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.

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, Conservative, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are probably asking what the point of all this is and what the point of that question was. Let us make it clear.

I believe we should be living in an affordable country with good jobs, and we should be supporting Canadians who want to work across this country in any sector that is viable and valuable to our region. While Canadians are struggling to pay their bills because of the Liberal-NDP coalition, the environment minister is off dashing around on his high-cost, high-carbon, high-hypocrisy trip to Dubai. I do not think they understand how ironic that really is.

At the end of the day, Bill C-50 has a lot of problems. The programming motion today highlights exactly why this costly Liberal-NDP coalition is trying to crush dissent. We deserve better and Canadians deserve better, and I call on all my colleagues to oppose this programming motion and oppose Bill C-50 and the damage it would do to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, this goes to show the view these parties in this House opposite the Conservatives hold about our oil and gas sector, our ag sector and every natural resource sector in this country, and it is so disheartening.

Centrally controlled leftist government economies have been tried around the world already, and it turns out they do not work. Canada must not follow the path of these countries of failed economies, like Cuba and Venezuela.

I recall a couple of weeks ago the member across the way for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill lamenting at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development how farmers protesting the Liberal political interference in the Senate over Bill C-234 was leading us toward being a “tinpot dictatorship.”

With Bill C-50 and its intent to destroy Canadian jobs with this egregious programming motion, I guess the definition of a tinpot dictatorship is in the eye of the beholder.

Since the Liberals are trying to curb criticism on this bill, let us dive into what Bill C-50 would actually do. I have many criticisms of it, as do my constituents. At its core, this piece of legislation would do three things to enable the NDP-Liberal coalition’s so-called just transition.

First, it would establish the sustainable jobs partnership council to advise the government on how to implement its vision, with its members appointed by the minister. This is a great way to get policy cover: appoint a bunch of one's friends who already hate Canada’s natural resource sector and agriculture sector to this council to help implement one's shared objective, without regard for the impact on the people I represent and hundreds of members of Parliament represent.

Even worse is that while the unjust transition intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, the council would not include provinces, nor would it even be required to consult with them. We should not be surprised, after Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, was slapped down by the Supreme Court for its intrusion on provinces. The Liberals' war on plastic straws was slapped down by the Federal Court, and the clean electricity regulations are certainly going to be slapped down very soon.

These Liberals have absolutely no regard for provincial jurisdiction and have learned nothing from these past failures. The only thing the Prime Minister has learned is a cavalier approach, like his father took, that Ottawa knows best.

Second, the legislation would require the minister to table a sustainable jobs action plan to Parliament every five years. In other words, the Liberals want to hire more bureaucrats to take time developing a plan to report on the jobs they are able to successfully destroy in this country.

The Liberal-NDP coalition will destroy jobs in Canada, because it does not like those types of jobs. It will do it with callous disregard for the rural communities those jobs support and still will not even hit its environmental targets, because of course it thinks the best way to reduce emissions is by reducing the size of our economy. While it has been doing its very best, those pesky, innovative Canadians just keep trying to grow things, to mine things, to manufacture things and to build things in this country.

Finally, the bill would create a sustainable jobs secretariat that would “support the implementation of the act”. In different terms, the Liberals are going to further add to the already bloated public service, costing taxpayers more. This is how Liberals actually think we should grow our economy. With every job numbers update that comes out, they always boast of any new jobs being created, but they never highlight where those jobs are being created. They are always a majority of public sector jobs.

These are part-time jobs for people picking up jobs to try to pay for the costly carbon tax-driven increase of their cost of living in this country. This is at a time when the federal government is paying more interest on our federal debt than it pays for health care in this country. Canadians can thank the Liberals and their friends in the speNDP for this abject failure of fiscal policy. This is what the Liberal-NDP government is trying to do. It is always trying to find ways to grow the size of government and is never trying to find ways to have Canadians gain meaningful work to feed, heat and house themselves.

While I have touched on some of the specifics of Bill C-50, let us talk more about this so-called just transition and what it would cost Canadians. This started back in 2019 with a platform commitment from the Liberals. At its heart, this just transition is planning on devastating our energy industry.

We can all recall when the Prime Minister said, “We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.” This is how the Liberals plan to do it. This is part of the many pieces of legislation where they plan to phase out our entire energy sector.

I recognize the Liberals have already gone to work on reducing the size of our economy with their reckless inflationary spending. In fact, Statistics Canada just reported that our economy shrank by 1.1% while the economy of the United States grew by 5.2%. As our great Conservative leader put it, its economy is roaring while ours is snoring.

However, the Liberal plan would take it to a whole new level. According to an internal briefing, the plan would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians working in agriculture, construction, energy, manufacturing and transportation.

These economic losses would not be felt equally, since the plan is, of course, always meant to be divisive and designed to disproportionately harm natural resource-based regions, which is on brand with the Liberal strategy. What kind of politician sees these numbers and says it is a good idea to get that many Canadians fired? The Liberals must know best. They think since they are in Ottawa, they should dictate how the economy goes. It is appalling to think that any politician standing in this chamber thinks this is a reasonable approach to governing a country. At the end of the day, we should just call the Liberal-NDP coalition the anti-everything coalition.

The funnier thing is this piece of legislation is likely to prevent a transition to the clean-tech sector, because 75% of all private sector investment in clean tech comes from the sector the Liberals are trying to destroy: our energy sector. Without this investment, more handouts would be necessary to develop a clean-tech sector.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to thank the hon. member for the input. This is Government Business No. 31, proceedings on Bill C-50. I know the hon. member will probably be getting to the point of the bill that we are supposed to be discussing today.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

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

Mr. Speaker, last is that only one day of debate would be allowed during third reading of the bill once we have passed the opportunity for all of those who would lose their jobs to be able to come to committee and tell the government exactly what they think about Bill C-50. Simply put, this Prime Minister and his Liberal-NDP coalition are trying to secure power and silence dissent. The Liberals would not have to be doing this if Canadians actually supported this coalition or their plan to phase out millions of jobs in this great country. The hypocrisy of the Liberal-NDP coalition knows no bounds. It is particularly the NDP, or the more aptly named “no democracy party”.

First, the Liberal-NDP coalition tried to call it the just transition, only to realize that Canadians were not big fans of that language; so the members changed the name of it, hoping that people would not mind losing their jobs if the legislation had a different title and sounded a bit better to them. Now, with the new fancy name, they are trying to silence any dissent regarding their plan to shut down industries that drive our economy in favour of leading their new centrally planned government economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the folks I represent back home in Portage—Lisgar. However, today, I cannot help but feel that the Liberals are doing a disservice to the constituents I represent and to all Canadians by moving forward with this motion. What the Liberals are doing here is trying to avoid the democratic process by dictating how members will scrutinize Bill C-50, the so-called Canadian sustainable jobs act.

Specifically, this motion would limit study of this bill in four ways. First, the national resources committee would have less than two hours to debate this bill. Second, the committee would hear from no witnesses and none of the affected workers during its study of it. Third, the House would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and, last, one day of debate would be allowed during third—

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very thoughtful question, which I expect from a fellow British Columbian who cares a lot about not only the environment, but workers.

One of the things we can do is show workers that they have a place in the economy right now. That is why Bill C-50 is so important. It is creating a place and a very clear future for Canadians to make sure that we have good-paying jobs going forward.

We know that the world is in a transition. We know the world is a changing place. The economy is changing and we want to make sure that no workers are left behind. It is by having conversations with business and labour that we can actually make sure that there is that bright future, and make sure that we balance economic and environmental interests. I think that both can be done in such a way that we create a winning situation for workers, for the economy and for the environment.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding 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.

I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three.

Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple.

The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber.

Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to.

The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward.

Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study.

I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all.

The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way.

When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day.

It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health.

The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil.

Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money.

After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future.

There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass.

This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”.

I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers.

Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations.

As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that.

We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants.

The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.”

In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation.

Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who sits on the natural resources committee, as I do, for his thoughts on this legislation. We did hear from many witnesses who attempted to come forward to share their testimony when we did our own study on sustainable jobs. Much of that was filibustered, as we are seeing again with the current study on Bill C-50.

I would like my colleague to take a moment to reflect on why this is so important. We heard a question asked of the minister today about why we have to take this step in the House to move forward. Having been part of the more than 25 hours of filibustering we have seen, I would like his thoughts and reflections on why we are at this point in the House to try to move forward with this very important legislation.