clause-by-clause of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which will assist citizens across our country.

I am happy to participate—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague and I thank her for the question.

I do not agree with Bill C‑50 as it is currently worded. The work I was trying to do yesterday was to bring forward amendments that were proposed to me by environmental groups and unions. Unfortunately, we did not get to talk about those amendments because the Conservative party kept heckling and did not allow us to do our work as legislators. That is what happened yesterday.

I will follow up with all these people who proposed amendments to me. I will tell them that, unfortunately, the work that they did was in vain. All those hours they spent reading the bill to try to improve it were for naught and thrown out the window.

Why is that? That is because there are people in the Conservative Party who have decided to adopt the spurious strategy used by the member for Carleton to try to intimidate people. What we saw yesterday at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was intimidation pure and simple.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, where to start? I would like to make a little detour before addressing my Conservative colleagues' motion. I would like to provide a bit of context for the motion.

In my opinion, if we want to understand the context, we need to look at the current situation. We are in a climate crisis. There are two possibilities. Either the Conservatives recognize that we are in a climate crisis and commit to taking action to mitigate it, or they do not recognize that we are in a climate crisis. Our main problem is that, ever since the member for Carleton became leader of the Conservative Party, the official opposition has been using disinformation as their preferred political tool. As a result, we cannot have conversations about global warming with our Conservative colleagues. Whenever we try to, they become irrational. My colleagues will understand why I say this.

In my former life, I taught political science. The introductory course for first-year political science students teaches a simple concept. It teaches them what democracy is. To explain what democracy is, I would tell them that one of the key principles is that it is better to use reason rather than force. That is what democracy is. Democracy means people deliberating together. It means people having a dialogue to determine what is best for the common good.

For several years now, we have been witnessing the Americanization of Canadian politics. Dialogue no longer takes precedence over threats or over the imposition of ideas. Whoever is the strongest tries to impose their law using intimidation. That is how the United States currently operates. I do not want to compare the leader of the official opposition to Donald Trump right now. Let us set that aside. I do not want to compare the leader of the official opposition to Marine Le Pen or any of those other politicians in the western world whose questionable tactics involve taking liberties with the truth to avoid entering into discussions with counterparts who often think differently. I say this because dialogue is very important.

The reason I am bringing up this topic is that we reached the bottom of the barrel yesterday. When I was younger, my mother often used to say that all things pass, meaning even a person's stupidity eventually comes to an end. I hope that we reached the bottom of the barrel yesterday. Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was carrying out its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-50. I have been involved in Quebec and Canadian politics since the early 1990s and, although I have always kept a close eye on parliamentary proceedings, I have never in my life seen anything as sophomoric as what I saw yesterday.

There is a key principle. We can raise questions of privilege in the House because we feel that members have the right to be heard. Letting members speak, letting members vote, is a key principle of democracy. However, even this key principle, which is fundamental to democracy, was not respected yesterday. I heard Conservative members yelling to ensure that no committee member would be able to cast a vote during clause-by-clause consideration. Worse than that, I saw some highly questionable actions on the part of the member for Brantford—Brant—

Climate Change

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fourth petition from my constituents calls for Bill C-50 to be abandoned, as the unjust transition act targets them specifically.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Can you give the rationale for that, since, of course, one of the main problems with Bill C-50 is that there are no costs outlined for any of what these things will be.

How can there suddenly be a rationale and declaration from you that this amendment won't work? You're asserting that it's going to add costs, but there are no costs outlined in the bill in the first place. This is a key problem with it, which we could have discussed if you guys had allowed this to go through the normal process.

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

This is a question of privilege, and clearly the House order does not preclude members raising questions of order or privilege.

Here is the issue. The House prescribed, I think, a very narrow and draconian but nonetheless specific framework within which the natural resources committee would consider the issues before it, namely Bill C-50. That motion prescribed within it that the committee would begin at 6:30 and would be able to meet for two hours, and then at 8:30 the successive voting would be taken up on clause-by-clause.

I think there's an argument that there are privilege issues raised even by that issue. Nonetheless, it was an order adopted by the House. When the House adopted that order, it was very specific about what time the committee had to start. It said “the committee shall meet at 6:30.” The chair provided an explanation for the committee not beginning at 6:30 saying there were technical impediments. Regardless of whether there were technical impediments, whether it was was through mal-intent or simply by accident, the fact is that the House order was not followed. The House order required the committee to meet at 6:30. That did not occur, which was a violation of the directive of the House.

Normally speaking, the privileges of members, which include the right to speak, are protected. They are sacrosanct. The rights of members are prescribed in the Standing Orders, and it is only when the House adopts a special order that those can be abridged. Obviously, we are operating under a special order, but any further abridgement of the rights and privileges of members that goes beyond the special order is a violation of their privileges.

Standing Order 116 specifies the following:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Standing Order 116(2)(b) provides that if the chair, in violation of part one of the standing order, violates the privileges of members—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe this committee should have gone to the full two hours.

I would move that the committee report to the House that the privileges of all members of the committee were violated when the chair limited debate on clause-by-clause of Bill C-50 to less than two hours, in violation of the House order adopted on Monday, September 24, 2023.