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]

Thank you, Chair.

Just to briefly respond to Mr. Angus, I might suggest that even after the next election, when he has an abundance of time, he could do that apology tour in person and visit various European capitals. I'm sure the newly elected Conservative MP for Timmins—James Bay at that time will be happy to provide any form of assistance, letters of introduction, etc.

I am happy to return now to discussion of the subamendment that is before the committee. I'll remind members that after the words “sustainable jobs” in the amendment, it adds the words “that provide powerful paycheques to Canadian workers”. Before I was interrupted by a string of quirky amendments from my New Democratic friends, I was just wanting to frame the argument for the subamendment in terms of where we are and where we should be. This is sort of the core framing section of Bill C-50. It is the section that deals with the purpose of the bill and what the bill intends to achieve.

Of course, Conservatives do not agree with the government's plans in this regard, so we are proposing constructive amendments to redirect the purpose of the bill. The government's plans, sadly, do not include delivering powerful paycheques to Canadian workers. The government's plans are focused on piling taxes on Canadian workers. Our focus is on powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, and we would like to see that be the purpose of the bill, instead of what is actually the purpose of the bill, which relates to their so-called “just transition” agenda.

I could tell you that when I speak to workers, what they are looking for is not a just transition; they're looking for a Justin transition. That is, they want a new Prime Minister who will actually have their backs and will deliver powerful paycheques for workers.

Mr. Chair, the context though for where we are is that we have this piece of legislation with the purpose, as it's currently defined, of pushing this radical just transition agenda. We have Bill C-50, which the government is clearly embarrassed about. How do we know they are embarrassed about it? They don't want it debated. They have put forward this intensely draconian motion in the House that imposes very limited opportunities for any discussion of the bill here at this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, rather than getting into a back-and-forth, I will ask members once again to focus on the work at hand. There's been a retraction made, so let's refrain from further engaging on conversations that maybe aren't involved with the work we're doing here on committee today on Bill C-50 and the amendment, and now the subamendment that's been proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for retracting your remarks from earlier.

I don't want anybody to be offended by any remarks regarding soccer or anything else. I know that Mr. Fonseca is Portuguese, and Cristiano Ronaldo might be a fan of his—and others as well.

We all have opinions, but let's focus on the work we're doing here at committee on Bill C-50, on the clause-by-clause and the subamendment we're on now.

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order and for retracting your remarks from earlier.

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

As I was saying before I was interrupted again, it was about the private sector investment in Timmins-James Bay. We would hope you would see that anyway, but, you know, after eight years of this government, we have seen a lot of that flee the country, for sure.

I think making sure that at the very least there's language that will provide some certainty around whether or not the government's actually serious about promoting economic growth, or private sector investment, would definitely be good to see. But we all know that the way this bill will go, it will crush any opportunity for the type of economic growth that the current natural resource industries provide; the private sector investment that at one point it did, prior to this government's getting into power eight years ago and the chaos that, along with the NDP, it has invoked upon the provinces and on the sector at large.

I do think this is a good amendment for us to be able to start this debate off on. As I say, it's to improve affordability. That's what this gets to at its very heart and core. We know that affordability in our small towns and communities like Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch will suffer when this bill gets rammed through, much like it did in the town of Hanna, Alberta. That's why we're making sure that we have some language like this. We want to make sure the government is actually accountable for what it is going to be trying to do for our communities.

Now, in terms of the creation of sustainable jobs, I'm of the opinion that the jobs people currently have are quite sustainable and in fact should be prioritized and not just thrown by the wayside. We know that these current jobs lead to the revenue that these companies make, which allows them to make the private sector investment that we were talking about earlier, which leads to economic growth. Sustainable jobs already exist. There might be some ideologically driven folks around the table who think otherwise, but we know that sustainable jobs do exist. There are private sector investments from these companies. They are the ones who are largely investing in, say, wind power or solar. They want to be investing in some of the other emerging things that have come and will be available.

For example, in my neck of the woods—Mr. Aldag has family in that neck of the woods, which I've talked about before—is the SunBridge wind farm. Suncor invested in wind, one of the very first companies in Saskatchewan, and I would suggest probably in other provinces as well, to do so. They were one of the early investors in wind. Enbridge partnered with them to be able to build that wind farm to provide power for the power utility in Saskatchewan, which is SaskPower. That's why it's called the “SunBridge” wind farm, because it was Suncor and Enbridge. They are oil and gas companies. Over 20 years ago they made the decision that they were going to become energy companies, because they saw that there was the opportunity for expanded economic growth and the opportunity to grow the types of services or I guess the type of power and type of energy they were going to provide to people. They wanted to make sure they were involved in that. It created jobs. It created wealth for communities. It expanded the tax bases of some communities in the area.

Unfortunately, what's happening now, because of what's going on with this government, is that the wind farm is being decommissioned. It's not going to be replaced because of the lack of certainty that comes from this government. Bill C-50 will only create further issues for the types of companies that want to invest in energy production in this country.

I think it's important to acknowledge what the private sector can do, the role they actually have to play in energy production across the country and what that means for sustainable jobs. Those are jobs that actually already exist. It's not some new concept that this government is going to pretend to invent and take credit for. These sustainable jobs already exist. They do exist in the oil and gas industry. They do exist in all parts of the economy and in all sectors.

To make sure that we prioritize will mean an effort to see more affordability for Canadians, because Canada's strategic advantage for years and years and years has been affordable, reliable energy. That's in large part due to our oil and gas companies, which have provided reliable, affordable, environmentally sustainable sources as well. That's not to mention the indigenous partnerships that have come from these resource companies and the fact that they are continuing to work toward economic participation and self-determination for first nations.

As such, there are companies like Natural Law Energy. This government has actually denied this company the ability to participate in the economy, by getting rid of things like Keystone XL, not bothering to put any effort into having any advocacy on that to make sure that those projects, which were good for Canada and good for our energy security and our future going forward.... There were good opportunities there that were lost. This type of bill will make absolutely sure that those folks don't have that opportunity.

At the very least, we could put in some friendly language around affordability and prioritizing economic growth, private sector investment and the creation of...well, sustainable jobs, because a “just transition” bill is what this is. We could say that this bill is not going to do anything about sustainable jobs, but we're still going to put the reference in there, because we think those jobs already exist and that the government should prioritize those jobs.

I hope colleagues all around this table will be voting for this amendment. I know I'm excited for it. I'm looking forward to seeing what other people think.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, let's focus on the work at hand today.

If somebody said I was like Messi, the great soccer player, I would take that as a compliment personally.

I would like everyone to focus on not getting off the track of the work that needs to be done here today, the cause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50.

I ask all colleagues to maybe, as Mr. Simard said very eloquently earlier, take a deep breath and reflect, so that we can move forward on the work at hand that we've been asked to do.

On that, I'm going back to you, Mr. Patzer, so that you can continue on. If there's a procedural issue, please identify it so that we can deal with the procedural issue. If not, let's not engage in lengthy debate. Let's get back to where we were, because you have the floor, sir, to speak to the amendment you're bringing forward.

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll address that, and then I'll go to your point of order, Mr. Brock.

Colleagues, as we've mentioned previously, let's focus on using points of order for procedural issues that are relevant to procedure, not for debate.

I would also ask committee members, through their debate, to focus on the motion that's been moved and how it relates to the work we're doing on Bill C-50 here today. Thank you.

Mr. Brock, are you on a point of order regarding Mr. Patzer or Mr. Angus?

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

I don't know why Mr. Patzer is talking about victims of domestic abuse. If he's going to make stuff up, I think he could be clear, but not during this time. We're actually talking about Bill C-50. If he wants to make allegations against me, he can do that anywhere he wants, but we're dealing with Bill C-50.

Could you, Chair, keep him focused? I'm worried about my friend here. He gets so angry, he just goes off track. Either they're serious about this or not.

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

Thank you.

It is that Bill C-50, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 5 with the following:

3 The purpose of this Act is to improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth, private sector investment, the creation of sustainable jobs and

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about the issues of the day. I must say, I appreciate a number of the comments that were just made, especially one that was brought over to me. One of my colleagues on this side suggested that the previous speaker should be seriously considered for placement on PROC. I think the system might be a bit better if, in fact, that were to take place. However, I recognize that a recommendation from me to the leader of the Conservative Party to do that probably would not get him very far.

Having said that, I often hear a great deal about the institution, the Speaker and the important role the Speaker's office plays. People want to talk about that. We even had some very detailed explanations of what the Speaker does inside the House. I concur with many of those comments, such as how important it is to have a Speaker and recognize the role the Speaker plays.

Not that long ago, we did not elect Speakers; rather, they were political appointments. In the Province of Manitoba, when I was first elected, the Speakers were appointed; when I left, they were elected. I went through that transition. First and foremost, there was a great sense of pride as parliamentarians around the horseshoe inside the Manitoba legislature elected our first Speaker; for the first time, Manitoba felt that was the best way to ensure that the Speaker understood, in a very real and tangible way, that he or she represented, in that case, the interests of all MLAs on all sides of the House. We saw that as a very important step forward in Manitoba.

We did not come up with the idea. We knew Ottawa was electing a Speaker, so we took the idea and brought it into the Manitoba chamber. I sat on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, what we call here the Board of Internal Economy, which is an important committee that the Speaker actually sits on. I recognized the role the Speaker played with respect to that committee, just as I recognize the important role, as others have emphasized, that the Speaker plays inside this chamber.

The Speaker has significant power. We saw that today when one member of the House made an unparliamentary allegation and would not withdraw it. As a direct result, the Speaker asked the member to leave the chamber, and he was unable to participate today. Because of the decision of the Chair occupant, he could not even participate in the votes. That is why, when I talked about this yesterday, first and foremost, I talked as a parliamentarian. I highlighted my experience in Manitoba, because I truly believe, given the very nature of the institution and the office, and the importance of the Speaker's chair, that we need to put partisan politics to the side.

When a member of the opposition stands up on a point of order, I often respond to it for the Speaker to take into consideration. When the leader of the official opposition came forward the other day and expressed his concerns about the Speaker in the form of a point of order, I was quiet. I listened.

We then had the Deputy Speaker, because the Speaker recused himself of the issue, canvass other members and, after canvassing, ultimately made the decision, which flowed to the Conservative Party of Canada coming up with a solution: What does the House of Commons collectively, members of Parliament on both sides of the House, have to say about the issue? This is actually what we are debating today. We are debating that the Conservative Party believes it was in the best interest of all to have this matter go to the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, and have PROC come up with a remedy. In fact, the essence of the motion reads that the House “refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.”

When I heard the motion, I did not hear one Liberal oppose it. I did not hear anyone inside the chamber oppose what was being recommended by the Conservative Party at the time. In fact, I thought that was a reasonable ask. After the opposition House leader finished his speech and after a second speech, I then stood up and made it very clear that I support the motion and, I believe, members in the entire chamber support the motion. However, we then had the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who followed the House leader of the official opposition, say, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.”

I do not understand how we could have the opposition House leader move a motion saying that we should use PROC in order to come up with a remedy, but then, just minutes later, is immediately followed by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who I believe is the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party but I could be wrong on that, come out saying that the Speaker should resign. The best I could tell from sitting on this side, virtually right across from the member, is that the Conservatives felt they were being outmanoeuvred by another political entity inside the House. That may be why the member said what he did. However, the bottom line is that is what the member said.

The member went on to say, “That is why Canadians need to pay close attention to what is happening right now and to the recommendations that will be made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” After making his previous statement, he seems to be under the impression that everyone should support the motion itself, and that it is okay to go to the committee even if a member had already made up his mind. I did not understand that, but then it was reinforced earlier this afternoon by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

The member for Red Deer—Lacombe is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. The remedy that is being recommended is that the matter go to PROC. I want to mention what the Conservative member sitting on the committee had to say.

During his speech, he reinforced that he believes the Speaker should resign. My colleague asked him why he would say such a thing when he is on the PROC committee and if that would put him in an awkward position. He responded, “Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.” How can he possibly be objective? He even said he is hoping the Speaker will go to the committee.

The member, along with the Conservative Party collectively, has already said he wants the Speaker to resign, that he hopes the Speaker will go to PROC and that he is going to be objective. He wants the Speaker to go to the committee so he can ask him some questions and be objective. Who is he trying to kid? The Conservatives have already made a determination. They already know what they want. They have a set agenda.

The longer the debate goes on, the more I witness the Conservatives trying to discredit the Speaker and the Speaker's office. They talk here about how important the Speaker's office is, but I would suggest that their actions are speaking louder than their words. As one member said on a political panel I was on just outside this chamber, when referring to the process and the issue with the Speaker, it is a farce. That is what the Conservatives are attempting to turn it into, making it look as if the chamber is dysfunctional. This is not the first time they are doing this.

I would argue they are using the Speaker's chair as part of their master plan to be a destructive force in the chamber. They do not care about being fair. They have demonstrated that very clearly. They want to demonstrate to the far right that the Speaker's office, the Speaker's chair and the institution or Parliament itself are dysfunctional.

On the sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, do members know how many amendments the Conservatives have put forward? There are 19,938 amendments, just on one piece of legislation. Many times I stand in the chamber to talk about how the Conservative Party is a destructive force in the chamber in the way they prevent things from taking place. They constantly give Canadians the impression that everything is broken in Canada, including the House of Commons itself.

They will stand in their places, much like they are doing with the motion we have today, to say it is the government's responsibility to get legislation passed and it is the government that sets the agenda, but it is the Conservatives who consistently mess it up. They do it by using concurrence motions for reports, adjourning debates or moving motions that cause the bells to ring. They have 19,938 amendments on one piece of legislation. They are trying to convince the MAGA right that, at the end of the day, this is all broken and dysfunctional. That is what the real objective is.

I made the assumption that when the opposition House leader stood in his place and moved the motion, he was being genuine. I honestly thought that when he was looking at what had taken place, he was being genuine. However, the more I hear Conservatives speak on the issue, the more I come to the conclusion that this is just another partisan act we are seeing from the Conservative Party of Canada.

To demonstrate that, I suggest that in PROC, we will see a Conservative Party that will do whatever it can to emphasize that the Speaker has to resign. The Conservatives have already been told what they have to do. I hope I am wrong. If I am, I will apologize to the House. I do not believe I am going to be apologizing.

I believe the Conservative Party already has an agenda, and that agenda is just an extension of the behaviour we witness time and time again on the floor of the House of Commons on government legislation that has been very important to Canadians. It has the backs of Canadians and is developing an economy that will be there for every Canadian in every region of our country. Whenever it comes time to vote or debate, we see Conservative games on the floor of the House, whether it is the filibuster of debates, the many different dilatory motions they move or the many different actions they take. That is why I say that actions speak louder than words. If the Conservatives were serious about this issue and about saying that it should be apolitical and non-partisan, they would not be giving the types of speeches they are giving now and I would not be giving the type of speech I am giving.

This motion should be passed, even though the Conservative Party has already taken a position. We know that and understand that. I am somewhat grateful that I am not on the PROC standing committee. Hopefully, a majority of the members on the committee will at least be fair in their assessment of what has taken place before they pass judgment.

I can guarantee that if the Conservatives do not see the resignation aspect, we will see a minority report coming from the Conservative Party. Then, of course, I would not be surprised if we see a concurrence motion on the report. They will do anything to prevent government legislation from passing, no matter what the legislation is, including the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is the Conservative agenda. The far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is unfortunate.

I would like to think there are some things inside this chamber for which partisanship can be put to the side. I would suggest that members recognize the issue at hand, read the motion and allow PROC to do what it needs to do: meet with people, talk to witnesses and come up with a remedy that is fair to all.

I always see my waterglass half full. I am going to continue to be a bit of an optimist. Maybe we will see something miraculous coming from the Conservative Party at PROC. I will keep my fingers crossed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Since it's now 6:30 p.m., I need to interrupt the current proceedings before the committee. Pursuant to the order made by the House on Monday, December 4, 2023, the committee is meeting at this hour to consider Bill C-50 at clause-by-clause. Because of this interruption, the debate on Mr. Falk's subamendment stands adjourned.

I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with clause-by-clause. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it.

I would like to remind committee members that, pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Monday, all amendments had to be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4 p.m. yesterday. As a result, the chair will only allow amendments submitted before that deadline to be moved and debated. In other words, only amendments contained in the distributed package of amendments will be considered. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number—it's in the top right-hand corner—to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you'll need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Subamendments must be provided in writing. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Finally, pursuant to the order adopted by the House, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved; the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

I would like to welcome our two witnesses, who will assist us in our debate tonight. From the Department of Justice, we have Barbara Winters, legal counsel—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'd like to welcome Mrs. Kusie back to committee.

Certainly, there's a keen interest in this, and I think that's been expressed already around the table. What I would share with you is that I will not be supporting this amendment, based on, particularly, the timelines of the commitments that I'm sure many of us already have within our constituencies in that very brief period of time that we have back in our communities, including caucus retreats and other things that are typically held within this time period.

Furthermore, the notion that Mrs. Kusie's amendment is going to direct our line of questioning and reasoning is a pretty big presupposition. I think we all have the ability as members of this committee to take our own lines of questioning and to focus on the things that matter to us.

On the motion that was presented by Mr. Villemure, I accept it as a Standing Order 106(4), conditional to its being held during an existing meeting, because what I'm not interested in doing to my staff and to my community is adding all this extra stuff.

I'm just going to say this: This feels very familiar to the 10,000 amendments that are sitting on Bill C-50 and all the other shenanigans that are happening. In this committee, I'd prefer to be straight up. I'd prefer to work within the framework and the mandate of our committee. For that reason, I will not be supporting any additional meetings in those very few weeks that we have in our ridings to reconnect with our community after the holidays.

I would just ask that we have that consideration to stay on track within this committee and to work within a work plan, whether it's through a subcommittee process, as we typically do...and I still support the six meetings.

Also, I'll say this on the record: If we get to a point where we've exhausted our witnesses and there's nothing left to be had after four meetings, then at that point I would be open to entertaining a motion that completes the study and allows us to report back.

Thank you.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, officially titled “An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy”, at its core, Bill C-50 is about including workers in a legislative process that impacts their lives.

We recently heard from witnesses during the natural resources committee's study on a fair and equitable Canadian energy transformation. Those witnesses told us that people are anxious.

It is human nature to be anxious when faced with the unknown, especially when people's livelihoods are potentially facing a big change. We learned from those many witnesses that this clean energy transition is a generational opportunity for Canada. We are looking at a shift not seen since the Industrial Revolution.

We need Canadian workers and their skills on the front line of discussions in navigating this transformational shift, or we will be left behind. The shift to clean energy is here; denying that fact does not make it any less real. It simply means that Canadian workers will not get the best opportunities if we fail to take action.

Being from Sudbury, I can tell members that we know a thing or two about industrial change and progress. In Sudbury, we have Science North's world-renowned Dynamic Earth centre. For visitors, it provides immersive, hands-on earth science and mining experiences.

On its website, it says:

“Put on a hard hat, as we descend seven storeys underground to walk in the footsteps of Sudbury's miners.

“This guided tour takes you through our demonstration mine to discover the evolution of mining from turn-of-the-century to modern day.”

I went through the tour in August, and it is exceptional. One first enters a replica of a turn-of-the-century mine. It is dark, wet, muddy and cramped. We learned about the hazardous nature of mining during this time period. The tour then moves through the progress of mining through the last century, where we end up in a wide and open, bright space, with electric vehicles and incredibly advanced technological processes.

What has not changed is the need for skilled workers in mining. The tasks and methods are different, but the workers are the heart of mining.

That is why I know we need Bill C-50, so we can have the best people present in planning the next step: the people who do the jobs now and know that they will be needed to do them in the future.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, which I found to be entertaining.

Just before him, his colleague from Calgary Centre said that he was asking the Bloc Québécois to vote against Bill C-50 because it does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions. We told him that we agree with that. My colleague from Mirabel told the member for Calgary Centre that we were on the same page and asked him if we could count on the Conservative Party to support the Bloc Québécois every time the federal government tries to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions, but we did not get an answer.

Can my colleague who has the floor now tell me whether we can count on the Conservatives' co-operation every time the federal government tries to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is just debate. I know we are all trying to stick to the debate we have before us, which is the motion on Bill C-50.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.