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.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[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, 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the learned member from the Coquitlam area and the Port Moody area that we have an expression in the language that my parents spoke when they came here. In Italian, we say un grande abbraccio, which means “a big hug”. I see many members on the opposite aisle and I do consider many of them friends. I give them a big hug not on a policy basis but on a friendship basis.

When Canada's Building Trades Unions, LIUNA 183 or 506, or the carpenters' union, Local 27, or Carpenters' Regional Council and their members across the country are here working collaboratively with us on Bill C-50, moving it forward, ensuring that Canadians have the skills, we all know that there are agreements between the federal government and the provinces, labour market accords, ensuring that we are looking at sustainable jobs or jobs with good benefits and good pensions. These are good union jobs. We want them and we want to create more of them.

We know that in the energy sector, both renewable and non-renewable, whether hydroelectric power or small modular reactors or the natural gas sector in Alberta, all of the by-products that are produced from natural gas are so important.

This is what Bill C-50, for me, is about. It is about ensuring that, as we adopt new energy sources, whether they are used for electric vehicles or our electricity system, Canada remains a competitive beacon for its workers and that they have those skills.

I am based in Ontario. I grew up in British Columbia. I understand regional differences and differences in regional views on issues.

What is most important is that we allow for debate. It was so unfortunate that we could not invite witnesses. After I produced the scheduling motion or the programming motion at committee for Bill C-49, which we have not talked about and which is supported by the Atlantic provinces, and for Bill C-50, one or two of the members opposite went on to filibuster for 10 sessions.

We could have called witnesses. The ministers would have been scheduled. The official opposition's duty, because it is its job, is to ask tough questions. It is its job, its duty, to oppose, if it wishes to do so. The members did not even afford themselves that opportunity.

Tonight, we hear speeches about how there was only two hours. That is weak, to be blunt.

We are here to do a job. If one is in opposition, they should do that job and do it extremely well and hold the government to account. I encourage it.

At the same time, we are looking at legislation that all of the private sector unions across Canada signed on to and are supporting, as well as their workers, the hundreds of thousands of workers.

There are 800,000 workers in the energy sector here in Canada and that number is growing, in both renewable and non-renewable, and we want them. We are building new hydroelectric facilities, whether it is in Newfoundland and Labrador or other areas. We want that. We want investment.

At the same time, let us have a serious discussion on Bill C-50. We could have had that serious discussion at committee.

It was very frustrating, to put it bluntly, to have the filibuster. I have been here for eight years and I have many colleagues who have been here for many more years. We go to committee and we do our homework the night before. We do our readings. We want to see witnesses. We had witnesses fly in, ready to come to committee. They could not present. That was unfortunate.

I can go through the bill and read aspects of it and ask questions myself but the fundamental premise of us being here and being on those committees is to ask those tough questions, to ask why. I always want to ask why. I tell my kids to always ask why and to ask, “Can we do better?”

Can we improve as parliamentarians? Can we look at a piece of legislation that is better?

When I think of sustainable jobs, I think about transparency. I think about collaboration with unions and without unions, with workers, with Canadian workers working in certain fields, much like the 700 workers who worked at the pulp and paper mill in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and then the pulp and paper mill closed. Much like across Canada, many pulp and paper mills have closed.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask colleagues to always remember that the wonderful residents of every single one of our ridings sent us here to do the good work they want us to do, and also to be as respectful as we can and as passionate as we are as members of Parliament. That is our first priority.

I want to speak to the importance of the energy industry in Canada, because Bill C-50 is supported by the Canada's Building Trades Union and by industry. There is a lot of collaboration going on. Most importantly, it deals with Canadian workers, from Newfoundland and Labrador all the way to British Columbia and all the way up north. I covered the energy sector for a good 15 years of my life, if not longer, whether it was the upstream, downstream or midstream sectors in Canada, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work in the Canadian energy industry. Before, the adage would have been the “non-renewable” sector, which is predominantly the energy industry and the conventional and in situ oil sands production by many great companies based in Canada, and now we have what is called the “renewable” sector.

Before I forget, it is my duty to say that I will be allocating some of my time to my dear friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, in the beautiful province of British Columbia. He is a very learned member of the House.

The energy sector in Canada accounts for over 10% of the Canadian GDP, with over $200 billion in monthly trade statistics. We see proceeds from what we sell and trade. I think about when people talk about the PADD 1, 2, 3 and 4. Everybody who covers natural gas and those sectors will know that energy is powered by Canada's natural resources: in the western Canadian sedimentary basin where a lot of gas is produced; in northeast B.C.; and in what is known as the Alberta advantage on feedstock, its ethylene and polypropylene itself, where we see Dow announcing an $11-billion investment in Alberta. A few years ago, pre-COVID, I went to the Alberta industrial heartland. I was there for a number of days touring the facilities because many of the companies there are ones I covered in the private sector. They are generating great Canadian middle-class jobs. They continue to do so and we want them to do so.

We also understand, with Bill C-50 and with what is happening in the world, that there are alternative energy sources coming on stream. We know that at COP28, a number of countries, including Canada, have dedicated themselves to tripling the amount of nuclear energy production, so, yes, we are going to support small modular nuclear reactors in Canada and we are going to support refurbishments. Last summer, I went up to Bruce Power in Kincardine, here in Ontario. I am part of the nuclear caucus. I was out at OPG in Darlington a few months ago, learning about how important nuclear is here in Ontario, generating over 60% of Ontario's electricity production, along with other energy sources.

I will provide an analogy for what Bill C-50 would allow us to do. Many members know I grew up on the north coast of B.C., in Prince Rupert, where at one time, over 700 workers were employed in a pulp mill under the company of Repap Enterprises. Anybody who knows the pulp and paper industry's history will recognize Repap or MacMillan Bloedel, West Fraser, Canfor, etc. The mill no longer exists. Over 700 workers, including my father, were let go from the mill in what was really a one-industry town. Thankfully, today, Pembina has a propane export facility there, and another Alberta-based company has another facility, another pipeline exporting Canadian resources offshore to market. These are Canadian resources that are in demand, governed by the best environmental and worker legislation there is, and Bill C-50 would take us there.

I would say to my opposition colleagues that I sit on the natural resources committee. We had 10 committee meetings, and all the Conservatives did was filibuster. Believe me when I say that I value every penny the Government of Canada or any government at whatever level spends. We are not sent here to waste taxpayer money. That is exactly what the opposition did; it wasted it.

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

Madam Speaker, I was absent for a few minutes. I understand I may have missed a few words or so, but I would like to get to the heart of the matter on Bill C-50—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I respect the MP greatly even though we do come at the issue of the future of oil and gas development in Canada from diametrically opposed positions, which are probably in part ideological and probably in part because of who we represent.

I wonder if the member might comment on the fact that Bill C-50 actually does not use the words “fair” or “just transition” in this bill, which is what it is really all about, and it is a heavy focus of international global conferences and efforts around the world. It is a concept that has been developed globally and pushed globally for many years. I wonder if the member has anything to say about that, or the fact that this bill actually, as he mentioned, does not include anything about jobs training or skills training. Also, if he could comment on the fact that it does deal with ending primary production in natural resources, which of course is provincial jurisdiction.

I wonder if he has any comments about the NDP-Liberals being all over the map on those three things.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a conspiracy to silence me.

When he was leader, Erin O'Toole believed in carbon pricing. Unfortunately, no one in the Conservative Party believes in it any more and that is why we find ourselves in a situation where the Conservatives are going to try just about anything to kill a bill that goes against the interests of the oil and gas sector. That is their approach to Bill C‑50.

Let us quickly talk about Bill C‑50. The Bloc Québécois and I, personally, voted against Bill C‑50 since it had some major flaws. That said, I was open to discussing the bill. One of the major flaws had to do with workforce training. Canada and Quebec came to an agreement in 1995, that wonderful year in my life, the year of the referendum. In 1995, Quebec and Canada reached an agreement to promote workforce development and training. Since that time, workforce training falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec.

We know that Bill C‑50 will probably have an impact on workforce training. A just transition means giving employees new skills in new sectors. Acquiring new skills requires training. This is a problem in Bill C‑50 that the minister could fix. Members of the Bloc Québécois might be tempted to vote in favour of the bill if the workforce training issue is addressed to ensure that Quebec's jurisdiction in this area is respected.

Another, although possibly not insurmountable, problem exists. If we lack the courage to call a spade a spade, we may lack the courage to achieve our goals. We refuse to talk about a just transition even though most countries are talking about a just transition. We prefer to talk about sustainable jobs. I sense that the reason is because we lack courage. The problem is not insurmountable, however, as long as the bill is written the right way.

If the ultimate aim is to change the Canadian economy, as my colleague, the minister, was saying earlier, into a low-carbon economy, we have no objection to that. If the government really wants to do some soul-searching and stop providing endless funding to the oil and gas sector, we have no objection to that. If this is truly a step in the direction of an energy transition in Canada, the Bloc Québécois will not object to it as long as jurisdictions are respected.

Still, I do have my doubts. We learned in recent weeks and months that $30 billion is still on the table to pay for a pipeline. This is public money that will be used to support the gluttonous oil and gas sector, which made $200 billion in 2022.

I would like to hear my Conservative colleagues admit that when they talk about the cost of living and how people are struggling to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. I would like to hear them admit that, all the while, the oil and gas sector is making record profits. Shell made $42 billion. Chevron made $35 billion. Exxon Mobil made $55 billion. TotalEnergies made $20 billion. All those folks managed to make record profits thanks to ever-increasing profit margins. Why are my Conservative colleagues not outraged by that? I would like them to elaborate on that.

In closing, I would say that Bill C‑50 is not perfect. Perhaps it can be amended so that we can at least support it. One thing is certain. It proves that both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are bogged down in a shared philosophy of giving everything to oil.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will not be sharing my time, and I am happy about that. Next, I want to give an overview of the situation.

How did we get here? How did we get into this situation today, where it has become impossible for the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to study Bill C-50?

First of all, I would say that it is not unrelated to what we saw last week with Bill C‑234. Last week, with Bill C‑234, we talked at length in the House about what I like to call the “Carleton method”, the method employed by the new leader of the official opposition. It is based primarily on intimidation and misinformation.

Last week, I said that the first people to warn us about the Carleton method were actually the Conservative MPs from Quebec. They did not support the member for Carleton in the leadership race because they knew full well that he often used questionable methods. I will simply give the example of what one of the former Conservative Party members went through. This method, which relies on intimidation and misinformation, has become a common practice at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

On October 30, we began discussing a motion that would have allowed us to study Bill C‑50. As ridiculous as it may seem, what the Standing Committee on Natural Resources spent the next month doing was trying to determine who had the floor. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan joined the committee meeting. As we know, a committee has a certain number of members, including one member from the Bloc Québécois who has the right to vote. There are four Conservative members who have the right to vote and speak at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. However, the Conservatives decided that five or six of them would attend and that they would all ask to speak.

Not knowing what to do, the chair said that we would have to determine who the voting members are in order to know who has the right to speak. The Conservatives then objected, stating that the chair would be violating their parliamentary rights and privileges if he did not allow to them to speak. My colleagues may or may not believe it, but we spent a month listening to points of order about whose turn it was to speak. Is that serious? I highly doubt it. It is not childishness, it is not filibustering. I do not know what to call this waste of time, but I would say that it is nonsense. Nonsense, pure and simple.

First we spent a month trying to figure out whose turn it was to talk. Then we spent time on some things that, in my opinion, were even less edifying. The member for Red Deer—Mountain View told us that oil could be used to create peace in the world. His goal is to bring peace to the world through Canadian oil. According to my colleague on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, if Canadian oil were used more, then there would be no more war in Ukraine. Perhaps peace in the Middle East could be achieved with the help of Canadian oil.

That is not all. I was introduced to an entirely new concept. I used to teach political science, but my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View talked to me about eco-colonialism. Apparently, we are engaging in eco-colonialism if we do not allow indigenous peoples to freely develop oil. When it comes to colonialism, I am familiar with Edward Said's Orientalism. Like everyone, I am familiar with Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, but I have never heard of eco-colonialism. I spent almost 15 years talking about political science in universities, but this was a whole new concept for me. I was informed that we could bring peace to the world with oil and that eco-colonialism is something that is done to indigenous communities. There is not much difference between saying this and saying that we are using certain indigenous communities to advance the interests of big oil.

I learned something else rather interesting from the member for Provencher. The member for Provencher came and told the committee that he was a big fan of muscle cars. He recalled the late 1970s and early 1980s when people were free to drive big, fast gas guzzlers.

In a fit of nostalgia, he lamented that this was what we were losing. The member for Provencher also recalled that he used to be able to drink his milkshake with a plastic straw. The member for Provencher hates drinking his milkshake with a paper straw because it leaves a bitter taste in his mouth. I found that out at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why could we not return to this wonderful world where we could have world peace and everyone could be happy thanks to gasoline, muscle cars and plastic straws?

That is what I learned from my Conservative colleagues while we should have been considering Bill C‑50. This has been going on for over a month. That is why I say that some kind of rot seems to be taking hold of my Conservative Party colleagues. This rot is a kind of populism that might seem practically irrelevant, looking on from the outside, but that appears to be spreading within our committees, based on what I have seen in the past month. Since October 30, members have been telling us that we must not study Bill C‑50 for a variety of flimsy reasons.

After that, we were supposed to consider subamendments. The main subamendments that I saw proposed at committee applied to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I do like that member, although I would not say that I am his biggest fan. Still, I have nothing against him. I could not understand why the Conservatives insisted that the purpose of the subamendment was to hear from the people of Timmins—James Bay. They did this for my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and for my colleague from Sudbury.

Why did they want to hear from the people of Timmins—James Bay and Sudbury specifically? Once again, it was a flimsy pretext for getting my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to vote against the amendment so that they could then tell his constituents that their MP was not interested in hearing from them, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-50. Once again, as I was saying earlier, this is intimidation and disinformation. It has been going on for over a month at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

This is symptomatic of something I have been seeing since 2019, something I would call the Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil and gas industry. The Conservative members are as passionate about the oil industry as the Bloc Québécois members are about defending Quebec, Quebec's language and Quebec's culture.

I gave the example of my arrival in the House of Commons in 2019. I could hear people shouting “build the pipeline”. That is really something. Even though we are proud of Hydro-Québec, I have never heard a Bloc member shout “build the hydro towers". We have not gotten to that point. I have never heard that. The climax was when a motion was moved here saying that oil is irreplaceable. According to the Conservative members, oil is irreplaceable, the same way water or air or our relationship with our family is irreplaceable. To some Conservative members, oil is irreplaceable.

We are faced with a startling fact: The Leader of the Opposition wants to stay in the 20th century. He does not want to put an end to our dependence on oil. The oil and gas industry is his stock-in-trade. Unfortunately, I often get the impression that my Conservative Party colleagues are acting more like lobbyists for one economic sector than like representatives of their ridings.

Why do I say that? It is rather simple. Last week, some members from Quebec forgot all about the interests of Quebec farmers. They rose to ask why the Senate was not examining Bill C-234 and why we were seeing partisanship from some senators. I would remind the House that Bill C‑234 seeks to temporarily include the propane used to run grain dryers in the exemption for qualifying farming fuel. The much-talked-about carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, but there are members from Quebec who are asking questions in the House about why the senators are not passing that bill and who are talking about how terrible it is that they are not doing so. Meanwhile, the supply management bill is also languishing in the Senate. Who is holding that up? Let me give the answer. The Conservative senators are the ones who do not want to move forward on the supply management bill.

Imagine an MP from Quebec who has the president of the dairy farmers' association in their riding. Imagine that MP standing up in the House, saying that this is disgusting and asking why Canadian farmers are still paying for propane. However, this MP does not even mention supply management. Whose interests are they defending when they do things like that? Are they standing up for the interests of their constituents in the House of Commons, or are they standing up for the interests of the Conservative Party in their riding? I will let those members answer for themselves.

Personally, I think this clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to the oil and gas sector. We have seen this over and over during the past month with Bill C‑50. I would say the Liberal Party is much the same. Why do I say that? When we pore over Bill C‑50 together later on, it will become clear that the Liberal Party also spared no effort trying to take a bill that was supposed to be about a just transition and make it acceptable to the main players in the oil and gas sector.

Just to come back to that and sum up what I just said, Bill C‑50 was initially supposed to focus on a concept accepted by all western nations, that of the just transition. It was supposed to be about that. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources did a study on the just transition. However, toward the end of that study, the conversation somehow stopped being about the just transition and started being about sustainable jobs. Why did that happen?

I wondered about that. Many unions came to see me to talk about the just transition. During the study, “just transition” was used in the wording. However, toward the end, that term stopped being used. Why? It is because people in the Liberal party were approached by certain people, people who may be close to the Premier of Alberta, and they told the Liberals that they do not like talking about transitions and that the Liberals should instead change directions and find another strategy. On the one hand, there is that. Some people told me, but I do not want to belabour the point because they may have had malicious intentions, that a play on words could be made between the Prime Minister's name and “just transition”, just as a rather spurious play on words was made between the Prime Minister's name and the issue of inflation. If they did that, if they changed the intent of a bill just because of a play on words, I would say that they are spineless.

Basically, they changed directions to please the Premier of Alberta and to appease the backbone of Canada's industrial sector, namely the oil and gas sector. Earlier, I asked my colleague from Lakeland if she believed in climate change, if she believed that the oil and gas industry was one of the main contributors to climate change, and if she believed that we should get out of the oil and gas industry. The reason I was asking my colleague these questions is that, in actual fact, Bill C‑50 is trying to reflect on the necessary transition. We will have to get out of oil and gas. Whether we like it or not, we will have to do it. The other advanced western nations are putting a lot of public funds into doing that. That is what the U.S. is doing. It is spending a huge amount of public funds to get out of oil and gas. However, Canada is trapped in this particular context where the economy largely relies on the oil and gas sector, and there is no political will to change that.

Earlier, I summarized the Conservatives' speeches. The Conservatives' political thinking over the past six months could be summed up in just two words: “carbon tax”. They want to eliminate the carbon tax. They blame the carbon tax for everything. I will say it again because I have to say it every time: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The leader of the Conservative Party has said that the carbon tax will be the ballot box question. That means that in the next election, the ballot box question will be over something that does not apply in Quebec. That is rather surprising. Still, the Conservatives are all over it. The Conservative Party has been obsessed with the carbon tax for the past year. This demonstrates one simple fact: They do not believe in climate change. It seems to me that the last person in the Conservative Party who believed in climate change was Erin O'Toole.

I love this great quote from Erin O'Toole: “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.”

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, the Conservatives on the opposite side filibustered all 10 meetings we have had on Bill C-50. Constituents back home know this. Residents know this. Canadians know this. They send us here. We are paid by the taxpayers, and all the opposite side has done is waste time and resources. We could have had witnesses.

The MP has used language that I am befuddled by, such as “globalist”. The MP says, in the video that they put out a few days ago, that it is the final solution. It is language that is purely, I would say, anti-Semitic and, second, purely wrong.

Madam Speaker, through you—