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.

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.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the House of Commons, I've often heard people say that they were a part of team Canada. It would be rather odd for a sovereigntist to say that, but when Conservative, Liberal and NDP members say it, I believe they are expressing a sense of belonging to the Canadian state.

Feeling a sense of belonging to the Canadian state means, it would seem to me, respect for its institutions. What I've seen this evening is anything but respect for institutions.

What I'm seeing is members playing around and noisily trying to determine whose turn it is to speak, and which members in attendance at this meeting of the committee ought not to be here.

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss Bill C‑50. We have barely 20 minutes left and we've only spoken about the bill for about five minutes. We've got bogged down in points of order.

I'm well aware of the fact that people can have different points of view and different policy positions, but I find it highly ironic that a sovereigntist MP should happen to be showing the most respect for Canadian institutions.

There are people out there listening to us. I would ask my friends in the Conservative Party and the NDP to tone things down and show a degree of decorum.

As for me, I want to no part of it. People listening at home must think that taxpayers are paying us to behave like idiots. I want nothing to do with this nonsense.

If we could move on to a discussion of the amendments, a real discussion about Bill C‑50, I believe everyone would be more than happy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, earlier in the meeting, I did have a conversation with the committee on who's able to participate. Members here are allowed to participate. Whether we have some voting members or we have some members who have come to participate, everybody's welcome here. We want to give all members, whether you're a long-time committee member or whether you're just coming here for the first time today, the ability to participate in this important discussion we're having on Canada's sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the clause-by-clause work that we're doing today.

I would encourage members at this time also not to.... Once again, I'm trying to do the best I can, but when multiple committee members are telling me who said what and what was said, I can't make much of what's being said. I'll ask all committee members, once again, as a reminder, that we speak one at a time, that we speak when we're recognized by the chair and that we not turn on multiple mics at the same time, because it is very difficult for our interpreters.

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I'm going to go to Mr. Perkins on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk, for your point of order.

Colleagues, I'll just ask that everybody focus on the study at hand and the clause-by-clause work we're doing on Bill C-50, that we not engage in unparliamentary language towards one another, that we ensure we have a respectful workplace for everyone and that everybody gets an opportunity here to participate. I hope we can do that as we move forward. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Colleagues, we have many members here—I would say all of the members—who have energy workers who work tirelessly every single day.

Mr. Desjarlais is here, another fellow Albertan. He has some...and many others. Mr. Blaikie has workers.

Colleagues, Bill C-50, which we're working on, is important legislation on sustainable jobs. We're in clause-by-clause. As a reminder, we're on a subamendment to an amendment, and we need to get back to where we were so we can get to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, we've had extensive debate over the last several months, with members trying to participate who had the floor and the chair's ruling on who did have the floor.

Mr. Angus, you were an individual who did have the floor. Eventually, you were able to provide your important remarks.

I will ask members today to allow other members to participate in these important clause-by-clause proceedings on Bill C-50. As members want to be able to participate, I'll ask all members to allow their colleagues to participate.

Mr. Genuis, you have the opportunity to participate and maybe conclude your comments.