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.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, for the Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to start our debate on Bill C-50, an act respecting federal accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

By introducing legislation for sustainable jobs, the Government of Canada is providing strong leadership through good governance, strong accountability and effective engagement. We would take action through five key elements.

The first element is to introduce guiding principles that ensure a cohesive approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help to create sustainable jobs, all while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to lead in an emerging clean-growth industry world.

The second element is to create a sustainable jobs partnership council tasked with providing independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and engaging with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts including workers, indigenous leaders, industry and young people are at the table to guide governmental actions.

The third element is a requirement to publish action plans every five years, informed by input from stakeholders and partners, as well as expert advice from the partnership council.

The fourth element is to create a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action on the implementation of the act across the federal government.

The fifth and final element is to designate responsible and specified ministers to carry out this legislation.

Much like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, this legislation would help to ensure that the Government of Canada has every region of Canada and every Canadian worker at the centre of its policy and decision-making with respect to sustainable jobs. The Canadian sustainable jobs act would respect Canada’s workers, regardless of the industry they work in, and would be inclusive of Canadians of all stripes, no matter what their background or where they live.

This legislation builds on the progress we have made over several years, as the government encouraged significant growth in our clean energy industries and other sectors that help us achieve net-zero emissions.

Since 2015, we have invested more than $120 billion in clean growth initiatives and pledged more than $80 billion in tax incentives.

If we had followed the path advocated by some Conservatives—one of austerity and inaction—our constituents and their communities would be at a considerable disadvantage. This head-in-the-sand approach fails to take into account the areas where investments are being made, namely, natural resources, energy, buildings, transportation, manufacturing and many others.

An approach of inaction would let competing nations take leadership roles in the sectors and industries where Canada is a natural leader, letting them innovate and attract global investments, while we wait and simply hope for the best. Such a reckless approach of inaction would put our economic well-being and our environmental stability at risk, but we are not going to let that happen. Instead we are acting decisively.

Whether it is this bill to ensure Canadian workers can seize the economic opportunity in front of us, or Bill C-49, which is helping to deploy an offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada, or our historic budget investments that allowed us to compete with the U.S. IRA and attract new job-creating sustainable investments, initiatives that support the creation of sustainable jobs are happening across government.

Canadians have an opportunity to take the lead in many fields in jobs that play a key role in reducing energy consumption like developing new green housing plans, retrofitting existing homes and buildings, or innovating in cutting-edge low-carbon technology.

These activities will all create sustainable jobs from coast to coast for our people, whether we are talking about a skilled worker at the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas, another who installs heat pumps in Nova Scotia or yet another who builds the batteries of the future at the new Northvolt plant we announced yesterday in Quebec.

We know that such investments are essential if we want to grow the Canadian economy and, consequently, create sustainable jobs.

While we attract industrial development, we are also focused on building out the backbone of Canada's economy, namely, Canada's electrical grid. The federal government is proud to support growing, sustainable industries, like renewable energy, hydrogen and nuclear energy. They are helping us to scale new technologies while delivering clean, reliable and affordable power to Canadian homes and industry.

Canada's clean electricity advantage has helped us to land international investors like Northvolt, Umicore, Ford and many others. We need to keep expanding our electricity system to attract investment, create sustainable jobs and fight climate change. That is why we have invested to deploy job-creating clean energy projects, like the 47-megawatt wind farm we announced yesterday near Medicine Hat, Alberta, or the 45-megawatt Burchill wind project in New Brunswick. These projects are helping to deploy more clean power to our grid every day.

The Government of Canada is also investing to deliver clean power storage, like the 250-megawatt Oneida project being built in the Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario.

All of these projects include indigenous leaders. This kind of work is critical to advancing economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Accordingly, an important commitment in this legislation is to create more meaningful, ongoing, respectful relationships with indigenous peoples. We need more indigenous peoples to lead business as directors, managers and workers. Their skills, knowledge and leadership are helping accelerate the fight against climate change, the modernization of our energy sector and the development of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers, including in the energy space.

As I mentioned earlier, we need a connected, affordable, reliable and non-emitting grid to supply more electrical energy than ever before. Not only will it power our emerging sources of new energy, it will also become a standard part of heating our homes, powering our vehicles and driving all types of industry.

There are lots of jobs associated with this new era of clean-power development. It is no wonder that the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, endorsed our sustainable job plan and this bill. Its vice-president endorsed our plan and said, “The IBEW's almost 70,000 members in Canada are ready to help build the next generation of Canada's vital energy infrastructure to help us reach our net-zero goals.”

The work being done to build out our grid, a job that is so massive that it must be tackled jointly by every level of government, will facilitate the growth of our nation's economy and our jobs, thanks to its status as a multi-trillion dollar market.

The eight years of investments made by our entire government have put us on the road to a strong economy that supports workers and job creation.

As a government, we have made informed choices aimed at supporting and growing our economy and modernizing our industrial sectors so we can succeed in the global race to invest in the clean economy.

The legislation we are debating today complements the billions of dollars in job-creating investments we have released so far, as well as our climate action policies, including pollution pricing and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

That act requires us to set greenhouse gas emissions targets, encourages transparency and accountability, and calls on us to take immediate and ambitious action to reach these targets.

Bill C‑50 builds on that act and on the clean industries strategy described in budget 2023. Thanks to this solid base, Canada and its workforce are in an enviable position compared to most countries of the world.

We are privileged, because we live in a peaceful country that has a wealth of sustainable resources, resources that demand a central role in whether we will be able to reach our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, resources that are abundant and diverse and that provide our workers and communities with opportunities that only come with concerted, determined shifts toward a low-carbon future.

As we focus on driving down the emissions that are fuelling the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure our young people have a bright future ahead of them in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy. Both are possible and they go hand in hand.

As Sean Strickland, the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions said, “If you take climate change seriously, you must, by definition, be pro-worker.”

If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made by cleaner manufacturing processes, let us attract the business that helps our workers fill that gap.

The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required. Some of these are because of action we are taking to partner with industry, communities and others, to pair talent with training.

Last Monday, in Edmonton, we announced support for over 20,000 new green jobs being supported by ESDC. Of the 400,000 jobs that require upskilling, a good percentage of those jobs are thanks to the sustainable development of our natural resources, which includes clean energy and hydrogen.

There is no question we are blessed with an abundance of resources, but to access the potential they provide, we must also ensure our workforce is well equipped. That is exactly what this legislation would do.

During the many discussions we had in the lead-up to this legislation, many of Canada's indigenous leaders, provinces, territories and local leaders identified tangible opportunities to pursue the development of new industries. They are taking concrete steps to realize their economic future. They are facing what much of the world sees as an enviable task of narrowing those options down to the top few that will create good-paying jobs and prosperity in their communities.

Our existing resources and initiatives created an ideal footing for our interim sustainable jobs plan. The strengths of the plan are the concrete actions it contains; notably, this legislation. There is also the start of a lot of work on nine other federal actions that will have a positive impact on the number of good, sustainable jobs in every part of this country.

I would like to speak to some of those actions today with the time I have left. First and foremost, I will mention the call to establish new legislation, the one we are debating today. It offers a framework that would allow us to take sound actions to address both the opportunities and challenges in a low-carbon economy, informed by ongoing engagement between government and Canada's workers, partners and stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples.

This legislation would also put accountability front and centre by designating a lead minister to guide these efforts. This would be accompanied by a requirement the government publish five-year action plans Canadians can use to measure and judge our efforts, supported by regular reporting on our progress, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

The legislation would also make good on another action item from the sustainable jobs plan, which is the establishment of a sustainable jobs partnership council. This would be an independent body that would provide advice to government on how it can best support the shift to a low-carbon economy. If we really want to give workers a voice, if we sincerely intend to empower them to influence the decisions that affect their jobs and their future, then we must create this council.

Through these efforts, workers, rural and remote communities, provinces and territories, indigenous groups, industry, young people, academics and others will be able to provide the council and the federal government with invaluable advice as we continue to move ahead.

What we are talking about is real-world perspectives and information from those individuals in the workplace who are experiencing the transformation of our economy.

The council would apply its own expertise to these lived experiences to provide independent, actionable advice on how to create good-paying, skilled, sustainable jobs for Canada's workers and ensure that workers have the supports that they need to succeed. Through the council, we would have the opportunity to bring many voices to the table, working together in the process known as social dialogue, essentially bringing workers, employers and governments together to find solutions that work for real life.

Some of my colleagues will go into more detail about the other elements in this legislation, like the commitment to releasing regular action plans and the sustainable job secretariat that would be created to work across federal departments and agencies on those plans.

The Canadian sustainable jobs act will ensure that Canadian workers have a clear path to the future. The measures we are taking here will help Canada lead the competition as our economy achieves net-zero emissions.

This plan is based on the thoughts and experiences of thousands of Canadians over more than two years of engagement and consultation. I would like to express our deep gratitude for their work and for their interest in helping us develop this legislation.

It was views like these that helped build the strong bill we have before us today. We even won endorsements from groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million Canadian workers. It said that the plan in this bill would be a big win for workers. We know that when workers win, so does Canada. This legislation is needed to ensure that the interim plan can support workers today while standing up the partnership council and secretariat to ensure an ongoing process.

When I speak about endorsements from the groups that have looked at this legislation, I wanted to also include the voice of the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals. The act is a good step forward in helping equip Canadians with the skills for the jobs for our future economy.”

Today, it is up to us to make the smartest possible choices and to put in place a framework that commits our government to supporting workers as they seek to build the sustainable economy of the future.

This bill reflects consultation with indigenous peoples, union members, new Canadians, industry leaders and community advocates from every region of the country. We owe it to them and to all Canadians to ensure that we are advancing a thoughtful plan to help them ensure that our country succeeds and that we can access great careers for generations to come.

This legislation will be used to create solidarity measures and strengthen training opportunities for all workers in Canada. It will ensure that Canadian workers can participate in discussions and enjoy equal opportunities to obtain and benefit from the jobs of the future. Like many of our government's initiatives, this bill is based on the need to tackle the existential threat of the climate crisis head-on, and to seize once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunities.

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best. I sincerely hope that every member of the House agrees to choose the first path, because as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure and build a sustainable future while securing abundant, sustainable jobs for future generations.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies, but I have a very difficult time believing the sincerity of the government with this bill, and that is a result of its constant retaliation against the natural resources sector. We saw this with Bill C-48. We also saw this with Bill C-69. We have seen this with the endless carbon tax after carbon tax, as well as with emissions standards, which the government forced industry to meet. This results in a larger mental health crisis among industry workers and higher suicide rates. Perhaps it is even fuelling the opioid crisis.

With a $41-billion deficit and $2.1 trillion of debt across Canada, and with oil and gas making up 7.5% of the GDP, how are the Liberals going to replace the funds in the coffers from a dying industry that they have killed at a time when they are also overspending?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that natural resources are at the centre of our future economy, and Canada is blessed with so many resources that the world is looking for. That is why we are actually reaching agreements with other countries, like Germany with our memorandum on hydrogen, and our recent agreement with Romania when it comes to nuclear power.

We know that Canada has the expertise, and we have the workers to make those different clean energy industries a success. We are relying on their ingenuity to get us through to where we know we need to be, because, as I mentioned, RBC has estimated that by the end of this decade, there will be 400,000 new jobs for Canadians. We know and we believe in Canadian workers. They have the know-how. They have the go, the energy to keep us moving forward. We are making agreements with international countries to be able to make those jobs a reality.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. The most important part of it was when she spoke about new jobs in new technologies.

Does this bill not seek to help retrain workers in polluting industries, declining industries? There was no mention of that. In any case, I did not hear my colleague mention it in her speech.

If Canada is moving toward oil expansion, then there is no energy transition, and so there is no need to talk about a fair transition for workers, since there are going to be jobs.

I think it is simplistic to talk about jobs in new technologies. Yes, these jobs must be created according to the principles of the fair transition. However, the fair transition is the approach taken to keep workers in declining industries in the labour market.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, sustainable jobs are part of what we are doing to address climate change. Canada is transitioning to a net-zero economy. That is important because it attracts the interest of industries that want to do their manufacturing here in Canada.

We just saw an example of that yesterday in Quebec with Northvolt, a company that is going to manufacture batteries in Saint‑Basile‑le‑Grand. That will create jobs for 3,000 people, and that is not the only announcement that we made. We are seeing it everywhere. There are companies out there, whether it be Volkswagen or Rio Tinto. Everyone is looking to see how we can develop a net-zero industry here in Canada.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats are going to continue to use our position in Parliament to push for a sustainable future rooted in clean technology and good-paying union jobs. We are not going to give up until the government delivers.

Although we welcome this legislation, under the Liberals' watch, we are watching the country burn down as they continue to invest in the fossil fuel industry. We are in a climate emergency. While the Liberals fail to act, the Conservatives pretty much completely deny the climate emergency and are not willing to move forward into the future into a clean economy that brings workers along.

We are happy that the Liberals are putting forth this legislation. How long is it going to take them to actually act? We are in a climate crisis. We need climate action now.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could agree more with the member opposite that we have to make sure we steer our economy to where the world is looking. We are in a global shift, and fighting climate change has to be at the top of our agenda. We have seen it with the wildfires, hurricanes, floods and droughts. It is terrible when we see things like yesterday, when the Conservatives brought a motion specifically based on denying that fighting climate change is something we must do. We know we must do it, and we know we must put workers and their communities at the centre of where we are moving. That is why I am looking forward to working with the member opposite, and any member of the House who feels like doing that, to move this file quickly to committee so we can do the important work of making this law.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question following along the same line as the last question. What is the risk to the Canadian economy and workers if we do not put into place a clear plan, and if we are not strategic about supporting our workers as the world's economy is developing to address climate change? What risk does Canada face by burying our head in the sand and not acknowledging that the jobs of the future are also the jobs that are going to solve the climate crisis?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because it is so important that we recognize that fighting climate change not only helps us to avert the natural disasters we are seeing in our country, but also that, more than that, it is economic policy. It is so important we make sure our economy is a net-zero economy. When we talk to people in industry, and I have talked with different people from companies around the world, they say that they looked at Canada because we have one of the cleanest grids in the world. We can do better than that; we can have a net-zero grid, which is what we are working toward.

More than that, we can talk about things like, for example, the EU, which in only a few days is putting in place a border carbon adjustment. If we want to be able to continue to trade with that important bloc, getting rid of things like a price on carbon pollution and stopping action to fight climate change would make our trade relationships more difficult.

If we believe in a strong economy, in workers and in trade, we need to fight climate change. This bill is part of the work that we need to do.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, can the government confirm that this bill includes respect for jurisdictions and that the way Quebec deals with labour will be respected as well?

Did the government think about that when it drafted Bill C‑50? Can my colleague confirm that?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill applies to work that is done under federal jurisdiction. We consulted the provinces and territories during the drafting of this bill. We know that is very important.

We will work with the provinces and territories because they too want to ensure that we are ready for net-zero and to support workers in their province and territory. We are working with them to be sure of that.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on this idea of working on creating a clean energy grid and cleaning all our forms of energy in the Canadian energy ecosystem. One way we could do that to fight climate change, bring down our emissions, and keep Canadians safe is to have a really serious program to bring heat pumps to all Canadians. There is a small program in Atlantic Canada now. We really need this across the country. Heat pumps are safe and efficient, and they work everywhere across Canada. I wonder why the government is not really picking up on that in a big way.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that how we heat our homes and power our vehicles is such an important part of what we are doing to reach net zero. I would like to make sure that the member opposite lets all of his constituents know about the greener homes loans and grants. These are a chance for an auditor to make an assessment as to what is most needed. It might be insulation. It might be a heat pump. There might be different steps that are needed, but, absolutely, energy efficiency and making sure we power our homes in a way that reduces emissions are both so very important to the transition to a net-zero economy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, for all Canadians everywhere; for my bosses, the people of Lakeland; and on behalf of the official opposition, Conservatives oppose Bill C-50.

It is dressed up as something else, but it is really the culmination and symbol of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition's divisive, top-down, central planning, economy-restructuring and wealth-redistributing, anti-private sector, antidevelopment, anti-energy agenda, known previously and around the world as the so-called just transition.

The reality is anything but just. It really represents a transition to poverty and a diminishment of the standard of living and way of life most Canadians are able to enjoy. I will make that case today and expand on it later as MPs do our job and our due diligence on this bill, which is about so much more than it seems at first.

The NDP-Liberals say it is about job training and helping workers in one sector develop some new skills for jobs in a sector yet to get fully on its feet. Canadians should know that it embodies almost a decade of incremental, punitive policies, taxes, bans and penalties, and red tape to end energy development in Canada and to kill those and all related jobs.

It shows the core philosophical gap between Conservatives and, I think, most Canadians and all the other parties in this House. It puts top-down, command and control planning, and power in the hands of politicians and government to set and restructure the fundamentals of Canada's economy instead of job creators, entrepreneurs, inventors, dreamers and individual Canadian citizens and consumers, who built our country into the blessed placed that it is.

As a consequence, it would ultimately make life more expensive and more unstable for all Canadians, like nearly everything else the costly coalition has done during the last eight years.

The just transition is a dangerous, government-mandated and direct threat to hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs. It would displace hundreds of thousands of workers and risk the livelihoods of Canadians across all provinces and territories in all sectors.

Members should mark Conservatives' words: It would negatively impact the whole Canadian economy while disproportionately harming certain people and provinces, such as B.C., the Prairies and Atlantic Canada, and regions. There is nothing just about it, and the government knows it. After months of naming it preparing it, at the very last minute, the government changed the wording from “just transition” to the so-called sustainable jobs plan, because it sounds better. Canadians were worried about the just transition when they found out what it meant, so the NDP-Liberals switched it out, for their own PR and political purposes; their early framework document from last summer even admits this.

However, it is the same old plan, anchored on the NDP-Liberal agenda to end Canada's energy sector and to harm all the other spinoff jobs and sectors in all provinces that depend on it. The damage to Canada cannot be overstated. Whether the blind and divisive ideology of the other parties would allow them to admit this reality or not, let us get real about the stakes of this debate.

Despite eight years of layers of anti-energy policies, laws, bans, vetoes, caps, standards, penalties, taxes and red tape that have driven billions of dollars and the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of our country, the fact remains today that oil and gas is literally the top private sector investor in Canada's economy, and energy is still Canada's largest export.

It is the leading contributor to tax revenues at every level of government, with more than $48 billion last year alone. Almost a decade into the coalition's anti-energy agenda, it still directly employs almost 200,000 people, with average wages that are more than double the national average.

The truth is that every single provincial and territorial budget depends on revenues from oil and gas. Even in provinces where the elected people pretend it does not pay for the programs and services their citizens expect and count on, it does, both directly and when the revenue from the incomes of energy workers are shared across the country in transfers.

On top of that, oil and gas companies in Canada are the top private sector investors in clean technology, covering 75% of private sector investment in Canada in clean tech. They have been the private sector pioneers of alternative and renewable energy innovation for decades, because energy transformation is their expertise.

I am appalled that I even have to point out these facts in the hope that we can have some semblance of a realistic debate here, since the anti-energy coalition has spent so much time dismissing, distorting and denying it. At this point, I do not even know whether all these legislators here actually do not know the facts, which is obviously alarming in itself, or whether they are just wilfully ignorant and deliberately evasive in order to impose their own agenda.

However, the magnitude and gravity of what the end days of this approach would look like for Canadians means I must speak the truth. Conservatives will keep doing so to do our duty in the best public interest of all Canadians, which is our priority.

The responsible development of Canada's natural resources has been the main driver in closing the gap between the wealthy and poor, and it is disproportionately responsible for the relatively high standard of living that most Canadians have enjoyed compared with other countries around the world. Energy development here constantly innovates and transforms. Engineers, inventors and risk-takers have built a globally renowned means to displace higher-polluting alternatives, accelerate technology to improve environmental stewardship, and help reduce emissions globally. It is also the most environmentally and socially responsible means to do so. It is often the only source of job and economic opportunities in rural and remote communities, especially indigenous communities, which make up more than double the workforce percentage in oil and gas of indigenous people in other sectors compared with the national average.

As always, vulnerable people, people in rural and remote communities and people the Liberals say they care about, especially on the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada, are the people whom Bill C-50 would disproportionately hurt the most. The truth is, though, that this whole agenda would negatively impact all Canadians and all major sectors. It would cascade through the economy, which is already happening in real time. This top-down, central planning attempt to restructure the economy would hurt manufacturers in metals, rubber, plastics and chemicals; technicians in the oil and gas sector; workers and truck drivers in the transportation sector bringing food to grocery stores; servers and cooks in food services; farms and ranchers and agribusiness; and hotels, convenience stores and all individual Canadians, as the cost of living goes higher and higher as a result of the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-private sector policies. Canadians are already bearing all these costs at just the beginning of these anti-energy laws, taxes and red tape; it will get worse.

The carbon tax, of course, has hiked the cost of everything, with no overall reductions in emissions or improved environmental performance to show for it. It is clearly not worth the cost, because almost a decade in, it is not doing what the NDP-Liberals claim; it is fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis their government has caused. Basics, and not luxuries, such as groceries, gas and home heating, are all more expensive, with no end in sight. A stick of butter is almost seven bucks where I live. Gas has been hovering around two bucks a litre in Alberta, Ontario and Atlantic Canada; it is more than that in parts of B.C.

Provinces have been working to try to lower fuel costs. Alberta suspended its gas tax, only to have the NDP-Liberals drive the costs right back up by bringing in their second carbon tax, from which, let us be clear, no Canadian in any province is exempt. Other provinces, such as those in Atlantic Canada, plead with the federal NDP-Liberals to pause the carbon taxes because their residents have to choose between eating and heating and cannot make ends meet.

The NDP-Liberals wax eloquent about caring, but they make light of the struggles Canadians face. They criticize Conservatives for being the only party actually fighting to lower costs and prices for everyone. They call names, impugn motives, distract and divide, and they keep right on rolling their agenda over everyone in the way. Layers of NDP-Liberal anti-energy policies, such as the no more pipelines bill, shipping bans, drilling bans, vetoes of approved energy infrastructure and gatekeeping red tape, designed to get to no and not to yes, have already destroyed over 300,000 jobs. Massive long-term promising oil and gas and pipeline investments, LNG terminals and export facilities, and mining operations have all been cancelled or delayed or cannot even get started because of the uncertainty of the NDP-Liberal agenda.

What really concerns me is all the costly coalition's efforts, or its ignorance, about the direct link between energy development and Canadians' everyday real lives. Right now, if Canada keeps going in the NDP-Liberal government's direction, our country is on track to be one of the worst performers in standard-of-living increases in the world over the next 40 years. There would be real costs, as there already are.

Based on the NDP-Liberals' catastrophically failed experiment with the coal transition, which left workers and whole communities behind, this next phase of the global just transition agenda will cost Canada almost $40 billion each year it is implemented. That does not even include the loss in tax revenue and royalties from oil and gas. However, members should not take my word for it. The government's own internal brief says its just transition plan will kill 170,000 direct jobs, displace up to 450,000 direct and indirect jobs, and cause large-scale disruptions to manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, energy and construction, impacting a staggering 2.7 million Canadian livelihoods. That is why Conservatives stand alone, opposed to this agenda. It is absolutely not worth the cost.

I am going to touch on disproportionate impacts. Despite all the empty rhetoric, which individual Canadians are going to be hurt directly and the most?

The truth is this: Visible minority Canadians and indigenous Canadians, who are more highly represented in the energy sector, are expected to face higher job disruptions and will have more trouble finding new opportunities as a result of this truly unjust plan. That is gross. What is really gross is that the government knows it.

Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, said, “There is nothing fair or equitable about [it]”. In committee, he put a fine point on how much worse the reality of this agenda would be for indigenous communities. He said there are “high costs” to this poor plan and the “crisis we now face in first nations.” He also said:

Many of our communities rely on diesel generation. People have to drive for hours to get to doctors appointments or a grocery store. A lot of people aren't on the grid, and even those who are don't have the electricity capacity to add charging stations in garages they don't have. You won't find any electric cars on the [reserve].

That is the case for lots of Canadians all across the country. The reality is that oil and gas are still more readily available for remote communities. The projects last longer and have better wages, job security, benefits and opportunities than other sectors provide. That is just the truth.

The NDP-Liberals' plan to phase out oil and gas is bad for Canada, but it has international implications, too. The ongoing attack on Ukraine should make it clear to the Liberals and the NDP that where the world gets its energy from really matters and underscores the importance of energy security. The NDP-Liberal government should actually learn lessons from other countries instead of plunging Canada down the same destructive path.

Germany, for example, ignored energy security to try to phase out its own energy sector and relied on dictatorships, such as Russia, to supply its citizens' needs, until Russia turned off the taps and Germany was forced to bring their coal power back online. After cancelling the KXL pipeline, President Joe Biden had to plead with OPEC dictators to increase oil exports. That failed, so he had to empty the U.S.'s strategic petroleum reserve and end sanctions in Venezuela, even though he was also the VP when the U.S. ramped up shale gas and oil exports outside of North America, and in the same year, the U.S. imported more of that very same oil from Canada than ever before in its history.

Apparently, hypocrisy abounds for the sake of domestic politics there, just like here. Of course, now the U.S. has upped the competitive ante on Canada even more while the NDP-Liberals leave us vulnerable and hold us back, and the U.S. has not actually slowed down its traditional energy development or exports either; they are ramping up. Canada can and should be an energy superpower, and Conservatives believe we still can be, with a change of government. However, it is not for the title; instead, it is to bring home energy self-sufficiency and security for our country, for the standard of living of our citizens first, and then to support free and democratic allies and developing nations around the world.

It is wild that even now, the NDP-Liberals will not reverse their destructive plan, despite geopolitical realities and the necessity of stable, reliable, accessible, predictable and affordable energy of all kinds for Canada's communities, economy and sovereignty. That is more obvious and necessary than ever.

Canada should accelerate energy projects and infrastructure for energy alignment with North America and allies around the world. Canada should maintain and expand its place at the top of energy-producing nations and supply growing global energy demand while alternative energy and other fuels of the future are in development, but not yet abundant or reliable enough for all domestic or global needs. Canada can aim to meet net-zero targets while continuing to reap the benefits of a sector that is leading the entire world in innovation and clean technology.

That is what an actual evidence-based policy would do. In fact, that is the only feasible way to meet Canadian energy needs, grow Canada's economy and achieve environmental goals until other alternatives, which are currently in development, become real, viable options for all Canadians. However, the NDP-Liberals are rushing ahead anyway, ignoring science, economics and expert testimony for their own ideology.

When evidence and experts show their plans' massive flaws, they obfuscate through rebranding campaigns and buzzwords, while ignoring or attacking any critics. For example, when the government held two consultation phases on it, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut were left out. The natural resources committee, which I am on, was in the middle of a study about the just transition, hearing testimony, when the NDP-Liberals brought in the bill before the work was even finished. The final report was selective to suit their agenda.

As they do this, it attacks Canada's energy sector, fails to recognize Canada's world-class environmental standards and encourages an accelerated transition away from the livelihoods and businesses on which millions of Canadians depend. Instead of examining and making recommendations on practical and feasible ways and timelines for increased technological development and grid decarbonization without risking Canada's economy and standard of living, the report was twisted to prop up the bill after the fact and totally excluded the large group of witnesses who highlighted the gaps, contradictions and realities of this agenda.

It is worth noting that, during the entire 64-witness, 23-brief, year-plus-long study, only one non-government witness ever called it “sustainable jobs”. Therefore, it is almost insultingly obvious that it is a cynical last-minute attempt to obscure the real aims and the real consequences.

The Liberals already failed their just transition attempt for 3,400 coal workers in 14 communities, and some say past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour. Last year, the environment commissioner said that plan failed by every measure and left those workers and all those communities behind. Now the Liberals claim they can do this for 2.7 million workers across every sector of the economy. We call Canadians skeptical, and rightly so. Bill C-50 is more of the same. It would be that kind of failure, and that is why Conservatives oppose it.

However, the key question for Canadians is this: What is the experience of other countries that are 30 to 40 years down the road of the policy agenda imposed by the NDP-Liberals on Canada? Well, the answer is alarming, and it should cause a serious pause to elected representatives here at home in Canada.

In European countries, after implementing various just transition policies in the late 2010s, electricity bills doubled from 2021 to 2022, but let us talk about some specifics. German citizens faced a 200% increase. Scandinavians saw a 470% increase in power bills. What does that even mean? That was, of course, before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In the U.K., literally three days ago, governments are stopping big elements of their anti-energy policies, including their ban on internal combustion engines and the transition away from natural gas heating. They are removing their tax on jet fuel and opposing calls to ban new oil and gas production in the North Sea. The U.K. is also, of course, extending coal plant life cycles through next year. This will continue, because this approach does not work.

In Australia, the government scrapped the carbon tax after it made everything more expensive and harmed resource development, a pillar of their middle economy, just like Canada, although it has many advantages over us. The carbon tax caused a spiral of damage across the board, and instead, Australia now uses incentives to spur clean investment and clean energy development like we Conservatives proposed.

France axed its carbon tax more than five years ago in the midst of soaring prices, an escalating cost of living crisis and riots in the streets. In Sweden, the government has slashed taxes on gasoline, just like what Conservatives have been calling for here at home, and actually announced a surprising pause of all its policy efforts toward net zero this past summer instead of tripling taxes and plunging ahead down this perilous path. Germans, of course, have gone on to bring back online 15 coal-fired plants with extended life cycles to combat rising power costs, which also contracted the country's GDP, and now coal accounts for one-third of German energy generation for five million homes.

This is just a few of the many countries that are further ahead of Canada down this road and are backing up because of the severity of the consequences for their citizens: an escalating cost of living crisis, skyrocketing power prices, falling GDP and standards of living, crashing power grids and unstable fuel sources, risks to sovereignty and vulnerability to hostile powers.

All of that is becoming very familiar to Canadians after eight years of the Prime Minister, but it is not a coincidence. Instead it is a consequence, and it is all connected. Conservatives plead for the NDP-Liberals to get this reality before it is too late, and we will keep fighting to protect and maintain Canadians' livelihoods, opportunities and standard of living, while maintaining the best and ever-improving environmental performance in the world that we know Canadians expect.

The Liberal-NDP's just transition must be considered in the context of all these cost-hiking measures that have been imposed on Canadians. They will increase the cost of living; kill Canadian jobs and communities; risk economic activity, jobs and tax revenue at all levels of government from Canada's largest sector; and jeopardize the reliable, affordable and abundant energy that Canadians need every day. Instead of examining practical ways and timelines to get grid decarbonization without risking the economy and the livelihoods of millions Canadians, the just transition attacks Canadian oil and gas workers and all the other jobs and businesses that depend on it.

Environmental stewardship must be addressed with realistic, concrete and effective measures. Conservatives want realistic transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; and the evolution of energy sources to be led and paid for by the private sector, not forced by a government's command and control agenda. Conservatives believe Canada must develop our traditional alternative energy sources and support the development of industries like hydrogen, biofuels, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal and other innovations. We will make both traditional and alternative energy affordable and accessible, accelerate approvals on infrastructure and export projects, and green-light green projects. We are the only party—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, in my hon. colleague's speech, she spoke about how the Conservatives view tackling climate change through technology, yet they oppose the Atlantic accord, which would allow for technology development in Atlantic Canada. The member also spoke about the cost of energy in Atlantic Canada. However, once again, by blocking the Atlantic accord, Conservatives block economic development in Atlantic Canada, the ability to reduce energy prices in Atlantic Canada and good jobs for Atlantic Canadians.

Do the Conservatives even believe climate change is real? How do they plan to address it if they continue to block technological advancements? Why will they not allow Atlantic Canadians to have the good, clean jobs of the future?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question because it gives me the ability to address the reality of Bill C-49 rather than the Liberals' false claims.

Here is the truth about Bill C-49. It imports a number of clauses from Bill C-69 and includes a number of clauses from another bill, Bill C-55. The consequences of both of those bills embedded in Bill C-49 are exactly what has unfolded and what Conservatives warned about in previous debates. Bill C-49 would hold up, delay, road block and gatekeep alternative and renewable offshore development, just as it is also a simultaneous attack on petroleum offshore development.

I am not sure if Liberals do not read bills, do not know what they are talking about or are just reading what someone says, but these issues are grave. They are serious for the underpinning of our economy and our standard of living. We oppose Bill C-49 because it is an attack on energy to end petroleum offshore opportunities, and it would hold up, road block, delay and gatekeep renewable and alternative offshore energy development. Conservatives are going to accelerate approvals, make sure projects can get built, cut timelines and make both traditional and alternative energy sources available at affordable—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the subject of the debate, which is Bill C‑50 and not Bill C‑49.

First, I want to say that what I just heard made my skin crawl and it proves that the Conservatives are speaking for the private oil sector, which is made up of billionaires. A recent poll revealed that two-thirds of Albertans polled on the moratorium on solar and wind development disagree with their premier.

Do the Conservatives know that there are other sources of energy other than oil, gas and coal?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question because it allows me to put some reality and facts on the table. Again, I am not sure if the Bloc knows the facts either, but here they are.

I hate to be a homer all the time, but Alberta for decades has led this country in renewable and alternative energy development. We have the largest and oldest commercial wind farms in this country, to the point that they are already being decommissioned. Maybe people want to point out that it is still only 2% of our grid, which should be a lesson, but this is the thing: We are also the leader in Alberta on the development of alternative and renewable energy technologies and the fuels of the future right now.

The provincial government is setting certain conditions and giving certainty and clarity to private sector proponents and all Albertans to have confidence in the regulatory regime. We have always led the country on renewable and alternative energy because that is our energy companies' expertise. We do not have a history of putting that on governments, ratepayers and taxpayers. We do it through free enterprise policies. That is the opportunity that awaits all of Canada. What concerns me is that these guys do not seem to know that it is oil and gas companies doing all that work.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said she wanted to base her speech on facts, but there is apparently some alternate world out there about facts.

She mentioned that the fossil fuel sector has just less than 200,000 employees in Canada. The clean energy sector already has 430 employees, and it is expected to grow by more than 200,000 over the next 10 years. That is where her constituents and workers across Canada are looking.

I will close by saying she should read John Vaillant's book Fire Weather, which is about her province, about the world, about climate change and about the industry that she is such a fierce protector of.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I am a fierce protector of is the livelihoods, the cost of living and the standard of living of the people I represent and every single vulnerable community and citizen across this country.

While I appreciated working with that hon. member on the natural resources committee in my first term, he should probably get into the coalition cabinet and ask them about why they have not done the interties and have set unrealistic targets that are impossible, about which they will answer no single concrete question regarding who is going to pay for them and how we are going to get there.

People may not want to take my word for it, which I understand because I am a politician. So that Canadians understand, this is not just about a war on oil and gas, which it absolutely is. How do we know it is about economic restructuring? We know that because the Prime Minister and the natural resources minister have said that.

I would note that there are only parliamentary secretaries here, so it seems like this is a real priority. Last week, in the House of Commons the minister talked on this issue and referred to economic restructuring. During COVID, the Prime Minister said it was an opportunity to reset and restructure the economy. That is what this is about.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have three and a half minutes after question period to answer questions and comments.

I also want to remind her that she is not to say indirectly or directly who may be in the House and who is not in the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, in all this debate about the sustainable jobs act, what I have not heard is an explanation from the Liberal-NDP government of a credible plan to replace over 25% of Canada's exports. Petroleum and petroleum products account for over $100 billion, over 25% of Canada's annual exports. These exports are absolutely necessary for the protection of the value of the Canada dollar.

If the sustainable jobs act achieves what it intends to achieve, it would cripple our exports and cripple the Canadian dollar, which would lead to a massive increase in inflation, which we are already dealing with. This massive increase in inflation would necessarily be countered by further radical interest rate hikes from the Bank of Canada. Therefore, can my hon. colleague explain the deep economic consequences of this policy that the government simply does not have a credible plan to deal with?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I touched on this in my remarks earlier, but the hon. member is exactly right, and that is exactly why Canadians can see countries around the world that are 40 years ahead of us on this agenda now rolling back all of those measures. They are doing the very things Conservatives here at home have been asking the current government to do to protect our citizens' cost of living, future opportunities, standard of living and jobs. We have been asking it to control and bring down the cost of living crisis that the government's anti-private-sector, anti-energy, anti-resource-development command-and-control policies have created.

The member touches on a thing that I really find the most important about this debate. It is that the NDP-Liberal government owes these answers to Canadians about how it is going to achieve the targets it set on these timelines. So far, it is causing all economic pain and no environmental gain. That is why Conservatives and Canadians are asking whether it is worth the cost. That is the government's job to answer.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member cares deeply for the oil and gas sector. She talks about it quite a bit, and I appreciate her prerogative on that. Even if one does not think there is a future in clean tech and that there is opportunity here, this still gives the opportunity to unlock the potential of new jobs in a clean sector. All one has to do is open their eyes and look around throughout the world. This industry is really in a growth stage right now. Even if one does not necessarily agree that it is the future, why would they not still take a very easy risk on betting that it will be a positive outcome for the Canadian economy?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we do agree it is the future, which we have said multiple times. We just recognize that the reality that the oil and gas sector in Canada still remains the most abundant, available, affordable source of energy for most Canadians throughout this country and is also the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative energies. What the government wants to do is kill the very sector that leads to the innovation and technology.

The Liberals should answer more questions about how on earth they are going to meet their targets in 2035, when they cannot get critical minerals out of the ground, when they are holding back the ring of fire, when interties do not exist and when there is no grid capacity and no end-user distribution system for Canadians on the back end.

Conservatives are saying, “Answer the questions.” How is this going to get done? When, why and in what way will it get done? Who is paying for it? Then, maybe people could have confidence in their plan. However, we all know they are not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the energy transition and a fair transition for workers and their families.

For a long time, we have been proposing to change Canada's energy trajectory to make it consistent with the country's commitments and to keep the global increase in temperature below 1.5°C. Those are commitments made by the government and the world. We are proposing to immediately stop the increase in production of fossil fuels and to gradually reduce our total oil and gas production by 2030, not increase it. We are proposing to redirect the money invested in fossil fuels, including generous Liberal subsidies, to developing renewable energy and clean technologies.

We stand in solidarity with workers in the energy sector. Right from the start of the whole Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we were proposing to abandon the project and redirect those amounts to western Canada's energy transition by investing in solutions for workers and their families. We support collaborative efforts among all stakeholders affected by the transition, including businesses, workers, their representatives and the public. We have always known, recognized and affirmed that the energy transition is a challenge for the economic sectors affected, and that public authorities need to plan this transition for workplaces through engagement, training and other measures to support workers and their families.

In that respect, the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendations for a just transition law coming from environmental groups and labour organizations. They were wise enough to join forces in their demands in favour of this just transition, because they understood that the success of the energy transition and the fight against climate change would depend on the economic and social success of the companies, workers and communities that would be affected by the changes to come. In fact, I recall that at one of the UN conferences on the environment I attended, Antonio Guterres clearly stated that there will be no transition without workers. They are part of the solution. It is simply a question of solidarity. The Bloc Québécois has listened to environmental groups and labour organizations and will support their demands of and recommendations to the government.

We think that just transition legislation should include the following. First, let us call a spade, a spade. This should simply be called the “just transition act”. Then, it should set explicit objectives and principles that are articulated around international commitments on climate, responsibilities to indigenous peoples and obligations with respect to an equitable transition in Canada. This legislation should adopt a collaborative approach that relies on a social dialogue based on equity that respects democratic dialogues already under way in the provinces and territories, especially in Quebec, and respects the democratic choices of that nation, the Quebec nation, and the rights and aspirations of indigenous peoples.

This legislation should set out measures for respecting Canada's objectives and principles when it comes to the just transition, including those related to the climate, indigenous peoples, the need to not leave anyone behind, and groups that deserve equity and suffer inequities related to the degradation of the environment. It is clear that there are people who more or less did not contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions whose environment is directly affected by this degradation. Again, I am thinking in particular about indigenous peoples. This legislation, the mandate and mission of organizations created by the government should not in any way exceed the legislative jurisdictions of the federal Parliament. These organizations have to make recommendations to the federal government in areas of federal jurisdiction that can be mobilized in favour of the transition.

This legislation should provide for regional or sectoral planning and reporting requirements along the lines of those established by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. This legislation should establish an adequate means of funding by setting up funding agreements with the provinces. Those agreements need to be based on real greenhouse gas reduction targets in order to finance the projects needed for the transition.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑50 is not about a just transition. In fact, the Liberal government does not even dare use the term, which really seems to frighten them. Bill C‑50 proposes creating committees that will make recommendations on workforce training to the minister who will be responsible for implementing the legislation. That is it.

Workforce training, while not the only aspect of the just transition, is certainly part of the discussion. It is a sphere of activity to must be taken into account in planning the transition. If we want to legislate workforce training, then we need to take into consideration the legislative jurisdictions of the different governments and take into consideration the official agreements that already exist between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments. Unfortunately, on this, the government still seems to have completely forgotten Quebec in its process of developing Bill C‑50. Its advisory body, its secretariat for supporting the implementation of the legislation, all of that already exists in Quebec. The federal government has never understood the labour landscape in Quebec.

They developed Bill C‑50 by ignoring the reality in Quebec, and this is not the first time. They developed it by ignoring our laws, our policies, our democratic choices and especially by ignoring agreements between Quebec and Ottawa related to workforce training.

Quebec has been voicing its demands on labour issues for decades now. During the 1990s, discussions between Quebec and Canada on this subject related primarily to repatriating the federal funding for vocational and technical training. It was about righting a certain wrong, specifically the federal government's financial disengagement, which had to be compensated for.

On June 22, 1995, the Quebec National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. With this legislation, Quebec demonstrated its leadership in workplace training. The Quebec reform laid the foundations for a new model based on partnerships that would make a major contribution to Quebec's economic development. This legislation led to the creation, in 1998, of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, or CPMT, which is now celebrating its 25th anniversary. The CPMT was created in the wake of the repatriation of active employment measures from the federal government to the Quebec government. This is not new. We are talking about 1997 and 1998.

In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada signed the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle and the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement Implementation. The Commission des partenaires du marché du travail was created a few months later.

What is the CPMT? It is a consensus-building body that helps develop the Quebec government's labour and employment policies and measures. To find innovative solutions and build consensus, the CPMT coordinates Quebec-wide consultation forums in order to resolve specific employment-related issues. The CPMT brings together employer and labour representatives from the education community, community organizations and economic and social departments.

In addition to the CPMT, which covers all of Quebec, there are regional councils of labour market partners. In fact, I sat on the Conseil régional des partenaires du marché du travail de la Montérégie. In addition, there are a number of sectoral committees, which bring together employers and unions in the various industries. It is important to understand that the CPMT and all its organizations are the only ones of their kind in Canada. That is a source of pride in Quebec. The creation of the CPMT and Emploi-Québec is a gesture of national affirmation for us. It is not just a blip on the radar.

It is somewhat disappointing that no one in the federal government thought of this. In the opinion of the officials who presented Bill C‑50 to us, at no point in the process of drafting the bill did the government consider Quebec's specific situation, yet again. This unfortunately speaks volumes about the general mindset of this government, which has so little regard for the sovereignty of the Canadian provinces or for Quebec's distinctiveness that it forgets the agreements it has itself entered into as part of its government action.

That said, the government always has the opportunity to rectify this situation. We need to develop legislation that takes into account the agreements the federal government has signed with the provinces, especially Quebec, which has its own model of partnership and co-operation. The government must introduce an element of asymmetry into the bill to make it compatible with the Canada-Quebec agreements on workforce development. To do so, it must reach an agreement with the Quebec government. In addition, if money is earmarked to support the sustainable jobs action plan that the minister must produce by 2025 and every five years thereafter, Quebec must receive its fair share of that money and it must go through the Quebec government. That is how it is done in other areas.

If the government wants the Bloc Québécois's support in developing legislation that promotes the just transition, then it has to do its homework. In fact, I think that the government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that actually takes into account Quebec's laws and the existing agreements between the governments of Quebec and Canada. Some may be thinking, “Good luck with that”, but we have every hope that the minister will understand our concern.

I will give an example of a time when, for once in its history, the government understood. In the case of child care, the government understood that Quebec was a pioneer, and it even praised Quebec. The government understood that it must not take any action that would undermine Quebec's network of early child care centres. The government even publicly acknowledged that it was using Quebec's system as a model. I think that the government should do exactly the same thing when it comes to labour. We simply do not understand why the government does not realize that the same logic should apply when it comes to workforce training. That situation definitely needs to be rectified.

While it is going back to the drawing board, the government should also listen to environmental groups and unions, who have specific demands and who were expecting, as we were, a comprehensive just transition law that would be aligned with Canada's climate commitments, not just a law creating committees to talk about workforce training.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois has no choice but to criticize the Liberal government's calculated decision to abandon the concept of a “just transition”, even though the term did not originate here. I think we first started talking about it in the 1980s. The term is enshrined internationally in the Paris Agreement and the COP26 Just Transition Declaration, which Canada is part of. Why is the government afraid of those words?

We believe that the government's decision to use the term “sustainable jobs” and no longer refer to the just transition is in keeping with its approach to energy. If the energy transition does not take place, which is what is happening now, since the government is currently developing oil expansion, then there is no point in talking about a just transition. Jobs in the oil sands may be sustainable in the eyes of the federal government, given that it has basically ensured that they are here to stay by expanding oil projects. That move has even won the approval of the official opposition. Why are the Liberals and NDP afraid of the term “just transition”?

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the Conservatives playing word games with the Prime Minister's name? Are they afraid of the Premier of Alberta, who said she would fight the idea of a just transition with all the tools available to the Alberta government? Is that what they are afraid of?

We believe that if the federal government wants to take action to support the provinces in planning the energy transition, it must engage in frank and respectful dialogue with all the provinces and propose legislation that reflects the quality of that dialogue.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. After yesterday, when we heard all the Conservatives stand up and say they were against fighting climate change, would she not agree that it is important to continue the fight on the federal side?

That is exactly what my bill aims to do, specifically take action on the federal side. Is it not important to think about workers and ensure sustainable jobs for the net-zero economy of the future?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech this morning and I asked her a question. She spoke about jobs in green technology, clean technology and renewable energy. The principles of a just transition must apply to all of these new jobs, and those principles include sustainable development, respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and the social safety net. We need to respect the principles of this transition.

However, another thing that is important is providing assistance in retraining workers in polluting industries, which should be in decline. This is mostly about them. At all of the conferences of the parties that I participated in and in all of the discussions that I have had with environmental organizations and unions, that was the big issue. Participants said that workers in fossil fuel industries should not have to bear all of the weight of the transition, but there needs to be a transition for that to be an issue.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member and I often debate from our opposing world views on the role and necessity of oil and natural gas for Canada and the globe long into the future, but I certainly appreciate her comments on respecting provincial jurisdiction. I know that we share that principle, but the NDP-Liberals think nothing of running roughshod over provincial governments with whom they disagree.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, and the truth is that the oil and gas sector and mining are the biggest private sector employers of indigenous Canadians, with wages that are double the national average. There is a concern about setting realistic timelines and allowing those jobs to continue while the private sector continues to be the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative renewable energies. Does she share that concern?

In addition, could the member tell us how the more than $7 million in GDP and the 438 businesses in oil and gas in Quebec will be replaced?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development just finished a study proposed by the Conservatives on clean technologies. During this study, witnesses told us that it is primarily SMEs that create jobs in clean technologies. It is not really the oil companies.

The oil companies use smoke and mirrors when they talk about their carbon capture and storage technology, which is fake news, a fake technique that is not even effective. Maybe it will be effective 10 or 12 years from now. The oil companies are billionaires. I maintain that the Conservatives are primarily pawns of these oil companies, which have billions of dollars but just want to offload the fight against climate change onto the consumer.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we need a just transition that brings workers along. Something I have offered to put forward is a guaranteed livable basic income, which could certainly be paid for if we stopped funding big oil and instead put that money into funding people. I am wondering if the hon. member agrees that we need to start supporting people.

I have said very often that I do not think people love oil and gas, but I think they love feeding their families and paying for their houses, and they like to eat. We need a just transition that brings workers along. I know that climate activists are calling for a guaranteed livable basic income as one way to assist workers in transitioning. Does she agree with that proposal?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, fossil fuel workers should not have to carry all the weight of the energy transition themselves. Yes, we are thinking about the workers.

UN Secretary-General Guterres said that the energy transition will not be possible if we do not think about the workers, if they are not on board with us. Even in Alberta, there is an organization called Beyond Oil and Gas, which represents workers from that sector who want an energy transition.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank and congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Repentigny, for the quality of her substantive speech, as well as for the quality of her answers. When the Conservative member did not like my colleague's answer, she heckled her throughout. However, my colleague maintained her focus and answered frankly. I take my hat off to her.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Gabriel Ste‑Marie]

Madam Speaker, there she goes again.

The part of my colleague's speech that really stood out to me was when she said how little Ottawa understands the ecosystem of Quebec's labour market and workforce and how they operate. Can she share some more examples of that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.

We are studying Bill C‑50 today, but I want to go back to when the Harper government tabled its 2013 budget. The important bit in the 2013 budget was the Canada job grant. That was the centrepiece. Quebec was opposed to it. I remember that, at the time, people in the Conservative government said that we should go and see what was happening in Scandinavia. It was Ms. Maltais, a PQ MNA, who told the government that it did not need to cross the Atlantic, that all it had to do was look at what was happening in Quebec. It was after that that the agreements were respected.

This is not the first time the government has had no sense of what is happening in Quebec. Quebec is a leader in many fields, and we are proud of it. As I said in my speech, Quebec leads the way in terms of day care, employment and, I would add, the environment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to sincerely congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on the quality of her speech, as well as her ability to remain focused. During part of her speech, she had to put up with three annoying members behind her who would not stop talking. I just wanted to say that I admire how she remained focused on her message.

I am always surprised that this Liberal government, which claims to be a strong advocate for the environment and active in the fight against climate change, continues to support and invest massively in oil companies.

How does my colleague break down and understand the Liberal government's approach to climate change? Does that approach, by any chance, reflect the fact that they are trying to have it both ways, from an electoral perspective? What other reason could they have for continuing to support the oil industry when the planet is falling apart?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Repentigny has just a little over a minute to respond.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have just one minute, but it would take me hours to explain everything that is wrong with the government's approach to fighting climate change.

The former Liberal environment minister, Mrs. McKenna, said that Canada could not be part of such a bad movie. That is not nothing. She said that it did not make sense for Canada to rank second in the world when it comes to expanding oil production.

What I find really too bad is that when government ministers open their mouths all I hear are speeches from oil companies.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. It is a debate that, certainly in respect of the larger issue of climate change, is the most important of our time. We are being called on to try to navigate what is an increasingly challenging, dangerous and expensive climate crisis. This summer was just the latest and most extreme example so far of what failure to take climate change seriously looks like.

I grew up in a house where climate change was an important theme. At one time it was called global warming. NDP MPs were the first to raise the issue of global warming in the House of Commons as far back as the 1980s. This is a debate that many of us in Canada have been wanting to have for a long time. We have been debating climate change in various ways over the last decade or more.

However, I do not think that the quality of the debate has risen to the occasion. That is not to say that particular people in the context of that debate have not done a good job of presenting the kinds of ideas that I think we need in order to be able to adequately tackle the climate, but I think if we take a step back and look at the debate as a whole, it has not served us well. We are not where we need to be.

These are not my words, but I think they are helpful to kind of get a sense of some of the pitfalls in the climate debate. I have heard others say that those pitfalls are encapsulated by the three Ds: denial, delay and despair. There is still no shortage of denial, even in the House of Commons, respecting the real threats that the climate poses to life on planet Earth, and, if things do not get that dire, real threats that are posed to the economy.

This year, we saw some of the worst examples so far of that. It seems to me that, for a number of years now, we have been in the unfortunate position of having to say that we have seen some of the worst examples. If the folks who study these things for a living are to be believed, and I think they should be, we are in for more bad weather events and other things that will have a cost not only in human life, property damage and all the rest but also to the very economy that proponents of denial often say they want to save.

Today's bill is not perfect by any stretch, but it is an important part of putting infrastructure in place to be able to deal with the economic impacts of climate change, and to try to put workers at the centre of that.

Often we will hear from opponents of legislation like this that it is all about shutting down the oil and gas industry, and that it is going to hurt workers and the economy. I want to take a moment to speak to that criticism. I do not think that is true, frankly. There is a lot of the pain that workers in the oil and gas industry have been experiencing. We have seen moments of international pricing of fossil fuels falling.

I remember an important debate early on in the 42nd Parliament, around 2016 or 2017, not long after I was first elected, when the international price of western crude plummeted. It had some very real impacts for workers in Alberta and for workers in the oil and gas sector across the country. That was painful for them and painful for us to watch, and merited a response that was centred on workers and how to support workers at that time.

I want to just take a moment to say that the interests of the oil and gas industry and the interests of oil and gas workers are sometimes aligned, but not always. In fact, over the last couple of years, what we have seen is an increase in extraction. If we listen to Conservatives in particular, that can get lost in the noise. It sounds as if oil and gas companies are being told to shut down and cut production. That is actually not true. There are certainly some of us who think that unlimited and unbridled growth in extraction is a recipe to worsen the climate crisis.

There is a reasonable debate to be had about what an appropriate amount of extraction every year could look like and what would be sustainable, but that is not the debate that we hear from Conservatives.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen a decrease in employment in oil and gas, which is why I think a lot of people who work in oil and gas feel that the sector is in trouble, but if we look at the corporate readouts, the fact is that they are extracting more oil and gas than ever and making more money than ever.

Part of the way that they are doing that is by having very close political allies that they have worked for a long time to capture. This has even reached the point that Suncor recently held off on announcing 1,500 layoffs that it was making in a year where it had just almost doubled its previous year's profits.

In 2022, Suncor made $2.74 billion in profit. Despite having one of their most profitable years ever, almost double the profits from 2021, which itself was a year of record profit, it decided to lay off 1,500 people.

It did not just do that when it suited them. It did it when it suited its political allies in Alberta. It waited until after the Alberta election to announce those layoffs.

It was not that long ago that a story surfaced about Conservative MPs who, on the dime of a right-wing Hungarian think tank and an anti-carbon tax lobby in Canada, flew to the U.K. and were treated to lavish dinners, including $600 of champagne and expensive meals, because they are part of a political and economic club that benefits from the profit-making of the oil and gas industry, which I say, again, does not always mean something that directly benefits workers.

We see a decline in employment even as we see an increase in production and profit in the oil and gas sector. Therefore, I think Canadians should be suspicious of the denial argument, because there is a lot of money in the oil and gas sector and a lot of people who benefit from that.

What New Democrats are concerned to see is that workers in Alberta and across the country continue to have gainful employment, good union jobs, where they can be assured of good workplace safety and health standards when they go to work. They should be able to go to their shift in the morning, come back at the end of the day and be paid well for the work they perform.

The economy is not static. The fact of the matter is that whether Canada seriously recognizes the threat that climate change represents to the planet and to our economy or not, our international allies and economic competitors are recognizing that.

As some in the House will know, I sit on the finance committee. We have heard from a number of people in the private sector who are talking about the incredible economic opportunities that decarbonization represents. There are opportunities in renewable energy and the emerging and growing electric vehicle market.

That is where the puck is going. I would say, of the oil and gas industry, particularly in Alberta, obviously the private sector has played a huge role in that. Obviously a lot of people in the private sector made a lot of money, and obviously a lot of Canadian workers have benefited, over the decades, from that, in terms of stable and well-paying employment. However, that industry was created with some very deliberate public policy and some very large investments.

That is the kind of foresight that a person like Peter Lougheed exhibited. If we took that same wisdom and apply it to today, what it entails is government once again looking at the public policy agenda and putting into place favourable conditions for those markets of the future.

This is not to say that the oil and gas industry is going to disappear overnight. In fact, we have a government right now that is pumping over $30 billion into a pipeline exactly because it does not believe the oil and gas industry is disappearing overnight.

I think that was a poor use of public funds. I think the opportunity cost of investing over $30 billion in a pipeline instead of investing it in the new energy economy will ultimately not serve Canadians well. We could have created a lot of employment and helped position Canada far more competitively in the new energy economy had we spent those public dollars in that economy instead of on a pipeline.

We have a government that is very invested in fossil fuels. It does not matter what the government does for the fossil fuel industry, including saying no to the NDP's calls for an excess profit tax on the oil and gas industry. We have an official opposition that cannot get the Liberals to do that here, although it is something some Conservative governments elsewhere have been willing to agree to.

The fossil fuel industry is alive and well in Canada. It is doing very well for itself. More and more, it is not passing that success on to workers, because the industry is finding ways to do more of that work with fewer workers. We are seeing that the oil and gas industry, including the companies and the shareholders, does not have the same loyalty to the workers that workers have shown to the industry.

New Democrats want to build an industry and have governments and public policy that are there for those workers as those companies find ways of moving, and even as they make money. In time, as the world economy shifts to a lower-carbon future, we need to make sure those workers are not left behind but that they are players with skills that are valued, and that people, not just in Canada but across the world, want to hire them for those skills in order to build out that new energy economy.

The path of denial really gets us nowhere. For too long, Canada, under the Liberals, has been on a path of delay. What does that look like? That looks like big investments in a pipeline, tens of billions of public dollars that, had we started spending five or six years ago, Canada would be in a much more competitive position in relation to our peers in terms of generating good union jobs in the emerging sectors.

I hear Conservatives often complaining about the fact that Canada's productivity growth has not kept up with that of our competitors. Business investment in Canada has been stagnant for a long time now. It is not because corporations have not had access to capital. In fact, many Canadian companies have large capital reserves, and they have seen the corporate tax rate go from 28% or 29% in the year 2000 to just 15% now. While that corporate tax rate was being reduced, the argument being made for it, among others, was that this tax reduction would allow Canadian companies to invest back into the Canadian economy. That is not what they have been doing with the money.

The new energy economy provides an opportunity, in at least two ways, to raise the level of business investment and the level of productivity. It is an opportunity for governments to make investments, for sure. We are starting to see some of that. Thankfully, the Biden administration in the U.S. provided real leadership on that. It was not until it provided that leadership that we saw the Liberals here really get going in a meaningful way on investments in the new energy economy. I think we are late to the table, and that is going to create challenges for Canada.

There is also a lot of private capital that wants to invest in renewables, and Canada has a lot going for it. We need to do it in the right way with indigenous people, instead of railroading them and railroading their rights to land and resources. I think Canada has a lot of offer in terms of natural resources, but we also have amazing workers with some awesome skills who can compete on the international stage. That would be a reason why international investors want to come here, and they do want to come here. However, they want certainty, and that is part of having predictability. We have seen a Conservative government, like the government in Alberta, win an election and then completely throw out plans for meaningful investment in renewables.

Conservatives like to talk a lot about how governments signal to the international community and the effects that can have on the economy. When we have a Conservative government like that run one way and then the day after, tear up major plans for investment in renewables, that says to the international investment community that it cannot put its money in Canada because it does not know what will happen when the political winds change.

In fact, in this case, it was not even a change of government. It was a government that got past the election test and figured that if it does this all now, four years from now when we have another election, maybe people will have forgotten about it. It completely changed course. How does that help Canada tell a credible story to international investors that want certainty and predictability on this front? Canada has been delaying for too long.

We are finally seeing some action from the government, but it is reactive and is in response to the Biden administration in the U.S. making the kinds of generational investments that ought to be made in the new energy economy in order to ensure that the United States has a serious foot in the door in that economy. Canada has to get with the program, but there is more than one way to participate in the new energy economy.

What New Democrats do not want to see is what we are starting to see in oil and gas, where workers are not at the centre of this. They get talked about but do not have a seat at the table, and at the end of day, if wealthy investors and shareholders are able to make extra money by screwing workers, they will do it. We are seeing it in the oil and gas sector. It is not the way we want the renewable sector to be set up.

The sustainable jobs act, which is a product of some of what we forced the Liberals to agree to in the confidence and supply agreement, is an attempt to start building infrastructure so that when we push past the denial and delay, we do not end up with the third “d”, which is despair, and people feeling that after all this, as we build the foundational infrastructure of a new energy economy, there is no real room for workers there and that workers are being pushed into new industries with lower standards for pay and working conditions. The only way to prevent that is to put workers right at the table.

That is not just a defensive manoeuvre for workers to be able to advocate for the wages and working conditions they properly ought to have. It is also an opportunity for Canadians, for public policy-makers and investors to have the wisdom of people who know how to do these jobs at the table. They will then be able to evaluate various specific proposals about building particular things and can ask if they make sense, if they are going to work out and what the challenges involved with them are, and not just the engineering challenges, because there are engineers for that. It will mean having people who are familiar with what it means to commute from Nova Scotia to Alberta to work on a project.

To be able to weigh in on how to get the human resources we need in order to build this new low-carbon infrastructure is a really important part of the story, and I believe that having workers at the table is not just good for workers but good for the projects to help us understand how to staff those projects, particularly in a tight labour market. Although I think this is true generally, they need to know how to do it in way that is genuinely attractive to the kinds of workers who have the talent, skills, education and training that we need in order to make these projects a success.

I talked a bit about what I think is a terrible mistake in Alberta to turn away from building up the renewable energy economy. I think it is a decision that goes against the enterprising spirit of Peter Lougheed back in the 1970s to set up an industry that would serve his province well for decades to come. The clean energy sector's GDP forecast, economists believe, is that it is set to grow by 58% by 2030. They are projecting only 9% growth in fossil fuels. If we want to go where the jobs are and the money is and if we want to take Canada's economy to the places it needs to go to remain competitive and continue providing good livelihoods for Canadian workers, that means investing in the clean energy sector and creating a policy environment that works for the clean energy sector and for workers.

In the United States, we have seen the private sector announce more than $110 billion in new clean energy manufacturing since the Inflation Reduction Act was put into place. That is an incredible amount of investment, and that means an incredible amount of work for American workers. We do not want Canadians to get left out of those opportunities. It does not make sense for Canadians to be left out of those opportunities if the concern is about workers and the future of families. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said very wisely earlier, it is not that Canadian workers love the oil and gas sector. What they love is good employment. What they love are fair wages. What they love is to be able to put food on their tables and afford a home.

In the future, going forward, there are going to be a lot of opportunities to do exactly that: put food on the table, afford a good home and have some financial security in clean energy jobs or in what I call the new energy economy. It is a lower-carbon economy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will be able to add more during questions and comments. We will not be able to get through all the questions and comments, but we will do the best we can.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Natural Resources has the floor.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, what I really appreciated was the focus the member placed on the well-paying jobs that are going to be available to workers as we move toward a net-zero economy and building out the clean electrical grid.

In that speech, one of the points he raised was the need for certainty: We need to make sure there is certainty and transparency as to how things are happening and what the plan is, planning ahead for workers to make sure those well-paying jobs are there.

With this bill, there are proposed requirements for action plans to be tabled and for there to be advice from a partnership council. The members from the official opposition are raising points that would make radical changes to such policies as carbon pricing. Could the member elaborate on the importance of that kind of stability and on perhaps what he sees as the dangers to those well-paying jobs when he hears that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, certainty is very important. That is certainly something we hear around the Standing Committee on Finance table. I have heard it around the Standing Committee on International Trade table as well. Investors are looking for a predictable public policy environment. When we get governments that suddenly pull the rug out from under clean energy investments, what they do is make it harder to attract private capital. It is frustrating in the case where we then have a party that turns around and says that the government cannot fund this transition all on its own and that we need private capital too. Why would it undermine the prerequisites for attracting private capital?

Certainty is important in another sense, because we need certainty for workers in this transition as well. That is why employment insurance reform is really important, and it is something we need to do with a mind to the energy transition, pension-bridging opportunities and training for workers. All these things have to be built into a plan. Again, this bill is not perfect, but it is the beginning of creating some certainty not only for international investors but also for workers about this transition, which is coming led by the market if not led by the government.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the House, I keep hearing the indignant pleas of my NDP friends, who are very committed to the fight against climate change, as they push the Liberal government to stop investing in fossil fuels and affirm that we must absolutely do more to fight against greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, when the time comes to take action, one of the few things we can do in the House to act against the government is to vote against it. In the last budget, budget 2023, there were still billions of dollars handed out to the oil industry, including for carbon capture, which we know does not work at all. My friends at the NDP voted in favour of that.

I would like my colleague to explain that to me.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that the NDP does not sit at the cabinet table. Our job is to criticize the government and try to negotiate with it. They do not agree with us on everything. Perpetual elections will not create the necessary conditions for dealing with the climate crisis, either. We are here to do our work. This includes criticizing the government, but perpetual electioneering is not the solution either.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member for Elmwood—Transcona brought up signals that the current government and governments around the world are sending. Five years ago, I was at a G20 meeting on energy. The subject was this transition that we are talking about today. Germany, Japan, Argentina and even China were talking about the need to move to renewables quickly, and Canada got up and said we built an oil pipeline and would like to build more natural gas pipelines. It was a real face-smacking moment on the world stage. Workers can see that too. They see this transition is happening. Could the member talk more about how we need to involve workers in this process?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is where that question of the three Ds comes in. Workers do know, as everyone can see it. We could not miss this summer that there are real problems beginning to happen as a result of climate change. They pose real threats to human life and safety, our property and our economy. We cannot get away from that.

What is on offer in political alternatives? There is a party that is offering the idea that we can just ignore it and maybe it will go away. Too often we have seen from the government a willingness just to say, “Yes, that is important, and we are going to get to it”, and then it just keeps kicking the can down the road. In the face of that, it is easy to despair and say, “What do we do?”

We are not seeing leadership from government. What we are starting to see is some leadership in the market and that is because, thankfully—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to continue his questions and comments the next time this matter is before the House. I do apologize for having to interrupt him.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has, in the eight years I have been here, gone on about court decisions, yet we have seen in the last week how it has been completely slapped down by the Supreme Court for showing a flagrant disregard for provincial jurisdiction. It has no regard for how our Constitution is supposed to work as it relates to natural resources and provincial responsibility, yet it is bringing in time allocation to rush through aspects of its extreme anti-energy agenda, even at a time when the Supreme Court has clearly said it has overstepped.

Why will the government not take a pause and listen to not only parliamentarians, but also the Supreme Court instead of ramming through its unconstitutional anti-energy agenda?

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

Mr. Speaker, the pearl-clutching.

If the members on the other side had not moved concurrence, maybe we could have been debating this last night. However, they used procedural games to avoid debate, and here we are happy to take questions on a very important matter.

I would also take issue with the fact that the Supreme Court, in its opinion, did a slam dunk or that a fulsome 100% judgment was rendered from the other side. It did not. It actually gave a very thoughtful opinion on where the federal government and the provincial governments should work together on matters of jurisdiction.

I can say that we took it, as we should, very seriously and will be looking at amendments we can making in order to make sure it complies with the rendering that came from the Supreme Court last week.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, there seems to be two block parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the block everything party. That party is the Conservatives, who block every piece of legislation and refuse to move them forward. They blocked dental care. They blocked everything that provides supports for Canadians.

In this case, of course, I guess there is some weird logic, because they hate clean energy. We have certainly seen that in Alberta where Danielle Smith has ripped up the clean energy sector, costing thousands of jobs. Therefore, legislation that actually helps to support that clean energy sector, creates new jobs for workers and also ensures that workers have a seat at the table is anathema to the Conservatives. Of course, they love bankers and CEOs, but they seem to hate workers, seniors and anybody who really benefits.

Through you to my colleague, is that really why the Conservatives, yet again, have blocked this type of legislation that actually benefits workers and Canadians?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into the psychology of the Conservative Party. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for the question, but I will refuse the attempt.

Let me just say this. I would like to comment on his last point, if I could, as that is really what is at the heart of what we are proposing to do here.

Energy workers, oil and gas workers, should not just have a seat at the table, but should be leading that table. The problem is that for far too long concurrent governments, and I would argue ours, have left them out of the debate. They need to not just be a part of that debate, but to lead it.

I have skin in the game. My constituents are oil and gas workers. We have built a very proud offshore industry off the coast of Newfoundland. When they hear talk about change, tumult, and things that are exaggerated on social media like there is some master plan that is being made up in some star chamber, they get nervous necessarily. What we are saying with this legislation is that we are putting them at the table as decisions are made to best prepare them for a future that is happening now.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was supposed to rise today to debate Bill C‑50, an important bill that, in fact, was originally to have been named the “just transition act”. For reasons unknown to me, the government seems to be afraid of using this expression, even though it is recognized internationally. It was created by the unions and approved by the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and even the European Union. Everyone in the transition, biodiversity protection and other fields uses the expression.

We have questions. The Bloc Québécois has had only one opportunity to speak, and here we are on day two of the debate. Why is the government unwilling to let us debate Bill C‑50?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, let me speak to the hon. member's mentioning of the phrase “just transition.” There is a very simple reason why I do not like using “just transition” and it is because workers hate the phrase “just transition”.

I do recognize that the International Labour Organization created it. I understand that it did come from the labour movement. However, it does not speak to the people who I represent, and it does not speak to the people who work in the oil and gas industry or the energy industry as a whole. It does not speak to them.

We need these workers onside. We need them to lower emissions in the oil and gas industry because they are the only ones who know how to do it. We need them to build the renewables because they are the only ones who know how to do it. There may be certain phrases that get in the way of them doing that work or continuing to work in that industry, and building those things and doing those things is way more important to me than complying with the conjecture or the phraseology of Geneva.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, this is such important legislation for sustainable jobs. It is about building our economic future as a country.

I was wondering if the Minister of Labour could talk to us a little about the importance of making sure that workers are at the centre of the work that we are doing, and how we have made sure, through this bill and the work that we have been doing generally with labour, that workers' voices are being heard, listened to and included.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is very much a process, and process can be incredibly important.

I do not want to presuppose what workers are going to say about how they want to get this done. I have talked to a lot of oil and gas workers, both in my constituency and in my time as natural resources minister. Even through COVID, I still spent a lot of time talking to oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, even if it was by Zoom. They all said the same thing. There was a great nervousness about plans being made and them not being at the table.

I made it very clear that, with this legislation, the whole point of the bill is to make sure that they are at the table, to make sure that they can lead the table, and that we are working with them to make sure that the training opportunities are there for them to avail themselves of all sorts of things. There is carbon capture sequestration, for instance, within the oil and gas industry, even on pipelines themselves. It is so important that we know where and when to tighten the nuts and bolts on a pipeline to make sure the methane does not leak. These are all very important things.

These are the only people who know how to do this work. Consecutive governments have spent too much time putting them in the margins of this debate, putting them in the margins of the hard work that needs to be done when they have to be at the centre of it because they are the only ones who know how to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is abundantly clear after eight years is that the Liberal government loves to build bureaucracy but not actually build jobs and options for workers.

When we look at this bill, we have a stable jobs partnership council, a sustainable jobs secretariat and a sustainable jobs action plan. We lost a couple of years because of COVID. The government did nothing with that. We see in the bill that all the government would do is create another process where it could reward more of their friends with positions on councils and secretariats with fancy titles. It is not going to be the people working in Coronach, Rockglen or Kindersley, Saskatchewan, in Alberta or in the places that actually matter, those who are actually going to be impacted and affected by this.

What assurance is the government going to give people that it will get it right, and make sure it is only people in the sector, and not people from the Laurentian elite or the downtown Toronto core, who are going to be sitting on the secretariat?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the other side, I am looking at the kings of red tape when it comes to energy production. One of the first things I was so happy to do was with respect to exploratory well environmental assessments on our offshore, off Newfoundland. The assessments were at 300 days per exploratory well until the Conservatives got in power and somehow magically found a way to triple that time to 900 days to make an exploratory well, which is a simple drill that goes into the sea bed to see if there is oil there. They put it in the same category as Hibernia and as Hebron, both full platforms. The Conservatives did not even get time to amend it. Maybe they did not care.

We did not want mistakes like that. One of the best parts of the much-maligned Environmental Assessment Agency is that it is able to do regional assessments. We were able to do one for the Newfoundland offshore, and we were able to reduce that time, as a result of looking at the entire basin, from the Conservatives' 900 days to our 90 days, as it should be.

That is because we paid attention to what people are doing on the ground, and it is one of those few occasions where, in 90 days instead of 900 days, we increased environmental oversight because we were looking at the entire basin and not just one item after another after another, consecutive duplicative red tape that the Conservatives managed to put in the way of our offshore.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 2023, for the second reading of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, I voted on the voting app. The voting app sent me a confirmation whereas the picture had not gone through. Therefore, I ask the House to give unanimous consent to vote yea.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

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

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière has the floor.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I heard from the minister's mouth. He told my colleague earlier that workers did not want to use the term “just transition”.

However, this is coming specifically from the unions. I have had so many meetings with unions to talk about the just transition, and the folks representing workers do want to talk about a just transition. The minister says that workers do not like that term. I think it is the government that does not like that term.

No one in the western world uses the term “sustainable jobs” except in Canada. Someone will have to explain that to us at some point. I think it comes down to fear. The government is afraid of how Albertans and people in the oil and gas industry will react to the just transition, so it prefers to use a wishy-washy term like “sustainable jobs”. If the government cannot even call it what it is, we cannot expect it to take courageous action to lead the energy transition.

There will always be people who do not want the energy transition. Should the term “energy transition” be changed to “power alteration” or whatever? It is nonsense.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me why the terminology changed from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member, “Believe it.” I am a lot less interested in using phraseology that appeals to Geneva or others, and there has been some consistency in phrases that the member likes or perhaps some union leadership likes. I am interested in the membership of the those unions. I am interested in talking to the people who do that work.

If the member talks to the people who represent them, they will acknowledge that, when we talk among ourselves, we say “just transition” just so we know what we are talking about. What are we talking about? We are talking about training workers for opportunities in the future. That is really all it is. It is a nice way to say it.

They can call it whatever they like. At the end of the day, what we are saying here is that we are listening to the workers themselves. We are using words that they would prefer to use, and we actually prefer using fewer words and doing more things. That is what this is about: making people feel included, and not just any people but the people who will actually do the work of lowering emissions.

The point is not the phraseology. I do not care about that. What matters is that workers are given the dignity for the work that they do, for what they have done, for what they have built, what they are building and what they are about to build for all of us.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, where I come from, in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, we see it as a duty and responsibility to build a diverse economy and build resilience in our communities. I think about the Port Alberni Port Authority wanting a floating dry dock. There are the Coulson Group, which is a global leader in firefighting aviation, wanting to expand and do more work here, and there is Nova Harvest in Barkley Sound wanting to expand. I also think of Tla-o-qui-aht, which is building run-of-the-river and clean energy projects. We see it as a duty. We would see it as irresponsible to not be fighting for the creation of more jobs when it comes to clean energy.

Does the minister not see that it is a duty of all members of the House to build resiliency, a cleaner future and a more sustainable future, especially for workers, who have been advocating for this very bill to be seen through?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that this would be a big win for workers and that workers have raised their voices and helped to make the sustainable jobs act a reality. We did not just come up with writing this off at committees. These are things we developed after a great deal of consultation with workers themselves, so these are the mechanisms that would give them a voice. They would be legislated through this place and have the authority of this place. The legislation would carry the weight of not just what is in here, but of the House saying to workers, firmly, that they are in charge of this and we are going to figure this out together.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. Minister of Labour's speech would have been well informed if there had been some reference to already broken promises to workers in the fossil fuels sector.

We talk about how workers do not like to hear this language. I was in Paris with the member's friend, the minister of the environment at the time, Catherine McKenna, was working with Canadian labour unions, and working hard, to get the language of exactly “just transition” into the Paris Agreement. At that point she came back to Canada and put in place a task force on coal sector workers.

The task force went into every coal sector worker community in Alberta and Saskatchewan, co-chaired by the head of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and co-chaired by the then head of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is now a senator. They went into every community, listened to coal sector workers and came up with 10 key principles that should be followed. They are gathering dust, these principles, under the title “A Just and Fair Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities”.

This morning, this debate is not about the bill itself. It is about everybody's right to speak to it. Here I am as Leader of the Green Party of Canada, and my first chance to speak to the bill is on the question of shutting down debate before we even talk about the work that is important to do and about using language. It is not phraseology or minimizing it and ridiculing it. It was hard work to get it into a legally binding agreement, to which Canada agreed to, signed and ratified, that uses the language “just transition”.

The emphasis there is not only on the transition, but also on the justice of it for the workers and the communities, who gave their time in full faith that their report would go somewhere and not just gather dust on a shelf.

I see the Speaker wants me to hurry up, but I have had it with being hurried up, shut up and kept off the floor because the bill is important, and now we are going to have time allocation. I do not know that I will get to speak to it.

I ask my dear friend, the Minister of Labour, to please not use time allocation on every single bill. It is insulting to democracy and it makes a mockery of the work to review important legislation in this place.

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

I am just trying to keep people to the topic at hand and to make sure everybody gets to participate.

The hon. Minister of Labour.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence here. The Inflation Reduction Act has passed in the United States. It is perhaps the single greatest industrial policy, and probably the single greatest piece of legislation, that has been passed in any democracy in the world on the issue of energy transition. We have to move, and the way in which we move will determine whether how we move is sustainable and competitive in drawing investment, and we want to do it right. We want to do it with workers on side.

On the issue of time allocations, members can please tell me what in the bill is so bad about including workers in decisions. Members can tell me if there are larger issues that are unresolved, as there are in the House on issues of energy transition, but on the issue of whether workers should have a role here, let us get to work.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this flawed bill is a bill to basically create a committee to create a committee, and there would be no assurances within this committee that the 15 positions, other than bureaucracies, would actually represent those workers. They would not represent the worker who is on the dragline in Westmoreland Coal in Estevan or in Bienfait, Saskatchewan. The committee would not have that person there. It would have a bureaucrat or union person who is focused on that aspect, as opposed to knowing exactly what that job is. On top of that, you talked about wanting to listen to the workers. I quote you on that; you want to hear from them directly. Where in the legislation does it say we would have that worker there?

Furthermore, there is no mention in there about communities. You talked about the new sustainable jobs plan. It does not make any mention of sustainable communities or mitigating negative economic impacts. These are important things that would affect each and every one of those workers in Bienfait, in Coronach and around this country who would lose their jobs because of this.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that workers have raised their voices and have helped make the sustainable jobs act a reality, and that Canada's unions are proud to work with the government to develop legislation that focuses on workers. The International Union of Operating Engineers said that the act “puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.” The international vice president of the IBEW said that this act shows the government's “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.” Canada's Building Trades Unions welcomes the bill, saying that the consultation built into this process would “ensure workers are front and centre during this transition.”

If there are issues with the people they elect, then you can take it up with them. However, to say that somehow these people who are there, whom these workers elect, are elites is to put us into question. What are we? Are we elites?

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

I want to remind folks to speak through the Chair. The word “you” has been used a lot. I would ask members to try to mitigate what is happening by talking through the Speaker.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here yesterday when everybody would have known that we were going to be debating this bill. I saw something quite remarkable once again from the Conservatives, which was their using a concurrence motion on a report that the government has acknowledged it fully supports, as a way to slow down and prevent this legislation from coming forward.

I cannot help but think that, at the end of day, what is really going on here is that it is just the Conservatives' position about, in particular, sustainable jobs and the clean-tech industry. I know that the minister is from Atlantic Canada and that the Conservative Party is also, to the bewilderment of probably the majority of Canadians, against the Atlantic accord, which would set up Atlantic Canada to really drive forward the technology and the economy of the future. Even when all the premiers are supportive of it, the Conservative Party of Canada, for some reason, is against that, too.

Would the minister not agree with me that this has more to do with the Conservatives' continually trying to filibuster and prevent any legislation from going forward that supports the economy of the future and, in particular, the green and renewable economy?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when the Atlantic accord came about. It came about because of the good work of prime ministers like Brian Mulroney, excellent politicians like Pat Carney and, of course, the indomitable John Crosbie. One of the things that the Atlantic accord fundamentally does is acknowledge the jurisdictions of the provinces and the federal government. It clearly lays out a stable regime to attract investment, and it worked.

We created, in the past 25 or 30 years, an offshore industry in my province that is now responsible for the majority of its revenue. This is so important. The Atlantic accord is held up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a document of prosperity where I come from. Now, we want to move the same regime that respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and of the federal government, rightly, and we want to apply it to an industry that is already attracting billions of dollars for offshore wind and hydrogen.

The same workers who work proudly in our oil and gas industry in the Newfoundland offshore are moving to these jobs as well. It is an extraordinary opportunity. Why would one be against it?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once is not a habit, but failing to consider existing laws in Quebec has certainly become a habit for the federal government. The paternalistic attitude of the federal level remains unchanged.

I would ask my colleague if he has truly taken into consideration Quebec's existing laws. Again, it is as though we do not even exist.

I will refresh my colleague's memory. In 1995, the National Assembly of Quebec introduced and passed legislation promoting the development of labour training. Then, there was the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Since 1997, we have also had an agreement with the federal government, the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle.

Bill C-50 makes no mention of that. If the minister wants to have Quebec's co‑operation, did he take into consideration the existing laws in Quebec? If not, are the Liberals going to do what they usually do and meddle in our affairs, criticize what Quebec does, show up with their ideas and claim they can override everything?

I invite the minister to give us an honest answer. Did he take this reality into consideration in his bill or, if not, will he correct this and reach an agreement with Quebec by respecting the existing laws of the National Assembly of Quebec that are already in place and work very well?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not find anything particularly paternalistic about this government's or any government's talking directly to workers, and I do not need anybody to tell me that I cannot do that. I also do not find it necessarily duplicative because some other government had spoken to them as well. We need to speak to them. More importantly, we need to listen to them, I think.

I think that the important thing about this is that it also builds on an important policy coming out of NRCan about regional tables, because this country is big. It is different. Our politics and our economies are different. We come together in this place to find commonalities, but at the end of the day, we have to embrace those differences. My province and its use of energy, its development and production of energy, are very different from Quebec's and, in some ways, they are very similar on issues of hydroelectricity. However, on issues of oil and gas, and right now at least on issues of hydrogen and issues of offshore, my province is very different. We have to take into account particular views of each part of the country in order for each part not only to be acknowledged but also to prosper.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that we are moving forward on the bill before us. The NDP worked very hard to ensure that workers were in fact at the table for the conversation and played a part in this legislation.

The Biden administration has moved on an all-of-government approach and is looking to make really progressive changes on clean energy. I think that it is really important that our government keep pace with one of our largest partners in terms of the economy, etc. This legislation is essential for moving beyond the promises of just investments and tax credits, and I would like to hear about how this legislation could put us on that world stage, as we need to move forward with it. We need to do that very quickly.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge competitive advantage to make sure not only that workers are at the table but also that they are helping us lead these decisions. That in itself is a competitive advantage. It is a competitive advantage when we put in place the mechanisms to make sure that they do have that voice, that it is heeded and that they lead. We do not have all the answers in this place. The heads of the companies do not have all the answers, by any means. I would argue, and they have told me this, that not all the heads of the union leadership have the skills necessary to do what we are talking about. We are talking about the workers on the ground. It is a competitive advantage as we look at some of the phenomenal things that are happening in the United States and particularly with this president and the Inflation Reduction Act, but I think this, at the heart of it, is our competitive advantage in this country: putting workers at the centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member could provide an explanation of how important it is that the government be able to pass legislation. It would appear, based on yesterday's filibuster, that the Conservatives do not want the legislation passed. Without time allocation, we will not be able to get it passed. Could the member give his perspective as to why it is so important that we get this passed?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity, with this legislation, to make sure workers are at the centre of the most important decisions in the biggest challenges facing this country today.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #427

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-50.

I am never surprised when I see the Conservative tactics, whether it is on Bill C-50 or Bill C-49. However, Canadians are telling us, as parliamentarians, what issues are important to them, one being jobs.

Jobs are so critically important. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know what the Canadian and provincial governments are putting into place so that we have good middle-class jobs well into the future.

Whether it was Bill C-49 or now Bill C-50, the Government of Canada, in co-operation, in good part, with other parties, although not the Conservative Party, has been able to get important legislation through.

As someone said to me, the word that comes to mind when we think of the Conservative Party nowadays, especially if one reflects on its behaviour and the types of things it does to prevent legislation like this from passing, is “reckless”.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not know where it is going. Canadians would be taking a chance, very much a risk, with the Conservative Party today, because it is so reckless in the policies and decisions it makes. We seem to see that more often. The longer the Conservative leader, with the Conservative caucus, focuses on making these policy decisions, people should be concerned. They should be concerned about those middle-class jobs and where the Conservative Party wants to take the country.

Another issue is the environment. This legislation deals specifically with the environment and the need for us to be in a position to build a healthy, strong, net-zero economy, something with which most parties in the chamber are in sync. They understand that this is also a priority of Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the global environment and what is taking place in Canada today.

The number of forest fires, storms and floods have a direct correlation to our environment. Canadians are aware of that. The government brought forward legislation a few years back on targets to get us to net zero. I believe Canadians can get behind this type of legislation and support it.

Today, Bill C-50 not only talks about that net-zero economy of the future; it also talks about the issue of jobs and transition, ensuring that we have strong healthy middle-class jobs well into the future. Clean energy is being looked at in a very serious way around the world today.

Where is the Conservative Party? I made reference to the word “reckless” and we should maybe emphasize that fact. At the end of the day, we saw where the Conservative Party was when it voted against the Atlantic accord.

[An hon. member]

Because it is unconstitutional.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They do not know what they are talking about. Liberal Atlantic caucus members stood up one after—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order, please. Someday I will get back to my Nova Scotia riding in West Nova.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious.

Let us take a look at Bill C-49. The two bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, are fairly close with respect to the environment and jobs.

Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment.

Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading.

Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading.

We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate.

Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Wait for my speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The member says “Wait for my speech”, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing what the member has to say.

Let me highlight a few aspects of the bill and maybe the member can provide her thoughts on what I believe are three very positive things. Let us remember that through the legislation, we would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council. It is a committee of sorts. It could be up to, I believe, 15 members. The individuals who would be on that council, which would provide advice to the government, are as follows: business community leaders; labour representatives; representatives of regional interests, like the Atlantic community, and the impact of billions of dollars of potential development, which the Conservatives voted against; indigenous communities; and others who could potentially contribute to a healthy, educated and well-thought-out process.

Why would the Conservative Party of Canada not support that? What do they have against having good ideas being brought forward to the government so it can be in a position to develop a report or take action? We will wait until the next Conservative speaker, who might say something positive about the council, but I will not hold my breath.

Another thing the legislation would do is put in place a sustainable jobs action plan. I talked about the council and how every five years there would an action plan presented to the government, a five-year forecast with respect to what we could look at in the up and coming years ahead. The first report will come out in 2025, and that as a positive thing.

The government is saying that it wants to share with Canadians a plan that can build confidence for industries, whether one is an investor or a young person who wants a sense of what direction to go in with respect to a career. What is wrong with having a five-year plan? Again, it as a positive thing.

Another issue is the sustainable jobs secretariat. The government is bent on having a secretariat, which would make a significant difference. We would have an advisory council that generates ideas, a reporting mechanism and a secretariat to ensure there is some coordination and action taking place. That is also incorporated into the legislation. Again, that is a good thing.

When I look at the legislation, the three things I just finished highlighting are the real basics of the framework that will make a positive difference. It will have a positive outcome for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Back in the late winter of 2015, we said that this government's focus would be on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. When we stand and talk about future jobs, those jobs will support Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. We are looking to build supports.

Let us take a look at what happened yesterday when we brought forward the legislation for debate, which I believe would have been the second day of debate on it. That is when members opposite, including the member who said that she has something to say after me, would have had her opportunity to speak to this legislation. As she knows, that did not happen. Why did that not happen? Instead of talking about jobs, as I referred to yesterday, what members of the Conservative Party want to do is continue their personal attacks, something I have referenced as character assassinations. They believe that as long as they focus on character assassinations, while staying away from the issues, that is all Canadians will focus on. That is what they push.

All one needs to do is look at what they actually did yesterday. Instead of talking about jobs, they brought forward a motion for a concurrence report. When someone brings in such a motion, what they typically want to see is the House pass a report by having a vote, so that we will, in essence, agree to it. That is usually the desire. However, then they moved an amendment to have the standing committee deal with it.

Colleagues can see the relevance of this very quickly, because the motion to defer it to a committee could have been done in a standing committee. Members could have raised the amendment and tried to put that on the agenda of a standing committee, but they chose not to do that. Why did they choose not to do that? It was because Bill C-50 and those points that I just finished highlighting were not debated. Instead, we talked about the concurrence report amendment. As a result, we never had the debate on this.

We can fast-forward to today. The government now brings in time allocation and says that there is a limit to the amount of debate on this bill. I am sure we are going to hear comments from the other side during the debate in terms of how the government is trying to limit debate. In reality, those individuals who are following the debate, looking at the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour on legislation in general, will find that, when the Conservative Party opposes legislation, it has no intention to pass the legislation.

It does not take much. I could take a dozen grade 12 students from Sisler or Maples high school in my community, R. B. Russell or Children of the Earth, and I could prevent legislation from passing if they were members of Parliament. We would just have to put them up to speak. We all know there is a limit to the amount of time for speech, so all someone has to do is put up one speaker after another and then maybe move an amendment. They can repeat that and it will never get voted on, unless of course a closure motion or time allocation is brought in.

The Conservatives were very clear yesterday. Prior to that I honestly did not know how they were going to be voting on Bill C-50. Now I have come to believe they are going to be voting against it. That is one of the motivating reasons that they did not want the debate to occur yesterday.

The government only has so many hours of debate in any given week. We can take a look at the number of times that the Conservatives have tried to kill that time, as much as they can. We can look at the times when opposition members have stood up to move that so and so be heard, and then they cause the bells to ring, to prevent debate on government bills.

We can look at the times they have tried to adjourn the House, again in an attempt to prevent debate. We can look at the times they denied the House sitting until midnight when the government wanted to provide more time for debate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the hon. member will be able to add more during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Madam Speaker, the member always has a lot to say.

When we look at this particular bill, many communities would lose their main source of employment by or before 2030 because of government mandates. We lost two years because of COVID. The government did absolutely nothing on this issue during COVID, even though it says it is of so much importance.

Now we have a bill, and all it would do is increase bureaucracy. It is a building-bureaucracy bill, and after eight years, that is all the Liberals seem to do when it comes to issues like this: They build more bureaucracy and create more reports; that is it. There is no concrete action that would create jobs in Rockglen, Willow Bunch or Coronach.

What does the member have to say about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the member is wrong when he says that we did nothing with regard to jobs during the pandemic. We could talk about the wage subsidy program, the loans to small businesses and the rental supports, not to mention CERB—

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

Ask the Auditor General.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has more questions or comments, he should wait until the appropriate time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada spent billions of dollars having the backs of Canadians and protecting against the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs during the pandemic, so the member is wrong on that point.

The member is also wrong in his assessment of the legislation. There are many things within it to ensure that we have a good transition. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, at the end of the day, there will be a transition period. They might have to be dragged screaming and kicking into the new world. We, as a government, believe there is a role for the government to ensure that this transition takes place in such a way that middle-class jobs, which are important for the future in Canada, are going to be there.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, yet again the NDP had to use its power to even get this bill in the House. Different regions have different needs, and I hope the member understands that.

I have spoken to the importance of the need for the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project to be supported, which would help Nunavut in the switch to the use of sustainable energy. Currently, Nunavut relies on diesel. All of Nunavut's communities are using diesel power, and the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project would help transition to sustainable energy.

Does the member agree, and will the Liberal Party be sure to help Nunavut in the switch to sustainable energy by helping to support the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's comments at the beginning of her question. Yes, the government is only able to do what it is doing today with respect to this bill because we were able to get support from the New Democratic Party in getting the bill to committee. Canadians will benefit as a direct result.

The Prime Minister, along with other ministers, such as my colleague from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, the Minister of Northern Affairs, travel up north a great deal. The council membership would take into consideration things such as indigenous communities and different regions of the country. The member is right: There are so many opportunities across Canada in terms of the energy transition and good-quality jobs for all regions of the country.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as climate-fuelled wildfires ravage the country, this bill is barely better than a blank piece of paper. The so-called action plan the member speaks about is not even due to be written for more than two years. Who knows who might be on the partnership council that is being spoken about?

Will the parliamentary secretary commit to making sure the biggest oil and gas companies in the country are not sitting on this so-called council?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not the one who actually gets to appoint the members to the council, but I believe that having the first report presented to Canadians in 2025 is the responsible thing to do. We have to create the council, and I think it would be premature to present a report before providing the council the opportunity to work with the different regions, to have the different stakeholders sit around the table and have those healthy discussions that are going to be important. This is the type of council that is going to play a critical role, in terms of the type of direction we are going to be going in, as a government, to continue to support some fantastic initiatives, whether they are tide waters in Atlantic Canada, electric batteries in the province of Ontario, hydro in Manitoba or the potential in the north and on the Pacific coast.

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

Madam Speaker, our government was elected in 2015 to reduce poverty. In Canada, 2.3 million people were lifted out of poverty from 2015 to 2021. We have seen our unemployment rate go to historic lows. We still have a very tight labour market. We have seen strategic investments by our government, such as in UTIP, for the training of apprentices across the country. We have seen strategic investments to build a strong economy, whether they are in the electrical vehicle sector or in the supply chain for the agro-food sector. Bill C-50 is just another layer of the foundation to continue to build a strong, robust and growing economy.

How does the member see Bill C-50 benefiting workers in his home province of Manitoba?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises a good point. I would like to emphasize one aspect, which is that if we take a look over the last number of years, prepandemic, what was created by the government working with the different stakeholders, Canadians, small and big businesses alike, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over a million jobs generated. That would be from 2016 to prepandemic. Then, because of the support programs and working with a team Canada approach, we were among the fastest countries in terms of restore the jobs that were lost during the pandemic.

The government has been very much focused on job creation. This legislation would even go further than that. It would recognize that, as we get closer to that net-zero economy, we need to focus a lot more attention on the types of jobs of the future. That is why we are creating the council and having the secretariat. That is why there is a need for the strategic plan, and this is a government that is going to get the job done.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite would have us believe that Bill C-50 is about creating sustainable jobs, when in actual fact it is not even a plan; it is a plan to get a plan. It is the typical Liberal tactic of saying, “Let us get a bunch of well-paid LIberal insiders to be on a council to advise the government on what the plan might be. Then let us pay another high-paid Liberal insider to be the secretariat, so that two years from now, when they figure out what the plan is, it will happen.” However, nothing says that they do not have a plan like a bill that says it is a plan to get a plan.

Would the member admit they do not have a plan for sustainable jobs?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit much, hearing from the Conservatives about our not having a plan when we are still waiting for Conservative policy on the environment. I remember the plan Conservatives had on the price on pollution, which they call the carbon tax. I have highlighted it before. That was their plan, and they advertised it to every Canadian. It was their election platform, where they said that they supported a price on pollution. Do members remember that plan? What has happened to it? Today, the Conservative Party, en masse, has had a conversion. They now say that they do not support a price on pollution.

The only consistency is that the Conservative Party continues in a reckless fashion, and people need to be aware. People are taking a risk when they talk to the Conservatives. If they want to focus on growing Canada's middle class, they can take a look at what Bill C-50 would do: It would create opportunities for good solid middle-class jobs well into the future.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague, the great member for Foothills, who is from the great province of Alberta.

Before I get started, let me give another shout-out to another fellow Albertan, another colleague in this House who has done incredible work on this unjust legislation, the member for Lakeland. She has been an absolute advocate not only for our province but also for our world-class and world-leading energy sector.

The world needs more clean, responsible low-carbon energy. Not only does the world need Canada's world-class energy, but Canadians need it too. They need it not only to heat their homes, keep the lights on and fuel their vehicles, but for the economic benefit it brings.

After eight years of the incompetent Liberal-NDP government, it is just not worth the cost for Canadians or our resource sector. Canada is last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth. Canadians are suffering with the worst GDP per capita growth rate since the Great Depression, or since the 1930s. GDP per person in Canada today is just under what it was halfway through 2018. That means Canada has had five years' worth of economic productivity wiped out.

According to the OECD, Canada will remain last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth through 2060. The government has been doing one thing really well, which is chasing investment out of our country. As our leader once said, all of our exes are running away to Texas.

The costly Liberal-NDP coalition has not just been chasing investment out of our country, but chasing out jobs, people and talent as well. People do not want to move to this country because they do not see a future here anymore. When my family came here as immigrants, there was a hope in Canada that if one put in hard work, one would be able to see the fruits of that labour. However, after years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, all that hope has been wiped away by bad economic policy that has told the world that Canada is not open for business anymore.

This unjust legislation would further hurt Canada's economy and reputation on the world stage, as if the Prime Minister's reputation has not already damaged Canada enough.

The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada was formed just a few years ago to advocate against the government's anti-competitive and antiworker policies. Now half of its manufacturer members have already moved or are moving their operations out of Canada.

The green industry in Canada will not even make a dent in the kind of economic development and growth needed for recovery. In 2007, the clean-tech sector was 3% of Canada's GDP. Today, even after billions and billions of tax dollars and government subsidies and billions more in private sector investment, it is still only 3%, and 1.6% of employment.

Despite the anti-energy agenda by the Liberal-NDP government, the unconstitutional “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, cancelling Energy East, cancelling Keystone XL and not building any of the 18 LNG projects proposed when the Prime Minister took office, Canada's energy sector still represents 10% of our GDP and, with the related manufacturing that comes with it, contributes over $120 billion to our economy. Canada needs its energy sector to be strong to attract businesses, investments and jobs in order to get our economic growth and productivity back on track.

The Liberal-NDP government loves nothing more than to vilify profit or the success of large Canadian industries. When it comes to Canada's energy sector, it is like a sport for the left to see who can hate it the most. There is a big cost to these failed Liberal-NDP policies, these anti-energy and anti-Canada policies. These attacks will throw at least 170,000 people out of work across the country, many of them in my home province of Alberta and many in my riding of Calgary Forest Lawn. They will displace another 450,000 workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in all provinces and sectors, regardless of whether they are working class or middle class.

We know that people would lose jobs with the unjust transition the left is proposing. We already saw it in Ontario under Kathleen Wynne with the green energy program, which killed off nearly 100,000 jobs directly. The 50,000 green jobs those Liberals promised to create never materialized. In Alberta, the Rachel Notley NDP, in 2015, implemented a just transition, and in small mining towns like Hanna, just north of Calgary, workers were promised new green jobs once their coal mining jobs were wiped out. Just as in Ontario, over 1,000 workers left town because the jobs that had been promised were not there. This was in a town of just under 3,000 people, and 1,000 were driven out of work and out of town.

The sheer number of job losses we are talking about on a national scale is devastating, especially at a time when Canadians face a cost of living crisis. Sixty per cent of Canadians are choosing cheaper, less nutritious food because they cannot afford healthy options. Millions of Canadians are visiting food banks as families choose between keeping a roof over their head and keeping food on the table. Nearly a third of mortgage holders are concerned they will not be able to afford their mortgage, as interest rates could increase monthly payments by 40% or higher.

It is not just the jobs, livelihoods and communities that suffer when the Liberal-NDP government attacks our energy industry. It is also hurting Canadian pensions. The Canadian pension plan and Ontario pension plan invest billions in Canada's oil and gas sector because they know it is a good return on investment. In fact, seven of the largest pension funds in Canada remain invested in Canadian oil and gas. By firing energy workers and attacking our world-class energy sector, the Liberal-NDP coalition is attacking the retirement security of Canadian seniors and workers.

There is a huge impact of this unjust transition on communities and Canadians. There is nothing fair, equitable or remotely just in this blatant anti-energy attack. The Liberal-NDP government, with its war on Canadian jobs and paycheques, is not worth the cost. Canadian energy companies provide good-paying jobs, even good union jobs, for Canadians.

As an example, the Keystone XL pipeline project was to employ 1,400 direct and 5,400 indirect jobs in Alberta alone. The province and TC Energy partnered with Natural Law Energy, an indigenous-led and indigenous-run company. Many of the Canadians who worked on the project were indigenous. The economic benefit for Albertans in surrounding rural communities kept people employed and businesses running.

Canadian energy companies are also leaders in the investment and development of clean technology. Seventy-five per cent of private sector investment in clean technology comes from the oil and gas sector.

Canada's energy sector contributes $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. These continuous attacks on our energy sector drive up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We do not need to go very far to ask a Canadian about that. We have talked to Canadians all across this country who just last winter were hit with the failed policies of the Liberal-NDP government when we saw the cost of heating homes double and saw gas prices at record levels. All of these things are contributing to the cost of living crisis we see today with the failed carbon tax scam that the Liberal-NDP government continues to introduce.

It was not like this before the Liberal-NDP government and it will not be like that after the Liberal-NDP government, because when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister of this country, we are going to bring it home. Conservatives will bring home energy production to Canada to produce energy here and create jobs to get Canadians good paycheques instead of giving dollars to dictators. We will green-light green projects like tidal water, hydro, hydrogen and LNG. We are going to make sure that we support our seniors by axing the failed carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating and bring home lower prices. We are going to bring it home for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel very confident in knowing that the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament understands and has complete faith in the CPP, the Canada pension plan.

I have a question for the member opposite, who is the finance critic. What is the Conservative Party of Canada's position in regard to what the Premier of Alberta is talking about in terms of getting Alberta out of the CPP? The member made reference to the CPP. Will the Conservatives be straightforward and transparent with what their position is in regard to the CPP and Alberta?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member highlights a very important point. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, Canada and its Confederation are broken. Never have we seen a more divisive Prime Minister. He has pitted region versus region, province versus province, sector versus sector, Canadian versus Canadian and even newcomers against each other because of his failed ideology.

This country was not in this horrific state when we moved here. It was not like that until these last eight years. It is because the Prime Minister wants people to be divided and wants to make sure that he is the guy seen as the giver. He wants to turn this country into a place where newcomers cannot exist or survive.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour and Seniors why he chose to call his bill the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act” instead of simply talking about a just transition, which is an internationally recognized term. In fact, it was coined by the unions and subsequently endorsed by the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the European Union, to name just a few. It is the term used here in Canada.

When I was at COP26 in Glasgow, I met representatives from unions like the FTQ. These people attend this type of international meeting to ensure that Canada is taking part in the just transition. Now, however, the government is using phrases like “sustainable jobs” and telling us that workers do not like the phrase “just transition”, even though unions are made up of workers. What does my colleague think about that?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would inform the member that there is nothing just about this legislation. When the Liberals are throwing at least 170,000 people out of work across the country, displacing 450,000 workers, risking the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians and damaging the industry that is literally holding the country up, there is nothing just about that.

I wish the Bloc would understand how much this industry can contribute to bringing down world emissions, taking dictators' dollars away and making strong, powerful Canadian paycheques instead.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, historically, the voices of women in the economy have not been discussed in this House. We know the majority of energy workers are men, and we know that the impact of families not having employment is dire. It is dire for women. I have spoken to many women over the decades since I have been in the economy who have experienced domestic violence, marriage breakups, children living in poverty and children going to school with no food. Those are the impacts of not having work.

The fuel and oil industry is the economy of the past. The American clean-tech economy is on fire, exceeding all expectation. However, in Canada, Conservatives continue to block clean energy projects. Why do the Conservatives want Canadian families to suffer and not get involved in the future?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, as the member wants to talk about how disproportionately affected women are, I note that we just heard at the finance committee from a witness who said that single moms are the most disproportionately affected in the worst ways by the failed carbon tax scam. The carbon tax compounds things for the farmer who is making the food, the shipper who is shipping the food and even the manufacturers. That cost is passed on to the person who buys the food at the end of the day.

Whether someone is a single mom or from a vulnerable community, they are disproportionately affected the most. It is too bad NDP members are propping the Liberal government up. The costly coalition is increasing the carbon tax, which means they are hurting the single moms in this country the most.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to follow my colleague for Calgary Forest Lawn. He has articulated so very well the concerns with Bill C-50, and that is on top of the work of our great colleague, the member of Parliament for Lakeland.

I want to talk about the implications of the bill and how dangerous this proposed mandated threat is to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs that are entailed in this just transition legislation. I want to be clear to members of the House that this careless Liberal-NDP government and its bill before us would shatter the prosperity, stability and economics of Canada and the provinces, as well as our energy and agriculture sectors. Indeed, rather than being proud of the sustainability, innovation and skill sets we have developed here in Canada, the Liberal-NDP government is proud of the number of jobs it would be eliminating through this legislation.

I want to be very clear because these are the stats, right from the government's own memos, that come with the just transition legislation. According to the government's internal briefings, this legislation would kill 170,000 direct jobs, displace 450,000 direct and indirect jobs and cause large-scale disruptions to the manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, energy and construction sectors, impacting 2.7 million jobs. The Liberals and the NDP talk about jobs, but the jobs they are talking about are the jobs they would be eliminating through this legislation.

This legislation is also targeted and divisive. There is no question that it would disproportionately harm the economies of and the jobs in primarily B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt that it is no coincidence that the energy sector is a large contributor to the GDP and the economics of these provinces. For Alberta's GDP, it is about 27.3%, and in Newfoundland and Labrador it is 36%. This would affect 187,000 jobs in Alberta and more than 13,000 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development stated, “the government is not prepared to provide appropriate support to more than 50 communities and 170,000 workers” who would be impacted by this legislation. The government can talk about this being a just transition to new jobs, but the new jobs are not there. As my colleague said, about 1% of the employment provided in Canada is from renewables. The bill would impact 450,000 direct and indirect jobs, and maybe 2.7 million jobs across the other sectors, but the new jobs do not exist, so to say that this is a transition to future employment is simply being misleading.

Where have we seen something like this before? Where have we seen the Liberals plowing ahead with legislation based on ideology and activism without listening to the concerns of other parties, or of the provinces and territories? It was Bill C-69, and we have just had the Supreme Court rap the knuckles, or maybe a bit more than rap the knuckles, of the Liberal government for plowing ahead with divisive, vindictive, ideological legislation just for the sake of hammering the provinces that have industries it does not agree with. Bill C-69 was an attack on provincial jurisdiction. It was legislation that all provinces and all territories either opposed or demanded massive changes to, but the Liberals ignored every single one of those concerns.

However, the damage has already been done from Bill C-69. It chased billions of dollars of investment out of this country and cost our economy thousands of jobs. Do not get me wrong, as a result of Bill C-69, members can bet that projects were built and jobs were created, just not in Canada. They were built and created in other jurisdictions around the world. Canada lost billions of dollars in investment, and we also lost our best and brightest, who had to go to other jurisdictions to get that employment and to have their research and innovations accepted.

Just as the provinces and territories are trying to stop the bleeding as a result of the Supreme Court decision on the no pipelines bill, here the Liberals go again with more ideological, vindictive and divisive legislation, which would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is aimed at only a few provinces. Not only that, but the legislation would increase the likelihood of energy poverty and food insecurity not only here in Canada but also perhaps around the world.

On a global scale, the Liberals would jeopardize Canada's ability to provide clean and sustainable energy and agriculture for customers around the world, certainly in those countries that need it the most. Bill C-50 plans to phase out the oil and gas sector, and it would have harsh and real consequences that should not be taken lightly. I cannot be more clear: This unjust transition legislation would leave Canada in economic shambles.

Today, I want to highlight something specific that has not been given enough attention. This half-baked legislation from the NDP-Liberal government would not only certainly increase the cost of living for Canadians and ignore our world-class energy and agriculture industries, but it would also cost us almost 300,000 jobs in the agriculture sector.

Most of the speeches today have been about fossil fuels and energy. However, in the government's own memos, the bill would also target 300,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. There are about 65,000 vacancies in agriculture already, so I am not exactly sure where these 300,000 jobs are going to come from, and one in nine jobs in Canada are directly linked to agriculture and agrifood. The minister's own memo brags about cutting 300,000 jobs from agriculture and the agri-food sectors.

Globally, food security and affordability is one of the top priorities. Therefore, rather than trying to find ways to address that by reducing taxes, reducing red tape and ensuring we have reliable supply chains to get our products to market, the Liberals have found another way way to add on additional red tape, additional regulations and additional burdens on one of our most important industries. Food inflation is already up 7% over last year, and the government has made these ideological promises. The industry minister said yesterday in question period that they have done what no other government has done before and called the five grocery CEOs here to Parliament to give them a little what for. He made it sound like they landed a man on Mars.

We actually had the five grocery CEOs at the agriculture committee eight months ago, so way to be on top of it. The minister sent a letter to the agriculture committee to study this issue two days after the government tabled its reply to the study that we did eight months ago. It just shows how out of touch the government is with what is actually happening on the ground.

What it also ignores is the incredible results we have had here in Canada, without government intervention and without government taxes. Canadian energy could be exported around the world, as should have happened with Japan and Germany, who came to Canada to access our LNG. The Liberals said no, so instead they went and signed an agreement with Qatar for natural gas. Do members think Qatar has the same environmental standards as Canada, or the same human rights or labour standards as Canada? If the government was trying to reduce emissions, it did the exact opposite by turning those countries away and making them go to Qatar.

If we were allowed to get our energy to market, we would actually reduce global emissions by 23%. That would be a success. Canada's oil and gas sector is about 0.3% of global emissions, and our record in agriculture is even more impressive. Canada is about 2.6% of global emissions, and agriculture is about 8% of that 2.6%. Compared to emissions globally, the global average for each other country is about 26%. That shows the incredible success that Canadian agriculture has had. However, instead of rewarding that impeccable record for Canadian agriculture, Canadian energy, and the workers, scientists and researchers who work in those industries, the Liberal-NDP government wants to punish them and eliminate these industries, which are so critical to Canada's economy. The revenue from these two industries builds schools, hospitals and roads and pays for the social programs that we rely on, but the Liberals ignore that.

In conclusion, Conservatives are the only party that will find common sense solutions to the problems facing Canadians, and we will be proud of our resource sectors and the men and women who make their living in those industries.

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

Madam Speaker, talk about manipulating numbers to try to make something look like what it is not.

The member talked about, for example, LNG. It is one of the single largest investments, possibly in the top four or five, where we saw the federal government working with a provincial government, the NDP in B.C. It was us, the provincial NDP and the private sector working on an LNG project worth billions of dollars, yet the member just said we had nothing to do with LNG.

The member talked about hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our government has created far more jobs than Stephen Harper ever did, and we have been in government for eight years compared to nine years. We do not need to be lectured about jobs.

Why does the Conservative Party not recognize the value of the transition to ensure that we have good, healthy net-zero workforce jobs into the future for Canada's middle class? What does the member have against Canada's middle-class jobs?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I have a problem with is that this legislation is a transition for Canadians to the unemployment line and the food bank line. We have millions of Canadians already relying on food banks in record numbers.

The member talks about LNG. There were 18 LNG projects on the books ready for construction that have been cancelled. The Liberals cannot be proud about one. We also had four pipelines ready to go in Canada. Do members know how many have been built? Zero have been built. Therefore, they cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths to say that they support these industries when in fact they do everything they can to suppress and kill them, which is exactly what this legislation would do.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I am hearing from my Conservative friends is scary.

The fight against climate change is probably one of the biggest challenges of our time. Canada is already one of the world's worst performers on this issue according to pretty much any available indicator. We really are one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to climate change.

The Liberals are useless. They are not doing anything. For years, we have been fighting to get them to take action and stop investing in the oil industry. Now I am hearing from my Conservative friends that they want to do even less so we can be even worse than we already are. There were floods this summer and fires all over the place. This is an emergency. The planet is burning right now. My Conservative friends want to do even less.

Where I come from, we have groups like Mothers Step In and Ciel et Terre, which I talked to two weeks ago. We cleaned up the St. Lawrence shoreline. They all came to see me. They said they had seen the polls and were worried about the Conservatives taking power. They wanted me to tell them that will not happen. I could not tell them anything.

These people are worried. What do the Conservatives have to say to them?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are not saying to do less. Rather, we want to see things that bring results. The carbon tax, which the Bloc wants to radically increase, has done nothing. The Liberals have not met a single emissions target they have set. Flooding and forest fires are still happening.

Taxes are not the answer, but research, innovation and new technology are, and industry has been doing this for years. We will get there, and we want to get there, but we also have to be realistic about how we get there. To say that we are going to end all fossil fuels tomorrow when 3% of our energy comes from renewables is not realistic. Where would the other 97% come from? That is what we are saying.

We need to support these industries, which are world class and world leading, with the highest standards on the planet. That is how we will get there, not by being ideological and shutting down these critical industries.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member across the way if he could point to where in the bill it states that we would immediately end all fossil fuels tomorrow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I love that the New Democrats are trying to obfuscate their end result or end game. Everything they have been saying is that their goal is to end fossil fuels. This is interesting considering they have completely lost touch with the roots of their party, which are about the working-class folks in Canada, such as pipefitters, welders, carpenters and longshoremen, the people who want to work. Everything the NDP is professing to do would assure that these people would not have jobs, which is very well highlighted in the just transition legislation, where 450,000 indirect and direct jobs, up to 2.5 million jobs, would be lost.

I wonder how many of those folks who used to be NDP supporters will now be supporting the Conservative Party of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the honourable and esteemed member for Whitby.

This is the first time this week I have had an opportunity to rise in the House, as I was travelling earlier this week. I want to make a comment before I speak about Bill C-50, a bill that is a positive step forward in the future for Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast.

With respect to the events of October 7, when over 1,400 Israeli citizens were killed by a terrorist organization, I wish, obviously, to condemn that to the highest possible degree. I offer my prayers and condolences to the Israeli people. As I have stated over social media channels, I stand with Israel and the Israeli people. Obviously, my prayers are for the Palestinian people as well, that a humanitarian corridor be established and that they have peace in that region of the world as soon as possible. Hamas is a terrorist organization. As someone who has lived, worked and experienced the events of September 11, 2001, I know full well some of the feelings that folks are going through these days. My thoughts and prayers are with that region.

With respect to Bill C-50, I am a member of the natural resources committee, and we will have an opportunity to bring the bill to committee to study it, to work through it and, potentially, if the members of the opposition have amendments or anything else is proposed, to try to make the bill better. That is what we are brought here to Ottawa to do. That is what our voters send us here to do: strengthen legislation and make legislation that moves our economy forward, moves our country forward and creates a better future for our children and future generations. I think all parties and all members would agree that this is the goal of everyone's being here, independent of which side of the House they sit on.

Since day one, in 2015, the government has been laser-focused on Canadians: helping Canadians, strengthening our middle class, and ensuring that those Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class have the opportunity to do so. Earlier today, I was looking over some of the statistics that we like to talk about and that I, as an economist, like to refer to. I believe that 2.3 million Canadians were lifted out of poverty from 2015 to 2021, including over 653,000 children and about 500,000 individuals who identify as being disabled Canadians. We have cut the poverty reduction rate from about 14.5% down to about 7%.

I do acknowledge the pressures that all Canadian families are facing right now with global inflation. I heard about global inflation recently, during a trip to Europe for the Council of Europe as the chair of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. Taxi drivers were commenting about just how much prices have gone up over there, what butter and milk cost, what the average family is seeing in Europe, and what the average family is seeing in Canada.

The government understands that. We have reacted. We have put in place measures: the grocery rebate during the summertime, the Canada workers benefit and the indexation of a number of benefits that we have had here in Canada for a number of years and that we are continuing. The Canada workers benefit, which I love, goes out to hard-working Canadians wishing to join the middle class and working hard everyday for themselves and their families. It is something I admire, because those are the same values my parents instilled in their three sons. Those are the same values of hope and hard work, as I would call it today, that brought my parents here to Canada and allowed them to improve their standard of living when they immigrated here. In their simple terms, it is about “just working your butt off”, if I can use that term in the most honourable House.

The world is transitioning to a low-carbon economy, but we are still using fossil fuels. We will still be using fossil fuels for many decades to come. We have a duty to support the 800,000 or so Canadians who work in the energy industry. We have a duty to support them today and to support them tomorrow as we continue this path toward a low-carbon economy while ensuring we have the energy sources to fuel our economy today.

I think Bill C-50 is much like the work our government has done over the last eight years, working with labour, with industry and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to bring forth legislation that moves our economy forward, that moves Canadians forward and provides a better future for us all. That is exactly what Bill C-50 is about. It is about consultation and about working together. I see the feedback from a number of stakeholders, whether they are the International Union of Operating Engineers, the president of the Business Council of Alberta, or the hon. members who have been elected from the province of Alberta. The President of the Business Council of Alberta has said that the act is a good step forward in helping equip Canadians with the skills for the jobs of our future economy. That is something very profound, and I do not use that word lightly. It is about equipping Canadians with the skill set to succeed today and also to succeed tomorrow.

As an economist, I am fully aware of what we call, according to an individual from Austria or Germany, Joseph Schumpeter, “creative destruction”: the process of innovation and technological change that leads to the destruction of existing economy structures, such as industries, firms and jobs. That has been happening for decades, if not hundreds of years, but we also know that when that happens, Canadian individuals need to ensure that they have the skill set to go to a new job, to go to a new profession or to move up the value chain in the profession they have chosen or in the sector they are in. It happens naturally, and we must ensure that Canadians have the skills to do that.

I do want to give a shout-out to Canada's Building Trades Unions. I do work with it closely. I work with a number of its member organizations, including LiUNA. As the CBTU says, it “welcomes Bill C-50, aimed at addressing Canada’s transition to a net-zero economy, which brings forth key aspects including the creation of a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to provide meaningful consultation during [this period].”

We need energy today. We will need energy tomorrow. However, we also know that the world and the private sector, and I love the private sector, are creating the wealth and investing in renewable energy sources around the world. We have seen it through the United States and the Inflation Reduction Act, and we are seeing it here in Canada with the ITC, the investment tax credit that we announced in our budget, very fiscally prudent and strategic measures to grow our economy and help those Canadians wanting to get good jobs and wanting to join the middle class. That is what we are about: providing good futures, providing an environment that fosters wealth creation through investment and, obviously, creating jobs with investment from the private sector.

When I think about Bill C-50, I think about what we are doing here in Canada for the electric vehicle sector. I think about the investments we have made, with a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, for Stellantis. There are thousands and thousands of jobs being created in the Windsor-Essex region with Stellantis at its electric vehicle battery plant. Then, I think about what we have done with Volkswagen. I know that one of the members opposite, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, was there that day when we announced the Volkswagen investment. The most hon. member was so happy, and her mayor, who I believe is a former Conservative Party member of Parliament and sat in the most honourable House, was so happy.

That $7-billion investment with Volkswagen positions our electric vehicle sector and the whole supply chain for growth; for wealth creation, and I love wealth creation; and for jobs. It will create good-paying middle-class job with good benefits. We just saw it in the province of Quebec with Northvolt, with that investment where the Province of Quebec and the federal government are working in partnership with labour and business. We saw it in Kingston, where the member for Kingston and the Islands, along with the federal government, announced another strategic investment.

We need to support Canadians. We need to support Canadian workers. Bill C-50 is part of that support. We will be there for Canadians to ensure we invest in their skills. They can get better jobs, higher pay, better benefits, better futures today and better futures for tomorrow. I look forward to questions and comments.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it may surprise members that I, too, am looking forward to a just transition. I am looking forward to the Liberal Party's just transition to up by the interpreters after the next election.

Here is the problem: Right now, Qatar, the U.S. and other nations are filling in the void of the natural gas requirements of Europe, the Netherlands and France. We have heard that deals have been struck recently with Qatar, with fewer environmental standards, fewer labour standards and fewer human rights standards. Qatar is a known supporter of the terrorist group Hamas. Meanwhile, in Canada, we are strangleholding our natural resource sector and our ability to supply natural gas, clean Canadian energy, to the rest of the world. The impact that is going to have on families and our economy is unconscionable.

How can the member justify Qatar's supplying natural gas when Canada cannot?

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

Madam Speaker, I have considered the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil a dear, close friend in the years I have known him.

We here in Canada need to supply the world with the energy that we have. The energy workers here in Canada are second to none, those Canadians who get up every morning and work in the energy sector, whether it is in the province of the British Columbia and the western sedimentary basin or in Alberta, where we know we have a feedstock advantage and the petrochemical industry. The petrochemical industry association is investing literally billions and billions of dollars, whether in Newfoundland or whether in Sarnia and those parts of Ontario where Canadians get up every morning to work in the energy sector. We know that we need to supply North America and other parts of the world with Canadian energy, including natural gas or oil, for the foreseeable future, as we continue to move toward a net-zero economy by 2050.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question.

I was listening to his speech just now and I noticed its consistency with his party's language. For years now, whenever we talk with union representatives and with workers, they constantly bring up the idea of a just transition. A just transition means ensuring a transition to net zero that allows workers to evolve, so that we can place them in new jobs and equip them with new skills.

However, the government has changed its vocabulary, probably under pressure from the oil companies, but also in keeping with the fact that it hands out billions of dollars to the oil industry every year. Now it is talking about sustainable jobs. Does my colleague opposite consider a job in the oil sector to be a sustainable job?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères that a job is a job. We want as many Canadians working as possible. We want as many Canadians as possible ensuring that they have bright futures. If somebody is getting up to go to work in the energy sector in Alberta or British Columbia or Newfoundland, that is a good job, paying them and their families. It ensures that they can put food on the table and that they have good futures for themselves and their kids.

We know that the renewable industry in Canada is growing. Investments in the renewable industry, whether it is solar, wind, hydrogen, along the spectrum or nuclear, which is a big energy source here in the province of Ontario, are making those key strategic investments as we continue to grow our energy sources. However, we all foresee that, for the years to come, we will continue to utilize other forms of energy.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the hon. member a similar question that I asked another Liberal MP previously. Nunavut continues to be excluded from so many investments. The Liberal government has an opportunity to support sustainable development in Nunavut.

As I mentioned earlier, Nunavut relies on diesel in all 25 of its communities. There has been great work to make sure we can help transition to clean energy through the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project. I wonder whether the member can commit, with the government, to working toward supporting the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link so Nunavummiut can get off of diesel.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not exactly familiar with that project per se, but I do wish to say that any investments we can make for areas such as those in Nunavut, if I can use that term to understand the geography, because it is very unique, we need to make, especially getting communities off diesel as soon as possible.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity today to speak to an incredibly important piece of legislation, Bill C-50, Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.

For many reasons, the people of Canada are going through challenging times. I think we can all agree on that. Many of them are unprecedented. Canadian workers and jobs, and the global economy, were heavily affected by the global pandemic. On top of that, we experienced unprecedented wildfire levels over the summer. It has been reported that there were 6,118 wildfires that burned 15 million hectares and 200,000 people were placed under evacuation orders. Experts say these were influenced by climate change.

Like the rest of the world, Canada must adjust if we want to give ourselves a fighting chance against climate change. Many Canadians have already had climate change impact their work, including workers in the agricultural, fishing, emergency services and tourism industries. There was the interruption of supply chains. Many elements of mining and mining infrastructure have also been significantly affected by climate change. I could go on, but suffice to say few sectors and few hard-working Canadians will be able to carry on as normal at their jobs or in their lives as long as the planet continues to heat up.

That has been, as noted, one of the hottest seasonal temperatures on record with warm ocean temperatures, category 5 hurricanes and many extreme weather events. We have seen them play out in the media over the last year. All of us are rightfully concerned, and should be doubling down and tripling down our efforts on fighting climate change.

With Bill C-50, our government is determined to help Canadian workers stay ahead of the curve in today's rapidly changing job market. If parliamentarians are committed to supporting Canadian workers through the transition to a low-carbon economy, we must come together across party lines and work together.

Certainly, we do not need more signs from Mother Nature that we need to do this right now. I think Mother Nature has given us plenty signs for decades now, and it is time to get on with this. I think this bill makes a significant contribution to our climate action efforts.

The need to move fast does not mean we need to do this piecemeal, or thoughtlessly or carelessly. Canadian workers, their families and their communities, whether in our largest cities or in the farthest reaches of our territories, need substantive and clear legislation that commits Canada's government to action that supports them.

This act was written after extensive consultation with the people it is intended to help, which is a primary principle of all good consultation work. It has to include the people who are most impacted. Their words assisted us in defining its purpose to help the government facilitate the creation of sustainable jobs for Canada's workers, while seizing opportunities for economic growth.

We want to provide support for workers and their communities in the shift to a low-carbon economy, and ensure transparency, accountability and ongoing engagement with Canadians across every region of the country on issues like training, workers' rights, the job market, economic growth, and, of course, reducing emissions.

This framework and all federal action on sustainable jobs would be guided by the principles enshrined in this legislation. They are principles that would strengthen our collective efforts, ensuring that all of Canada's national policies and programs, and the federal entities that carry out this work, are grounded in the fundamental values that underpin this work. This would be along with international best practices, and would be delivered equitably, fairly and inclusively.

This means that this act supports the creation of decent, high-quality work opportunities for Canadians by establishing a framework for effective action. Through this framework, we would be better positioned to address the barriers that have made it difficult for some to join the workforce. This legislation has four guiding principles developed in consultation with Canadians, built on guidelines adopted by the International Labour Organization, and tailored to fit with what Canadians value.

The first principle reflects the need for adequate, informed and ongoing social dialogue between government, workers and industry. Social dialogue is a term used by the International Labour Organization to describe all types of communications that help build understanding of and consensus about issues impacting the workforce. The government believes that this is a must if we want to shift to a low-carbon economy, to succeed for Canada's workers, their families and their communities.

The second guiding principle of this legislation is that the policies and programs that are put in place should support the creation of decent work, meaning good-paying, high-quality jobs, including union jobs. It is work that is productive and delivers a fair income. It is work that gives workers a voice in decisions that affect them.

Labour policies and programs influenced by this legislation should consider job security and social protections to reduce and prevent poverty and vulnerability among Canada's workers, as well as promote ongoing social dialogue. We also need the policies and programs associated with sustainable jobs to recognize local and industry-specific needs.

During our extensive consultations, Canadians told us openly and directly that they want Canada's government to acknowledge, with real action, that regions dominated by fossil fuel jobs have unique needs and opportunities. They told us that our policies need to reflect the fact that workers in high-emitting industries need pathways to low-carbon industries as the world shifts to different sources of energy. I can assure the members of this House that we hear those concerns.

Closely related to that is the need for our policies and programs to reflect workers' cultural values, strengths and potential while we create an environment where workers, businesses, investors and consumers can create sustainable, inclusive economies and societies.

The third guiding principle in this act recognizes that shifting to a low-carbon economy presents an important opportunity to improve the diversity of Canada's workforce and address barriers to the participation of marginalized and under-represented groups in the labour force.

Let me use the mining industry as an example. The industry's need to hire more workers is an opportunity to diversify its workforce. Women and people who have been granted permanent resident status in Canada are vastly under-represented in mining, making up only 15% and about 7% of its workforce, respectively.

While mining is the second-largest employer of indigenous peoples in Canada, accounting for 12% of the upstream mining workforce, the data shows us that indigenous people overwhelmingly hold entry-level manual jobs. We can and must unlock the potential of Canada's under-represented population groups if we are to have enough workers to fill all of the jobs that expect to be created over the next two decades. It is a significant number of jobs. RBC has reported that by the end of 2030, this could create as many as 400,000 jobs in Canada.

Because the need to fight climate change and expand sustainable employment is a global issue, the last guiding principle in the sustainable jobs act is international co-operation. Canada already works routinely and extensively with other countries, and we are proud that international co-operation is widely considered to be one of our strengths.

Canada is playing a leadership role on the international stage to promote an inclusive and people-centred approach, and I highlight, underline and emphasize “people-centred approach”, to the clean energy shift or transition, leading on a range of initiatives to advance sustainable jobs while promoting diversity and inclusion of marginalized groups in the clean energy sector.

Notably, Canada is leading the Equal by 30 campaign, which encourages voluntary commitments from both public and private sector organizations to work toward equal pay, equal leadership and equal opportunities for women and other marginalized groups in the energy sector by 2030. Canada co-leads the clean energy ministerial empowering people initiative with the United States and the European Commission, which brings together like-minded partners to advance people-centred transitions. There is more collaboration I could mention, but I will stop there.

In our extensive consultations with Canadians, we were told to bring our people-centred approach to our international work, and we agree wholeheartedly. People-centred legislation makes it easier for our policies to remain coherent at every level of government, but, more importantly, it is critical to ensuring that Canadians have equal access to a variety of social supports or job training and job opportunities.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, what would this member tell the thousands of my constituents who will lose their jobs because of this so-called just transition, which certainly has no justice in it?

There are many opportunities, and my constituency is seeing some of those opportunities through wind, solar and other clean investment.

Before he talks about opportunities, what would he tell the people of Hanna, who faced the consequences of a coal transition, where the government promised to be there but failed every step of the way? We saw absolute devastation in one of the communities in my constituency.

Liberals talk big about this, but when it comes to results, how does he defend my constituents who will bear the brunt of this? How do they defend themselves on a record so poor that it will literally leave people on the street?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously my colleague across the way does not truly understand the gravity of the situation of the global climate crisis we are in. The transition of workers from one industry to another, from high-emitting to low-emitting industries, is going to require a significant transition of workforce. That is exactly what this legislation aims to do, to make that transition as equitably, fairly and inclusively as humanly possible and ensure all partners across Canada are involved, especially labour organizations, as well as industry partners and indigenous groups, in making those decisions.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have been hearing from clean-tech businesses that the investment tax credits that were announced in the spring still are not accessible. Here we are in October, and there have been huge delays. This uncertainty for businesses is a big problem, especially those that are looking to make investments in the clean-tech economy.

When is the government going to roll out these programs? Also, we have seen the delays in applications even for people who personally want to work with the Canada greener homes grant. There have been delays and failures to get back to people and get a response to them. It is just unbelievable the amount of time it is taking. This is a disincentive for the people we want to get in place to make decisions to help kick-start the Canadian clean-tech economy.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, RBC has said that over 400,000 jobs are at stake by the end of 2030, so over the next seven years. What this legislation is looking to do is ensure we create more jobs in Canada.

The member opposite rightly points to the fact the investment tax credits our government has introduced and is working on rolling out are going to play a key role in incentivizing the sustainable investments we are going to need across Canada to see growing industries in renewables and other facets of the energy transition that are going to create those jobs for people to transition to. I welcome that work, and I am sure we will be able to keep the member updated as that work gets to a point of conclusion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would simply say to my colleague that if we want to create jobs in the renewable energy sector, then we need to take bold action, in other words, get out of fossil fuels and stop investing the majority of our resources in oil and gas.

Unfortunately, I do not think that the Liberal government has the courage to be bold because, even when it comes to calling it what it is, in other words a “just transition”, the Liberal government has decided to backtrack and instead talk about “sustainable jobs”.

Canada is the only western country that is using the term “sustainable jobs” instead of talking about a “just transition”, because it is afraid of how Alberta may react.

Does that not jeopardize the bold action that we should be taking? Is our lack of courage not our biggest problem?

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the language shifter, the lingo and the way we are talking about this has evolved. That evolution in language in talking about sustainable jobs is part and parcel of working with labour leaders across the country. I believe it actually reflects the language and framing they would like us to use. The evidence shows there is a lot at stake here. There is a lot of investment and potential economic growth. There are a lot of jobs at stake, and those jobs are truly sustainable jobs. They will be with us for generations to come as we make this green energy transition.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Before I get into the substance of Bill C-50, I will state unequivocally how important it is to acknowledge the conflict that is taking place in Israel and Gaza. As Canadians, we stand with Israel and the right for it to defend itself and to look out for the many victims of this conflict.

I would note that when I asked a question a few minutes ago of the member from the Liberal Party who preceded me, he said that I did not understand what the bill was about, and they are clapping about that. However, what they are clapping for is seeing Canadians descending into poverty, because the government is forcing them in that direction. They are going to see that Canada is pushed to the back of the line when it comes to our ability to displace dictator crude and gas.

It is unbelievable the ignorance from those Liberal members who would suggest this to those of us who actually understand the energy sector, not just traditional oil and gas, although that is a big part of the opportunity that Canada offers, and the full extent of what Canada's energy future can be. Those Liberals are dragging behind and dragging us down. They should truly be ashamed of themselves. I dare that member to come to my constituency, look my constituents in the eye and tell them why they do not deserve well-paying jobs. Those members are accusing my constituents of somehow not caring about the environment. It is disgraceful, shameful and shows that they have lost the moral authority to govern on these issues, especially when we look at the results.

Let us look at the facts. When it comes to Canada's energy future, the reality is clear. Canada can be a world leader if not held back by these Liberals, whether it is the so-called just transition, and there is nothing just about it, or when it comes to the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which we just saw thumped down by the Supreme Court and called unconstitutional because of the government's meddling in provincial affairs. The government is holding back Canada's potential to be a world leader.

Shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he said that Canada was back. After eight years, the evidence is so very clear that he has been holding Canada back every step of the way, and the world is less safe because of it. The world has a less clean environment because of it. That is the record of the Prime Minister and the Liberals' coalition partner in the NDP. They should rightfully be ashamed of themselves.

When it comes to what we are debating today, I would encourage us to keep looking at the facts. Let us go to the conversation around net zero. Here is the reality. Canada could flip a switch today and we would reduce global emissions by 1.6%, or we could be world leaders and encourage investment in our energy sector, in our traditional oil and gas, and in clean tech, which I support.

The result of Canada reducing emissions by 1.6% would be by throwing our people into poverty, shutting down our factories, making it so nobody can afford to live in the country. The only people who would have any ability to resemble something of prosperity would be those who are connected to a Liberal government where they pick winners and losers. To achieve the reduction in emissions by 1.6% globally, we could flip the switch tomorrow. However, and this is the contrast between what Conservatives are offering and what Liberals are offering, we could empower Canadians, empower Canadian industry and use the natural resources that are so abundant in our country and reduce emissions globally by multiple factors of that 1.6% by getting our clean, green LNG to markets that currently burn coal.

The environment minister went to China, to a Communist-controlled so-called environmental forum, of which he is one of the vice-chairs, and encouraged and promoted Chinese—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am going to stop the hon. member. There seems to be either some chit-chat or some heckling going on. I want to ensure that members recognize there is debate happening in the House. If members want to have conversations, they should take it outside, or they should be thinking to themselves and waiting for questions and comments. That includes parliamentary secretaries as well.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the environment minister went to China and promoted all the great work the Communist dictatorship in Beijing was doing on the environment, yet that country is building coal-fired generation stations as we speak.

We could be displacing that coal with clean, green Canadian LNG. We could be exporting nuclear technology around the world to ensure we are displacing more emissions-intensive forms of energy. We could be displacing the Russian crude that is holding the European continent hostage. We could be ensuring that Canadian expertise and energy is solving the world's problems. However, under the Liberals, with their lack of an understanding of what is just in this world, we are being held back.

I would like to clarify one thing. The Liberals seem to think that somehow Conservatives do not support clean energy. That could not be further from the truth. I can say that definitively because I am a massive proponent of energy investment of all kinds. Whether that be new clean tech or traditional forums, we should be a world leader in all forums.

The difference is that the Liberal philosophy is to hold people down, hold them and drown out anything they do not agree with. That is what they believe. The Conservatives offer a clear alterative. We want to empower people to do what is best for them. We want to ensure that it is not the government that picks winners and losers, but that industry, innovators and, ultimately, Canadians to do what is best for themselves and for our country. When we are doing what is best for Canada, we are doing what is best for the world, and the entire planet would benefit from Canadian leadership.

Let us look at some of the facts. Bill C-50 could lead to as many as 170,000 jobs lost, including many of which would be in my consistency. I dare those Liberals to look my constituents in the eye and tell them why their jobs do not matter. We could see up to close to half a million indirect jobs lost. That is the whole spectrum. I am not sure if the Liberals realize this, but a lot of the clean tech jobs depend on affiliated industries that also do work in our traditional energy sector.

We also need to look at realistic outcomes to ensure that when we pass public policy in this place it will actually accomplish the objective. Nothing in this bill would benefit Canadians. Nothing in the bill would be just. Nothing in the bill would lower emissions. Nothing in the bill would lead to a prosperous future for Canadians. However, we see the government pushing forward, using manicured talking points that are somehow supposed to take the place of realistic and concrete solutions.

The facts speak for themselves. The only evidence that the Liberals could point to for even having an iota of success with emissions reductions is twofold. One is Alberta's leadership in reducing emissions, including in the energy sector. Two is the government pointing to COVID and the lockdowns associated with it as a reason why emissions went down.

It is truly shameful and a disgrace. The fact that if it were any other part of the country, we would not see Liberal members pursuing this sort of agenda. That leads me to my final point.

It should be the job of any prime minister, first and foremost, to ensure that there is national unity in our country, yet the Liberal Prime Minister and those corrupt Liberals are dividing our country. I hope it can be repaired. I believe it can be, but there are so many who are losing faith in the very foundations of our institutions, the very foundations of our country, because of an ideological agenda that is not only ineffective but is truly tearing the country apart.

The bill and the ideology need to be defeated. The members who support it need to be shown the door. When it comes to the future of our country, in every metric, this is the wrong direction. It is time for a government that can bring home a future for Canada that works.

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

Madam Speaker, in one word, wow. At the end of the day, it is becoming very clear that the Conservative Party does not give a darn about green jobs. The Conservatives do not recognize that there is value to green jobs. The Conservatives are prepared to write off Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it when it comes to good-quality green jobs.

This bill is all about ensuring there is a council that can provide that five-year report on how we can transition and generate additional jobs. Let us think about the battery jobs from Volkswagen and other types of jobs. This is about tomorrow.

Why do the Conservatives want to close their eyes or bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich? It does not make any sense. What do you have against good, clean middle-class jobs?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to address questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to address the member's question, because here is the reality. The only party in the country that supports clean, green sustainable jobs is the Conservative Party of Canada. We believe in an economy that allows for the prosperity of all industries. Whether that is mining in northern Ontario; or oil and gas in Alberta and across the Prairies; or tidal energy, which the Liberals have ensured is not affordable in the Maritimes; there is one party in our country that truly wants to see prosperity for all, lower emissions and a future that works for Canadians, and it is the Conservative Party.

Therefore, when that member spouts off the same tired talking points that have been tearing our country apart, he can be held accountable, as the Liberals not only fail on the environment but they fail on the economy, and Canadians are getting sick and tired of it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the intensity of my colleague's speech, but I have concerns for his health. He should not get so worked up. It is not good for him. I want him to take care of himself.

I understand that he is passionate about oil. I have no problem with that. I would just like to point out to him that if, in the future, we want to join the global trend of reducing our carbon footprint, then we will have to make painful choices.

The government has promised a generous $83 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector until 2034-35. That should give it some incentive to meet the government halfway. I do not agree with this, but that is how it is. I am trying to get them on the same page. I want my colleague to sleep well tonight. I want him to breathe deeply and feel good.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern for my health, but I can assure him that I, and so many Canadians, will sleep better when that Prime Minister and his coalition partners are drummed out of office. Then we will see a Canada that actually prospers again, whether that is in Quebec and the many industries that benefit from investment, all types of energy.

Why does the member not go and speak to the manufacturers? Some of their largest customers in probably his riding come from my province. The disconnect that exists from the ideology that is purported and supported by every other political party in the House and the reality that exists on the ground in Canada is so unbelievable.

The future is built on a clean economy, absolutely. How do we ensure that? We allow investment, prosperity and the ingenuity of Canadians to ensure that happens. The Conservatives are the only party that offers that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is speaking like there is this big bad solar-powered windmill-shaped bogeyman that is going to land in Alberta and wipe out all these really important jobs. That is actually not the case.

In fact, a study by Calgary Economic Development estimates that Alberta could see $61 billion pumped into its economy through clean tech investments. Studies also show that Alberta gains almost 100,000 clean tech jobs.

Why do the Conservatives continue to be unrelenting in their defence of oil and gas, and their clear disdain for anything that would mitigate the effects of climate change and that it would steal these economic opportunities away from Alberta workers and their families?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the only thing being stolen from our country is the prosperity that should be given to Canadians. It is that member's disconnect with reality that is on full display here.

I can see windmills from my house. I drive by solar farms on a regular basis. For that member to somehow think that we have to pick one or the other shows an absolute disconnect with the reality of how we solve what is a developing global energy crisis.

Let us build in our country. Let us ensure there is clean tech. Let us ensure that when it comes to traditional energy, we continue to move toward that lower emissions path. Let us ensure that it is Canadians who lead the way as opposed to being held back like they are under that coalition.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to express my serious concerns about Bill C-50. This bill is called the sustainable jobs act, which is typical of what Liberals do. They pick a name that sounds good. Who does not like sustainable jobs? I like sustainable jobs. I think all Canadians want sustainable jobs. It sounds really good, but the problem is that in this bill there is no plan to create sustainable jobs. This is a plan to get a plan.

The bill outlines how the Liberals are going to put together a council. Based on past behaviour, I suggest that it would be highly paid Liberal insiders who will get these jobs and advise on what the plan ought to be. As to the timeline of when they are going to come up with what the plan ought to be, it be should by 2025, coincidentally just after the next election.

The Liberals do not have a plan. Nothing says there is no plan like a bill that is introduced to get a plan. That is the first thing.

The second thing is the Liberals have another role, a secretariat, that is going to do some coordination, with another highly paid Liberal insider when they get the plan. The problem is that is it; that is all. It is a plan to get a plan, with some principles that are motherhood and apple pie and that we would all agree on, such as well-paying jobs, caring about the environment and the need to respect labour, all of these good things. They are all motherhood and apple pie, but the bill does not have a specific action that is going to help.

On the other hand, it is going to hurt. The analysts of the government have said that Bill C-50 would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, would displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and would risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces. The bill would destroy as many as 2.7 million jobs when there is not a single action in it to create any sustainable jobs at all. That is a problem.

The other thing is that it is going to cost a lot of money. Right now the energy sector provides 10% of Canada's GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. Last year, $48 billion in royalties and taxes were contributed by the energy sector. This bill purports to get rid of that by eliminating the sector.

We can look at other places in the world that have come up with a sustainable jobs plan and are starting to implement it, Scotland being one example. If we took the cost per person of its plan and did the equivalent thing here, it would cost $37.2 billion. The Liberals are taking away as much as $48 billion and adding a cost of another $37 billion. If we do the math, they are increasing by greater than $70 billion the loss to the Canadian economy.

I do not know why the Liberal government cannot learn the lesson when countless people can, like former Liberal John Manley, who said that when it runs these huge deficits, it is putting a foot on the inflationary gas pedal, which is causing the Bank of Canada to put its foot on the brake with higher interest rates. This raises the cost of mortgages. Canadians are suffering from coast to coast, so definitely not only is the bill not going to create jobs, but it will come with a huge cost.

It is not like this is the first time there has been an attack on oil and gas and the energy sector. This has been a continual theme from the time I got elected in 2015. Let us start with the tanker ban, Bill C-48, to keep Canadian oil from getting out there when everybody else's ships are out there full of oil. Then we had Bill C-55, which created marine protected areas so we could do no oil and gas development there. Then there was Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, which was just called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All of these things were intended to be a war against creating oil and gas projects.

There is evidence. When the Liberals took power, there were 18 LNG projects on the books and there were four pipelines. Zero pipelines have been built and all the LNG projects but one are cancelled. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our friends in Germany were going to give us $59 billion to replace their Russian oil and coal with our green LNG. The Prime Minister said there was no business case, so Australia took that deal.

Then Japan came up with a similar deal and again we would not take the deal, so Saudi Arabia took it. Then came France and the Netherlands. There were all these opportunities for Canada to be a leader, supplanting higher-carbon fuels with our green LNG, the most responsibly produced product in the world with the best human rights record, but again the Liberal government refused. Instead, it is focused on its own ideology and things that it wants to do that continue to destroy the economy.

We can talk about the electric vehicle mandates. That was another great idea. Let us give away $31 billion to create 3,000 jobs. For those who can do the math, if we just gave each of those 3,000 people $10 million, they would never have to work again and there would not be any footprint. There is a total misunderstanding of how to create a growing economy.

Then there is the clean electricity standard, another hugely divisive bill that was introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, clearly not understanding that where the Liberals want to go with all the electric vehicles, electricity and the grid would require building the equivalent of 19 nuclear facilities, like the one from Bruce Power. They cannot build anything, so I do not know where they get the idea that they are going to be successful in achieving that.

At the same time, they are ignoring the fact that only 7% of the public even wants an electric vehicle because the technology is not there. No one wants to be trapped in a snowstorm at -30°C because the batteries do not work. They catch fire. In addition to that, they do not have a very long range. Instead, the government decided to pick a winner and loser with the battery plants that are being built.

Now Toyota has come out with a solid-state battery, with a 1,275-kilometre range, that works at -20°C and does not catch fire. That will make our technology obsolete, with $31 billion after the fact. Maybe the Liberal government needs a few more engineers so that it can actually make science-, fact- and data-based decisions, but that is not what is happening today.

The Liberals continue to move ahead with the carbon tax and the second carbon tax, putting punishment on the backs of Canadians and achieving nothing. Emissions have gone up under the government. At the 2005 level, we were at 732 megatonnes. We needed to get to 519 and now we are at 819. They are not achieving their targets and keep putting bills like this in place, talking about sustainability, the environment and creating jobs. They are not actually achieving that.

Sarnia—Lambton has a huge oil and gas sector, but it knows how to do a transition and is doing a transition. It is creating good-paying, sustainable jobs like the ones at Origin Materials, a net-zero plastics plant in my riding. My riding has one of the largest solar facilities in North America. There is a whole bio-innovation centre that is growing different kinds of bio-facilities that are all either carbon sinks or carbon-neutral. These are the kinds of actual solutions and actions we need. That is not what is in Bill C-50. It is a plan to get a plan with nothing else. For that reason, I will not be supporting Bill C-50.

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

Madam Speaker, talk about reckless. Let me give a good example. The member is criticizing investments we have made in electric vehicles, and she is happy to do so. The Government of Canada entered into an agreement with Volkswagen, creating thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. Industries will grow as a direct result. VW is investing billions of dollars, and the member is saying that VW does not know what it is doing, apparently, and the jobs that are being created in St. Thomas and the surrounding areas are just not worth it because the reckless Conservative Party believes that electric vehicles are not a thing of the future. How ridiculous is that?

Can the member tell the people of St. Thomas whether the Conservative Party supports the VW plant, which is going to be the largest plant in Canada? Some 200 football fields could fit into it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I think what the people of St. Thomas would appreciate, instead of giving $31 billion between two plants for 3,000 jobs, is if the Liberals just gave each person $10 million so they never had to work again. They would probably be pretty happy about that, but that is not really the way to grow the Canadian economy.

Conservatives have plans to actually unleash the innovation, technology and natural resources of Canada to grow the economy. Think about those 18 LNG plants and the number of jobs we could have had there. Think about the nuclear facilities we could be building and transporting around the world. That is where the jobs are.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are still accusing the government of inflationary spending, so I have a quick question for my colleague. According to the IMF, Canada invested $50 billion in the oil industry in 2022. I would note that the oil industry made $200 billion in profit in 2022.

Does my colleague think that that expenditure counts as inflationary spending?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that when we invest in a business and the business generates more royalty and tax revenue for the government to support all of the social programs we want, that is an investment; it is not inflationary spending. When we spend money and it does not create a result, that is inflationary spending.

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

Madam Speaker, I always get a great kick out of listening to Conservatives talking about the environment and the economy. It is like looking in a distorted funhouse mirror: We are not even sure if they know what side of the world is up. However, the member says that her numbers are from Danielle Smith, so that pretty much sums it up.

There are nine million direct jobs in the United States in clean tech right now. Speaking of Danielle Smith, last December, Alberta was the gold rush capital of the world for clean energy tech. Just this past July, some were talking about how Alberta was out in front, and then Danielle Smith killed it. If we talk to any international investor about money in Canada, we hear that not a dime will go to Alberta now because of Albertan and Conservative ideology against clean tech.

As for LNG, the member has not a clue what she is talking about. We met with the German Chancellor. He said they are not interested in LNG. They wanted to know if we could provide hydrogen, but hydrogen is something that Conservatives are against, just as they are against the battery plant investments and just as they are against clean tech. They claim they are going to somehow find “technology”, but this technology will help them run their oil and gas industry into the ground.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to enlighten the member opposite, because clearly he is unaware that in Sarnia—Lambton, a green hydrogen hub is being created. We are supportive of that.

I wonder why he is not standing up for the residents in the north, who are not getting mining jobs because of project approvals and things that his party supported, and why he is trying to shut down jobs in Canada. He is supposed to be in a party of the working people, but the NDP has abandoned the working people in this country. The Conservatives have their backs and will ensure that their jobs are protected as we transition to a cleaner future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be some discussions going on in the House while others are trying to participate in the debate. I would just ask individuals to take those outside. I would also ask members to be mindful of the words they use within the House as well, to make sure they are respectful.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Labrador.

I am delighted to be standing here today to discuss Bill C-50, a bill that would help ensure Canada's workers are equipped with the skills and training they need to help our country seize the economic opportunities ahead of it. The fact is that as the world advances toward a net-zero future, we need to skate where the puck is going. I will give members a good example from my riding.

The Government of Canada invested to help Algoma Steel, the second-largest steel producer in Canada, bring its operations into the next era by phasing out its thermal coal furnaces and putting electric arc furnaces in their place. This means more clean air in my community. It is the equivalent of taking nearly one million gas-powered cars off the road. It is amazing. It means a healthier workplace for our steelworkers as well.

Like the sustainable jobs act, this investment was about creating new, well-paying jobs that benefit our economy. People in the community have started calling this investment “generational”. I have talked to steelworkers, and they know that if their grandkids choose to work in the steel industry in Sault Ste. Marie in the district of Algoma, because of this investment, they can do so.

There are industrial facilities like Algoma Steel in many parts of our country, from material to energy to manufacturing. Investors want to power their plants with clean energy, while minimizing emissions and maximizing their high-quality material production.

Members should not just take it from me: The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals.” Clearly, it is imperative that we advance technology and skills to get good projects built, while fighting climate change.

On the investment and research side, we are working hard to make sure that Canada is at the front of this global race for clean technologies. The Government of Canada is approaching this thoughtfully, through measures such as our hydrogen strategy, a clean electricity vision paper and our recently released carbon management strategy, which will help us secure sustainable jobs in such sectors as cement and steelmaking.

As we work to become leaders in the clean technology sector, we also need to make sure that our people are equipped to lead. Within the Canadian sustainable jobs act, the government would create a future where the Canadian workforce can thrive as it meets the world's growing demand for low-carbon energy, resources and solutions. It is a future where the challenge would not be finding good, well-paying jobs. Instead, the challenge would be keeping up with the demand for skills development and training programs to help Canadians fill them.

Bill C-50 provides an important opportunity to create a legal framework for action that fosters the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic prosperity across Canada. This legislation already reflects the feedback we have received from workers, labour organizations, experts, indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, and many other stakeholders.

This legislation would help us do two things. These things are not negotiable if we want workers to succeed in a low-carbon economy.

The first thing it would do is put Canada's workers first. To put it simply, as the government invests in the growth of our energy sector and other low-carbon industries, this legislation obliges the government to bring Canada's accomplished and motivated workers along with us. We are starting this dream together in a good place.

Workers in the conventional energy sector are already well-positioned to succeed in growing clean technology industries such as hydrogen. This is based on a recent state-of-the-industry report from Enserva, which found the following:

...people involved in energy development will be at a huge advantage in terms of jobs and skills as the underlying technical skills required to extract, develop, produce, process and export oil and gas are transferable to different forms of energy, such as wind, solar, biomass and LNG.

While this gives Canadian energy workers a reason to be optimistic, we still need the legislation to ensure that the government has a plan to provide them, their families and their communities with the related supports they need.

The second thing this legislation would allow us to do is to assure existing and potential investors that our workforce is fully up to supporting emerging low-carbon projects and priorities. We must continue to motivate investors to back the businesses that will grow tomorrow's low-carbon economy, while investing public funds into a wide array of sectors and projects.

The latest federal budget alone included $86 billion in new incentives to accelerate the growth of our clean energy sector, with new or enhanced investments and tax credits toward generating clean electricity and hydrogen, manufacturing and adopting clean technologies and advancing the viability of carbon management. This investment stands to help workers in very real ways, since the highest investment tax credits are reserved for the companies that offer the most competitive compensation packages. It is a win for investors, for Canadian workers and for communities.

The legislation has been informed by many things. In 2021 the government released a discussion paper on sustainable jobs, and we invited all Canadians to have their say on it. This led to 18 months of public consultations, highlighted by 17 round tables with a range of stakeholders and partners, including workers themselves. We also received tens of thousands—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will be able to continue the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, before, I talked about the consultations that informed us, and part of the consultations helped us determine that we would come up with the interim sustainable jobs plan, which was released in February. It reflects what we heard from Canadians and includes 10 key initiatives within areas of federal responsibility.

One of those initiatives, which is also in this legislation, is setting up a sustainable jobs secretariat. Creating a secretariat like this is a proven international best practice that was repeatedly recommended to the government. Canada's secretariat would promote policy and program coherence across all the five-year sustainable job action plans that are mentioned in this act and in work related to issues such as skills development, the labour market, workplace rights, developing our economy and reducing emissions. It would ensure that the opinions of workers, industry, provinces and territories, indigenous and historically under-represented groups and others are considered in all work on sustainable jobs across different policies, programs and departments.

The secretariat would also help in preparing and tracking the progress on the action plans, coordinating federal-provincial work related to the plans and providing policy and administrative support to the sustainable jobs partnership council, another initiative from the interim plan.

This legislation commits to establishing the sustainable jobs partnership council, which would provide advice to the government on the best measures to include in the action plans. The partnership council would be made up of sustainable jobs experts and would engage directly with Canadian workers, including those from rural and remote communities. This would ensure that they have a voice in the process. They would also engage with labour groups, indigenous groups, industries, trade associations, employers and different levels of government.

The council members would draw from their personal experience and expertise and give input to us, so we could engage in a process to formulate advice about the concrete measures government could take to support workers, their communities and the low-carbon economy. The partnership council would publish annual reports that include advice for the government, which would also help inform the five-year plans. The interim sustainable jobs plan that was released earlier this year is very important. It is a model for these five-year plans, and I can assure everyone that we are taking great action.

There is a lot to discuss, and I look forward to debate about supporting workers through investments and the union training and innovation program, UTIP, which focuses on sustainable jobs and supports up to 20,000 new apprentices and journeypersons.

We are investing in workers, people and communities across this great country. We are going to get the job done.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this flawed bill once again.

The member spoke a fair bit about possible jobs, but nowhere in this bill does it talk about that. He talked about some of the issues and, in particular, one was transitioning. Transitioning from our current energy system is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, which is what the member and this legislation seem to indicate. We cannot just flip a switch to make this happen. We need to make certain that steps are taken.

The people who are doing that hard work and doing those hard jobs today, whether they are coal miners, pipefitters or involved in sequestration, are creating those jobs. These people would not be sitting at the table of this 15-member committee that the government would be forming.

Could the member comment on how we can assure these people are there, not somebody who was signed up to represent them?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this whole sustainable jobs action plan is about workers, as is the legislation before us. It is about engaging labour. It is having workers at the table with us, along with industry, indigenous groups and communities at all different levels.

I had an opportunity to travel across this great country last year and speak with a number of people. I spoke with Russ Shewchuk, vice-president of the IBEW in Saskatchewan. He stated, “Through this legislation, the Government is showing their commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.” That is just one example of many different labour groups that are supporting this legislation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for giving me another opportunity to speak to Bill C‑50, which I gave a speech about a few days ago.

I would like to ask my Liberal colleague a question. How is it that this bill was drafted without taking into account the existing job training agreements between Ottawa and Quebec?

These agreements have been around for 25 years. How can the government come up with a bill without taking into account Quebec's reality?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were 18 months of consultations with a variety of levels of government, workers, industry representatives and indigenous groups. It was really critical, and it formed the legislation we have put forward here today.

I used to work for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in Sault Ste. Marie, which is a provincial group. We were funded by the federal government through labour market agreements, which Quebec is funded through as well. I know they are critically important for the skills and training that are needed today.

This legislation is going to go further than that. It would provide a plethora of training and opportunities for the workers of today and tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just saw Danielle Smith chase $33 billion of clean energy investment out of Alberta for ideology. We have seen the Conservatives get up day after day to ridicule investments in the battery plants on Highway 401.

The member represents steelworkers. I represent miners. I do not know anybody who would chase investment away or ridicule a plan that would make sure the workers are at the table. I also do not know anybody who would think that, with what is happening in the United States with the Biden administration and the complete transformation of its economy, we could sit by the side of the road defending a 20th century industry for ideological reasons.

Why does the hon. member think the Conservatives are so dead set against getting our economy into a 21st century mode?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can answer the member for Timmins—James Bay's question on behalf of the Conservatives.

I recognize exactly what he is saying because, yes, I do represent steelworkers in a steel town, and that is part of the supply chain. We are going from coal to electric cars, which is like taking a million cars off the road, but that goes hand-in-glove with the investments we are making in electric batteries. The market is starting to dictate this, as well as the government.

We are working to get ahead of the curve, and this is going to make sure that we have good-paying jobs today and tomorrow.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's contribution with respect to Bill C-50 was really informative and interesting.

First of all, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I am speaking today on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Bill C-50 has been circulating within this country for the last 18 months or longer. It has been a topic of conversation for industry, experts, unions, workers, provinces, territories, committees, think tanks and task forces. This is not something that the government all of a sudden brought to the House of Commons. A tremendous amount of energy, support and careful thought have been invested into developing Bill C-50.

We know that Canadians and the rest of the world are investing toward a low-carbon economy. We are taking our lead from climate experts, from businesses and financial leaders, and from employment and labour specialists. These are people who work in the net-zero economy, who work in the energy sector today and are looking to where they would be working in the energy sector in the future. They want to grow with these opportunities and be a part of launching Canada into being a leader in a net-zero economy. They do not want to be on the sidelines and they do not want to be left behind. They want to be front and centre, and they want to be a part of this movement.

They all agree that the global transition to net zero has the potential to help drive Canada's continued prosperity toward well-paying, high-quality jobs for many generations to come. This is not just for this year, next year or the next five years, but future decades in Canada for which this would have an impact.

We are also taking our cue from the tens of thousands of Canadians who participated in these public consultations. They made sure their voices were heard. They gave us very critical and needed insight and perspectives into where those skills and trades are today, where they see them going in the future, and most important, how they would be included and play a role. That includes representatives from rural and remote communities, as well as from unions, indigenous groups, industry, provinces and territories. All of the stakeholders have participated in bringing forward the legislation before the House today, and that, in itself, speaks volumes as to where Canadians are today in a net-zero economy and the energy transition.

One of the most important conclusions drawn from these engagements was that, for an energy powerhouse such as Canada, there will be an overall increase in jobs for Canadians. As we continue to diversify our energy mix to include more clean and non-emitting energy resources, many of the experts and pundits are even predicting that we will have more new jobs than we will have workers to fill them.

That is a familiar story for Canadians today. The government's sustainable jobs plan is specifically intended to help address these challenges by working to grow the size of our labour force to include more youth, new Canadians, under-represented groups and others who want to participate in this economy in Canada.

We have already made historic investments. This is not new for us as a government. We have been making investments to build a stronger and more inclusive diverse labour force, including, for example, the work that we are doing for a sectoral workforce solutions program. This is nearly $1 billion in investments to help keep economic and low-carbon sectors current and ensure that their workforce is emerging, that it is a workforce that is needed and that we are meeting the demands.

We have put $55 million into the community workforce development program. This was to help communities connect with employers, with workers and with future jobseekers to determine where these skilled trades are going to be and how they prepare for them. For someone who is coming out of school today, where are those clean tech, net-zero economy jobs going to be in 24 months, four years or six years?

We are way ahead of the game on what needs to be done for workers in Canada to make this transition. Of course, we have many other programs, some that are supporting indigenous organizations, industry employers and a number of them supporting the Canadian labour market.

I come from an energy producing province, a province that has found its wealth in the oil and gas sector. Now we are seeing new opportunities on the horizon for hydrogen development, wind development, solar power development and tidal power development. We are seeing an opportunity before us today that a decade ago we did not even think was possible. We know it is the future for our economy. As a province, we know we need to move where the trends and new jobs are going to be, those new revenues. If we are to have a sustainable economy in Canada, we need to be prepared to make this transition.

We are not only an oil and gas producing province; Newfoundland and Labrador is a major generator of clean energy. Did we lose jobs because we went from diesel generation to the largest hydro development projects in the country? Absolutely not. We imported jobs by the thousands to do those developments, to build those projects. Now we are sustaining hundreds of more jobs in those sectors. This is not something new. Just like when we made transitions 30 years ago, we are making transitions today.

What I do not understand is why the Conservatives are not supporting the transition to a net-zero economy, knowing it is going to bring sustainable economic development and good jobs for Canadians who want to work in all regions of Canada and for those who want to be able to stay at home and have a well-paying job.

In fact, I was amazed when I looked at some of the reports and studies that were done. One was by Clean Energy Canada, a think-tank based out of Simon Fraser University. It talked about the number of new jobs that would be created in the clean energy sector alone, about 3.4% every year over the next decade. We are talking about increasing jobs by 46% in sectors like hydrogen and clean electricity. These are not small numbers. These are hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Canadians who will be graduates of high schools and college programs. Not only that, it is coming at a time when we are seeing a lot of skilled workers in the energy sector retiring and leaving the industry.

It is a great time to be proactive in Canada, and that is what our government is doing. Bill C-50 is the benchmark for those things to happen. I can guarantee, from a province which is now excited about hydrogen and offshore wind, as well as from other regions of Atlantic Canada that are moving forward with projects like this as well, that we are not only seeing the thousands of jobs that come with it, but seeing a sustainable, tremendous future for Atlantic Canada, for Newfoundland and Labrador in sectors like this. It gives us hope and optimism that we have not had for a long time.

We are getting a clean environment, a net-zero economy, great jobs and are giving Canadians an opportunity to stay and work at home. I do not see any reason anyone would vote against that in the House of Commons.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague basically the same kinds of questions I asked her colleague earlier. In the opinion of the officials who presented Bill C‑50 to us, Quebec's specific situation was not considered at any point in the process of drafting this bill.

We can do something about that, however. We can do better. We suggest that the government introduce an element of asymmetry into Bill C‑50 that would make it compatible with the Canada-Quebec agreements.

I do not expect my colleague to say yes and agree with me. However, I would like to know whether she can commit to defending this idea within her caucus.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for all Canadians to feel that their voices are heard.

Through this process, we not only had consultations with all provinces and territories, but we also had consultations with indigenous groups, labour unions and industry, representing thousands of Quebeckers in that process. Their voices were very strong in terms of the input they had into the legislation and how they see Bill C-50 rolling out. Most importantly, their voices were strong in how they see themselves in what would happen in the clean economy and in the transition to new energy developments across Canada and to a net-zero economy.

Quebec has a major role to play in that, as my colleague would agree. We are looking forward to having their support and the support of the people of their province to ensure that they, too, would have the opportunities afforded through a clean economy and clean energy economy into the future.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, I, too, want to recognize how much natural resources have contributed to Canada's wealth.

Canada's oil and gas companies, right now, are making out like bandits. They have never seen profits so high, but what are they doing with that wealth? They are doing stock buybacks and dividend payouts. We are literally seeing the wealth of Canada flow through our fingers. It is certainly not going to workers.

We have to be like Wayne Gretzky. We have to be going to where the puck is going. There a narrative shift going on. We have to transition to a 21st-century economy.

I am very appreciative of the fact that the member for Timmins—James Bay was able to strengthen this legislation so workers and the unions that represent them would be a big part of this conversation. Could my hon. colleague across the way comment on just how important it is that the voice of labour be central to the conversation and to the legislation going forward?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced his colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I sat on a committee with him, and we studied this issue. I know that he is passionate about this, in terms of the role that workers would play in Canada in transitioning to a clean economy.

I certainly hope they will support Bill C-50, knowing what it means for Canadians generally, not just in how we reach that net-zero economy but also in how we strengthen it going forward in resource development and how we strengthen jobs for so many Canadians who need those good-paying skilled jobs that they could have right in their own communities and regions.

I am excited about what Bill C-50 would allow us to do in Canada. It would allow us to lead the way to a clean economy that we have rarely seen in any generation. We are a part of making this happen, and my guess is that, if they are passionate about this, they should get on board and make it happen, not sit on the sidelines and just be critical of it. It is going to happen with or without them. If we take an active role, we can make this work, stronger and better, for Canadians.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member also comes from an oil and gas area, like I do. It is very interesting. I also have five coal-fired power plants in my area. The workers are extremely worried about the transition that is supposedly happening. There is no aspect of looking at older people who are near the end of their career and how they would transition out, not to mention those who are trying to get involved.

The member talked about wind and solar. I wonder how she actually responds to her constituents when they find out that the wind turbines are all being built somewhere else. They are not being built in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not being built in her neighbourhood. The solar panels are not being built there. They are all being imported. The jobs are not being created. I am wondering how the member responds to her constituents on that aspect.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a riding that has large hydro power development, but it also has a lot of diesel generation. My communities want to get off diesel. They want to be on clean energy. They want to see new opportunities. Creating small power projects that are clean energy would allow them to do that. What I say to my constituents is that we should get on with the job and make this work so we can have new opportunities in our communities.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, which, as a part of this government's agenda of the unjust transition, threatens to do irreparable harm to the people in my communities and across this country.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

The so-called sustainable jobs act, which is part of the unjust transition, represents a clear and present danger to the livelihoods and prosperity of hard-working people in my community and in communities across this country. No amount of flowery language crafted by high-priced, Ottawa-based consultants can change the fact and mitigate the very real message being sent to people in my region and across the country, which is that their jobs and their livelihoods are simply not a priority for the NDP-Liberal government.

The legislation before us is a new iteration of the same failed policies that seek to create a taxpayer-funded secretariat of government-appointed elites in Ottawa to decide for the people of my region and of regions across Canada what is best for them and what policies would be imposed on them to meet the Liberal government's arbitrary targets. This is fundamentally unjust. It would lead to significant losses in incomes, to losses in jobs and to losses in livelihoods in my region and across the country. It is clear that the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost.

I have clear evidence that this is the case, because this is exactly what happened in my region just a few short years ago. The NDP-Liberal government has not learned any lessons from the previous failures of the unjust transition. That failure led to taxpayer-financed corporate bailouts that cost my region thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in annual tax revenue for my local municipalities. The counties of Parkland and Leduc are just two among many across this country that lost a considerable amount of revenue. This is revenue that has not been replaced, leading to higher taxes on people who have lost their jobs. Some people worked for 20 years in the coal-fired power plants, and then the government shut them down. Members of the government did not even listen to the recommendations of its own previous secretariat and its report on the coal transition. It did not listen to it, and the consequences for my region were very real, as I said.

The accelerated phase-out of coal mandated by the Liberal government and its NDP allies cost my community dearly. However, it did not even result in a drop in coal consumption around the world. In fact, coal consumption has gone up around the world. The only achievement of the phase-out is that workers in communities in my region and across the country lost out so that the rest of the world could keep burning coal and keep emitting more greenhouse emissions while my area was left out and suffered so much.

In the wake of the decision of the Liberals and the NDP to accelerate the phase-out of these plants, I met with union representatives and with workers' representatives. They told me that it did not live up to expectations, because the government promised it was going to have retraining and jobs for these people whose jobs it transitioned out of existence. These were people who were earning high five-figure and low six-figure jobs, many of them unionized jobs. Do members know what kind of jobs this government paid to retrain them for? They were jobs that paid $30,000 or maybe $40,000 a year. They were not unionized jobs. These were jobs that are not sustainable to support families, jobs that did not enable people to pay their mortgages or car payments. Since so many people in our region were affected by it, when they were trying to sell their home so they could move to an area where they could get a better-paying job, they could not even sell it, or had to sell at a loss. That is the consequence, and this is a government that has not learned from it.

Let us be clear on what the sustainable jobs plan is. In no uncertain terms, it is an attempt by the government to shut down Canada's oil and gas sector. As always in the case of a government with an ideological agenda, the ends justify the means. However, what are the means when it comes to this legislation and the government's agenda?

The unjust transition would help destroy around 170,000 direct jobs and displace 450,000 workers who are currently directly and indirectly employed in our traditional energy sector. In fact, across all sectors of the economy, the unjust transition would risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in every province, across many sectors, including energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture. For a government that claims to be evidence-based, these are facts that it either completely ignores or, at worst, feel are justified in order to implement its warped anti-energy ideology. The term “sustainable jobs” could simply be replaced with what it really means, which is jobs that do not exist in our oil and gas sector.

This is extremely short-sighted, because our crude oil and natural gas, and the millions of products that are created from these resources, are entirely sustainable and will be for decades to come. They are not only sustainable, but they also create the highest-paying jobs in the country and provide the greatest economic return of any sector in Canada. In fact, our oil and gas sector is so important that it is the bedrock of our country's economy. Twenty-five per cent of our exports are related to the oil and gas sector. Without it, our trade deficits would be massive. Our dollar would collapse if we did not have it. This would increase the cost of importing goods like food, fuel and pretty much everything else.

Our inflation rate, which is already at record-high levels, would rise even further as our purchasing power collapses. Imagine the catastrophic increase in fuel, groceries and all imported goods if we did not have oil and gas exports propping up our dollar and supporting our economy. The consequences would be catastrophic. It would impoverish not only western Canadians but also Canadians who rely on the purchasing power of our energy-backed Canadian dollar. Inflation would skyrocket, and then the Bank of Canada, in order to get that inflation under control, would have to raise interest rates even further, interest rates that are currently not sustainable for most families in our country. This would lead to more Canadians losing their homes at a time when Canadians are already losing their homes. It would also lead to many families going bankrupt, small businesses collapsing and ultimately, an unacceptable drop in economic growth in our country.

Ironically, this accelerated phase-out of our oil and gas sector, and its resulting impacts, would undermine our efforts to actually make our country have a stronger, greener economy. The commodities we need in order to support wind power, solar power and other clean energy projects are made out of steel, copper and lithium, and these things are priced in American dollars. It would cost Canadian tech manufacturers far more money to produce the manufactured goods here in Canada, and we would not be able to benefit from that. If we have a stronger Canadian dollar with a strong, sustainable energy sector in this country, then we can support the investments needed to make our country greener.

Any serious attempt to grow the renewable energy sector in this country must be led by private industry. In fact, the oil and gas sector is already leading the charge in innovation, and environmental and social responsibility. It is the single biggest investor in clean energy technology in this country. It accounts for about 75% of total investment in this country.

According to Chief Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, “We are the leaders in environmental protection. If you meet with the Canadians who run the oil and gas sector, you'll see that they are just like you. They are concerned about the environment, about safety, about integrity. They'll do whatever they can to protect our country.” Chief Swampy is right. According to another analysis, conducted by the Bank of Montreal, Canada is already ranked as having the top environmental, social and governance profile among the world's top 10 oil and gas producers.

Not only would this bill and the government's agenda do irreparable damage to our own economy, but it would also have consequences that would be felt internationally. Russia's illegal invasion on Ukraine last year underscored the dangers of relying on dictatorships to fulfill our world's energy needs. When our allies have come asking for Canadian energy, the Prime Minister and the Liberal-NDP government have continually turned them away. Just today, I read that the United States is lifting sanctions on the despotic Venezuelan regime, which has repeatedly fixed elections and violently quelled dissent. America and the world are desperate for oil and gas. They are desperate for oil and gas from Canada, and we are the only country turning down the invitation to be part of the global energy solution.

Let us use Germany as an example. It is one of our closest G7 partners. The chancellor came to Ottawa, pleading for Canadian natural gas in order to cut his country off from dirty Russian energy. Germany is a country that, I read recently, has had to restart its coal-fired power plants just to make up for its shortfall in energy. We could be providing low-cost, clean Canadian natural gas. What did the Prime Minister say to the German chancellor? He told him that there was no business case for liquefied natural gas. Likewise, when the Japanese prime minister came to Canada earlier this year, the Prime Minister dismissed his request to help bring Canadian energy to Japan, and he offered just his signature platitudes.

Our allies do not want platitudes. They want Canadian energy. The conclusion is clear: On this side of the House, we believe that as long as the world needs traditional sources of energy, Canada should continue to develop and export its energy sources. Let us let the world's energy market be dominated by a democratic country for a change, one with the highest environmental standards and human rights standards. Let it be Canadian energy for a change.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come from a family of coal miners, and when the coal transition went down in Alberta, I went out and met with representatives of coal communities. We invited them to Parliament to testify so we could learn lessons, but unfortunately they did not get asked any questions because the Conservatives, as they are doing on everything, were playing procedural games. They were not interested in what those coal miners had to say, so I find it a little rich that my colleague is now defending them today.

In the same way, when we met with energy workers in Alberta, who were talking about the clean energy transition and how they were ready and more than willing to make it happen, Danielle Smith shut that down and shut down $33 billion in clean energy investments in Alberta.

What kind of region chases jobs out of its area? What kind of region tells the world that it is not open for business because it is ideological? It is a region represented by Conservatives.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I go door knocking in my riding quite a bit and run into former co-workers, retired co-workers and people who used to work in the industry all the time. I can say that not a single one of them is proud of what happened under the NDP-Liberal government. Not a single one of them is satisfied with how it went down. They are not satisfied with the jobs and retraining. Frankly, even though the government pledged that it would spend $100 million to support these communities, the government has never reached that target. It betrayed our communities.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, touting oil is not okay.

Since the first COP I attended, the 2015 event in Paris, I have heard people everywhere talking about just transition. That is the term that is being used internationally.

Does my colleague understand why the legislation does not use that term? Is it because someone is afraid of possible puns involving the Prime Minister's first name?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that ever since oil was discovered in Alberta back in 1949, we have had central governments in this country try to control it. No other region in this country has had a federal government seek to control its destiny more than western Canada given its oil resources.

Quebeckers stand up for their resources, and I applaud them for that. We should all stand up for our resources. I will not apologize for standing up for our strong oil and gas sector, a sector that is investing in clean energy, renewable energy and carbon capture. I see it in my riding, which is working to sequester CO2 emissions today and is doing a great job. It is a sustainable industry. Let us support it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau found today that after eight years, the power of corporate oligopolistic giants is growing at the expense of Canadians. It is in a report, which said:

Concentration rose in the most concentrated industries, and the number of highly concentrated industries increased;

The largest firms in industries are being less and less challenged by their smaller [firms];

Fewer firms have entered industries overall, suggesting many industries have become less dynamic....

This has—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is all fascinating, and the member can ask about it tomorrow, but we are debating Bill C-50 and there is absolutely nothing about it in the question.

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

I will allow the hon. leader of the official opposition to complete the question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is for the member who intervened, who does not live in his own riding and has forgotten about the people in Timmins.

Finally, the report states that the consequence of this is that profits and markups are up while Canadian competition is down.

These are the findings of the Competition Bureau's report today. They are part of the reason we have smaller paycheques and higher prices.

Why is the government siding with big, powerful, protected corporate oligarchs rather than with Canadian consumers and workers?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government has always sided with big businesses. It has always sided with the oligopolies, whether it is the grocery chains, the big banks or the big railway companies, which are hurting western farmers who are just trying to get their grain to market. The Liberal power structure that has existed in this country has always been backed by big business. It is going to take a Conservative government, under a strong Conservative leader, to break the monopolies, bring true competition to Canada and open up this country for real economic growth.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments recently as he talked about the transition to renewable and clean jobs. Are we to believe that the reason the Premier of Alberta put a moratorium on renewable energy projects is that they were so wildly unpopular in Alberta? Is that what we are to believe?

Would it not be the case that there were so many projects that the premier became afraid that they were—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

The same policies doubled energy prices.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask a question. The Leader of the Opposition is providing his own MP with the answer. I cannot even hear myself, as he is saying it so loud.

Would it be possible to repeat that, or—

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

I will ask the hon. member to answer the question because we are a little over time.

The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member was part of a government in the province of Ontario that oversaw a doubling of power prices because of its flawed policies. He was a part of that government and —

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been elected to a provincial legislature. I do not know what the member is talking about. He is wildly incorrect, but he can please tell us more.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the member was a very strong supporter of the previous Ontario government, which did double power prices in the province of Ontario.

The government likes to talk about the environment, but we need to ensure that projects do not harm our landscapes and do not harm our waterways. I think we need to look strongly at these things, ensure we take a holistic look at the environment and support keeping the integrity of our environment strong.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to take part in this debate since it is an essential debate for the future of Canada and, let us be honest, for the future of the planet. We are talking here about the vision, the perspective we have when it comes to Canada's natural resources given the challenges we are facing with climate change, which is real.

First, let us begin by defining what is at stake. Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to it. Humans therefore need to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, ultimately, reducing pollution. Over the eight years that this government has been here, what is Canada's record?

Using a mathematical and scientific process, the United Nations, or UN, which is not just any old organization, analyzed 63 countries around the world to see which nations were most effective at countering the effects of climate change. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. That is not our statistic. It did not come from overly conservative observers. It did not come from climate deniers. No, it came from people in the UN. They handed out their report card: After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada is ranked 58 out of 63 when it comes to effectively fighting climate change.

Will people be surprised by this disappointing result given that the government had pumped itself up and bragged about their ambitious targets?

“Canada is back.” That is exactly what the Prime Minister said eight years ago in Paris. People all around the world applauded that Canada was back. However, after eight years, Canada is way back, at number 58 out of 63. That is the result of policies based on ideology, not on pragmatism and practice.

That is why, sadly, Bill C‑50 follows once again in the same Liberal tradition that this government is imposing on Canadians. In other words, the Liberals think that they are the only ones who know what to do, that they will tax everyone and that is going to reduce emissions.

After eight years, that is not what happened. This government has never met its targets. The rare times when there were reductions was, unfortunately, during the pandemic. If the Liberals' game plan is to bring Canada back there and shut down the economy for a few months, that is not exactly the best thing to do. We can all agree.

It is obvious that introducing carbon taxes is not working. That is the reality. Why is that not working? Because we would need all 195 countries in the world to have carbon pricing systems that were equivalent everywhere, with the same requirements everywhere and the same challenges everywhere The problem, however, is that the big polluters, the big emitters, starting with our biggest neighbour, do not subscribe to this system. This is a prime example of how important geography can be. The United States of America is our main neighbour, our main economic partner and our main competitor. Here in Canada, we are always quick and proud to lecture those around us. We tax people. We tax businesses. We tax wealth creators. We tax job creators. As a result, people go elsewhere instead of investing here. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is better to go elsewhere. That is the problem with this dogmatic approach.

Our approach is much more concrete, pragmatic and effective. It will deliver tangible results. On September 2, 2,500 Conservative supporters from across Canada gathered in Quebec City for our national convention. We had not had this type of event in five years. We were all under the same roof. The event took place on the evening of September 2 in Quebec City. I am from Quebec City. I am very proud to say that.

On September 2, there was a milestone speech by the future prime minister of Canada, the hon. member for Carleton. He is the leader of the official opposition today, but he will be the next prime minister. It was a milestone speech, the Quebec speech. It framed where we want to go with the next Conservative government, and when he talked about climate change, the leader was crystal clear that the real impact of climate change has to be addressed. That is what he said. This is why we recognize it, but we want to address it with pragmatism, not ideology.

The speech given in Quebec City is a big part of the history of Canadian politics and it will make its mark like many other important speeches in our history. That is why it will be remembered as the vision that the party had when Canadians gave us the honour of putting their trust in us to form the next government.

What was said in that speech?

The first pillar is that climate change is having a real impact and that it must be addressed. We need pragmatic measures to deal with climate change. Rather than imposing taxes, we are going to encourage people, through tax incentives, to invest in new technologies, research and development and measures that can be immediately implemented to reduce pollution. That is the objective. It is all well and good to brag about lofty principles and say that we are going to reduce emissions by 2.3% compared to what happened in 1991 because it was different in 1996, and so on. That is all theoretical. The reality is that there is pollution and we want to reduce pollution.

When we talk about reducing pollution, it is a never-ending story. We hear that we need to reduce, reduce and reduce. If we can reduce by 20% this year, then great and congratulations. What will be done on January 1 to continue to reduce pollution and emissions? Our plan is based on incentives in research and development to help reduce pollution. This is the first pillar.

The second pillar is to give the green light to green energy. People have projects ready to go right now. They want to invest in green energies and they want to do research and development, but there is too much red tape. We need to act efficiently. I would like to provide a very specific example. Quebec is currently engaged in a lively debate about the future of hydroelectricity. Should we relive the great 1950s, when we gave the green light to so many hydroelectric projects in Quebec, or should we do things differently? This is an ongoing debate. Does everyone know that, through Bill C‑69, the federal government has given itself the right to veto hydroelectric projects in Quebec? This is slowing thing down.

We want to do the opposite and speed up the process of giving people greater access to green energy. When I say “green energy”, I am talking about hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, as well as nuclear energy. These are all avenues that we need to explore further with new technology to make them more efficient and more accessible to Canadians. That is where it can happen.

The third pillar is that we must be proud to be Canadian, proud of our know-how, our energy and our natural resources. Yes, Canada is rich in intelligence. Yes, Canada is rich when it comes to researchers, natural resources and energy. Yes, as Canadians, we must prioritize these Canadian assets and export this know-how. We have extraordinary know-how in hydroelectricity; we are the best in the world. We should be exporting that know-how.

The same thing can be said of natural resources. There is a lot of talk about the electrification of transport. I, for one, am a supporter and I believe in the future of electric cars to combat the greenhouse effect. However, this requires lithium. We have lithium in Canada. Why is it taking years to get shovels in the ground? We need to speed things up.

That is why we should be proud of who we are. That is why we need to green-light green energy. That is why we need tax incentives to accelerate research and development. Concrete, realistic, responsible, pragmatic measures will enable us to fight the harmful impacts of climate change. For the past eight years, the Liberals have opted for their carbon tax and the second tax that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will cost over 20 cents a litre, or 16 cents plus tax. We know the Bloc Québécois had two opportunities to say no to the first carbon tax and the second one. Twice, the Bloc Québécois lent its full support and voted with the Liberal government to keep both taxes.

That is not the approach we recommend. We believe that Canadian know-how, smarts and natural resources are the best way to face the challenge of climate change.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, he talked about pragmatic solutions. Maybe there was a loss in translation with the word “pragmatic”. “Pragmatic” means dealing with something realistically. All that he is promising is that they will develop things in the future. They do not have anything right now. They will renounce the things that work, renounce the things that are accepted by the global community as working, that make us a leader on this file. What he is offering is magic beans, that, maybe, in the future, someday, we will have something, maybe, possibly, maybe.

That is not pragmatic by any definition.

I was wondering if the hon. member could get up and just recognize that they do not have anything at all to offer except denial of climate change.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, in the 30s, when Canadians created penicillin, this member was not there to say that it is does not exist and that it will never exist.

I believe in Canadian knowledge. I believe in Canadian research. I believe in Canadian scientific people.

He talked about the global observation. May I remind him that the global observation from the United Nations concluded that after eight years of this government, Canada is number 58 out of 63.

Shame on them.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am starting to wonder if I am in the right debate. I thought we were supposed to be talking about Bill C‑50.

I will bring my colleague back to Bill C‑50. Since he is a member from Quebec, he knows full well that there exists in that province the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which is a Quebec-Ottawa agreement on skills training. There is no mention of it in Bill C‑50. No one even thought of the fact that this agreement exists.

I also want to come back to the Conservatives under Harper. In 2013, the federal budget introduced the Canada job grant. It was the centrepiece of the budget. Quebec was against it. At the time, Ms. Maltais called the Conservatives to make them understand that Quebec already had something like that.

I would like my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent to tell me how the two major parties in this country do not even know what is happening in Quebec.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague who is celebrating her eight anniversary as a member of Parliament here in the House of Commons today. I wish her a happy anniversary and to the rest of us too.

In answer to the specific question that my colleague asked, I would answer that I only spoke about the environment and that I am very proud of that. I am a bit surprised to hear my colleague from Repentigny say that I did not speak about Bill C‑50, when, on the contrary, I made the focus of my speech the environment, a subject that is very dear to her heart.

What the Conservatives want is to help Quebec in its development. We understand Quebec, and that is why we are strongly opposed to the law stemming from Bill C‑69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric projects. I will not hide the fact that we are in favour of these developments and that we want them to move forward as quickly as possible.

We need to regain the momentum that we had in the 1950s when we tripled the infrastructure at the Beauharnois power plant, built the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations and gave the green light to the fantastic Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project and the Carillon generating station. In the 1950s, Quebec was really big on creating hydroelectric dams. Let us hope that we can see that again one day in Quebec.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about job creators. I am wondering what his thoughts are on Alberta's premier's decision to impose a moratorium on investment in renewable energy projects that would have created 22,000 jobs.

At a time when we need real, timely solutions, as he spoke about, around the climate crisis for today and for future generations, why are the Conservatives so quick to protect big oil companies at the expense of workers and the future of our planet?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recall for everybody in the House that the first province to have a department of environmental affairs was Alberta. The first province to have a review process for big projects based on the environmental scoop was Alberta.

Where is the province where we find the biggest plant for solar energy? Alberta.

In which province do we find the greatest wind farm project? Alberta.

Let me remind us that since 1947, on February 13, we had the Leduc No. 1 treasure, which blew up and gave the big boom in Alberta, which profited everybody in this country.

There is no shame in Alberta, not at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise with respect to this legislation and the urgency of moving forward. We have come across the worst climate catastrophe in our nation's history with the hottest summer on record. Normally, September is when fire season is over. Just this past September, in one weekend, more carbon was pumped into the atmosphere from burning Canadian forests than is normally pumped in an entire year of Canada's boreal forest fires. That is one part of the urgency.

The other part of the urgency is that just this past month, the International Energy Agency announced that the beginning of the end of the oil and gas industry is now foreseeable on the horizon. The agency is warning governments that they have to make a plan because they are going to be stuck with stranded assets if they continue to invest in an industry that can no longer compete with what is happening internationally with the rise of—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that it is actually government policy that is making it impossible for companies in Canada to compete internationally—

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

I believe that is falling into debate.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that facts really tend to frighten the Conservatives. If they are feeling uncomfortable about facts, maybe they can get a little safe room where they can live in disinformation. I was talking about the International Energy Agency.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of the declaration by the Speaker yesterday, I believe that this member is not subscribing to the decorum of the House that the Speaker requested, by accusing an opposition party of disinformation.

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

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay can continue his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not be intimidated by a group of climate change deniers. I will continue to speak facts. They can interrupt me all night long—

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

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton is rising on a point of order.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear. I have stood in this House. I have talked about plans for climate change reduction. It is offensive that the member opposite is saying that we are climate change deniers.

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

Before we continue on debate, I suggest all members look at their phones. There is an email that would have gone out from the Speaker's office about decorum in this House of Commons to make sure that we follow those rules, try to get along better and try not to accuse people of things.

The hon. deputy House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am just seeking clarification on your ruling. Are you saying that the term “climate change denier” is unparliamentary?

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

There were lots of words in here. I just want to say that people can take time to actually review it and maybe the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay can finish up with his speech.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, once again.

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

On that same point of order, though, Mr. Speaker, it was the Speaker, from the Liberal Party, who said that the issue was to try to get people to not use inflammatory language, which we are hearing from the member for Timmins—James Bay—

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

That is a part of the inflammatory language that is outlined in that document.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue raised was an attempt to intimidate and stop members from speaking. I will not be intimidated.

I will continue to speak even if it takes all night. I will speak out about climate change denial, even if I am interrupted relentlessly. These are the facts of this bill. I will continue to speak on behalf of the work that is being done, particularly the work we have done with energy workers.

I was speaking about the urgency. I spoke about the urgency of the climate crisis, and that certainly triggered the Conservatives. I spoke of the urgency of what the International Energy Agency is reporting, warning governments against continuing to invest in the fossil fuel industry because they are going to be stranded assets. The urgency is at the point that we are now reaching peak oil by 2025-30. We have this falsehood that if we continue to build infrastructure, we could ignore science, the economy and reality, which is something the Conservatives have done for so long.

I would like to speak to one other element of urgency in getting this legislation passed, which is the fact that the United States, under the IRA, in a single year, has created what is being called economic shock waves for their investments in clean tech. This is a game-changer of unprecedented proportions.

Again, I do not know any jurisdiction on the planet that chases away investment, but I know how upset the Conservatives are whenever we talk about what is happening in the United States. Offshore wind, under Joe Biden, in a single year, is moving to 40 gigawatts of power. The Vineyard Wind project would run 400,000 homes on cheap, clean energy. The Conservatives do not want Canadians to know that because they want to continue to promote coal and oil. There is 146 billion dollars worth of investment in the United States in offshore wind. This is something the Conservatives would shut down in a second.

We are seeing right now, within one year, 86,000 new permanent jobs, and 50,000 in EV. What we have seen is the Conservatives, again and again, ridiculing investments in battery technology and EV technology. We had the member who lives in Stornoway, which I do not believe is in his riding, show up in Timmins—James Bay to ridicule the critical mineral strategy, in a mining town. For God's sake, the guy has had a paper route. However, here is a man who comes into a mining region and makes fun of EV technology, when our communities and our workers are going to be ones building this new technology, and we are investing in it. We will push the government to continue to invest.

The legislation was very problematic for New Democrats. There was not a lot there. We pushed hard by working with labour and union workers who are on the front lines. One of the key places we went to was Alberta. We hear Conservatives talk about workers in Alberta, but they do not talk to them. They misrepresent them. We met with the electrical workers. We met with the construction workers. We met with the boiler workers.

We asked them what they wanted, and they said that they know the world is changing around them. Forty-five thousand jobs have been lost in oil and gas at a time of record profits, and the workers know those jobs are not coming back. Suncor fired 1,500 workers this year. Richie Rich Kruger, its CEO, bragged to his investors about the urgency, at a time of climate crisis, to make as much money as possible. He said he would target workers, that he would make every one of those workers in Suncor prove their worth if they were going to keep their jobs. It is taking record profits, over $200 billion, to big oil. It is putting it into stock buybacks and automation.

The workers knew there was no future. They told us they wanted a seat at the table. That is something New Democrats fought for in this legislation. Is it enough? No. We want to make sure that we have labour represented in the regional round tables that are moving forward. The idea of the Liberal government meeting with Danielle Smith without labour is a ridiculous proposition.

Here is the thing, there is no place on the planet that was more ready for the clean tech revolution than Alberta. In fact, just last Christmas, they were talking about the solar gold rush in Alberta. Just this past July, they were talking about how Alberta was set to become the clean energy capital of the world. Then Danielle Smith stepped up and shut it down. That was $33 billion. Here we go again—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe we are talking about federal legislation and Bill C-50. The member keeps going off track, referring to provincial legislation in a province he does not live in, a province his party does not care about.

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

That is falling into debate.

I would remind members to come back to the bill we are debating.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give you my notes afterward because, obviously, this is what we are talking about. I see there is very thin skin in Conservative country when one talks about their attempts to chase out investment.

Here is the thing with Danielle Smith. There were 33 billion dollars' worth of investments in clean tech killed in Alberta. If we were to talk to anybody in the clean tech industry internationally, they will recognize we are from Canada and ask where our project is. If we say Alberta, it is done. Why is that? It is because nobody is going to invest in a jurisdiction with a premier who is out to kill jobs. That is why this legislation is important. We have to have workers at the table, and we have to protect the potential for new investments.

Yes, we were meeting with workers in Alberta because we understood that these were serious issues, while Danielle Smith and the Conservatives over there, under the member for Stornoway, were talking about killing those jobs. What were they doing? Who were they meeting with?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did take the liberty of pulling out the declaration on order and decorum in the House by the Speaker yesterday. In there, it says:

...the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them....

The hon. member just said “the member for Stornoway”, so I seek your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker, because this was your declaration, and I am asking you to enforce it.

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

I thank the member for that. He does make a very good point when it comes to the decorum of the House and things that the Speaker wants us to think about when making speeches. Making up names occurs on all sides of the House. Maybe we should stop doing it, period.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope none of my time has been cut off by the panic attacks of the Conservatives.

As far as making up names, I am talking about Danielle Smith and the Conservative Party and the fact that the member who lives in Stornoway was up for cutting off all these jobs. These are facts. Conservatives might not like facts, but—

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I again refer to the fake title. If the member is referring to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, then he should refer to him as that, or as the member for Carleton. He should not refer to him as the member for Stornoway.

Again I refer to your document, Mr. Speaker.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Trust me, I do not get up to defend the member for Timmins—James Bay often, but he explicitly said, “the member who lives in Stornoway”. There is nothing untrue about that. It is not name-calling.

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

I have to refer to all members in the House by their riding names, and I think maybe we should all start using our riding names when referring to one another in the House. We should be referring to the member for Carleton or the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Catharines, the member for Barrie—Innisfil or the member for West Nova when he is not sitting in this chair.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

I really appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

I do not even get to go back—

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

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte is rising on a point of order.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking a lot about proper decorum in the House, and I thought the rule was that, every time you rise to speak, members are supposed to take their seats. I see that is not being done.

Am I wrong in that? Should people be sitting once you stand to speak?

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

The Speaker did say yesterday that we want people to stay seated until it is time for them to stand to get the eye of the Speaker.

I would like to assure the hon. member that we have been stopping the clock the whole time. He will have all the time he needs.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have sat down, but at my tender age, I have a problem with my back.

The fact is that the Conservatives get panic-stricken every time I start talking about how much they are against technology and that they are climate deniers. What riding is the member from? He is the member for Carleton, who lives in a 19-room mansion with his own personal chef, paid for by the taxpayers. That is a fact. I know they get triggered—

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Foreign Affairs; and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that was not a point of order on this really important issue, but I will try to continue, because this is important.

We actually saw at our committee that the issue of sustainable jobs is a top-of-mind issue for Canadian workers, yet the Conservatives have done everything to slow it down and attack it. This is a big issue, because there are problems with this legislation, and our job is to fix it, not to obstruct something that is badly needed.

I want to get to the point of what we are up against in terms of Mr. Biden. In the first week of the Biden administration, he signed an executive order creating an inter-agency working group on energy transition. He set up a transition group to make sure that energy-dependent regions were not left behind. Biden came out of the gate in his first week. He also went to COP26 and said that America would create a new clean energy economy based on good-paying union jobs, because he knew that he had to send a signal that he was going to fight for the middle class, unlike what we see with the Conservatives, who are out to shut down job investments in Alberta and to attack investments in the battery plants.

This leaves us with, my God, the Liberals, who had never talked about these issues before. They were dragged kicking and screaming by the New Democrats. We said that we have to have some key investments. We need commitments and clarity, such as on prevailing wages. We need to say that if someone is going to get tax credits to do energy investment in Canada, there have to be good-paying union jobs. We also need to make sure that apprenticeships are part of the mix.

However, the promised $85 billion in clean energy tax credits, which sounds great, is not here yet. We are going up against a government that, within its first year, had set up its energy transition, a government in the United States that is now saying that there will be nine million direct jobs from the IRA. We have to compete with the U.S.

I have heard constant drivel of misinformation from the Conservatives about what the Chancellor of Germany asked for from Canada. I met the Chancellor of Germany, and he said that Germany was not interested in LNG but that it was interested in the long term and in hydrogen—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would point out that Germany did then, in the 194 days, build an LNG terminal, so I think that it was interested in LNG—

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

That is a point of debate and not a point of order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. It is no wonder the German Chancellor did not bother to meet with the Conservatives, because he would have heard stuff like that. However, he met with us, and I met with him personally. He said that LNG was not where Germany was going and that it was moving so far ahead on green energy that either Canada was going to provide hydrogen or Canada was going to be out of the mix. That was the message we got.

Meanwhile, we get continuous misinformation, but where do we get that from? When the Conservatives go to Europe, whom do they meet with? There is Dan McTeague. Talk about a bonkers climate change denier, who somehow paid for four Conservatives to fly to the U.K. and put them up in big hotels. He is my cousin, by the way, so I am not saying anything out of family. Dan McTeague and his group apparently paid for three bottles of wine that came to $1,800 Canadian. Who drinks booze like that? Again, this is a party that goes on about affordability and about the price of potatoes, but, man, it can certainly afford it when it is being given a bottle of wine that costs $818 Canadian. Do members think the Conservatives would even know what an—

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

The member for Barrie—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to speak about the NDP leader's $30,000 trip to Las Vegas, but I would like to know the relevance of this discussion in relation to the bill. I think it is valid point of order.

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

I will accept that.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that. It allows me to go back. I was responding to the previous intervention and attack on me by a Conservative, who said that she contested what was said by the Chancellor of Germany to me in a meeting. I was saying that we were meeting with the Germans about energy. The Conservatives went over. We do not know who they met with, but it is worth noting an $818 bottle of wine. There was then a second bottle of wine for $265. That still is probably pretty good. That is not sparkling Baby Duck—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not speak to the NPD leader's ethical violation as it relates to a gift he received. I want to know what the relevance is to the bill we are debating.

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

I urge people to have a look at the Speaker's ruling from yesterday. Again, page 8 reads, “This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.”

There is a lot of that in debates lately, so let us try to bring that debate further up. I know the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is really wanting to talk to the bill at hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I am getting so much interference because I am getting to the punchline. Then, I will move on, but I think it would be unfair to intimidate me and have my ability to speak circumscribed, because it is about what our priorities are. Our priority, as New Democrats, has been workers, and particularly people from the natural resources industry, like where I come from. I live in a mining town that is looking for the clean energy future, and nobody in my town would be given a $719 bottle of wine. What was in that wine?

I am coming to the conclusion. At the end of this night with these four Conservatives, paid for apparently by my cousin Dan McTeague over in the U.K., meeting somebody we do not know, they had a bottle of champagne for $1,791 Canadian. That is obviously not sparkling Baby Duck. I do not know who bought that for them.

I ask that, because what we are talking about is the insecurity of workers at a time of transition. Do we wish there was a transition? No, we do not. We are used to living the way we have lived. I have lived through transitions, and it is not pretty. Cobalt is where we lost every single silver mining job in one summer. When our iron ore mines shut down, there was no future there. We know the word “transition”, and we know it is not pretty. This was something we heard from workers in Alberta and other regions. They asked what is “just” about a transition and how we could make it so they have some place to go. This was the New Democratic plan from the beginning, which we negotiated with the Liberals.

The Liberals initially said that they were going to put a jobs centre as their solution. We said that a jobs centre sends a message that we are turning out the lights and leaving. Where are we going to put those jobs centres? Are we going to put them in Fort McMurray or Saint John's? We needed something broader and something bigger, so we pushed for the sustainable jobs legislation that would serve as the framework. This is the important thing: We need a framework around how these tax credits would be implemented. We know that if we do not have a plan, it will be just a gong show of friends, pals and lobbyists who are going to be sucking up this money, as unfortunately happens all too often in Canada.

We need to compete the way the United States has. They brought an all-of-government approach to make sure they were making a truly transformative revolution.

I will say another thing they talked to us about when we were in Germany. The Germans were very concerned about the IRA, because of the competitiveness. Over in Europe, 3,000 or 4,000 kilometres away, they were concerned about how they were going to compete against Joe Biden and the massive amount of investment that is moving out of Europe and moving to the United States. We are right on the American border, so when $33 billion gets sucked out of Alberta, it goes stateside.

In my region, talking to miners and mining companies, the first thing they said to me was, “Did you see the tax credits Joe Biden put in? They are really interesting to us.” We have to be able to say that we are here too, we will compete and we will make sure that the investment stays here.

Again, I am dealing with the Liberal government. We are trying to make this work. We are saying, for example, that there are a lot of things missing in this plan. What is the sustainable jobs secretariat? Is that just going to be some desk in some minister's office, or is it going to have a true mandate? What is the partnership council? Are we actually looking at something credible here?

What we are going to be insisting on, while the Conservatives try to filibuster that committee and that legislation, is checks and balances to make sure that regional representation is there. We want to make sure that labour is there with enough voices representing enough regions of the country, because they are the ones who are going to be dealing with the implementation of that, not us. We want to make sure that indigenous rights are fully respected and implemented, and part of that is in the tax credit incentives. They are going to be different in different areas, and they are certainly going to be different in the opportunities for indigenous people. We need to make sure they are front and centre.

The other thing we really want to know is that we have a youth voice on the stewardship council, because we want to make sure that those who are being most affected by the climate disaster that is unfolding have their future interests at stake. We need to make sure that the tax credits work, we need to make sure that they are being implemented and we need to have better data collection. What the Liberals are offering us on data collection is insufficient. There would not be a job left in Canada by the time they report back.

There need to be mechanisms that come back to Parliament to tell us if this is working. If it does not work, it is is going to affect our environment, number one, but it is going to affect working-class families from one end of the country to the other.

What we were really surprised by, again, with the all-of-government approach taken by the Biden administration, is that we have seen, in one year, a staggering turnaround in terms of projects getting off the ground, in terms of jobs, in terms of commitments.

That is where we are at as New Democrats. We believe that we have a huge opportunity right now. Is this bill perfect? It is far from perfect. What we can do in a minority Parliament is come in with good plans and good amendments to make it happen, unlike our Conservative colleagues, who want to go back to the 19th century.

It is not going to happen. I am sorry. That world is gone. What we need to do is to say that we have an opportunity and if we do not compete, we are going to be at the side of the road because the United States is moving ahead.

I will just conclude on this. Let us consider Texas. Texas, politically, is about as out there and as right wing as the Conservative backbench and yet 890,000 clean-tech jobs are in Texas right now. There is no other jurisdiction in the world right now that has invested as much in clean tech as Texas. Texas came through the most brutal heat wave, killer heat wave, able to turn on all of their air conditioners.

Meanwhile, Danielle Smith was going around saying, oh my God, if we have clean power, we are going to have to turn the power off. She was paying for these trucks to drive up and down Ottawa saying, my God, if one invests in Canada, we are going to run out of energy. What kind of premier goes around advertising, in an energy-rich province, that the lights are going to be turned off?

The reality is that if we get these clean energy projects off the ground, it is going to dramatically decrease costs for families. It is going to give the working class and middle class steady jobs and it is going to save our planet. We will go to these hearings and we will push for strong amendments.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member from Timmins—James Bay today. There was that one exchange between him and the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She started to claim that she was not a climate denier, which I found very fascinating, because, only moments before that, when she was giving a speech in this House, she made some pretty wild claims, stuff that one sees from Russian bot memes on Facebook.

She said that only 7% of the population wants to have an electric car, yet in 2022, one out of every 10 vehicles was a plug-in vehicle in Canada.

She also said that no one wants to be trapped in a snowstorm at -30° because the batteries do not work. This is completely untrue. I have been driving electric vehicles here since I was elected in 2015. They work in the winter.

She also said, and this is the best one, because this is the meme that one always sees, “They catch fire”, as though we should be afraid of an electric car because the battery is going to catch fire.

The outrage and the misinformation that is being distributed by Conservatives is what gives them the reputation that they are climate deniers.

Would the member for Timmins—James Bay agree with that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my deep tradition in Parliament to not cast aspersions on any but to only speak to facts, so I will only speak to facts.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton lives on Highway 401 and Highway 401 is the heart of Canada's auto belt. Canada's auto belt has gone all in on EV technology. Here is the simple thing. Those jobs could go to Ohio or they could stay in Canada.

We see the Conservatives do misinformation after misinformation about EV, about critical minerals, about battery technology, as if our workers cannot make proper cars.

I am sorry. Canadians can make the best cars on the planet. The Conservatives and the Conservative leader attack EV technology and the battery technology, but my region is dependent on those jobs. We are going to get the critical minerals out of the ground. We are going to work with the companies on Highway 401. We are going to make the cars in Canada and make them sustainably.

The Conservatives do not have to drive them. They want to go back to the days of the horse and buggy, so let them.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member spent a lot of time on sponsored travel, so I would like to ask him a question. In 2022, he took a trip to Berlin, Germany that cost $10,500. The trip was paid for by the FES, partnered with politicized NGOs, to attack Israel, SHAML, a radical anti-Israel NGO, and Mossawa, which is one of the main Israeli Arab NGOs involved in the political demonization of Israel.

He held a joint press conference with Hezbollah in 2004 and HDIP, which promotes international political attacks on Israel.

How could he justify that?

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

Mr. Speaker, as we saw earlier today, the Conservatives attempted to use the horrific kidnappings by Hamas to promote the oil and gas agenda. I do not say these things are lies. I do not need to. I do not even need to respond to that kind of gutter talk.

The fact that the Conservatives would say that going to meet the German Chancellor and German parliamentarians about energy was somehow tied to the terror attacks in Israel shows how marginal they are and how deplorable the actions are of a party that will say anything, do anything and misrepresent anything at a time of such horror, tragedy and killings. I would tell the member shame on him.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like unanimous consent to table the member's sponsored travel.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

I am already hearing a number of noes.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to put out our sponsored travel. Are they willing? The member for Cumberland—Colchester had the $1,800 bottle of wine. Would they put the documents on the table and tell us who bought that wine?

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

We are getting into debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. members for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. Why are we talking about sustainable jobs and not a just transition?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself.

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

Order.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People can have conversations in our lovely lobbies. In fact, there are even cubicles just outside where people can have conversations without bothering everyone. They are very comfortable, so I invite members who are not interested in this debate to go there.

My question is very simple. I would like to know why the Liberals and the NDP are afraid of the words, “just transition”. Why are they talking about sustainable jobs instead?

That seems like a very “Canadian” choice of words to me, a well-rehearsed talking point. Why not talk about a just transition?

Why is that not the bill's title?

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

Mr. Speaker, words do matter, and when we met with workers about what they wanted, they wanted to know there was a future. That was why the words “sustainable jobs” meant something. We heard that from workers.

In terms of international obligations, we need to ensure in the legislation that this is not just an island by itself. It must meet the international commitments we have made on issues like the just transition.

It is very important, when I am in Edmonton meeting with electrical workers who want to know what their future looks like, to say this is about jobs. This is about tomorrow. Once we have established trust with the working class, we will move further ahead because there is no energy transition without workers at the table. That is why the language matters.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for eight years. I have listened to a lot of speeches in this place. Rarely have I seen as many points of order during one speech as what I just witnessed. I think that demonstrates just how thin-skinned the Conservatives are on this issue.

What I was really interested in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they are heckling right now. They continue to show how thin-skinned they are.

My honourable friend was talking about oil and gas profits. He made a point about all the wealth companies are generating and asked what they are doing with it. They are not investing in workers. They are firing workers. They are doing stock buybacks. They are doing dividend payouts.

Can my hon. colleague talk about that? It seems to me that rather than standing on the side of workers, we are hearing Conservatives parrot what the CEOs of the oil and gas industry say. I am wondering if he could expand on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question because we saw big oil racking up $200 billion in profits in the most catastrophic climate year on record.

Rich Kruger, Suncor's CEO, said there was a “sense of urgency” to make as much money as possible. I think of the 200,000 people who were displaced. I think of the buildings that were lost. I think of the terrifying situations we had and the obligation the CEOs have to deal with this.

The Conservatives live in a bubble of pretending that the world does not exist. Meanwhile, there are over 100 major lawsuits right now against Exxon and Suncor in jurisdictions like California and Colorado because they knew back in the 1960s and 1980s that they were burning the future of the planet. Shell, in 1988, warned that by the time issues became clear in the 2000s, it might be too late, but it took the time to raise its oil platforms six feet on the offshore rigs so that when the ice caps melted, it could still make money.

That is their responsibility and we will call that out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 had phenomenal support, not only from the House of Commons but also from the premiers in Atlantic Canada. It was all about renewable energy and future clean, green jobs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of potential jobs from there to Bill C-50, and we recognize the future. There is a need to develop, promote and encourage those green jobs. However, the Conservatives, as they voted against Bill C-49, are now going to be voting against Bill C-50.

The member often makes reference to climate change deniers. Why does he feel the Conservatives are challenging these good, futuristic middle-class jobs that are going to be there today and tomorrow?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. My grandfather was a coal miner and had to leave the coal mines because there was no future there. That is when he went to work in the gold mines and broke his back underground. My mother is a miner's daughter. This is what we grew up with.

When the jobs went out, I never heard the Conservatives say they cared. We lost jobs and the pensions of the workers at Kerr-Addison, Pamour miners were ripped off and Elliot Lake went down. We are in a situation of transition, and I think of the people in Atlantic Canada who have had to travel too often to find jobs.

Right now, we are competing with the United States offshore in the Atlantic, and it is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore wind. We can either get in the game and provide sustainable jobs for the communities out there or sit on the sidelines and let the Americans take them. I am not willing to let the Americans take our opportunities.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that I received applause from a Conservative. Apart from you, Mr. Speaker, he is the only one who still claps for me. We will see how long that lasts.

The Bloc Québécois's position is clear. It is imperative that we change our energy trajectory so that Canada, which still includes Quebec, for now, contributes to the effort to prevent average temperatures from rising by 1.5°C. That is essential. We are talking about the future of humanity, the health of our people, the safety of our communities and the future of generations to come. We have to make the effort. That means we have to stop ratcheting up our fossil fuel production. That is point number one. The International Energy Agency says we must not start any new oil and gas production projects. By 2030, we need to gradually reduce oil production, which is part of the problem.

It is completely wrong to think that some kind of capture technology is going to let us increase oil production while reducing our absolute emissions. I am not talking about emissions per barrel, but absolute emissions. These are basic scientific facts. By reducing our oil production, we will gain access to large sums of public money, which is currently being disproportionately invested in fossil fuels. This money could be directed elsewhere so that Canada can transition to a 21st-century economy, focused on the long term, on the future of coming generations and on renewable energy.

We stand in solidarity with the workers who will have to participate in this process. When the Trans Mountain project began, we did not just say that the government should not invest money in that project and that there would be cost overruns. We know that the project is costing over $30 billion. What we said was that we should take that money that was in the Canadian public purse and use it for the transition, for good-paying jobs in the high-tech sector that produce technologies that can be exported, namely, energy storage technologies. By so doing, we would not impoverish communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, who are the primary victims of the lack of transition, who will be among those who will pay the most, and who will be even more disproportionately affected when finally do make the transition when it is too late and it is even more urgent.

The government has done enough greenwashing. We need to take action. Obviously, when we talk about greenwashing, I cannot help but think about this bill, which basically contains nothing of what I just talked about. There is nothing about any of that in this bill. The Liberals are saying that they want to train workers in the clean energy sector, but they are investing billions of dollars in dirty energy. Clean energy workers do not need this bill. They need an employment insurance system that works.

We learned from the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that half of all workers are not covered by employment insurance. When I look at the federal government's investment strategies, and when I look at the Conservatives' plans, I am not sure I would want to apply to set up a wind turbine project. It has been so devalued.

What would it take? First, we need commitments and principles. This bill turns the process upside down and says that workers are going to be trained. It does not begin with what needs to come first. There is no commitment and there are no principles and no targets. It proposes solutions to a problem that has not been defined. Kafka himself could not have come up with this.

Next, we need a collaborative approach. They forget sometimes, but we are in a federation. There are provinces and municipalities. There are ecosystems in the labour market. There are communities, regions, workers, unions, employers, chambers of commerce and investors. There needs to be consultation. The democratic and civic process in the communities needs to be respected, but that is not covered in the bill. The bill provides that committees will submit reports, and it is not quite clear what will be done with those reports. We know that endless reports are issued here, and we know where they end up. They end up in a place where no one reads them. That is what will happen.

Once we have done all that, then we need measures to achieve the objectives. We need to think of the workers, the communities and the first nations communities. That is not happening at all. The provincial jurisdictions will need to be respected. There will need to be requirements for the planning and production of sectoral reports that cannot solely be the federal government's responsibility.

Labour law is under provincial jurisdiction. The workforce in Quebec has been under Quebec's jurisdiction since the 1990s. Everyone knows that. There are agreements, there is funding. It has not always been easy, but we have those things today. That is not reflected in the bill.

My take on this bill is that I do not doubt the intentions behind it, although given that the title completely eliminates the concept of the just transition, one can doubt the government's intentions. However, the whole thing feels improvised to me. The bill does not define a problem, yet it tries to find solutions. It is funny how the Liberals think a report is the solution to everything.

Since being elected, I have been bewildered to learn that committees work to submit reports to the government, and we vote on motions, but the government never reads them. Why, then, would it read the reports that are going to be produced under this bill? That is not plausible. That is where things stand.

The worst part is that the bill speaks to the government's utter ignorance, whether deliberate or not—if it is deliberate, then that is even worse—of Quebec's regional realities and Quebec's labour market. It is a bit like what happened with the early childhood centres. We are way ahead when it comes to skills training and collaboration on skills training. It seems like the federal government always waits 30, 40, 20 or 15 years. It dilly-dallies before eventually saying that Quebec is right and that it will try to push the other provinces to follow Quebec's example. That is precisely what is going on here. There will need to be asymmetry.

In the 1990s, Quebec voiced its demands on workplace skills training. In the 1990s, there were discussions about professional training, which led to federal transfers to Quebec for workplace skills training. This bill is on skills training, but Quebec does that, and it is good at it. If results matter, then the government should be consulting Quebec.

On June 22, 1995, the National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. Since then, Quebec has been in charge of workplace training. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this reform is based on partnerships. In 1997, Quebec created the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. This labour market partners commission repatriated active employment measures from the federal government to Quebec, and are working together to find innovative solutions, not just in green energy, but in all sectors, because every region of Quebec is different. Who are these people? The group brings together employers, employees, labourers, the education sector, universities, vocational training schools, community organizations and economic and social ministries that are familiar with Quebec's realities. It is working. Ottawa needs to stop ignoring that.

When we have immigration files in our ridings, we wait months for labour market surveys for each immigration file when those labour market studies have already been done in each region and in each sector. They are meant to determine what the needs are, what the needs will be in the future, how to plan and how to do things better. By deliberately ignoring Quebec with this bill, the government is saying that it does not want to do better. If Quebeckers want things to be better, they can vote for the Bloc Québécois, because we always defend Quebec's jurisdictions.

What should we do with this bill? We are thinking about it. It is not easy, but maybe something can be done with it. We are thinking it over. For starters, the government needs to listen to these concerns. It needs to consult Quebec. When we asked officials in committee if they consulted Quebec, they said it did not occur to them to do so. They turned red as ripe tomatoes, much like the tomatoes grown in my riding, which are redder than those grown elsewhere. When money is being allocated to implementing the strategies in the bill, Quebec will have to get its fair share. Negotiating labour agreements has never been easy.

Moreover, the government has to honour the Paris Agreement. It also has to honour the COP26 just transition declaration. The generally accepted term in the international community is “just transition”, which emphasizes the importance of making the energy transition and doing so in a way that serves everyone now, in all provinces and all communities, as well as future generations. As for the bill's title, my mouth dried out by the time I finished saying it. That is because someone is trying to hide something.

I think there is a lot of work to be done, and I invite all parties to take the blinders off and really consider Quebec's reality and its institutions. If objectives and achieving those objectives is so important, the government should take a step back and consult the Quebec government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has read the legislation, which has within it the creation of a council. That council, I believe, would be around 15 members. Within that council there would be appointments of different forms of stakeholders, everything from leading industrial personnel to labour representatives and other types of stakeholders who could really contribute to the development of that strategy. This would ultimately lead to a report on a five-year basis, the first one appearing in 2025.

Does that not fit many of the things the member was talking about in terms of having a strategy and looking to get the expertise coming forward? That, in essence, is what the legislation would do. It would ensure that Canada continues to generate good-quality middle-class jobs well into the future, dealing with green energy jobs.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I call “Winnipeg-Northsplaining”.

When the Liberals introduced legislation for child care transfers, they asked us if we had read the bill. They told us there was money to fund child care so women could enter the labour market. They asked us if we had read it. They told us they had targets and funding. We told them it had already been done in Quebec. In fact, they were the ones who had not read Quebec's legislation.

Basically, the parliamentary secretary is telling us that he knows it is worthwhile because it already exists in Quebec and it works. The federal government still has this obsession with duplicating everything. Apparently, this government is allergic to efficiency.

When these councils were created in Quebec, I was not yet old enough to vote. Now, I am starting to think about retirement, and the parliamentary secretary has yet to read the Quebec legislation. I invite him to read it.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing we heard at committee recently was that workers in the traditional energy sector have jobs that pay really well. Compare that to the jobs that will be and currently are created by green tech companies, whether in wind, solar or otherwise. On average, they pay about 36% less than what a traditional oil and gas worker earns. If this is a just transition would transfer people from job to job, does the member see anything in the bill that would ensure that the worker who is making money in oil and gas is going to be making the same amount when they are transitioned to a different job?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague has hit on something. He is asking whether we saw anything in the bill that will create jobs. There is nothing there. There is talk about reports by officials, people appointed from the “Liberalist” who will submit reports, and about things that have already been done. There is nothing there.

I know that this is difficult for people from Alberta and western Canada. They have a resource-based economy. They have good-paying jobs. I understand them. I sympathize with that. The Bloc Québécois is always asking the Conservatives to show some openness, to think about the long term, to discuss this issue. We are debating. We get along. We are able to disagree.

However, when the Liberals come here and say that they want to train people, set up boards and produce reports, they should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of an Albertan who is waiting for the just transition and who is waiting to be convinced. It does not help the environment to have a bill like this one in which the government is unable to define objectives and methods, in which the government is asking people to simply trust it. It is always a big risk to believe a Liberal who tells us to trust them.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we heard from representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents many energy workers across the country. The Conservatives did not ask them questions; they used their time to do a political stunt. When we talk to these workers, they are very concerned about their seat at the table because they know change is coming.

It is really important that we actually have legislation that is strong enough, because this is about the tax credits that would be going out. If the tax credits are done by these functionaries, who knows where this is going to be and how it is going to happen? Will the Bloc be willing to come forward with amendments?

We are looking for the New Democrats to have regional voices and working-class people represented, as well as having public NGOs and youth at the table. We do not want just industry, so that it would not just be a carve-out of pals but would actually ensure that the jobs being created are good, sustainable, long-term jobs, and that they represent our regions.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. The point of my speech was to defend the very idea that the member for Timmins—James Bay raised. The trouble is that the NDP often talks about the importance of regional voices, but only until Quebec's jurisdictions come into play. In this case, regional voices and respecting regional voices means respecting Quebec, the agreements and the labour market partners commission, and integrating asymmetry.

If the other provinces decide that the framework presented in the bill suits them, and that reports might help them advance because these institutions bring together community stakeholders, the unions my colleague was talking about, if that does not exist in those provinces, then let them take the first step. However, this must never be done at the expense of recognizing what Quebec has already done. Why should we make an effort, advance, innovate and set an example if, every time the federal government is 20 years behind us, it decides not to recognize Quebec for its efforts?

I think that the NDP also needs to keep that in mind when we study this bill and make amendments to it.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about what this legislation talks about, which is basically report after report. Ultimately, the first report would not be until 2025, which is over a year and a half away. That is when the report would come in to decide what the government may do down the road.

I am sure the member recognizes in Quebec how he wants to efficiently get Quebeckers to work doing the jobs, but that ultimately, just like with any project, they are being delayed just in coming up with the idea. After that, it is another six years to create the jobs that need to be created. That pushes things down the road continually.

I wonder whether the member would comment on how he sees that affecting Quebec workers and making sure that Quebec keeps its people employed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised we are having a Conservative opposition day where the Conservatives are asking the government to come up with a plan to balance the budget in eight days. They are saying that five years is too long. One has to be reasonable. It depends on the project. I can tell my colleague that most of what is in the bill already exists in Quebec. We do not need additional resources or bureaucracy, but we will need the money to implement whatever is decided.

Sometimes reports and consultation are needed. The right people need to be appointed in the right places. Unions, employers and educational institutions all need to be included. We have to do it right. We must also not rush to produce as many reports as possible as quickly as possible, only for them to be shelved. There has to be a balance between the amount of bureaucracy and the usefulness of it all. The usefulness of what is in the bill is greatly reduced in Quebec, if not non-existent, because we have already thought of all this. We are simply waiting for the resources to be able to do more.

Obviously, those resources are in Ottawa.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the tomatoes are the only red things in my colleague's riding.

Who does he think stands to gain from this? Why are we here? Why choose such an ambiguous title? Why put such gobbledygook in something that should be very sensible and straightforward?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.

I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about this alleged just transition legislation brought forward by the Liberal government. Before we talk about this legislation, we should talk about the success of the Liberals with just transitions in the past, because they promised a just transition for coal workers. They said they were laser-focused on it and that anyone in the coal industry who was going to be displaced by their policies was going to get a just transition. They kept saying this, repeating it over and over again, making these false promises to coal workers.

Can we guess what? Those fake and false promises were actually discovered in the commissioner of the environment's independent auditor's report called “Just Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy”. The Auditor General looked at the just transition Liberals gave to coal workers, and let me summarize that it was garbage. They did absolutely nothing for coal workers.

Let us look at a couple of the excerpts in this report. One reads, “Overall, we found that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy for workers and communities.”

This is what Liberals do. They try to beat up on energy-producing provinces with punishing policies, but then they say not to worry, that they are going to be there for them and that they are going to make sure it is a just transition. Those are false promises, much like Liberal promises on housing. They say that they are going to solve housing and that they have a housing accelerator, which is going to accelerate something. However, it accelerates nothing. Liberals come up with other programs where they just line Liberal insiders' pockets with gold, all at the expense of taxpayers, because they actually do not give a darn about the workers' jobs they are going to displace.

The Auditor General was really clear about this. Liberals had years to deliver a just transition for coal workers and did absolutely nothing. The Auditor General's report also states that the analysis is there was “No federal implementation plan”. Liberals said they had a plan. No, they misled Canadians. The Auditor General said there was no federal implementation plan.

The report also said that there was “No formal governance structure”. When one does not have a plan, there is actually not going to be any formal governance structure. They should have just said they have no plan, much the same as they have no plan on housing, the economy or combatting the opioid crisis. This should actually be called the “no plan transition”, because there is zero plan. The terrible thing is that there is also almost zero accountability from the government.

The final thing the Auditor General report stated was that there was “No measuring and monitoring system” put in place. Again, when one does not actually have a plan, when one just says to coal workers that it is too bad, that they are out of a job and that we do not give a damn, of course one does not put in a formal governance structure. One has no system to measure and monitor.

Then the Liberals have the audacity to come back to this place and say to Canadians that they have new legislation, because they care about workers and are going to give them a just transition. The only transition they gave to coal workers was to be out in the cold without a job. That is their plan as they once again beat up on Alberta and Saskatchewan and say that they are going to transition their workers out of jobs, but they are going to have some grand transition plan to take care of them. They did not take care of a single darn thing with coal workers.

Let us look briefly at something the Liberals say about this grand transition plan to take care of workers. They say that they are going to set up a council, to be known as the sustainable jobs partnership council. Its mandate is going to be providing the minister and specified ministers with independent advice through a process of social dialogue. That and $1.50 will buy a double-double at Tim Hortons, which is effectively what workers are going to get with this piece of legislation. The Liberals are going to set up a council. Wow, that is really ambitious.

I do not have a lot of faith in the government, because with anything it touches, it has the opposite of the Midas touch. Do members remember the Midas touch? It turns everything to gold. Everything those guys touch turns into garbage. They say they are going to set this up. I say, “Yeah, right.” They say they are going to do it in a couple of years. I say, “Yeah, right.” I can go back to how they treated coal workers. They treated them as I would not treat my worst enemy. They were indifferent. They set up no program, all the while saying that they were setting up a program and that they were going to take care of the workers.

That is called “gaslighting”, and the Liberals gaslight Canadians constantly. They actually do it on housing, too. We talk about housing, and the minister pops up, puffs up his chest and says that no one has done more for housing, that they have a housing accelerator and that they have this program and that program. However, housing prices have doubled. Rents have doubled, so when the Liberals say they are going to do something, we should actually believe that what they are going to do is cause harm. The policies they have brought in across this country are harmful, including the revolving door of the justice system. It does not really matter what crime someone commits, they are going to be out, because the Liberals reformed the bail system.

People who shot up the street one day are out a couple days later, because the Liberals changed bail. They said they were going to reform it to make things better. Now they want us to believe they are going to have a just transition that is going to make things better for oil and gas workers. No one should believe them, and that is not just because of their absolute failure on other things such as housing, criminal justice, the opioid crisis or the mental health crisis.

I remember when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo had a bill to implement a three-digit suicide prevention number. The Liberals said they were going to help. It took two years to come up with a three-digit number. I know it is hard; it is three digits. They could not do it in two years, but now somehow they are going to plan a just transition with this unbelievable plan, the sustainable jobs partnership council. It is going to have some meetings, and it will be filled with Liberal list donors, just as they stack all the courts in this country with Liberal list donors. We can bet there is not going to be one person on this council who gives two craps about the oil and gas industry.

It is going to be packed full with their radical left-wing environmentalists. They will probably get the radical environment minister to put a bunch of his cronies on it, who will say they can heat their homes with hot air, like the hot air that comes from the government. They will not need oil and gas. We certainly will not have the electricity, because they do not have a plan to expand electricity generation or electricity distribution as they wipe out the oil and gas industry.

There will be no just transition for a single worker in this country under the current government. When the common-sense Conservative Party has a government, oil and gas workers will not have to be worried about being left out in the cold by a tyrannical, uncaring government. I can assure everyone of that.

Let us go back and look at some of the results from the Auditor General on the “Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities”, because it is a page-turner of absolute incompetence. The government is incompetent in almost everything, but its members really took it to a new level. They worked hard to be extra incompetent for coal workers, and I should give them credit, because that level of incompetence is hard to get to.

Let us look at a couple of things. The Auditor General went through the federal commitments and programs the Liberals said they were going to do. There are 10 of them. Does anyone want to guess how many they actually came through on? It was four out of 10, and they are not even the ones that would actually do anything for workers; they are the easy ones such as having an interdepartmental meeting to talk about something.

As I just said, the Liberals then have the audacity to tell Canadians they are going to plan this transition for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they basically have no seats. They do not care about the people there. They say they are going to plan the transition for them out of oil and gas, even though they left coal workers out in the cold, but they say not to worry because they are going to take care of it this time.

The finding under recommendation one was, “Natural Resources Canada had not led on the reporting on just-transition activities for coal workers and communities.” The Liberals did not report on the just transition activities for a single community. That is the first thing they did not do. Oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan should get ready.

Ronald Reagan said the scariest words that anyone can hear are, “I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” If Ronald Reagan were alive today, living in Canada, and heard the words of the Liberal government, he would be bloody terrified. When Liberals say they are coming to help, people should run in the other direction. Oil and gas workers know not only that the Liberals do not have their backs, but also that they are going to push them over the cliff.

The finding under task force recommendation two said, “Natural Resources Canada had not yet developed the just-transition legislation.” Liberals were supposed to do it in 2019. Now they have done this great thing in 2023, four years later, the sustainable jobs partnership council, which they get two years to set up. They are four years behind, and they are going to set up a council that is going to take two years because that is really hard. Setting up a council is hard work. We know how hard these guys work. It is going to take two years to get that set up. It is unbelievable.

We also know that no one on that council is going to care about oil and gas workers. No one on that council is going to care about the effects on the economy for Alberta or the effects on the economy for Saskatchewan. The council is going to be packed with Liberal donors.

With judicial appointments, there is really one qualification to be a judge in Canada right now with the Liberal government, and that is whether the person donated to the Liberal Party. The Liberals check the list and, if a person donated, that is great, he or she is in. On something like this, hard-core Liberals, anti-oil, anti-Alberta and anti-Saskatchewan people are what this sustainable jobs partnership council would be stacked with. The Liberals were supposed to get it done four years ago, but it is going to take another two years, so we would be at six years.

Recommendation three was, “Establish a targeted, long-term research fund for studying the impact of the coal phase-out and the transition to a low-carbon economy.” The Liberals did not do it. I know everyone was holding their breath thinking maybe they did something, but they did not do it. Will they actually do anything in this legislation? This is the question we have to ask ourselves.

Human nature is that we look at the past record to determine what the future performance will be. As the Liberals did absolutely nothing for coal workers, we can anticipate that they will do absolutely nothing for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why would they? Why do they care? They have absolutely no representation there. Well, they have one MP who seems pretty anti-Alberta from some of the statements he makes, so he might want to try to get a seat in Toronto Centre—Rosedale or something like that in the next election.

Recommendation five of what they were supposed to do was to “Create a pension bridging program for workers who will retire earlier than planned due to the coal phase out.” Did the Liberals do it? No, they did not. Coal workers get phased out, their pension is now going to be less, much like many of the Liberals' pensions are going to be less when they lose in the next election, but has anyone in the Liberal Party on that side apologized to coal workers, saying they promised they would bridge coal workers' pensions when they phased them out and they did not? Did they ever apologize? No, they did not. Why? They do not care because they are energy workers.

Now when Liberals tell energy workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan that they are going to phase them out, but not to worry because they will be there for them, I say that is a load of hooey. There is no way Liberals are going to be there for anyone.

Imagine the devastation for a worker in the energy sector who is phased out and then their pension is not bridged. That is bad enough, but guess what, when we look at a detailed, publicly available inventory with labour market information pertaining to coal workers such as skill profiles, demographics, locations and current and potential employers, since the Liberals ripped them off on pensions, they say that they are going to put together this database so that they can transition workers into new employment. That is okay, because maybe they'll get to punch in somewhere else. However, did they actually do that? No they did not. They stand here in this chamber, Liberal member after Liberal member, parroting that this is great. They bring in time allocation on debate on this after they literally screwed coal workers, and I tell members that they are going to do it again.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to remind the member for Dufferin—Caledon as well as all members to be judicious in their use of language and remember that we should use language that is fitting to this chamber. I am certain the member could find other ways to describe what is going on.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. However, I think about what the Liberals did to those coal workers, that they did not get them jobs, that they did not bridge their pensions. These are people with families, they have children, they have mortgages and they have to buy food. The Liberals did all of that to them. I could say that they did it intentionally, because they did not run the programs, they never apologized and have not set up a single program since. So, I think that word actually applies. I will not say it again, but they should be ashamed of themselves. I can tell members that we will do everything—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote please.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House I suspect you would find unanimous consent to call it six o'clock so that we can begin Private Members' Business.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to see the clock at 6 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.