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.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an amusing question from the member for Winnipeg North. If we could hook up a windmill in front of him, his speaking time, I am sure, could power most of what the Liberals are proposing.

No one believes the Liberals have any intention of helping resource-developing provinces. Whether it is Bill C-50, which is going to have the emission cap and punish Newfoundland as well, Bill C-69, the no-new-pipeline bill, or banning ships off the B.C. coast, the Liberals have zero believability when they say they are there for resource-producing provinces. It is no different in this bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-49. As I have mentioned in the House, I have had the pleasure of living across the country, from one side to the other, from Victoria to northern Alberta and even in Newfoundland for a while. Therefore, Bill C-49 hits a bit close for me, so I am very pleased to speak to it.

To sum up Newfoundland, I will tell members of an experience I had. One day in Edmonton, I was door knocking for the first campaign in 2015. A lot of Newfoundlanders live in my riding of Edmonton West, or as I call it, “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall”. A couple was in the garage. It was a hot day and the garage door was open. They were sitting having a beer inside their garage, and we started chatting. They said they were from Newfoundland, and I said I used to live in St. John's, so we started chatting. They invited me to have a beer, so I sat down with them. We had a nice beer together.

A couple of years later, during the horrible forest fires in Fort McMurray, where, of course, a lot of people from Newfoundland were living, the residents had to evacuate. This couple had taken in a couple from Fort McMurray, who also were Newfoundlanders. I was at an event one night at the Good Shepherd Church. It was a fundraising event. I ran into this couple, and they introduced me to this other couple who they were housing. They were complete strangers, but because they were Newfoundlanders, they were happy to take in this couple. We started chatting and they said they were from St. John's. I said that I used to live there and they asked where. I said I used to live on Bindon Place.

It turned out that they were my former neighbours. This couple lived in the lot right behind our house. Back then, if anyone has ever lived in St. John's, they would know it has very lovely winters with lots of snow. The first year I lived there, we had 22 feet of snow, a record amount of snow. It was not until June that I found out we actually had an eight-foot fence in our backyard. This couple was laughing about living behind us. I had to laugh because, at the time, we had this beautiful dog named Doonesbury. He was the world's greatest dog. He would wander on these huge snowbanks, from yard to yard because, of course, the snow was way above the fence. It turned out that he had often visited their yard to do his business, so it was years later that I had the opportunity to apologize for my dog.

There are a few things I would note about people from Newfoundland. They really never leave the rock. I worked in Fort McMurray for a while, and we had the largest club at the time, the Newfoundland club. When we would meet in Fort McMurray, they all had the same wish; they wanted to be able to go back home to work and to get good jobs, which of course were not available. That is why they were in Fort McMurray. When I lived in Newfoundland, every time I travelled to the mainland or away, usually to Nova Scotia where our regional office was, and then flew back to St. John's, I would land at about midnight at the airport, and there were always about 50 to 70 people, families holding up signs and welcoming back their family members, who were mostly coming from Alberta because of work. Since taking over this job nine years ago, I have probably returned to the Edmonton airport 300 to 400 times, and not once has anyone been waiting there for me with a sign. With Newfoundlanders, it was always like that. It was quite amazing.

It is a beautiful city. I enjoyed my time living there, although I cannot say the same about the weather with the massive amounts of snow. I remember that on the May long weekend, I was flying to Nova Scotia; I think it was May 21. The day before, in Halifax, there was a record high of 36°C. I was waiting in St. John's for my wife to come home with the car and drive me to the airport. We had a snowstorm, and she got the car stuck in the driveway in a snowbank. She walked in with our two kids, who were about one and two years old at the time. With tears streaming, she said that she was leaving me and was moving back to Victoria. That almost sums up the weather. However, I noticed a month later, in late June, that we were shovelling the snow in the driveway, and in the back of the house where there was sun, we were mowing the backyard. That is the weather in Newfoundland.

Everywhere I have lived, I have run into people from Newfoundland who want to get back to the rock, but they want good jobs. Bill C-49 I do not see delivering that. There are quite a few flaws in the bill. I want to go over some of them.

Clause 19 of Bill C-49 would open the door to more red tape and likely to delays. We have heard repeatedly about a lack of investment and productivity in this country. It takes 15 to 20 years to get a mine approval and years to get a housing approval. In Alberta, we see people not wanting to invest in the country because they know the red tape and the approval process make it so slow. Clause 19 is going to add to that and going to discourage investment. It would shift decision-making power and licence approvals to the federal and provincial ministers, while tripling the amount of time the decision can take.

The government often talks about how we need experts to make the decisions, yet this bill will take power away from experts and regulators and put it into the hands of the very partisan and biased natural resources minister. Can members imagine anyone who is involved in resource investment in this country looking at our current environment minister or natural resources minister and saying that Canada looks like a great place to invest in because they can trust their opinions? Of course not.

Clause 28 would give the federal minister, with the approval of the provincial minister, the power to outright ban drilling in certain areas and to even halt projects that are already approved and in progress. That sounds a bit like Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain. That was approved, and it was going to spend billions of dollars just to find out that the government can retroactively change the rules. Who wants to invest in this environment? Who wants to create good jobs in this kind of an environment? If the bill were to pass with clause 28 as written, it would put an end to offshore petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada, killing good-paying jobs for workers and further strengthening eastern Canada's dependence on foreign oil imports from dictatorships like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

We have seen how the government treats resource projects in this country. Section 61 and 62 would invariably be abused by the government, and they would attach so many strings that approval for projects would become unfeasible. Does anyone remember energy east? We have TransCanada ready to spend billions of dollars so we can bring Alberta oil and Saskatchewan oil out east to get the eastern provinces off of U.S. oil and off of dictator oil. Instead, the government threw up so many roadblocks and changed the goalposts so many times, it ended up cancelling the project.

Section 61 and 62 would bring the unconstitutional Bill C-69 into the review process, allowing the minister to attach any conditions they see fit to an approval. Sections from the Impact Assessment Act, previously Bill C-69, also known as the no-new-pipeline bill, have been put into Bill C-49. On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled Bill C-69 largely unconstitutional. The federal government has not fixed those sections to date. If Bill C-49 is passed, as written, it would include 32 references to sections of Bill C-69 that the Supreme Court identified as unconstitutional.

Bill C-49 also includes the discretionary decision-making power of the minister and the entirety of the designated project scheme, both of which are unconstitutional, so components of Bill C-49 may also be unconstitutional. Section 64 of Bill C-69 was deemed unconstitutional, and is referenced throughout Bill C-49, which allows the minister to interfere in a project they think is in the public interest and create any conditions they deem necessary to which the project proponent must comply.

We, in Alberta, know full well what the government does to resource projects. We know full well how it works against resource projects. Of course, we had Bill C-50, the so-called just transition bill, which we called the unjust transition bill. It would be absolutely devastating to Alberta.

I want to give members some numbers the conference board put together. Bill C-50 would destroy 91,000 jobs in Alberta. That is a 58% increase in Alberta's jobless rate. There would be a decline in our GDP of almost 4%, and a 50% bigger hit than the 2008 financial crisis. Alberta revenue would be chopped up to $127 billion over 10 years. That is almost a 20% drop per year.

We see very clearly the Liberal government's intention toward our natural resources. It is kill the resources at all costs, send Canadians into poverty, hurt Alberta, hurt Newfoundland, and hurt resource-producing provinces, which is why we will not vote for Bill C-49.

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

Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost. That way we could pass Bill C-49 because we know that the provinces are looking forward to getting something like this done, and then move on to Bill C-50.

The Liberals basically programmed the committee so we had to do Bill C-50 first and then do Bill C-49. It was done in such a fast fashion. We had industry representatives come in to say that they were not consulted. It is a complete dumpster fire.

I am wondering if my colleague has any explanation as to why the government would want to ram forward something rather than doing our job as parliamentarians, which is to make sure that we get the bill right and make sure we pass a constitutional bill in the first place.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's really great to get back to what I was saying. I was just talking about the good-faith attempt we made to work with the Conservatives to come up with an agenda for this committee that would move us through May and June in an orderly fashion to accomplish all the things we had on our agenda, including some of the studies that were before the committee but haven't been completed. That included, obviously, the first order of priority, which is the budget implementation act.

The Conservatives withheld support for that. That's fine. It's their prerogative to do so, but for them to come to committee and suggest that I somehow table-dropped a motion.... The motion I brought to committee was exactly what we had discussed in our previous meeting, so it wasn't a big surprise. Everybody knew what priorities we had identified. I think the Conservatives knew very quickly that they were in the minority in the membership of this committee. That's why we're in a filibuster today.

The Conservatives put forward an amendment and then a subamendment. The subamendment is what we're debating now. It is exactly what the Conservatives are avoiding a vote on. Really, what we're doing here is listening to five and a half hours—I guess it's now going on six and a half hours just today—of a filibuster from the Conservatives. I'm just pointing out what it is for anybody who's still paying attention and still has the patience to pay attention to these committee proceedings. I hope they are paying attention.

In reality, the Conservatives know the vote isn't going to go their way on the subamendment. Therefore, they're holding this committee hostage by continuing to talk ad infinitum. What we heard from MP Chambers earlier was him reading, for over an hour, the transcript from a podcast of Mark Carney on The Herle Burly. We had him reading that into the record, which is certainly not the most creative filibuster I've ever heard by far. Anyway, I guess some Conservatives lack imagination. That's okay.

In reality, all we want to do is get down to business on the budget implementation act. Why? In my view, that's what the 142,000 members of my community want to see me working on. The budget implementation act entails key supports for Canadians.

Conservatives are citing.... One of their members here did a kind of drive-by, insulting me and then leaving the committee room. It was Mr. Jivani. I would invite him to come back and continue the conversation.

What's interesting is that he talked about food banks and food bank lineups. We hear the Conservatives every day in the House of Commons citing food bank lineups as if they truly care about the people in those lineups. We're putting forward a national school food program, which is going to feed 400,000 children across Canada over the next five years. That's a billion dollars of investment.

How can the Conservatives, while sitting there, literally filibustering and blocking important work on the budget implementation act, tell me they actually care about people in food bank lineups? They're blocking real support for Canadians, such as dental care, additional child care spaces, pharmacare, the national school food program and the Canada disability benefit. These are key supports for those very families they say they care about.

I find it a bit rich. It's hard for me to accept them at face value when they're sitting here, spouting stuff off as if they really care about Canadian families. I don't believe it. It's just misleading. I don't know how I can interpret that as authentic and genuine commitment for their constituents.

I know my constituents care about a national school food program. They care about the clean technology manufacturing and clean hydrogen tax credits. They care about the Canada carbon rebate for small business. They care about enhancing the homebuyers' plan and extending the ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing by two years. They care about the Canada Education Savings Act and the automatic enrolment we're putting forward in the BIA, as well as many of the other things that are included in the BIA.

What's interesting, though, just to go back to last week, which was our constituency week.... I understand the Conservatives wanted to put forward a Standing Order 106(4) to call an emergency meeting. What's interesting is that I had indicated to the Conservatives in the previous week that I was more than open and that our whole side of the committee here, in terms of Liberal members, was open to studying anti-money laundering.

They used valuable committee resources and then came and got upset because they tripped themselves up. Their Standing Order 106(4) motion was during a week that we had previously suspended a meeting, so they ended up having to continue their filibuster on Mr. Morantz's subamendment. They didn't like that, of course. They, again, tried to flip it around—flip the script—and blame the Liberal members.

In reality, the budget implementation act has numerous significant measures to enhance combatting money laundering. I note that several of my colleagues have already read into the record portions of the BIA that deal specifically with anti-money laundering. I won't go into depth on that. However, I do feel that it's important to point out the fact that Conservatives say they want to study anti-money laundering, yet they're blocking the budget implementation act and the study of that budget bill includes anti-money laundering measures that are really significant.

We've also indicated that we would happily study that after we finish the work on the BIA. That's not good enough for them either. Not only are they blocking essential work on anti-money laundering through the BIA, but they're also not willing to concede that we're being reasonable and working in good faith, saying that we're willing to have meetings on anti-money laundering if the Conservatives want to continue work on that topic. We're more than happy to do that. Why? It's because we have a record that, every single year and every single FES and budget bill, there have been additional measures on anti-money laundering. Our government feels confident that we're moving forward and that we take those issues seriously. There are things that we can continue to study and offer solutions and measures on to continue to combat money laundering, which is a serious topic.

I just think it's a bit rich that Conservatives are sitting there claiming that we're essentially not.... They basically claim that we're blocking our own BIA, when the truth is that the Conservatives are filibustering on their own subamendment. That's what's challenging for me to accept.

I'm just pointing out what is, honestly, before the committee. To me, this is eating into valuable committee time and resources that could be dedicated to hearing key witnesses on the budget implementation act.

I had a member from the Conservatives say earlier—I think it was MP Hallan—that he had criticism, critiques and questions for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. She already appeared at this committee and took questions for an hour from the members of this committee on the BIA. It doesn't quite jibe—what the Conservatives have said here at committee today and the actual truth, which is that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has already answered significant questions that have come from opposition parties. I think that's important. We felt it certainly was important that the minister come and answer those questions.

I think the other thing for me is this: When you have members who read the transcripts of a podcast into the record, whether they're related to the subamendment or not, it just shows that they're intent on wasting time and that they're not really interested in studying affordability. They're not really interested in dealing with any of the issues that they say they want to deal with, considering that the budget implementation act deals with affordability issues and anti-money laundering.

We've said that if you want to invite Mark Carney as a witness, go ahead. I understand that their interest is purely partisan.

I think MP Davies when he was here covered that quite well in demonstrating that Conservatives have said from the beginning that they only want to have Mr. Carney come to committee for their partisan purposes. They want to speculate on his intentions, and I just don't see.... Fine, invite him, but working him into a motion clearly has an alternative motive that I think is an abuse of parliamentary power and we shouldn't be doing that unless there's a good reason to do so. We have seen in the past Conservatives use a summons and try to summons private citizens to committee. I think we should only do that in very limited circumstances.

From my perspective—it would be really great—if Conservatives really want to get down to business on anti-money laundering, or any host of other issues that they've cited, then why don't we vote on the subamendment and why won't Conservatives allow us to vote here today on the subamendment that they put forward? Is it because they know they are going to lose that vote, or is it that they just don't really want to get to the study of the budget implementation act?

It's pretty clear to me that they don't want to study the budget implementation act at all, because if they did we could be using the valuable time and resources we have this week to hear from witnesses, which would be, I think, valuable.

I have 300 witnesses I bet would be willing to come before this committee and speak to the national school food program and the importance of it across Canada, not to mention many other witnesses for many of the other measures that are included in the budget implementation act. I think it would serve our constituents well if we were actually doing the work that this committee is tasked with doing, which is actually studying the budget that's before this committee.

I would say let's get to a vote. I don't have high hopes for the Conservatives allowing that to happen because of the obstruction that we have seen throughout this committee and many other committees. I know that it's not just this committee that they are obstructing. We saw it on the sustainable jobs act. We have seen it on the updates to the Atlantic accords. We have seen it in very many other circumstances.

Since I have been here since 2019, I have seen many a Conservative filibuster. They don't want to get down to the work of this committee even though in good faith we have said, yes, let's study AML after we finish the budget implementation act. That's not good enough. They want to have it their way, and they don't want to do the work that is, I would say, the top priority of a finance committee, which is to study the budget implementation act.

Okay, I'll leave it there, Chair. Thanks very much.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024. This budget is about what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we want to build together.

For generations, Canada has been a place where everyone could secure a better future for themselves and their children, and where a growing economy created opportunities for everyone to succeed. However, to ensure every Canadian succeeds in the 21st century, we know that we must grow our economy to make it more innovative, productive and sustainable. We must build an economy where every Canadian can reach their full potential, where every entrepreneur has the tools needed to grow their business and where hard work pays off.

Building the economy of the future is about creating jobs in the knowledge economy, in manufacturing, in mining and forestry, in the trades, in clean energy and across the economy in all regions of the country. To do this, our government's economic plan is investing in the technologies, incentives and supports critical to increasing productivity, fostering innovation and attracting more private investment to Canada. This is how we will build an economy that unlocks new pathways for every generation to earn their fair share. Bill C-69 is a crucial step in opening up these new pathways.

Bill C-69 takes us forward on the understanding that, in the 21st century, a competitive economy is a clean economy. There is no greater proof than the 2.4 trillion dollars' worth of investment made around the world last year alone in the transition to net-zero economies. Experts say we are at a global inflection point, with clean energy investments surpassing investments in conventional energy, with the cost of renewable technology dropping significantly, including wind, solar and heat pumps, as technology advancements are made and deployed at scale, and with companies that outperform their peers in decarbonizing more competitive and yielding higher returns for stakeholders.

As the big anchor investment decisions around the globe are being made to secure the global supply chains for the emerging clean economy, we need to ensure Canada is best positioned to compete and lead the way by seizing the massive opportunities to attract investment and generate economic growth that will bring decades of prosperity. That is why our government is putting Canada at the forefront of the global race to attract investment and seize the opportunities of the clean economy with a net-zero economic plan that will invest over $160 billion to maintain and extend our lead in this global race.

The cornerstone of our plan is an unprecedented suite of major economic investment tax credits, which will help attract investment through $93 billion in incentives by the year 2034-35. That includes carbon capture, utilization and storage, the clean technology investment tax credit, the clean hydrogen investment tax credit, the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, clean electricity and, added in budget 2024, an EV supply chain investment tax credit. These investment tax credits will provide businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build here in Canada. They are already attracting major job-creating projects, ensuring we remain globally competitive.

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the announcement in Alliston, Ontario, where Honda made the largest investment in Canadian automotive history, investing over $15 billion. This is a huge vote of confidence in our economy. Out of all the countries in the world, Honda chose Canada to build its comprehensive, end-to-end EV supply chain, which will mean thousands of good-paying jobs for decades to come. The federal investment tax credits were essential in remaining competitive and securing that generational investment. From new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses to carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry, our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050.

In November 2023, our government introduced Bill C-59 to deliver the first two investment tax credits and provide businesses with the certainty they need to make investment decisions in Canada today. That bill also included labour requirements to ensure workers are paid prevailing union wages and apprentices have opportunities to gain experience and succeed in the workforce.

With Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, 2024, we would be making two more of these major economic investment tax credits a reality to attract more private investment, create more well-paying jobs and grow the economy.

First, it would implement the 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit, which would be available as of January 1, 2024. This is a refundable investment tax credit for clean technology manufacturing and processing, and extraction and processing of key critical minerals equal to 30% of the capital cost of eligible property associated with eligible activities.

Investments by corporations in certain depreciable property that is used for eligible activities would qualify for the credit. Eligible property would generally include machinery and equipment used in manufacturing, processing or critical mineral extraction, as well as related control systems.

Eligible investments would cover activities that will be key to securing our future, including things like the manufacture of certain renewable energy equipment like solar, wind, water or geothermal. It would cover the manufacturing of nuclear energy equipment and electrical energy storage equipment used to provide grid-scale storage. It would cover the manufacturing of equipment for air and ground storage heat pump systems; the manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, including the conversion of on-road vehicles; as well as the manufacturing of batteries, fuel cells, recharging systems and hydrogen refuelling stations for zero-emision vehicles, not to mention the manufacturing of equipment used to produce hydrogen from electrolysis. These are the technologies that will power our future.

Bill C-69's clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit would power the investment that is needed to build them today and build them here at home.

The bill would also make the clean hydrogen investment tax credit a reality, which would exclusively support investments in projects that produce clean hydrogen through eligible production pathways. This refundable tax credit would be available as of March 28, 2023, and could be claimed when eligible equipment becomes available for use at an applicable credit rate that is based on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen that is produced.

Eligible equipment could include, but is not limited to, the equipment required to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water, including electrolyzers, rectifiers and other ancillary electrical equipment; water treatment and conditioning equipment; and certain equipment used for hydrogen compression and storage. Certain equipment required to produce hydrogen from natural gas or other eligible hydrocarbons, with emissions abated using carbon capture, utilization and storage, would also be eligible. Property that is required to convert clean hydrogen to clean ammonia may also be eligible for the credit, subject to certain conditions, at a credit rate of 15%.

It is important to realize that these clean economy investment tax credits work to incentivize investment and remain competitive but also do not stand alone. They are just part of the tool box that also includes legislation like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act; the Canadian sustainable jobs act and amendments to CEPA, which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; regulations like the clean fuel regulations, the carbon pricing and oil and gas emissions cap; programs like the strategic innovation fund and many others; and the blended finance utilities that the government has launched, including the Canada growth fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. These all work together, and that is why we are seeing the results we are seeing.

Bill C-69's support for these investments comes at a pivotal moment when we can choose to renew and redouble our investments in the economy of the future, to build an economy that is more productive and more competitive, or risk leaving an entire generation behind.

With Bill C-69, we would not make that mistake. Our major economic investment tax credits are moving Canada forward on its track to achieve a net-zero economy by 2050. I could not be more proud of our work in this area.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to rise on behalf of the residents of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and raise their voices here in this chamber. In the last number of months, I have had many people reach out, sharing their concerns regarding the cost of living. They are sharing that they are in crisis or nearly in crisis as they see ever-rising costs of gas, groceries, home heating and everything.

We see so many who are struggling, and all they see is their costs going up under the punishing carbon tax regime and the tax and spend from the NDP-Liberal government. What they have also come to clearly understand is that this is a tax plan that has been sold to Canadians as an environmental plan. However, Canadians can now see it for what it truly is; they have come to understand that it means they pay more, but there is no environmental gain.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal coalition is simply not worth the cost.

A few weeks ago, I had a group of bright young students come for a visit from Ardmore School. Members might not know where Ardmore is. It is in northeastern Alberta, between the communities of Bonnyville and Cold Lake along Highway 28. This is a relatively rural community that has two major economic drivers: the energy industry and agriculture.

The students from Ardmore School saw the wonder of Parliament Hill. It was inspiring to me, and it reminded me of how lucky we are, each and every one of us, to be able to sit here and work hard for the constituents in our ridings. One boy shared that the whole experience of coming to Parliament Hill was the highlight of his life.

These students were able to see the inner workings of Ottawa when they came here. They got to watch question period from up in the gallery and had a wave from the leader of the official opposition. They got to meet many members of Parliament in the hallways of this magnificent building and watch the debate on Bill C-50, the unjust transition bill, a bill that is, simply put, an attack on Canada's energy sector.

These students questioned very succinctly why so many politicians in the chamber constantly attack the energy industry. These students see first-hand, day in and day out, the positive impacts the energy industry has in their community. They understand how hard these people work and how the members of the energy industry are there when it is -50° so we can stay in our homes and stay warm.

One student shared her concerns regarding the increasing cost of living, what it would mean for her future and, specifically, what it would mean for her ability to attend post-secondary education. This is really important to highlight: These were students in junior high, and they could see very clearly that the cost of living, which has been made a crisis under the NDP-Liberal government, is having real impacts on someone that has not even gone to high school yet.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with a group of grade 7, 8 and 9 students from Frank Spragins High School in Fort McMurray, along with their principal, my friend Dan Tulk. They shared their thoughts and fears about what the cost of living crisis would mean for their future. Again, they highlighted their concerns about the cost of groceries and the cost of gas and what these costs would mean for their ability to attend post-secondary education, buy a house and have a family.

One particular student, in very unparliamentary terms, shared his thoughts about our Prime Minister's leadership. When we started to tease through the fact that name-calling was not okay, he said that people cannot afford to live right now. This student, Ryder, had many really intelligent comments about what he saw. He spoke very succinctly, and it was really frustrating to me when this student said that he did not understand why so many politicians hate the oil sands and the energy industry. It was a tough question for me, because I too struggle with it.

I am proud of the work done by our hard-working oil and gas, and, like Ryder, I do not understand why politicians in this chamber fail to understand the opportunity that exists in Canada's world-class energy sector.

We constantly see attacks on our energy sector at every possible opportunity. There are eco-radical politicians who do this at the direct cost of our hard-working energy workers, the future of communities right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Canada, and Canada's economy.

At a time when we desperately need economic growth, eco-radicals guide Canadian policy. They have an intense hate for our world-class energy industry. They sit at the cabinet table and hold the pen on the costly coalition that keeps the government in power, pushing for ever more blows to this industry.

They have made no attempt to hide their distaste for the oil and gas industry. However, in this budget, I think it is kind of interesting that we see the Minister of Finance use a rather rosy benchmark for West Texas Intermediate, the crude oil price of $78 U.S.

It is worth noting that this is a rosier outlook than my home province of Alberta's forecast, which was $74 U.S. At some point, I would be very curious to see the modelling that was used to get to this number. While they attack the industry, they have no issue whatsoever benefiting from the profits.

The anti-energy agenda from the government has been consistent and punishing over the last nine years. Anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, and an outright veto of approved export pipelines have all hurt this industry.

Despite asks to export Canadian liquefied natural gas from Germany, Japan and, most recently, Poland, among others, time and time again, the answer from the Prime Minister has been that there is no business case. At a time when the world is calling, Canada's NDP-Liberal government refuses to answer. It seems more interested in supporting dirty dictator oil and fuelling Putin's war machine than in supporting Canada's world-class energy industry. That is absolutely shameful.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal budget is just more of the same that got us into this mess. The Prime Minister did not do anything to stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop putting our social programs, jobs and economy at risk by adding more debt. Simply put, he is not worth the cost for any generation, despite what he says. He is responsible for record deficits, which are driving up record inflation rates. Both have very real impacts on the budgets of hard-working Canadians.

We see story after story about record-breaking visits to food banks right across the country. Last year, food banks received a record two million visits in a single month. They are anticipating that an additional million people will visit food banks this year, an extra million people having to access food banks.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include over $61 billion in new inflationary spending, costing the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Most families do not have that lying around.

Students from communities right across my riding see the insanity. They understand that, when governments spend more of their money, costs go up. The hard-working energy workers who see the industry they work in under constant attack understand the hypocrisy.

World leaders who are looking for energy solutions understand the potential in Canada's world-class energy industry. Can one imagine a world in which our Prime Minister believed in our economy as much as these world leaders do? Sadly, what else can we expect from a Prime Minister who would rather wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians?

Hope is on the horizon. It is not all doom and gloom. Canada's common-sense Conservatives will support Canada's world-class energy industry. We are ready to stand up and govern. As has been shared by many of my colleagues, it is time to get Canada back on track.

We will axe the carbon tax, reducing the costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will invest in technology, not taxes, to deliver environmental gains. This is common sense.

I would invite all members of the House to vote non-confidence in the Prime Minister, who, after nine years, is simply not worth the cost. We can vote against this budget and deliver common sense for the common people.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Colleagues, I want to thank you for inviting me to HUMA today. As always, I want to thank all of you as committee members for your hard work on behalf of Canadians.

I would first like to point out that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today's meeting is a welcome opportunity for me to highlight the progress being made on developing and growing Canada's future workforce and our plans for overcoming and capitalizing on the challenges we face, while at the same reinstating the long-held belief that for decades guided our country—the promise of Canada; that unwavering truth that young generations would be able to get a good-paying, middle-class job, afford a home, and do as well as, if not better than, their parents' generation if they just put in the work.

We all know the challenges we face, including the grey tsunami—the exodus of older workers who are leaving the workforce faster than we can replace them. On the other hand, we also need a generation of skilled green-collar workers in a world of automation and digitization.

Underpinning both these challenges is the trades boom—the Herculean effort of equipping businesses with workers needed today while ensuring an adequate and consistent supply of skilled tradeswomen and tradesmen to contribute to the economy and the opportunities of tomorrow.

Overall, we are facing the rapid loss of skilled workers, coupled with a shortage of workers with the skills that contribute to the increased productivity needed for a strong economy.

The challenges are great, but there is good news, including the fact that our fundamentals are in great shape. International investors, for one, are quite taken with us, and businesses are noticing. It's why we have the third-highest foreign direct investment in the world right now, and the highest in the world when you divide it by our population, ahead of all of our G7 allies. It's why Stellantis, Volkswagen, Air Products, Dow and Honda bet on us and our workforce to be partners in the economy of tomorrow.

That's why we've already begun equipping our workforce with the know-how needed to progress in an increasingly digital and changing global economy.

I have limited time, so I am going to highlight a few items of special interest that speak directly to those efforts. Of course, I'd like to shine a light on some budget 2024 measures and the role they will play in making the promise of Canada a reality again.

We're striving to integrate more workers into the job market. We already support students, through scholarships and interest-free loans. We intend to increase this support with $1.1 billion in new funding. Programs such as the student work placement program and Canada summer jobs help students and employers find the right path.

In the skilled trades, we invest nearly $1 billion a year in apprenticeship assistance, through grants, loans, tax credits, employment insurance benefits during in-school training, project funding and support for the red seal program.

We're also looking ahead, because it's not just about where the puck is so much as where it's going to be. The labour force of the future, in the context of achieving our net-zero goals, will depend on a workforce equipped with the right skills.

This is exactly why we introduced Bill C‑50, to ensure that Canada will meet its carbon neutrality goals without leaving workers behind.

That's also why we recently launched the sustainable jobs training fund, to support a series of training projects that will help more than 15,000 workers.

We're also launching a new union training and innovation program sustainable jobs stream under the Canadian apprenticeship strategy in the coming months that will benefit over 20,000 apprentices and journeypersons in the skilled trades.

In closing, colleagues, let me say this: Overcoming these challenges requires everyone.

As minister, I saw the incredible work done by unions, by companies, by polytechnics, by schools and by institutions to train the workforce of the 21st century.

Our support for these efforts will help to deliver on the middle-class jobs that our great workers deserve, the future they have dreamed of and the promise of Canada they have worked tirelessly to achieve.

We won't give in. We will not stop until that promise is made reality again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I look forward to your questions about Canada's workforce.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a bad habit of dodging serious questions, as we just saw. We will see whether that happens again with mine. At the very least, I am glad to have the opportunity to raise an important issue for indigenous communities.

The reality is that indigenous people are overlooked by the NDP-Liberal government. Regardless of all of the rhetoric and ideology behind the Liberals' so-called just transition that threatens to get rid of thousands of jobs for indigenous workers, that is what indigenous leaders are calling out. President Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs believes that the so-called just transition picks winners and losers while driving away billions of dollars of potential investment in indigenous communities.

As indigenous communities have invested more and more into the oil sands region, rising by $9 million between 2017 and 2019, the government is doing its best to shut it all down. It is something important to keep in mind whenever the Liberal government brings forward policies against the energy sector. At the end of the day, we are talking about good-paying jobs and the benefit they bring to the workers and their communities, including indigenous communities.

The Liberals have talked a lot about Bill C-50, for example, but would their appointed counsels and useless secretariats really represent the voice of energy workers? They probably would not. Considering the track record of the government across the aisle, they would be filled with more of the same overpaid and underworked bureaucrats who do not understand the way of life outside their big city. In this case, they might even think that they know what is best for all indigenous people, even if there are indigenous groups that are telling a different story.

I want to take a moment to read what Dale Swampy told the natural resources committee when we were studying the so-called just transition:

I want to end by pointing out the high costs of a poorly planned energy transition and the crisis we now face in first nations. 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 rez.

Most people in Canada do not have the luxury of living in a downtown condo, with a Tesla charging in their heated underground parking garage. However, that might be the lifestyle of someone working on one of these panels who wants to make decisions and enforce a just transition on an indigenous community that does not want it. The disproportionate impact that the Liberal government's unjust transition would have on indigenous communities would be devastating.

Indigenous people deserve more control of their resources, not less. Decisions are best made when those who will be most impacted by them have the greatest say. Consulting at the local level is the key to sustainability across all sectors, especially oil and gas. Otherwise, having high-and-mighty bureaucrats and politicians imposing their one-size-fits-all agenda on a country as large and diverse as Canada is sure to leave people behind. Time and time again, indigenous voices ask the government for a greater say and greater investment in the resource sector, but it falls on deaf ears in the current PMO.

I can say that Conservatives want to take a better approach. We supported an initiative like the first nations resource charge, which is an optional policy that would give more control over resource dollars for indigenous communities. It would offer them more input and would help to avoid the slow and painful process of negotiating with the federal government. As I said, we support it. Will the Liberal government ever support economic reconciliation for indigenous people?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that.

I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today.

There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional.

It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point.

The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem.

When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada.

Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada.

That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them.

I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee.

I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated:

To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding.

This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued.

I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated:

The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry.

I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added:

Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process. We are talking about Bill C-49, substantial legislation that would enable the potential development in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in things such as wind energy. I was quoting two premiers who want the House of Commons to pass the legislation, and talking about the frustration members no doubt have because the Conservative Party, instead of listening to the premiers of the provinces, has chosen to listen to far right-wing organizations, extremists, and not allow the legislation to pass.

To demonstrate that, let us talk about what Conservative Party has done. The legislation has been on hold in committee. Bill C-50 was just ahead of it, and the Conservatives used AI to come up with 20,000-plus amendments on Bill C-50, which delayed the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49. When we finally got it through the committee stage, they attempted to bring in amendments at report stage, which were accurately ruled by the Speaker as being out of order. Then the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that would kill the legislation, while at the same time—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear, common-sense Conservatives stand with the fishing industry and with the offshore petroleum industry, as well as with those workers and those families, and those industries that rely on the spinoffs from those powerful Atlantic Canada industries.

Stakeholders like the FFAW, Brazil Rock Lobster Association, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, just to name a few who presented at the natural resources committee a few weeks ago.

We heard from Katie Power with the FFAW, which represents 14,000 people who make their living from the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. She shared a critical perspective with the rest of the fishing industry stakeholders who appeared, who submitted briefs and who were from Atlantic Canada, which is that offshore wind energy expansion will have direct impacts on fish harvesters, who will be faced with having to compete with the offshore wind energy sector for ocean space. Space for fishers who have to harvest their catch is not unlimited space; it is a finite space.

When Dan Fleck of Nova Scotia's Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association was asked how many lobster traps could fit in a proposed 4,000 square kilometre wind farm, just east of Cape Breton, he told us thousands and thousands. Chances are there would be 50 to 60 independent owner-operators displaced, and the crews who depend on them for their livelihood, and all their families, would be impacted, as well as the local coastal communities that rely on the spinoffs. Dan simply echoed the concerns of Katie.

Very little consultation was had with the fishing industry. We heard the testimony. However, there was a bit of a difference of opinion among NDP and Liberal members on the committee. They felt that they had consulted heavily with the fishing industry, but that was shot down solidly when we had those stakeholders appear.

We took the testimony of the fishing industry stakeholders, and we set out to make amendments to try to ensure that the development of offshore wind does not destroy livelihoods in the fishery. In fact, we consulted directly with them, coming up with those nine amendments, which we tried to get votes on here today, and a number of other amendments that were shot down in by members of the natural resource committee, including NDP members who voted against amendments that were written for us by Unifor. Again, across the way, they tout their wonderful relationship that they have with organized labour.

Unifor, one of the biggest unions in Canada, provided common-sense Conservatives with amendments to support the FFAW to protect the livelihoods of those members of the FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador who feel threatened because they are not a part of the process. They have not been a part of the process. If someone wants to get up here and challenge me on that, they can go back and look at Hansard and all those committee meetings where those fishing industry stakeholders came to committee and pleaded with the costly NDP-Liberal coalition to bring in amendments to support them and to give them peace of mind so that they would not feel that their livelihoods were threatened.

I am very saddened that the NDP and the Bloc did not support the stakeholders in these existing industries. The bird in the hand is worth two in the field. The bird in the hand is the petroleum industry offshore, and it is our fishing industry. They are proven. The fishing industry is over 400 years old in Atlantic Canada.

I am very saddened, but what saddens me the most are the six Liberal MPs across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador and the eight from Nova Scotia who did not support the amendments put forward by people in their own ridings who earn their living from the sea. They did not support amendments that would recognize and mitigate the harmful effects that wind energy can have if we do not have the right consultations with the fishing industry. These industries can coexist. Conservatives are not against wind energy. The only copper mine in Atlantic Canada is in my riding. Every wind turbine uses 1.5 tonnes of copper for every megawatt produced. My goodness, what is the world coming to?

Conservatives tried to get amendments through to support the stakeholders who pleaded with us, and the costly coalition shut it all down. Our amendments to Bill C-49 would have ensured that conflicts between the offshore wind energy and the fishing industry would be kept at a minimum. This would have increased investor confidence in the development of offshore wind and would have given the fishing industry assurance that it would have a viable seat at the table throughout the development of this future renewable resource.

Bill C-49 was void of details on compensation for fishers who could be displaced from their fishing grounds, and displacement will be inevitable without proper consultation. Our amendments aimed to address this. Common-sense Conservatives worked hard on behalf of the fishing industry and the offshore petroleum industry to amend Bill C-49 so we could support it. We do not want to have to vote against something that could be good, but if it is going to kill two industries for another one, it does not make sense. The NDP-Liberals slapped the FFAW-Unifor and its 14,000 members in Newfoundland and Labrador right in the face and did not consider the amendments they wanted.

There was great testimony from the fishing industry, but, in addition to that, there was expert witness testimony from the offshore petroleum industry. One such witness was Mr. Max Ruelokke, with a career of nearly 50 years in the offshore oil and gas industry. Mr. Ruelokke obtained a vast amount of knowledge from working in the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas industry and through his interactions worldwide. It cannot be denied that he is a pre-eminent expert in the offshore petroleum industry. Most pertinent to his experience is the fact that he served as the chair and CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for six years.

In his submission to the committee, he made some pretty strong statements. I will read Mr. Ruelokke's testimony into the record today in this place. It is entitled “An Informed Opinion on Certain Aspects of Bill C-49”, and it states:

I have studied Bill C-49 from the perspective of my 40+ years engagement in the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, offshore Brazil and offshore India. Details of my engagement are contained in my CV, which accompanies this document.

The offshore oil and gas industry is a very competitive business on a world-wide basis. Operators such as the major oil and gas companies decide where and when to invest in exploration and production activities based on a variety of factors. One obvious factor is the potential existence of sufficient resource to allow for production. Another is the viability of production on an economic basis. The resources offshore Newfoundland and Labrador have been proven time and time again to meet both of those tests.

Another significant factor is the existence and certainty of an appropriate regulatory regime. Up until now, we have met that test as well. However, with the potential passage of Bill C-49, this situation will change drastically. Specifically, Section 56 of this Bill puts any and all offshore areas at risk of being rendered unusable for resource development, even though such activities may already be underway, and with appropriate regulatory approval.

Corporations have to risk assess any and all potential investments to ensure that such investments made can deliver appropriate returns. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industry, these investments range into billions of dollars.

This is where it gets interesting. He says:

If Bill C-49 is enacted, it will ring the death knell for any potential future offshore oil and gas developments in Atlantic Canada.

That is pretty powerful, “the death knell”. I will talk a little bit more about what a “death knell” means for Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore petroleum industry. He says:

This will be the case since no corporation will risk investing in an area where their exploration or production activities can retroactively be banned simply because Governments believe that the area in which they are occurring may, at some point in time, require environmental protection. This is a terrible piece of legislation!

These are the very words of Mr. Max Ruelokke. He goes on to say:

If we do not continue to explore for, find and produce the relatively environmentally friendly oil under our seabed, we will have to rely on oil and gas from other, much less stable and more environmentally risky areas. The International Energy Agency's 2022 Report estimated that, in 2050, the world will still need approximately 24 million barrels of oil per day. Those of us in Atlantic Canada deserve the opportunity to provide our fair share of those 24 M BBI/day. Please remove Section 56 from Bill C-49 to make this possible!!

Respectfully submitted.

Max Ruelokke

What does a ”death knell” mean for Newfoundland's offshore petroleum industry? Let us take a look at it. The offshore petroleum industry in Newfoundland and Labrador contributes 25% to 30% of our GDP every year, depending on the price of oil as it fluctuates. It is an industry that supports nearly 25,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, nearly $2 billion of labour income, $1.4 billion of consumer spending and $1.4 billion of tax and royalty revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am quoting 2017 figures, when oil was only about $30 a barrel. Today, it is $90, so one can imagine what that does to these figures.

It certainly is an industry that we cannot risk destroying by the amendments that Bill C-49 would make to the original Atlantic Accord.

Many in the industry feel that we are seeing the effects of this legislation already. Bill C-49 was tabled last spring and, at the time, there were about 10 companies that were looking at putting together bids to explore in our offshore. However, whatever happened, last year, with a record number of offerings, we received zero bids. Historically, there have been bids up to or even exceeding $1 billion per year to purchase land leases for exploration.

This strikes me as a little peculiar, but not for Mr. Ruelokke. He says this is because of proposed section 56 creating so much uncertainty, basically stating that if an area may be deemed as a future environmentally sensitive area, the government can pull past, current and future exploration and development permits. With the amount of uncertainty created by Bill C-49, especially with proposed section 56, it is a disaster. It is absurd.

While we received no bids in our offshore for parcels for exploration, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico had its largest auction since 2015. I will put it in Canadian dollars: $523 million of bids were taken.

We tried to get that horrible proposed section 56 out of the bill, and we were shot down completely. The uncertainty is brewing with Bill C-49, together with Bill C-50, Bill C-55 and the unconstitutional Bill C-69, for which the government has had six or seven months now to come forward with something. The bill that we are going to be voting on mentions Bill C-69 over 70 times. How can this bill be valid? How can this bill be deemed constitutional?

I challenge the members opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador and from Nova Scotia to vote with us and the Bloc—

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, December 4, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third stage of Bill C-50, and of the amendment.

The question is on the amendment.

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.

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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Justice and Human Rights

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is really and truly not an emergency from the Conservatives' perspective, but rather it is a distraction. It is to take us away from the debate on the amendment that the Conservatives put forward on government legislation. Remember that this is the same bill, Bill C-50, that we voted on for hours and hours last week. It is the same bill for which the critic who is responsible for it utilized artificial intelligence to generate over 20,000 amendments. Let the games continue. That is what we are witnessing from across the way.

Why do I get so exercised about it? It is because I, unlike Conservatives, who choose to make games of serious issues of this nature, believe that it is an important issue. I only wish Conservative Party members would be more genuine in their comments on the issue. What do I mean by that? Why did they not bring in an emergency debate if they really felt that it was such an emergency? How many questions did they ask on the issue? By my count, it was one or two.

Allow me to provide this quote, if I may, of the minister's response to a Conservative member in question period. Here is what the minister indicated earlier today: “We have said many times in the House that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has repeated that.”

That is a pretty strong statement. I believe that if we were to canvass the House, the entire House would agree with that particular statement. He continued, “We have taken a series of severe measures to restrict members of the regime, including the revolutionary guard corps, from coming to Canada. With respect to listing a terrorist entity, it is national security agencies”, and I am going to pause there. Imagine a national government that wants to allow the professionals, the people who have their feet on the ground, to do what it is they are charged to do and to bring back recommendations and thoughts on the process to the government.

When they say six years, I say balderdash. They know nothing about what they are actually talking about. They want to out-trump Trump, quite frankly. Shame on them for the poor attitude that they display, day in and day out, on very important issues.

The minister responded that it is the national security agencies that do these reviews, not the Conservative Party of Canada; amen to that. From time to time, they provide advice to the government. Obviously all options are on the table. I have asked the national security community to provide the government with that advice quickly.

The Conservative Party, as I have said, is all agitated. I would suggest that a lot of that comes out of drama school. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are agitated and ask why the government has not taken action. When did the European Union come to the table on the issue? I believe it was just last year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked a very good question about why I am so exercised on this particular issue. Earlier today, the member posed that question to me while introducing her remarks on Bill C-50. Some members of the House, including the member who posed that question to me just now, came to the House believing that this was what we were going to be talking about today. All one needs to do is listen to her speech a couple of hours back.

Members of the House knew full well what we were going to be debating today. That is why I talked about this being a charade and about the games being played by Conservative Party members. What they have really done is prevent, once again, debate on government legislation, the very same piece of legislation that the member opposite, who is heckling me, made an amendment to. Why? It is because they want to filibuster the legislation. That is the real motivation behind the motion today.

Members have stood up to say it is such an important issue. If it is so important, why did they not want to introduce an emergency debate on the issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservatives, particularly this member, using a concurrence motion to prevent debate on Bill C-50, and I will expand on that in due course.

The issue that the member wants to talk about today could have been dealt with on an opposition day. Yet again, the members of the Conservative Party feel that their days are not to be used for the purposes he is talking about with his concurrence motion on the report. Instead, they are using concurrence on reports for the sole purpose of disrupting government legislation. Can he explain to Canadians why the Conservative Party wants to use these types of motions to prevent substantial pieces of legislation from being debated?

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that you talked about being respectful. We are dealing with the back bench. Sometimes I feel like they are trying to stone me to death with spitballs. Meanwhile, we are talking about a climate catastrophe, and they laugh, snicker and giggle.

That member from Calgary, I have never seen him stand up once to talk about the climate drought facing Albertans. They do not care. The Conservatives do not care that Alberta is on fire right now. They did not care when Alberta was on fire last year. They never spoke about it once. They want to get people revved up on the bogus, “We are going to get the carbon tax axed.” They are going to go into these communities, as they are burning and residents have to escape. As Kelowna was facing a catastrophic explosion of fire, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country was saying, “Do not worry. We are going to make burning fuel free. We are going to take the tax off.”

The Conservative leader was asked about the industrial carbon tax. By the way, Suncor and those companies that made $78 billion last year paid one-fourteenth in comparison to what an ordinary person would pay. When the leader who lives in Stornoway was asked about the industrial carbon tax, he claimed it did not exist.

Not only are the Conservatives promoting disinformation and bogus conspiracies, but either he does not know his facts or he is just being mendacious. I know he has never had a job, but this is deeply concerning from a man claiming he is going to be leader of a country facing an unprecedented climate crisis.

Where are we right now? We are finally moving forward with the most minor, simple bill to put in place steps to have voices heard. That is all we are doing, yet we see the total rage machine of the Conservatives cranked up to an 11, with all cylinders firing on gong show idiocy to try to derail basic steps to involve workers, like the energy workers from Unifor and the workers from the construction unions, who are a part and want to be part of a new energy economy.

What they have done, while working for Danielle Smith, is that they have chased $33 billion out of Alberta for clean energy, because they do not want clean energy projects. They want to have our workers dependent on an industry that the International Energy Agency has said very clearly is now having to change. We either change with it, or we get left behind and the planet burns.

The New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-50. We have stood up. We will stand up again. We will always stand up for workers, for jobs—

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

Madam Speaker, when I was 17, I was playing in biker bars, so getting tackled by a Conservative from Alberta is not something that I lose much sleep over. Hopefully, they will not start throwing bottles.

Right now, I am going back to the issue that disinformation, rage politics and relentless falsehoods are being promoted by climate deniers in the midst of a climate catastrophe. The question for me is the issue of climate denial, not only by bots, but also by a government in its belief that, if it just does a little bit here and a little bit there, everything will be fine. That is another form of climate denialism. It is not good enough, not at this time in our history.

The belief on the government's side is that corporations must do their part and that it has Pathways Alliance, with a 2050 plan for net zero. We have seen that Pathways Alliance has met none of its objectives. It has spent millions on disinformation campaigns, but Canada is the only G7 country where emissions continue to rise. If it continues on this path, our emissions will be much higher.

There is a great peer-reviewed study on Pathways Alliance. I encourage everyone to read it, because it shows the greenwashing, disinformation and fundamental lack of honesty that are evident. In the review, it said there was no credible proof of Pathways Alliance's carbon capture claims making any difference, yet it wants us to give them billions in carbon capture. What it is doing with carbon capture is not lowering emissions; it is using carbon capture to pump out more oil and gas and to burn more, while telling us that we have to pay for it.

This shows how they all worked together on this disinformation campaign. This is a peer-reviewed study. I am not just making this up. I read peer-review studies once in a while. It reads, “the degree of strategic coordination shown by the main producers of the oil sands sector reflects a troubling concentration of corporate power for the purposes of political and public influence.” I see my colleagues over there and my colleagues here. It continues by saying that “regulators...should actively consider how to equip themselves to detect and address sector-scale greenwashing.” They say this becomes a really important issue “as liability claims mount regarding the role of fossil fuels organizations in their ‘failure to warn’ of impeding harms due to their products.”

This issue of a “failure to warn” leads us to where this is going to go: to lawsuits. Those are the decisions where we will see some action. We know that Shell has recently been found guilty by a Dutch court of failing to mitigate against climate disaster and constant disinformation. Shell has been ordered to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. That is what courts are doing. The European Court of Human Rights has just moved against big oil.

We have groundbreaking lawsuits. I really like the one in Colorado. I encourage people to check it out, because it names the Canadian giant Suncor and Exxon.

Since 2017, five states, the District of Columbia and 20 municipalities in the U.S. have taken major climate polluters to court for knowingly spreading disinformation. I certainly encourage people to read the California statement. This is the big tobacco moment. This is where the people are able to get back, and there is some great stuff in it. It talks about how Exxon and Shell purposely directed tortuous conduct toward California by distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting and supplying fossil fuels with the knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and will continue to cause climate change-related harms, including to the state's industries. It is a campaign of deception and denial of climate change.

That right there is the entire platform of the Conservative opposition, which does everything on bumper stickers. I think we could put its entire environmental strategy, denialism of what the crisis is, on a bumper sticker. It would even fit on a little Austin Mini.

I want to go through some of these issues here, because it is really important that people understand what they knew and the importance of having stuff in place to take them on. Since at least 1988, the American Petroleum Institute participated and led several coalitions to promote disinformation. It has had front groups including the Global Climate Coalition; the Partnership for a Better Energy Future; the Coalition for American Jobs; and I love this one, the Alliance for Climate Strategies. They knew in the late 1960s that they were in a situation where the ice caps would actually start to melt by the year 2000. They knew that in 1968, so they lied. That was the American Petroleum Institute.

In 1980, Esso, a good Canadian company, told its managers of the danger of C02 buildup in the atmosphere and that it could have catastrophic effects. Then they said that there were measures to lower emissions. In 1980, they could have lowered emissions, but it would have cost money. What did Esso do? Esso spent the money on disinformation, on greenwashing and on bogus studies.

In 1982, Exxon had much better science than anyone, and it is right here in the State of California versus the big oil giants. Exxon was warning, from their scientific studies, that climate catastrophe would become evident by the year 2000. That was when we would first start to notice its effects. However, by then it might be too late. All through the nineties, they knew, but what did they do? They decided to pay for bogus studies and disinformation, the kind of stuff that is still being spouted from the front benches of the Conservative Party today. They knew that the results would be catastrophic for the planet.

The other one that is very telling in the California indictment is that, in 1988, Shell did a study of scientific reports that said that, again, the crisis in climate would be noticeable to the public beginning in around the year 2000, which I think most of us agree is when most of began to wonder and worry, and by then, it would possibly be too late. What did Shell do? Shell raised their oil drilling platforms in the ocean by six feet, so that, as the ice caps collapsed, coastal cities were wiped out and South Pacific islands were destroyed, it would be to hell with them; Shell was going to make money.

That is what they did. That is in the indictment. This is like Philip Morris telling kids, “Not only is smoking good, but you have to smoke if you're going to grow up and be healthy.” They knew they were burning the planet.

How does this relate back to Bill C-50? It relates back to this constant pattern of the Conservatives to promote disinformation, bogus claims and hysterical talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to somehow be destroyed if we do anything to support—

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

Madam Speaker, finally we are at the point of moving forward with actually a very simple and what should be non-controversial bill. It is a bill that would ensure that workers, environmental groups and indigenous people have a seat at the table as we talk about moving forward with the biggest economic transition since the industrial revolution.

It is a transition that will happen whether Canada decides it is going to participate or not, yet what we have seen in the House is, in my 20 years here, the most deplorable, degrading undermining of democracy, which I could not have imagined would ever happen: the abusive harassment that took place in our committee from the Conservatives' trying to shut down witnesses who came forward; 20,000 bogus amendments brought forward through AI, none of which had anything to do with improving the bill; and two days of absolutely useless voting as another attempt to slow down.

What was being slowed down? It was a bill that had been pushed forward by the labour unions of Canada, which said the transition is happening, their jobs are changing, they want a seat at the table and they have a right to have it because it is their expertise that the government needs to understand if it is going to talk about sustainable jobs and because it is their communities that would be impacted.

Coming from mining country, where I have seen transitions, I can say there is nothing just about them. I have seen them in too many communities, such as Elliot Lake in my region when we lost all the uranium jobs, and my hometown of Cobalt when the iron industry and the silver industry collapsed. It was a calamity, and not just for the workers but also for the businesses, for families and for marriages.

However, this is a different kind of transition. This is a lesson I learned many times in trips to Alberta when meeting with energy workers who were saying, “We are ready to move ahead.” This is the first time we have had an opportunity, when we are seeing something come at us, to put in place the steps needed to draw on the incredible expertise of our workers to create a new energy economy. As I said, this is happening whether the Conservatives admit that the world is round or not. The International Energy Agency, hardly known as a left-wing think tank, in its most recent report said we are witnessing the end of the fossil fuel era and we have to prepare ourselves for the next era. That is the message it has been giving in warning governments to take the steps necessary to prepare.

We can look at China, which has made over $890 billion in clean tech. In a single year, China had more clean tech projects than the rest of the world combined. The result was $1.6 trillion in its economy, which went up 30% in a single year. If we do not act, China will be taking the market. It will take the market in critical minerals, in EV, in solar, geothermal and any other technologies that Canada can be a lead on, but not according to the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not want us to be a lead on that; they want us to sit at the back of the pack.

The transition is going to happen whether we want it or not, while in Biden's government, $500 billion since 2021 has been invested in new projects because the Americans have opened the doors and are working on the principle of good-paying union jobs.

When workers came to our committee to talk about what they believed and knew and about how they could participate and lead the way, the Conservatives would not let them speak. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representatives were at committee; the Conservatives shut them down. They shut down the carpenters and members of the Canadian Labour Congress. Unifor representatives were there, representing not only the workers of the oil patch in western Canada but also the workers who are going to be running the EV lines. The Conservatives shut them down. The Conservatives did not want to hear from the Alberta Federation of Labour.

The reason is very simple: Climate deniers are not trolls on Twitter; they are in the House of Commons. Just like the toxic bots, the only way they can get away with what they are doing is by attacking and by trying to silence the facts, so we have seen relentless attacks on facts and on the witnesses who could speak. The Conservatives did not want the witnesses to speak, even though they were the very workers whose lives would be impacted. They could not allow them to speak, because if they did it would blow apart the bogus arguments being made by the member for Carleton.

Energy workers are not the only ones being affected by the Conservatives' lack of action. We are now in a full on climate disaster. This catastrophe is having a massive impact on all manner of industries, such as the B.C. wine industry this winter, and in my region, the maple syrup industry, which is so crucial to Abitibi, Quebec, and northern Ontario. They have been hammered by the dramatic climate changes. There were 200,000-plus people forced out of their homes from climate fires, while the member who lives in Stornoway was running around and trying to go into communities. As people were being evacuated by catastrophic climate fires, he was saying that he would make burning pollution free.

Let us talk about the effect of what is happening to Canada's agricultural sector. I really encourage people to read the reflection from rancher Bob Tolman from Rumsey, Alberta. His family built up a ranch for 120 years. These are people who know how to live on the land. They have had to give up their farm and cattle because of the ongoing climate disaster that is unfolding in Alberta. However, members will never, ever hear a single Alberta Conservative stand up and talk about the disaster that is affecting Alberta farmers.

Mr. Tolman said that the 2021 drought was the worst drought Alberta had seen since the dirty thirties, but they had enough carry-over in feed and hay from 2020 to get through 2021. Then 2022 came, and it was even worse. Then, in 2023, they had under 40 millilitres of rain. He said that, in a normal year, his farm produced 700 bales of hay. In 2023, it produced just one bale. Members have not heard a single Alberta Conservative stand up and talk about the crisis facing farmers, because they would rather let the planet burn so Rich Kruger could make more profits than make a sustainable agriculture in Canada that is going to affect us in our bottom line.

Mr. Tolman pointed out that, if he was going to keep his cattle herd, it meant he would have to buy feed; of course, because of the drought, the price of cattle feed has risen dramatically. Members have never heard a single Conservative talk about the price of feed; it is all about the carbon tax. He had to pay $300 a tonne. That would have been $200,000 to feed his cattle this year. This is why there is a sell-off of cattle and bison happening in the west. Farmers cannot feed their animals.

We see backbench Conservatives get up and talk about the carbon price and how potatoes in Calgary are being done in by the carbon tax. They get their potatoes from Idaho, which does not pay a carbon tax. Yes, the price went up in the grocery stores for potatoes from Idaho. Why is that? It is because Idaho is being hit by the climate disaster as well. Members never hear a single Conservative speak truths about the impacts of what is happening.

It is fire season in Alberta right now. There are 60 burning wildfires in Alberta and 100 in B.C. Members will never hear a single one of the Conservatives stand up and say that their communities are being done in. Why is that? It is because they do not want to undermine, in any manner at all, the profits being made by big oil. Therefore, we are going to have what we saw with Bill C-50, this campaign of disinformation, rage politics and saying it is some kind of globalist woke agenda. This is the language of Alex Jones and of conspiracy haters, but Conservatives need it, because they cannot tell their supporters that the planet is on fire, that agriculture is being hammered hard and that, last summer, there were so many businesses in northern Ontario that lost out; people would not come up because of the smoke.

They do not want people to deal with that; they want them to get all riled up. People got so riled up that they threw an axe through the window of one of my colleagues to teach him a lesson. That is the mob. This is pitchfork politics. I know of another colleague where they slashed his tires and burned a garage. This is the politics of intimidation. That is what happens when one cranks people up with disinformation.

Therefore, are we going to expect—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I disagree on nearly everything when it comes to energy policy, but I enjoy very much working with him on committee.

I want to acknowledge both the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party for actually being honest about what Bill C-50, the just transition, is, which is a plan to end oil and gas, kill Canadian oil and gas jobs and, as the member pointed out, create a government committee to create a government committee to implement economic restructuring plans from the top down.

I would note for the member that the leading driver of the creation of new union jobs in Canada is the oil and gas expansions by major multinationals in Alberta and other provinces where they operate, yet on the other hand, 93% of Canadian oil and gas businesses have fewer than 100 employees; they are small businesses. Since he is interested in engaging what is in the legislation, I appreciate that he will oppose the just transition in order to protect provincial jurisdiction and because he can see that the bill would not do anything that its proponents claim it would in terms of jobs training, new jobs or skills training.

What does the member think about the fact that what Bill C-50 would do is end oil and gas, the leading creator of new union jobs and big multinationals right now, yet would not contemplate at all the 90% of Canadian oil and gas companies that have fewer than 100 employees?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier I heard my colleague from Lakeland answer my question by stating that politicians have to be honest. It seems to me that Bill C-50 may in part address this issue of honesty. If we want to be honest with the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritime provinces, whose economy depends mainly on oil, we must tackle climate change and find solutions. That is what I originally thought a bill on the just transition would do. I thought it would help us find solutions to figure out a way to minimize the impact of a necessary transition on workers.

Everyone recognizes that fossil fuels are largely responsible for climate warming and climate disruption. Everyone recognizes that, except maybe certain Conservatives. Everyone recognizes it, but the way to prove that is by taking action. When my colleague says that politicians should be honest, that applies to everyone. I suspect some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party are going to wake up 10 years from now with a pretty bad headache after blowing up the endless balloon of an oil- and gas-based economy.

As far as I am concerned, Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. I mentioned honesty earlier because I feel that political processes are powerless in the face of the oil and gas sector, which is kind of steering the Canadian economy. As a dispassionate observer, I see the oil and gas sector as a symbol of Canada's identity, such a strong symbol that it makes dialogue on the energy transition impossible. These positions are irreconcilable.

I saw this at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where I witnessed blatant filibustering, incivility, and tactics that I believe are totally unworthy of parliamentarians. That is why the Liberals responded in a way that may have been less than optimal—perhaps one of the worst ways possible, in fact—when they took the undemocratic step of shutting down debate. Did they have any other choice? History will not tell us, but this is how the Liberals responded.

The Liberals are not without their faults, either. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is a good minister. He does not seem too partisan to me, and he is open to dialogue. However, he too is in the stranglehold of the oil sector, so there is only so much he will do to move ahead with the necessary transition.

The minister found another dance partner, the NDP. It was only natural. The NDP even swallowed several bitter pills. I saw members go along with certain things on the energy transition at committee. That kind of undercuts their claim that standing up for the fight against climate change is part of their values. I may come back to this later when I talk about the difference between a just transition and sustainable jobs.

I was saying that Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. With this bill, we saw the full scope of what I call the Carleton method, the member for Carleton's method, which has been in place for a while now. This method can be summed up in one word: intimidation.

We witnessed some fairly major intimidation at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Sometimes, when the Conservative members heckled others during the proceedings, it seemed to me that they were acting like influencers rather than lawmakers. Their goal was to wreak havoc in committee. Then some members recorded themselves on video to show viewers what a great job they were doing defending the public's interests. What an utterly pointless exercise. That is the way things went at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why am I saying this? It is because it feels like Bill C‑50 was never really debated in committee.

Our chance to have a debate by presenting our amendments and getting to discuss them was stolen from us by the Conservatives' attitude. I will repeat this ad nauseam: This attitude of the Conservatives can be explained by what I see as an all-consuming passion for the oil and gas sector.

At the Standing Committee of Natural Resources, I learned that the member for Provencher's argument against Bill C-50 boiled down to the fact that he likes muscle cars and would rather drink his milkshake through a plastic straw. When I learned that, I thought to myself: Our future is guaranteed, this is the way to go, in other words, more muscle cars—I see my colleague nodding his approval—and plastic straws. Is there anything worse than drinking a milkshake through a paper straw? I mean, really.

I also learned from the member for Red Deer—Mountain View that oil could be used to create peace in the world. In my former life, I taught political science, and I used to talk to my students about colonialism. Now I have learned a new concept: eco-colonialism. Apparently, it is eco-colonialist to stop indigenous peoples from developing oil. That is pretty shocking. Can there be a more pernicious reasoning than that? They are basically trying to secure social licence by saying that refusing to develop new oil projects that are affiliated with indigenous communities is a new form of colonialism. Rarely have I seen such twisted logic. My colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View also suggested that oil can bring peace to the world. Supposedly, Canadian oil and gas could stop the conflict in Ukraine and maybe even the conflict in Israel. Apparently, the answer to all the world's problems is oil.

All that is nothing, though. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which includes the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who is a world champion at making us go around in circles, spent almost a month arguing over whose turn it was to speak. As members know, each committee is made up of one member of the Bloc Québécois, one member of the NDP and four members of the Conservative Party, and the others are all Liberals. However, five or six Conservatives showed up, all demanding to speak. They started causing a ruckus, saying that their parliamentary privilege was being breached because they were not being allowed to speak. We spent a month on that. If that is not wasting time, I do not know what is.

The worst part was when we did the clause-by-clause study. The member for Brantford—Brant flew into such a rage that I feared for my whip's safety. I had never seen anything like it. He snapped. He just lost it and started yelling. He really loves the oil and gas industry. In my view, he simply lost it. At one point, I was afraid for my whip's safety. All that happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

In my opinion, a legislator's job is to calmly study bills in order to improve the society in which we live, to change the direction in which society is heading. How can we do that in an atmosphere like that? How can we do that when some people's prime objective is to derail the process and make dialogue impossible? In politics, the watchword is “dialogue”, meaning a discussion among people who have different visions but who are able to reach a consensus. It was absolutely impossible to reach a consensus on Bill C‑50.

The Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry was only confirmed by Bill C-49. They invited Ches Crosbie, an eccentric character who does not believe in climate change and who thinks that all the investments in fighting climate change are bogus. We have it on video. He was invited to testify by the Conservatives, who thought he might contribute something important to the debate by spewing absurdities. Maybe one day we will hear testimony from someone trying to convince us that the Earth is flat.

The Conservatives' all-consuming passion came to the fore in committee. I see that as the member for Carleton's method. The Conservatives' decision to reject everything that has to do with the fight against climate change can be seen in their never-ending attack on carbon pricing. We have actually started saying that the Conservatives are obsessed with the “carbum” tax, because they are acting like bums. Anything goes. They can say one thing, then contradict themselves. They can say for weeks that a tax applies to Quebec when it does not. They can say for weeks that carbon pricing is responsible for skyrocketing food prices. We saw them say that many times. The worst is what I saw them do in recent weeks, when they exploited the increase in the cost of living and the misfortune of the most vulnerable to help big oil push its agenda.

What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is keep the economy stuck in the 20th century. He certainly does not want to end our dependence on oil and gas. We see the proof here every day. When someone asks a question about the oil and gas industry, they get a huge round of applause. No, that is not true. There are two things the Conservatives applaud. The first is the oath to the King. They perk right up when that subject comes up. The second is anything having to do with oil. That makes the Conservatives really happy. That is their bread and butter.

There is nothing more ironic than to hear them say we need to deal with inflation and help low-income people, while at the same time defending the agenda of the most wealthy. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that giving $82 billion in tax credits to the oil industry between now and 2034 is ridiculous and that we should use that money to help people in need. I have never heard a Conservative say that. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that investing $34 billion in an oil pipeline is absolutely ridiculous. These are the issues that should get their blood boiling, not a potential tax on the greedy oil and gas industry. I would just like to remind the House that, in 2022, this greedy industry raked in $200 billion in profits.

Far be it from me to remind my Conservative colleagues that their former leader, Mr. O'Toole, believed carbon pricing was one of the best ways to fight climate change. I will not do that. Rather, I will focus on the reasons the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-50.

The first reason is that, in my opinion, the bill is not actually about a just transition. Just transition is a concept. Everyone in the western world uses the term “just transition” to describe the efforts we should be making to plan a carbon-free economy while mitigating the negative impact on workers as much as possible. Everyone agrees, except Canada.

Why is Canada the only country that does not want to adopt the concept of a just transition? Some less charitable souls told me that one possibility is that we could make a pun with the Prime Minister's name. In fact, our Conservative friends made a not-so-clever pun with the Prime Minister's name and inflation. If that is why, it is pretty childish. I hope that is not it. The other possible reason why Canada uses “sustainable jobs” instead of “just transition” is apparently because the Premier of Alberta cannot stand the thought of talking about a just transition. For that reason, Canada chose to talk about sustainable jobs rather than just transition.

I figure that if we do not call a spade a spade, that makes it difficult to take the bold measures that need to be taken immediately if we want to deal with climate change. How bold can we be if we cannot call a spade a spade? That made it difficult for us to support the bill on just transition.

What made it impossible to support the bill is the federal government's calculated abandonment of the asymmetrical agreement on workforce management between Quebec and Ottawa. Quebec has the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which allows Quebec society to hold debates between the government, the major unions and employers. We thought that, in Quebec, the concept of a just transition should be debated by these partners and abide by the asymmetrical agreements reached between the governments of Canada and Quebec.

Unfortunately, I have had many discussions with the minister. I thought that at some point we could get there. I had a lot of discussions, I met several times with unions to discuss the bill on a just transition. I will admit that some unions were on board. I have friends in the unions who were prepared to put water in their wine and go for sustainable jobs, as a gesture of compromise. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the federal government did not accede to their demands that the asymmetrical agreements between Canada and Quebec be respected and that the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail be given a more important role. That is why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately not be supporting the bill.

However, there are some necessary steps that could have been taken. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Canada is in the oil and gas industry's economic stranglehold. What can we do to make a just transition? What action can we take?

First, the government needs to do away with the strategies that it is currently proposing. When I hear talk of a low-carbon economy in Canada, it is immediately clear to me that the government's and even the opposition's proposals are flawed. Among other things, I am talking about blue hydrogen, which uses carbon capture and storage. That is a key piece of the government's plan to fight climate change.

Many witnesses came and told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that, from a technical standpoint, it is unfeasible to use carbon capture and storage technologies for the volumes that the government is talking about. Many witnesses also told us that it is unfeasible to produce blue hydrogen, or hydrogen from gas, because it is so expensive, and yet the government is investing massive amounts in tax credits and research support for the oil and gas industry's pipe dream.

In Canada, there is talk of developing low-carbon oil. The majority of experts we talk to say that is impossible. However, the Canadian strategy, as I was saying earlier, with its big tax credits, is focused on the pipe dream of producing low-carbon oil. I always tell the same joke: low-carbon oil is like diet poutine. It does not exist. If we want to fight climate change, then we simply cannot insist on economically supporting the oil companies. If we want to go on a diet then we cannot eat poutine. It amounts to the same thing.

I will close with an anecdote. I joined the minister in Berlin where we attended a meeting with people from Siemens. The minister asked them whether Siemens would be interested in producing the technology for blue hydrogen. The people from Siemens answered rather honestly, saying that the production cost would be so high that they would need government support. In addition to that, the technological costs are so high that it is practically impossible. Yet the government's entire strategy is based on a similar pipe dream.

I see that my time is up. Basically, the Canadian oil and gas sector's stranglehold has led us to a dead end. Unfortunately, we will not be able to produce legislation consistent with our goals and a just transition.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ontario who has also been a reliable, steadfast and passionate supporter of energy workers. He knows, for the sector and for individuals, it benefits the entire country.

Ontario has a lot at stake with BillC-50, given the negative impacts on manufacturing, construction and transportation that would come from it. He is exactly right; it has been a travesty. I do not know if the word “treason” is too much when we watch our Prime Minister say that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. He is apparently the only world leader who thinks there is no business case for Canadian LNG, since our allies and world leaders everywhere are literally begging for us to provide it to them.

Of course he is also a person who says that there is no business case for the development of those projects, even though 15 private sector proponents tried to get LNG projects built in Canada in the last nine years since he has been in government. They have all been blocked.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that governments and politicians have to be honest about their policies and about what they stand for. Just as was the case under the former Conservative government, just as our leader says, just as all of my common-sense Conservative colleagues say, I believe that emissions reductions should be achieved through technology and not taxes, and through Canadians workers, Canadian ingenuity and the Canadian private sector.

I want to appreciate and acknowledge the Bloc's participation on the bill. Several times, its members supported provincial jurisdiction and in that way would tell the federal government to back off from its top-down, central planning, micromanagement embodied in Bill C-50. I certainly appreciate the Bloc's support on those principles.

I would also note that Bloc members themselves tried to make amendments to have Bill C-50 include language about preserving existing jobs in all these sectors that will be hurt by the just transition. Also, the Bloc tried to insert, in substantive ways, the concepts of fairness, transparency and equity within Bill C-50, but all those amendments that the Bloc proposed were rejected by the NDP-Liberals, too.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, globalism is, of course, a political theory that believes in policies being designed by global organizations and then being imposed on sovereign countries through global agreements. That is what globalism is. It is where the concepts of the just transition comes from. It has been developed at exactly those kinds of meetings over the course of decades, and instead of putting Canadian jobs, the Canadian economy, Canadian security, Canadian sovereignty and Canadian energy independence first and ensuring that Canada can be the world's top-most supplier of our energy products and technology, the Liberals, through Bill C-50, the just transition, are imposing that concept that comes from the globalist globalism theory and thinking.

The Speaker made exactly the right point, which I would also like to emphasize. Again, it is very telling when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources will not even get up on her feet and actually defend the bill, actually clarify if she thinks there are claims that I have made that are not true and actually stand up for what they are doing here. However, the Liberals will avoid that at all costs, just like they will not let any Canadian speak about the bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it sure is telling that every time the NDP-Liberals get up to talk about the bill, they talk about almost anything other than Bill C-50. I think that is because Bill C-50, the just transition, is actually the culmination of nine years of the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy, anti-capitalist and, frankly, anti-Canadian policies, which they know will hurt Canadians.

The bill's proponents say Bill C-50 will deliver jobs and skills training programs, but the bill itself would do nothing of the sort. Instead, it would set up a fancy appointed government committee that would set up another committee to dictate five-year economic plans to governments. Despite what it claims, the costly coalition knows the just transition would actually disrupt the livelihoods of millions of Canadians and threaten 2.7 million jobs in energy, agriculture, transportation, construction and manufacturing, which is about 15% of Canada’s total workforce.

However, do not just take my word for it. These numbers come from the natural resource minister’s own briefing memo about the just transition from a couple of years ago. That is really why the NDP-Liberals colluded to ram Bill C-50 through the House and committee without hearing from any of the Canadians they know this bill will affect, because they know just how much harm their so-called just transition will cause.

In the fall, the cover-up coalition limited debate to less than eight hours for all parties, allowed only two hours for clause-by-clause debate at committee and, ultimately, blocked any single witness, anyone, from speaking about the impact of Bill C-50. It limited report stage debate to one day and now will only allow less than six hours of debate during the third and final reading. This is undemocratic.

Obviously, the Liberals know how unpopular the just transition is among Canadians, and that is exactly why they do not want to let Canadians speak out about it. No wonder they rammed it through committee in the middle of the night, silenced everyone and hoped no one notices. It is because they are showing their true colours. They care more about global accolades and international mutual-admiration societies than about Canadians and, frankly, they care more than they really care about Canada, about their home, my home and our home. The Liberals argued that they had to rush through the bill because of how supposedly important it was, but once they sidelined Conservatives and prevented any witnesses from speaking at committee, they did not bring it back for four more months. Time and time again, Liberals say one thing and do another.

Canadians do not want this top-down, economic-restructuring, wealth-redistributing, central-planning just transition. That is why they rebranded it and changed the name with buzzwords to distract, but Canadians see through them. In fact, the majority of Canadians think Canada should not be forced to pay for or to go through anything like the just transition until the world’s big polluters make serious efforts of their own.

People around the world face energy and food emergencies every day. Countries are switching to coal because of the NDP-Liberals when Canada should supply them with LNG instead. While Canada accounts for only 1.6% of world emissions, China approved more coal power in the first quarter of 2023 after building six times as many coal plants as the rest of the world combined in 2022.

Last year, over 70% of India’s power came from coal. Instead of supporting Canada’s LNG development to help countries get off of coal by exporting the worlds cleanest LNG, helping to lower global emissions, the Liberals fixate on destroying Canada’s economy and the livelihoods of the millions of workers who depend on jobs in Canada's energy sector. How does this make any sense?

While the NDP-Liberals punish Canadians for working in one of the world’s most sustainable and transparent energy sectors and for living in a cold, distant, northern country, other countries burn more and more coal every day. The NDP-Liberals say things like “the world is moving this way”. I wish they would really pay attention to what is actually happening in the rest of the world. The rest of the world is moving away from the agenda that the costly coalition imposes on Canada. The virtue signalling and empty words here must stop. Reality and common sense must prevail.

No wonder they made that last-minute name change to the bill, launched a coordinated spin job, broke and made up the rules and rammed it all through. It was so the fewest people would find out, but Conservatives said not so fast. We proposed reasonable amendments that the NDP-Liberals rejected outright, with no hesitation and no consideration.

They rejected amendments from Conservatives outlining measures to ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, to ensure a strong, export-oriented energy sector, to avoid regulatory duplication and unnecessary delays, to improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth in Canada. They rejected amendments to create sustainable jobs through private sector investment and to ensure that major and clean energy projects under federal regulatory frameworks can be delivered on time and on budget. They rejected that.

There were measures to ensure the importance of collaborating with all levels of government, including provincial and municipal governments, engaging all relevant partners and stakeholders; measures to include representatives of provincial governments and indigenous governance bodies; and measures to recognize local and regional needs, including in indigenous communities. They rejected measures to ensure ways to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities. I guess that was because they know indigenous Canadians work at double the rates in Canada's oil and gas sector than in other sectors. As well there were measures to ensure the bill promotes economic growth, including the economic growth of indigenous communities. All of those were proposed by Conservatives, and all were rejected by the NDP-Liberals.

If members did not believe before that the just transition would be anything but fair and equitable for Canadians, now they know for sure. What would be the reason for voting against all these changes, changes calling for measures to improve affordability and to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities? They even rejected a Bloc amendment because it sought to preserve existing jobs.

Bill C-50 would not create sustainable jobs. It would kill them. It is clear that there is nothing well-intentioned about this bill or the NDP-Liberals' costly coalition.

Conservatives also proposed further amendments for Canadian workers and the energy sector, but the NDP-Liberals opposed them all. They were things like, “Canada’s natural resource sector, including oil and gas, has been a reliable source of revenue for the Government of Canada, and has contributed to the sustainability of core social programs”, “Canada’s plan to reduce its production of oil and gas should be done in lock step with major emitters...including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States”, “Canada should sell liquefied natural gas to its security partners in Europe, so that they can break their dependence on Russian natural gas” and “Canadian oil and gas workers produce cleaner products than those of any other country in the world”. All of those were rejected by the NDP-Liberals.

The costly coalition truly has no regard for the hard-working Canadians in the energy sector in local communities right across the country who keep Canadians' lights on, vehicles running, homes warm and cool, and businesses going. The costly coalition actually ignores the lessons from other countries that began imposing a combination of anti-energy and anti-free market policies years ago. However, the NDP-Liberals do not care about reality. It is all about ideology for them.

For example, the consequence of Ireland's anti-energy just transition agenda shut down manufacturing jobs in Ireland, only to have the same jobs be created in other countries abroad, with no impact on emissions but a lot of harm to the economy and the livelihoods of their citizens. Germany was forced to reopen coal plants after initiating their suite of top-down economic restructuring policies years ago. Last year, over a third of Germany's electricity came from coal, and the government waived its emissions tax due to the high cost of energy.

Poland is dependent on coal for over 70% of its energy mix, with no plans to phase it out until 2040. The Netherlands was forced to end its cap on energy production from coal-fired power plants to protect themselves and stop their reliance on Russian natural gas. Austria reopened its coal plants just two years after finishing their so-called just transition. In New Zealand, just three years after initiating their just transition plan, the country burned more coal that ever before.

Last year, Britain had to bring coal plants back online in the face of cold snaps, with the risk of over three-hour rolling blackouts even with the coal plants that were able to come back online, something that Canadians are already experiencing across the country.

Sweden, which currently holds the EU's presidency, ceased all of its efforts to net zero and upset EU plans to phase out fossil fuel subsidies earlier this year, when it put forward a motion to allow countries to prolong subsidies for coal-powered plants. Sweden also dumped their 100% renewable target amid ongoing concerns about short-term energy security and extended their timelines for alterative energy to 2045.

In Scotland there is no planned phase-out of oil and gas, but rather a commitment to continued exploration and production with the hope that investments in sustainable energy and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies would help reduce sectoral emissions. In Norway, which anti-energy Canadian activists love to celebrate, they continue to export oil and gas, with 49% of Norway’s annual revenues coming from the petroleum sector. Warm, small and sunny Mexico also hit record-high fossil fuel-powered generation in 2023.

That is the reality around the world where the just transition has been tried. Somehow the Liberals think that if they ignore all of the warning signs and alarm bells, they will avoid these same problems faced by all of these countries around the world. The Prime Minister and his costly coalition need a serious reality check.

Canadians do not even have to look abroad to see the failure of just transition claims and plans. In 2017, the Liberals accelerated the forced shutdown of coal operations in communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which killed the jobs of 3,000 workers across the four provinces, in approximately 13 communities.

The Liberals' promised just transition did not materialize. Despite 150 million tax dollars spent, jobs were not replaced; communities were devastated, and municipal representatives worry that local governments will not be able to afford to keep the water running and the town services operational much longer.

The Auditor General said that the Liberals’ just transition for coal workers was anything but just. The program lacked employee retention, and it actually led to a loss of skills and skilled workers, which hiked the cost of housing and infrastructure in remote areas as people fled those smaller communities. Impacted workers were not identified in advance, and 86% of the workforce was left behind with generic, untargeted and unhelpful programs. None of the recommendations of the task force were implemented and all of the government departments that were supposed to monitor and to report on the status of activities that measure whether projects actually helped communities did not report and could not determine whether the millions of taxpayer dollars actually did anything.

The Liberals’ just transition for coal was a perfect and expensive failure trifecta: a failure to plan, a failure to implement and a failure to measure outcomes. Left behind are dozens of communities and thousands of workers and their families who now have to make new lives for themselves because far-away and out-of-touch politicians and program administrators implemented an accelerated plan to fire those hard-working Canadians and to make their communities ghost towns, and they patted themselves on the back while they were it. That is exactly what Bill C-50, the just transition, is all about.

The Liberals want to do it all again, but this time with energy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction and transportation workers who rely indirectly or directly on the oil and gas sector. That internal memo to the natural resources minister says, “[large] scale transformation[s] will take place in...Agriculture...292,000 workers...; [in] Energy...202,000 workers...; [in] Manufacturing...193,000 workers...; [in construction]...1.4 million workers...; and [in] Transportation...642,000 workers”.

The Liberals know it will kill 170,000 oil and gas jobs immediately. That is their plan. The just transition is an attack on all the livelihoods in all those significant sectors in Canada, and it would ultimately hurt all provinces. What does the minister’s memo say those workers would be retrained in? Some of those people would be retrained in jobs as janitors and drivers. Janitors and drivers are obviously essential workers in any business and in all sectors, but the costly coalition should be honest enough to tell the millions of workers already in sustainable, highly paid jobs with significant pensions, benefits and advancement opportunities that this is really the Liberals' plan for them.

The just transition is the pinnacle of the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy agenda for Canada. It goes hand in hand with their cruel and inflationary carbon taxes 1 and 2, the tanker ban, the emissions cap, drilling bans, anti-development zones, the unrealistic EV targets and the incoming ban on internal combustion engines, or ICEs, their overreach on plastics, endless and impossible permitting timelines and red tape and their “no more pipelines“ bill, Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional over 185 days ago with no response or changes yet from the Liberals. This long line of anti-energy policies from the Liberals is a deliberate effort to accelerate the phase-out of oil and gas in Canada. The Liberals know it will not be produced if it cannot be exported, so they block pipelines and turn away world leaders and allies who ask for our resources, like LNG. After nine years, those policies have already driven billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of Canada. It is clearly not worth the cost.

At a time when the world is in an energy crisis and when millions of people are living in energy poverty, Canada’s resource wealth should be used to support our allies and the people in developing countries, and not to force them to support their adversaries. If the just transition in Canada goes ahead as intended, the Liberals would continue to reject allies who so desperately want to get off Russian energy to quit funding Putin’s war machine. This is the reality. Global demand for oil and gas has risen, and it will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. Therefore, instead of forcing countries like Japan, Germany, Greece and others to turn to dictators and despots for their energy needs, Canada should be the reliable and the environmentally responsible source they can rely on. However, the NDP-Liberals' gatekeepers hold Canada back.

Canada has the third-largest oil reserves in the world, while being the fourth-largest producer, and the 18th-largest natural gas reserves, while being the fifth-largest producer. Common-sense Conservatives would ensure that Canada accelerates and expands the development and exports of traditional oil and gas for the benefit of our people and our home, and to help allies around the world. Canada could rank sixth in LNG exports if all the 18 proposed projects were completed and could displace all natural gas from Russia to allied nations in Europe and East Asia, like Germany, Ukraine, France, Japan and South Korea. However, the government's regulatory regime has killed all but three of those proposed LNG projects in Canada and, still to date, none are operational. Only one, which was previously approved under Conservatives, is under construction.

The Liberals also ignore the fact that the oil and gas sector has been, and continues to be, the top private sector investor in clean technology in Canada. In fact, 75% of Canadian private sector investment in clean energy comes from oil and gas and pipeline companies. However, the NDP-Liberals would apparently spend billions of tax dollars on re-education programs that their internal briefing notes explicitly say would leave workers at risk of only being able to get jobs that are more precarious, with less pay and lower skill requirements, and would shut down a sector that is already the leading research and development investor, and skills trainer in alternative, renewable and future energy technologies in Canada. By the way, 90% of companies in the oil and gas sector have 100 or fewer employees. They are small businesses; they are not big union jobs.

No matter what they say, the Liberals just transition will not be able to replace the quality, quantity or pay of those working today in Canada’s energy sector, never mind the tax revenues to all governments, which benefit every Canadian.

Indigenous people in Canada and visible minorities, who are more highly represented in the sectors that Liberals want to transition away from, will face even higher job disruptions and more trouble finding new opportunities. The worse thing is that the NDP-Liberals know it.

Canada should be the world’s energy producer and supplier of choice. Canada should be energy secure and self-sufficient, but the Liberals put ideology and partisanship above reality, the economy and Canadian sovereignty.

Politicians should be honest about the outcomes of their policies. No wordsmithing can negate the socio-economic consequences of the just transition concept for Canada. Besides, Canadian oil and gas jobs are sustainable jobs. The solutions are transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; led by the private sector, not government. Conservatives would bring costs and red tape down and would accelerate approvals to make both traditional and alternative energy more affordable and accessible for all Canadians, while green-lighting green projects to help lower emissions globally.

I believe Canadians can see through the costly coalition. I believe they know that they are not worth their trust and not worth the cost to Canada. For my part, I will not stop speaking the truth, no matter what vile names or crass insults they throw at me, no matter how much double-speak and gaslighting they do. I will not back down, and I will not cower.

The truth is this: Common-sense Conservatives are the only party that wants to make life more affordable for all Canadians, to green-light green projects and to expand traditional oil and gas for Canadian energy self-sufficiency, to protect Canada’s sovereignty, to enhance Canada’s security with free and democratic allies and to help lower emissions globally.

The best things for workers right across the country are jobs. This bill, Bill C-50, could create a fancy government committee that would create another fancy government committee, all behind closed doors, with no transparency and no accountability to deliver plans to restructure Canada's economy on a five-year cycle. This is exactly the kind of anti-energy, anti-private sector and anti-democratic policy agenda that has led other countries around the world to have expensive power, to have unaffordable and unreliable fuel and power, to have protests from their citizens, followed by governments rolling back suites of bad policies that are harmful to their countries and harmful to the people.

Given Iran's attack on Israel, Canadians should also be thinking about the necessity for Canada to become completely self-sufficient with our own energy supply and security, which is what Conservatives would ensure we could have, under a new common-sense Conservative government.

Madam Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the member for Provencher. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and by substituting the following:

the House decline to give third reading 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, since the bill will displace workers, kill jobs, and kill the very sector that provides the most investment and most advancements in alternative energy.

[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 rise today in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. This is the third time I rise in this place to move forward the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and I am frustrated that it has been such a difficult journey to get us to third reading on this legislation.

It is a bill that is only about a dozen pages long and that has been supported by workers and industry. However, it seems to have touched a nerve with the Conservative opposition, so we have had to overcome a massive amount of obstruction to get to this point. Just last week, we faced a voting marathon that took over 12 hours of voting time as resources were taken up with recorded votes forced by the Conservatives. This bill matters, so Liberals did not hesitate to stand up and vote for each one, but let us be clear that the result of that Conservative charade was wasted time and taxpayer resources.

I was not surprised, because this voting marathon was just one more example of the obstruction that we, and I, have faced in this place and at committee. In December, the natural resources committee, on which I sit, faced over 20,000 amendments put forward by the Conservatives, and this was on a bill that is only about 12 pages long. The amendments were not serious proposals, and in all of my years in this place, I have never seen such awful behaviour at committee.

At these meetings, the Conservative members were loud and disruptive, and their tone was like nothing I have ever seen. It was not just a filibuster. That is a normal tool for opposition members. It was repeated, loud yelling of “point of order”, so that nothing could be said or heard. It was filming a video at every point of suspension in pursuit of a social media click and social media videos, rather than in pursuit of getting the policy right.

All of this was while workers from across the country were telling us over and over again that they wanted to see us move forward with the sustainable jobs act and that they wanted the Conservatives to end their obstruction.

At a conference last week, the Conservative energy critic stated that for her, with respect to this bill, a mutual and evidence-based middle ground is not a thing. So much for developing policy on the evidence and for working with each other to get the best results for our communities.

Why does the Conservative Party look to oppose a bill that would empower workers and a bill that acknowledges a need for workers to be at the table as our country charts a path toward a net-zero future? That is what this bill would do. Let me set out quickly what is contained in the sustainable jobs act. It has five parts.

The first part sets out principles guiding a coherent approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help create sustainable jobs, while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to play a leading role in the emerging world of the clean growth industry.

The second part aims to create a sustainable jobs partnership council to provide independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and to engage with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts, including workers, indigenous leaders and industry representatives, are at the table to guide government action.

The third part sets out a requirement to publish action plans every five years, drawing on input from stakeholders and partners as well as expert advice from the sustainable jobs partnership council.

The fourth part is designed to establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action to implement the law across the federal government.

The fifth and final part designates the minister or ministers responsible for implementing the legislation.

Those five things are what have given rise to all of the Conservative furor. This is why they have put up so much time and energy to oppose. That is what it is, legislation that helps workers to seize the opportunities and have a say in how it can be done.

On Thursday, the Minister of Labour asked, if they are not listening to industry or workers, or the environmental community, who are they listening to? That is a good question, because it certainly is not the many who have spoken publicly.

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.”

The International Union of Operating Engineers said, “The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.”

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents millions of Canadian workers, said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act signals a crucial milestone in our fight against climate change and the protection of workers' interests. Canada’s unions stand committed to working alongside all stakeholders to ensure effective implementation towards a sustainable and equitable future for all.”

Those statements confirm to me that workers in industry see in the sustainable jobs act an unlocking of opportunities; they see it as a part of our country's commitment to seize global opportunities in sustainable jobs, all the while making sure that workers are at the table as we work together to fight climate change and slow the natural disasters that are impacting our communities through wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other events.

As we strive to reduce the emissions that fuel the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure that our young people have a thriving future in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy.

Both are possible, and they go hand in hand.

All of our communities are feeling these impacts on our clean air, and floods and fires that damage homes, farms and industry. It has been shocking, in this bill's very long journey, to hear the Conservative colleagues from across the way say that they do not believe in climate change. For example, the Conservative MP for Red Deer—Mountain View, during his filibuster of this very bill, claimed that climate change is having no impact on the frequency or severity of wildfires, which is entirely false. The Conservative MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in a newsletter to constituents, simply said that “the global warming gig is up”.

These statements explain why the Conservative Party's plans have been to just let the planet burn. That is not only frightening; it is also out of step with the rest of the world, because the world is looking for clean energy and renewables and to build their businesses in Canada because of our clean electrical grid. These are the opportunities we could seize with the sustainable jobs act.

We have a target to hit net zero, and many subsectors, like cement and electricity, have similar pathways and road maps based on modelling and market trends. All of this means expanding and deploying new technologies using skilled Canadian labour. These range from installing electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, like at Dofasco; finding ways to harness solar and biomass in remote communities, like in Old Crow, Yukon; or using deep-lake cold water from Lake Ontario to cool downtown Toronto's hospitals and buildings through a district energy system operated by Enwave. There are hundreds of examples across this country of innovative projects that are being advanced to create clean power and sustainable jobs.

RBC 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.

Last summer, I had the chance to talk with people working on wind turbines in Ontario. One of these workers told me how he had chosen to train to work on wind turbines, because he liked the opportunity to be outdoors while doing the technical work he enjoys. He was making a better living, and he was living better.

I met people at George Brown College who are part of a program to provide certification for electric vehicle mechanics. A large percentage of the people who were studying the certification were new to the field of mechanics. One person commented that the workplace for EVs had cleaner air than a traditional shop. Given that my grandfather worked in an autobody shop as a mechanic, Dabrusin Motors, it hits home how no emissions in his shop would have been a much healthier workplace.

On International Women's Day this year, I had the opportunity to join the Millwright Regional Council, AECON and Ontario Power Generation at the graduation of a group women. They had been part of a special program to encourage women to become millwrights, and upon graduation, they were able to get jobs working on the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant. It was inspiring to meet these graduates and the people who had come around them to create this special program.

We are talking about good-paying jobs in nuclear energy, a form of energy that has helped Ontario move away from coal-fired electricity and that is bringing cleaner air to our communities across the provinces. Through the sustainable jobs act, we want to make sure that workers help chart the course to make sure that women, such as those in this graduating class, can find good-paying jobs that are a part of our country's future.

In fact, these are the jobs of our planet's future, and investment is flowing to clean technologies. In 2022 alone, over $2 trillion went to clean technologies globally. This bill would help support coordinating the labour force's development needs in these fast-growing industries. As we rapidly look to expanding Canada's advantage in clean technologies to meet our domestic and global needs, we must also expand the skills and training of Canadians to ensure that high-quality jobs are created here.

I will ask members to allow me to provide two examples of how we are creating sustainable jobs in Canada for Canadian workers and communities while supporting our allies around the world. If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made through a low-carbon manufacturing process, let us attract that investment that helps our workers to fill that gap.

The first example is our nuclear financing agreement with Romania. Romania has been a NATO ally of Canada for 20 years now, and it is strategically placed as a leader in Eastern Europe to supply zero-emissions power to its neighbours with Canadian CANDU reactors at Cernavoda's power station.

Nuclear power and technology is a vital part of Canada's legacy as a tier 1 nuclear nation. We are providing $3 billion in financing to Romania to develop two new CANDU reactors. That is a good deal. It is one that will be paid back with interest, which will flow entirely to Canadian companies. It will create good jobs across Ontario, help Romania to phase out coal several years ahead of schedule and displace Putin's energy blackmail with a steady supply of reliable, zero-emissions power. That is a win for climate action, a win for our allies, for our economy, for workers and for Canada.

The second example is about hydrogen. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources led a delegation to Hamburg, Germany, where Canada became the first country in the world to cement a hydrogen window with the Germans, making the first deal of its kind between any two countries. Part of the reason Vice-Chancellor Habeck had such confidence in Canada is the enormous clean power potential presented by our Atlantic offshore.

As the Minister of Labour mentioned last Thursday, offshore wind power and the hydrogen that it can create represent the largest economic opportunities for the region in a generation. They present us with the potential to economically revitalize entire coastal communities across both provinces. That is an example of strategic investment and partnership being used to create thousands of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers on the path to net zero here and around the world.

If I go back to my frustrations, it has been deeply frustrating. The Conservative members of the natural resources committee have repeatedly talked down the offshore opportunities and stated opposition to Bill C-49, the bill that would allow these offshore wind projects to proceed and create that green hydrogen that is sought after by our allies. These are good opportunities to create good-paying jobs.

We are standing up with provinces to make sure Canadian workers can seize these new opportunities. Workers are at the centre of the sustainable jobs act, and as I have pointed out, unions have strongly supported this bill. When workers organize, they do not just ask more of their employers. They expect more from government too, and that is a good thing. We are advancing replacement worker legislation and investments in union-led training centres because we believe in unions.

Just this weekend, I talked with a unionized worker in my community who was telling me about the importance of his union and his strong support for our replacement worker legislation. He wants a government that supports unionized workers and collective bargaining, and I could assure him that our Liberal government does support those things.

That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative government, in which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister. As a cabinet minister in the Harper government, the Leader of the Opposition championed two of the most anti-union and anti-worker bills the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 was an unconstitutional bill to silence unions by burying them in onerous reporting requirements, including forcing them to show their strike funds to employers, which would weaken the prospect of deals at the bargaining table. Bill C-525 was similarly an attack on workplace democracy, making it very difficult for workers to form unions and easier for the then Conservative government to arbitrarily decertify unions.

In 2017, our government repealed both of these bills, and since then, we have continued to stand up for unions. Despite all of the Conservative games, we have been pushing forward, and we will continue to fight for workers. This is precisely what our sustainable jobs plan and act would deliver.

I will conclude by highlighting the widespread support that exists for this legislation.

First, Equiterre had this to say about the bill: “It is an essential step toward more cohesive climate action and there's absolutely no reason to delay the adoption of this bill. Building a sustainable workforce starts now—not in 2050.”

The executive director of the Pembina Institute stated the following:

Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

A youth-led organization called re-generation said it supports the plan and the bill because:

This Act will help ensure that green jobs are available for anyone who wants one. It will establish a partnership council to directly involve workers and communities in the transition, and allocate critical funding to green skills development and training.

Finally, the vice-president of IBEW International said that, through this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.”

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that would 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 in 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 we have a sustainable future and sustainable jobs for future generations.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

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 third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my hon. colleagues in this most honourable House.

As we continue the debate at report stage of Bill C-50, it is imperative to note that what we are seeing across the world is being driven by technology in response to the climate crisis, what is happening in our environment and the weather: droughts, floods and temperatures increasing, attributable, obviously, to man-made causes. It is an economic opportunity for all Canadians, for all provinces, from coast to coast, that is being seized today by companies here in Canada, whether Cameco, BHP or, in Ontario, with nuclear. There is just so much innovation happening.

We know right now that the lowest cost to generate electricity is actually through solar and wind. It is true. We also know that we need to be able to store the electricity that is generated, and we are getting there. In my years in the private sector, I was learning quite well about the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. We are now adding a fourth dimension, which is storage. That is going to help us to decarbonize Canada and our electrical system. Bill C-50 is a part of this process, to ensure that the workers in Canada would have the tools, the skills and the resources to participate in this. It is an economic opportunity.

As we gather here today, it is crucial that we recognize the evolving nature of the global economy, driven, yes, by the need to address the climate crisis but also by the technological innovation that is occurring across the world. We can look at companies like Brookfield Asset Management, which was on the Hill this week. It has 33,000 megawatts of generating capacity, almost entirely renewable; it has solar, wind, hydro and nuclear being done right now. That capital is being deployed. As someone who loves the private sector, capital, wealth creation and all of that, I am excited by this. It ensures that we will have a profitable and successful future for our kids. The IEA estimated that in 2022, $2.4 trillion globally would need to be invested as we continue this.

We know that climate change and the actions required to fight it are fundamental economic opportunities for Canada's workforce. The world is rapidly moving toward a future powered by clean energy and sustainable technology. This global shift is not just about reducing emissions; it is also about unlocking new avenues for economic growth and job creation. Around the world, countries are seeking clean energy technologies and supplies to power their economies well into the coming decades. Canada is stepping up to support them. A great example is the work we have been doing with Romania to build Canadian CANDU reactors that will help them to both phase out coal, wean eastern European grids off Putin's energy, create jobs here in Canada and in eastern Europe. All of the financing will go back to Canadian companies, creating sustainable jobs here in Ontario.

Unfortunately, Conservatives let down Ukraine by opposing the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think we need to note that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament this week. We will always stand beside the Ukrainian deputies, the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as it fights for its sovereignty and its freedom.

Beyond nuclear, the Minister of Energy recently signed a hydrogen accord with the vice-chancellor of Germany, in which Canada is unlocking the first direct hydrogen trade window into a major European market. Partnerships like this will support thousands of good jobs in Atlantic and eastern Canada to produce renewable hydrogen and ship it to Europe to displace Russian gas. Unfortunately, rabid climate denialism has made the federal Conservatives blind to this opportunity that the Progressive Conservative government of Nova Scotia is championing with us.

Beyond hydrogen, Canada built the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance with many global partners to export the Canadian minerals that are building blocks to clean energy technologies, supporting thousands of great jobs in every part of this country. In British Columbia, for example, the clean energy sector is booming, with investments in hydroelectric power, wind farms, and battery factories like E-One Moli. These investments are both creating sustainable jobs and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, while positioning B.C. as a leader in the development of a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, the party on the opposite side is opposed to all these investments and continues to attack the Government of British Columbia for its climate leadership.

Similarly, in Alberta, the shift towards hydrogen and other forms of clean energy is creating opportunities for workers in the oil and gas sector to use their skills to help build new plants. I visited the industrial heartland in Alberta a couple of years ago and saw the investments that are taking place, literally $10 billion or $20 billion of petrochemical and chemical investments, net-zero investments, are taking place. We are going to ensure that they get done. We actually partnered with the Government of Alberta and invested in these projects, and we will continue to do that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and their UCP allies are holding back Alberta's full potential through their job-killing red tape on the renewables industry.

The Conservatives are holding back Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador by filibustering and delaying Bill C-49. Actually, I should take that back. Today at the natural resources committee, we finished Bill C-49 and have sent it back. Bill C-49 would build an offshore renewable industry in Atlantic Canada. Meanwhile in Ontario, investments in energy-efficient building retrofits are creating jobs for construction workers by reducing emissions and lowering energy bills for homeowners.

We know that in Bill C-50, the creation of a secretariat to coordinate action and the creation of a sustainable jobs partnership council would really bring industry, labour and indigenous organizations to the table, ensuring that workers have a place at the table.

We know that investments are being made in electric vehicle manufacturing plants and battery plants, not only for today but for decades. All the auto companies know that this transition is happening and that EV production will occur. It may not occur smoothly. It may not occur without some bumps along the way, but it is going to occur. They are all going that way, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Toyota or Honda. We see the exciting things happening in Oxford, and in St. Thomas with Volkswagen. I hope the member opposite who represents Oxford gets on board and supports that investment. It means tens of thousands of Canadians will be working, directly and indirectly, around this plant.

As we can see, there are so many new developments across growing clean industries at the moment. Canada is attracting billions of dollars of direct investment, and Canadian innovation is driving new opportunities. As we grow, we cannot allow a shortage of skills, training and tools to stop our workers from achieving their goals and reaching their full potential in building generational economic drivers. The sustainable jobs bill is fundamentally about supporting hard-working Canadian workers and their families in all 338 ridings that we represent, and ensuring that our and future governments will be accountable to deliver for these workers.

Clearly the Conservative opposition to the bill is founded either in opposition to workers or to accountability, or in being anti-union. Unfortunately I can confirm, based on their statements, that it is based on all of those scenarios. The legislation would ensure that workers have access to training programs, job opportunities and fair wages in the emerging low-carbon economy, as they rightfully should. Yet despite the clear benefits of the sustainable jobs bill, the opposition remains steadfast in its opposition. Its stance is not just completely divorced from reality but is also downright dangerous economically.

I love the 100,000 energy workers in this country who go to work every day. We are going to need them, and we are going to need the resources for years to come. However, we know that capital around the world is being placed in the renewable sector. We know that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are here to stay. We need to continue displacing forms of higher GHG-emitting sources with lower GHG-emitting sources. We will continue to do that.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will address the first point about this body that would be creating a framework or making decisions. Ninety-three per cent of Canadian oil and gas jobs are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. I mentioned that in my comments. Bill C-50 does not include or contemplate those businesses at all. I would ask the member to reconsider that.

The other thing I would point out to her about being left behind is that the NDP-Liberal coalition does not have an environmental plan. It has a tax plan. It continues to miss every target for reducing emissions, and that has been reported on by the environment commissioner. Under the government, which New Democrats support, Canada ranked 58th out of 63 countries in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the member is really concerned about being left behind, she will stop supporting the current Liberal government.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to stand in this place and participate in debates, it has become commonplace that we have to deal with bills put forward by the Liberal government that are typically ideologically driven, deeply flawed and divisive in nature.

Yesterday evening the government changed today's agenda and advised the House that we would be debating Bill C-50, dubbed “the Canadian sustainable jobs act”, at report stage today. For those watching, this means that the bill was tabled in the House and then debated at second reading, where it passed and was referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to be studied and amended, if necessary. It was necessary. More than 200 amendments were put forward.

First, the Liberals understood that their just transition bill needed to be rebranded so they renamed it, a rose by any other name.

This so-called sustainable jobs plan is just a renamed version of the Liberals' just transition plan, a plan mandated by the government to shut down the most productive sector of Canada's economy and a plan that Canadians opposed. It is just the latest attack, in a long line of attacks, on Canada's energy sector. For years, the government and its anti-energy policies and agenda have been driving investment away from Canada in both traditional and alternative energy.

Let us look at some facts. Canada's largest export sector is oil and gas extraction: 18.3%, or $116.8 billion, in 2021. The energy sector provides 10% of Canada’s GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. In 2021 alone, the energy sector generated $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. Of all private sector investment in clean technology, 75% comes from the oil and gas sector. Of Canadian-owned energy companies, 92.9% have fewer than 100 employees, and nearly two-thirds of those have fewer than five. As well, 2.7 million jobs across the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors, for an estimated average of $219 billion in average annual salaries, will face “significant labour market disruptions.”

If the bill passes, it would have a devastating effect on energy sector workers. It is beyond the pale that the government continues to introduce legislation that is divisive and disproportionally impacts certain regions. In my province of Saskatchewan alone, the bill would directly impact over 10,000 jobs and indirectly impact over 130,000 jobs. At a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables, the government is threatening their livelihoods.

The cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas industry should not be overlooked, and the impact on Canadian workers will be devastating. Staggering job losses were outlined in a memo for the Minister of Natural Resources on their just transition plan: 292,000 jobs in agriculture; 202,000 jobs in the energy sector; 193,000 jobs in manufacturing; 1,400,000 jobs in building; and 642,000 jobs in transportation. This is a grand total of 2,729,000 Canadian jobs, or 13.5% of Canada’s employment.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, life has never been so difficult for Canadians. His inflationary spending and ideologically driven taxes have created a broken economy, where businesses cannot survive and Canadians cannot find jobs. In its recently published labour force survey, Statistics Canada reported that Canada lost 2,200 jobs in March, as Canada's unemployment rate grew to 6.1% and as more Canadians competed for fewer jobs. At a time of high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, there is no relief from this NDP-Liberal coalition for struggling Canadians, and this is proof of that. There are just more ideologically driven, half-baked ideas to make Canadians poorer.

Instead of capitalizing on Canada’s greatest strength, our natural resources, the government seems intent to smother the oil and gas industry, ensuring it dies a slow death. The destruction of the oil and gas sector will cause significant damage to the economy. Despite the damage caused by the government over the last eight years, the oil and gas sector remains the largest private sector investor in Canada. This will lead to energy poverty for Canadians. As we will continue to need oil and gas for many years to come, we will need to import oil and gas from dictatorships around the world to meet the demands in Canada, driving up prices for Canadians.

We have watched as other countries have attempted to switch to solar or wind-based energy economies prematurely and have had to go back to importing oil, gas and coal because they shut down their other sources of energy when making the switch. The top-down plans of shutting down one of the largest, if not the largest, sectors of the Canadian economy will be a disaster for Canadians and will drive up the cost of everything, compounding the difficulties Canadians already face.

This bill, much like the carbon tax, is misguided. The government’s stated goal is to reduce emissions in Canada, which it asserts will reduce the number of extreme weather events. However, much like the bubble the government lives in here in Ottawa, ignorant of the struggles that Canadians across the country are facing due to its disastrous policies, it also believes that Canada operates in a bubble. It thinks that all we must do is reduce our emissions and the wildfires would disappear; there would be no more floods or any other adverse weather events. This kind of small thinking is why the government continues to put forward short-sighted and ham-fisted legislation that does more damage than good.

Canada can play a primary role on the world stage helping other countries to lower emissions, whether it be through providing new technology or Canadian oil and gas that is produced with fewer emissions and more ethically. Instead of trying to tax Canadians into submission, the government should be capitalizing on our unique circumstances, with our plentiful natural resources and state-of-the-art technology.

While the bill is foolhardy, it is not surprising that it is coming out of the most anti-energy government Canada has ever had. The Liberals are intent on suppressing the natural resources of Canada, one of our greatest strengths, and forcing Canadians out of the energy sector. The government would rather funnel billions of dollars to dictators to fund their authoritarian regimes than employ Canadians in a major sector of our economy with good-paying jobs that will boost the prosperity of our country and help all Canadians. It should be utilizing the brilliance of Canadians and their ingenuity.

Canadians deserve a government that understands the value of the natural resources that Canada has been blessed with and how to utilize them to increase the prosperity of our country and benefit all Canadians. Conservatives know that environmental stewardship must be addressed with realistic, concrete and effective measures. We believe in transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; led by the private sector, not government. Conservatives will bring home affordable, accessible traditional and alternative energy, accelerate approvals and put Canadian resources, innovation and workers first to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency.

I, together with my colleagues, cannot support a bill that will put hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work in the midst of a cost of living crisis the government has created. Canadians can be assured that the next Conservative government will support our energy sector and its workers, who do so much for the Canadian economy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, is the member not concerned about, or has she not been able to see, the government's internal memo during the discussions and consultations on the concept of the just transition? However, they are not on Bill C-50, because of course no Canadian will be heard on that.

Is she not concerned about the fact the government's own internal memo said that the result of Bill C-50 and the just transition would be the immediate elimination of 170,000 oil and gas jobs and the disruption of the livelihoods of 2.7 million other Canadians in energy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction and transportation? She is saying to me that is not what it would do, but the government's own internal memo says it would. The Liberals know that already. Is she not concerned about that?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be deeply concerned, since it is the province where oil and gas contributes the most to provincial GDP. Atlantic Canadians and Albertans sure are proud of having built each other's provinces together for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-50, after eight months of dealing with the bill in committee. I can tell the House that I have never seen such antics being played out by any opposition party on any legislation in my entire life as I have with the Conservatives on the sustainable jobs act, a bill that would do so much to help transition workers in this country at a time when they need it.

One would think that the Conservatives want no Canadians to have opportunities, nor for this country to be a leader in clean energy at home and around the world. We have potential here that very few countries have, which is to be able to develop a clean energy transition and a country that is allowing itself to provide for sustainable jobs today and into the future.

The member opposite talked about the cod moratorium. I lived through the cod moratorium; in fact, I was an employment counsellor who worked with people displaced in the fishing industry. One of the major setbacks was that there was no transition in jobs at that time. There was no plan by the Government of Canada, Progressive Conservative government, to help the thousands of people, including the 20,000 families in my own province, who were affected by the moratorium. They were left to their own devices. They were left to figure out where the next job was going to come from, where the next field of training was going to come from, their next career, and how they were going to feed their families.

Is that what the Conservatives are saying, that we should just let it happen in Canada, let everyone just figure this out and fend for themselves? I do not support that concept, because I have lived through it already once in my life. Let me tell the House this: In the absence of a transition plan for employment opportunities for workers in this country, many will fall through the cracks.

As for every labour union that came before the committee over the course of those months, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said best today, there were representatives of at least six unions who sat before us in the committee, where Conservative members did not allow them to present or speak, nor for the committee to question them.

Conservative members used every possible tactic they could, including bringing in 20,000 amendments to the bill, an 11-page bill, most of it containing standard clauses. The 20,000 amendments were generated not by the intelligence of Canadians but by AI, from a robotic system. That will tell us how connected they are to Canadians who are asking for the legislation and the transition to sustainable jobs.

The Conservatives know it well. They did not even take the time to actually do the research themselves to come up with amendments that would help strengthen the legislation, the opportunity for Canadians and the opportunities for workers. No, they pushed a few buttons on a computer and generated 20,000 amendments so they could stall the bill altogether at the committee stage. That will give us the level of intellect, interest and responsibility that they take—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is part of the problem. Government should not be deciding which jobs should and should not exist. That should be left to a space where the economy and industry get to work collaboratively to do that, but this is part of the problem. When the Green Party is trying to say to trust it that this is a nothing burger, that raises huge red flags to me because we have heard very clearly that this is a problem.

One of the big problems with Bill C-50, on top of every other big problem in the bill, is the fact that we have not heard from a single witness at committee, because they would just say that they had already studied this, possibly, so they are not going to bring in any witnesses. As such, we do not even know what the eco-activists think, and we do not know what the industry thinks because they have not actually had an opportunity to come before committee. That becomes a serious problem. As the Liberal government has done, time and time again, it has shirked its responsibility and has stepped on provincial jurisdiction, which means that, when and if the bill gets challenged to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court justices will not have expert witness testimony to help figure out what the intent of the government was, costing taxpayers valuable money and doing nothing.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-50 would really open up the potential of Canada's clean energy agenda. Those who cannot see that are stifling progress in this country. That is what I heard in the speech by the hon. member. Maybe she will agree with the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour or with the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said that in order to “shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs”, we need to have the sustainable jobs act.

People in her province are supporting this proposed act. Many companies are already transitioning. They are giving their workers the skills they need, and I ask the member—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, my family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad’s family moved to Fort McMurray in the 1970s to make a better life for themselves, and shortly after moving to Fort McMurray, my grandfather got a job at a place called Syncrude, working to build the extraction plant in anticipation of first oil. My dad, Gord, proudly worked at Syncrude, securing Canada’s energy future, for 42 years. He started in 1978 right after graduation and right before first oil, and he stayed until his retirement. He had three careers within that time: first as a machinist, as a process operator, and, finally, he found his passion in operations integrity and safety.

I eventually followed in my dad’s footsteps. Through university, I took summer student jobs at Syncrude, learning about extraction, maintenance, health and safety, governance, oil sands and so much more. After university, I started working at North American Construction Group in the mining division within the health and safety department. It was such a wonderful experience. I was able to work on so many different job sites throughout the region, wearing steel-toed boots and having dirty fingernails. I absolutely loved my time there.

I had a first-hand opportunity to see how seriously this industry took health and safety, environmental responsibilities and to see the role it played in not only Fort McMurray's and Alberta's economy but also the Canadian economy. I had the opportunity to meet thousands of hard-working, wonderful people from all across Canada and the world who decided to come to my hometown, to make it their hometown, to work in the oil sands and to make a better life for their families.

My community and the industry that drives it have been a beacon of hope for so many people for so long. In the eighties and the nineties, thousands of Atlantic Canadians flocked to Fort McMurray after the coal mines were shut down in Cape Breton and after the fisheries collapsed. Thousands of people came. They became my friends, my family and my neighbours. They are some of the most amazing people. However, they came to Fort McMurray not by choice, but because some government thought it knew best.

Now, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, my community is struggling. Eco-radicals now sit around a cabinet table and advocate against Canada’s world-class energy industry at every turn. They have made no attempt to even hide their distaste for oil and gas. The Prime Minister has stated on three separate occasions now that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. That is shameful.

The anti-energy agenda of the government has been consistent and punishing over the last eight years: anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions and, frankly, an outright veto of approved export pipelines. It has pushed forward with anti-energy legislation at every turn, including the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69. Despite universal provincial opposition, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Despite the fact that it did not have jurisdiction, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Frankly, the part that really hurts with that bill, particularly, is the Liberal government knew that if the oil could not be moved and was landlocked, it could not be produced. That was its sneaky way of shutting down oil without shutting down oil.

Canada should and could be the world’s energy producer and supplier of choice and could be the place of energy security and self-sufficiency. Canada could be completely energy self-sufficient if government could get out of the way. However, ut time and time again, the Liberals continue to put ideology and partisanship above supporting our economy or even reality. They have failed to understand that these are hard-working people. These are our neighbours, our friends, and they work hard every single day.

Politicians in this chamber do not mince their words when it comes to speaking in disdain of this industry. In fact, the member for Timmins—James Bay even went so far as to table legislation to make it illegal to say anything supportive of the oil and gas industry, including true and verifiable facts, which would be punishable by massive fines and up to and including jail time. In fact, if his bill were to pass, saying something that is true and verifiable, such as that natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, would be illegal.

That is insane, yet the NDP-Liberal coalition continues pushing its agenda and continues pushing forward with this bill. I have not heard any members from the Liberals or the NDP denounce this insane bill, Bill C-50, because they probably support it, and that is why we are so fearful of everything the government does when it comes to energy.

I wish politicians could simply be honest about the outcomes of their policies, not wordsmithing, not negotiating, and not transition while calling it somehow “just”. We need to accept in this chamber and across the country that Canadian oil and gas jobs are sustainable jobs.

The Liberal just transition is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill 170,000 Canadian jobs and risks the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians.

This bill, Bill C-50, is a step, actually more like a leap, toward Soviet-style government-central planning. That is exactly what this is going toward. The NDP-Liberal government claims to value Canadian oil and gas, and yet it wants to increase exports. However, after eight years, it has interfered to kill four pipelines, two of which were specifically designed to export off the west and the east coasts.

Do not worry; hope is on the horizon. Conservatives are going to do everything we can to push back against this legislation. The real solution is electing the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, as our next Prime Minister.

Conservatives would make traditional energy and the development of fuels of the future more affordable and accessible to Canadians. Conservatives would fix what the Liberals broke and would keep westerners, and all provinces, in control of their natural resources. We would respect provincial jurisdiction.

We will respect provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and in all other cases. It is absolutely essential that provincial jurisdiction over natural resources be respected.

Conservatives would bring approvals up and would bring costs and timelines down to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency and to increase exports to the world. We need technology, not taxes. We need to support an industry that supports this country.

As I described earlier, to so many Canadians, Fort McMurray was, at one point in time, a beacon of hope, prosperity and a fresh start. To the world's leading oil producers, we are a tough competitor that refuses to lie down, but for far too many elected officials across this country, we are simply a cash cow they can abuse.

To the fringe eco-activists, we are unfortunately the enemy, but to me, Fort McMurray has been, and always will be, home. I was born and raised here, and Conservatives of every stripe, federal, provincial and municipal, have always had our backs. They understand that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works.

I will not back down from all the politicians in this chamber who seek to land-lock and firewall our oil sands. Pipelines and energy corridors are items of critical national importance and interest for the long-term viability not only of northeastern Alberta but also of Canada and the world. I urge every member of this chamber to vote against this disastrous bill, Bill C-50.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.

On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I thank all members for their co-operation.

Carbon Pricing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act. The Royal Bank of Canada says there are 400,000 jobs that would come to Canadians if we were just to unlock the kind of prosperity envisaged in this very progressive piece of legislation. Instead, the Conservatives put forward 20,000 amendments generated by artificial intelligence. The robo-caucus needs to stop its robo-work with its robo-amendments and stop gatekeeping the opportunities that are coming to Canadians.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from the member for Timmins—James Bay. He speaks the real truth, and this is something I know Conservative members object to because facts are something they oppose. However, the reality is that the sustainable jobs act would lead to thousands and thousands of jobs, including new jobs in the energy sector. Coming from the energy sector, as a former refinery worker, I can say how important that is for Canadians.

The member for Timmins—James Bay has been a champion for sustainable jobs. He has met with a wide variety of workers right across the energy sector. At any point in all those meetings, did my colleague ever see a single Conservative MP actually consulting energy workers or actually speaking with energy workers? I know the Conservatives love to hobnob with oil and gas CEO's, but were they ever there with the workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority of members inside this chamber recognize the importance of Bill C-50 to Canadians as a whole.

What we have witnessed, once again, is the obstructive, destructive behaviour coming from the official opposition. We can highlight what took place in committee, where AI was used to generate 20,000-plus amendments. I am wondering if my colleague could share with me what he thinks about AI being used to generate a filibuster for the official opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day and a proud day. It is a day that we fulfill the promise to workers who came to us and said that they needed to have their voices heard in dealing with the biggest economic and environmental crisis of the last 300 years.

I think back seven years ago, in Edmonton, when I met with the incredible workers at Local 424 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. They had asked me to go to their plant and meet with them. They wanted to show me the incredible training they were doing for a clean-tech future. They said that the world was changing and they were not going to be left behind, that they had the skills to take on whatever. They also said, which I knew then and believe, that there was no place in the world that could move to a clean-energy economy quicker than Alberta, and these workers were at the front of the line in the training.

They asked me where the government was on this. They saw the future coming. That question has stayed with me ever since. In the seven years since, the climate crisis has become much more pronounced. We no longer talk about the summer, we talk about the fire season. Our national fire chiefs have talked about a ferocious fire season after last year, when 200,000 Canadians were forced from their homes because of the ongoing climate disaster due to increased burning of fossil fuels.

However, we also see how fast the transition is happening around the world. It is not a myth. It is not a lie. It is not, as the Conservatives claim, some kind of globalist woke conspiracy. It is a fact. When the market changes and we do not have a plan, it is heartbreaking.

I live in mining country. I remember when the market changed in iron ore prices. Kirkland Lake and my community of Cobalt were never the same again. I remember being on one of the last shifts underground at Stanleigh Mine in Elliot Lake when the uranium market fell. It did not matter how much one believed in disinformation or claimed there was a conspiracy, once it was gone, those jobs were gone forever.

We have lost 45,000 jobs in the oil sector, and those jobs are not coming back. We lost 1,500 jobs just this year. Richie Rich Kruger from Suncor told investors in his company, which was part of the group that made $78 billion in profits, that he was going to target work as a way to be more efficient. The billions of dollars they are making they are putting into automation. They are not putting it into communities or jobs. We are seeing a reality where there will be a drop in oil and gas jobs, we figure from 171,000 down to 100,000 by 2030. Therefore, we have to be prepared.

When we lost our mining economies in the north, there was no plan. There was no place where people could go, and it was devastating. We talk about a just transition. I always say it is a transition where I come from when we see U-Hauls on the lawns of our neighbours, who are leaving with no future.

The IBEW, the operating engineers, Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress came to us and said that there had to be a plan in place, otherwise we would miss the boat. The transition is happening. China put $890 billion into clean tech last year, more than the rest of the world combined. The result was that it pumped $1.6 trillion into its economy and brought it up 30% in a single year. It is moving ahead.

South of the border, Joe Biden's IRA has created 170,000 jobs and over half a trillion dollars in new investments. What we hear from the Conservatives now is that this is some kind of George Soros woke conspiracy that is being planned, a planned Soviet economy to destroy jobs. It was the workers themselves who came to us and said that we needed plan in place, that they did not want all those jobs going stateside.

Where are we in Canada? Danielle Smith blew $30 billion in clean-tech investments out of Alberta and said that they were not welcome. Why? It was just out of ideology. This is a province that was Canada's energy superpower and she cannot even keep the lights on in April. It is becoming Canada's banana republic for energy at a time when the climate crisis in Alberta is burning the fields. We are in fire season already and it does not have the water. We have never heard a single Alberta Conservative ever talk about the drought that is hitting due to the climate crisis. We need to take action.

It is a reasonable step that we are talking about. We need to ensure this transition happens, and, for my Liberal colleagues, that plan is not moving fast enough. We have to keep up and we have to be competitive, but we need to have workers at the table. They have a right to be at the table, because decisions will be made. It could be pork barrel, misspending or it could be a plan that ensures we build on the strengths of the workers we have and our incredible resources.

It is amazing. The other day the leader of the Conservative Party was asked about his opinion on the industrial carbon tax, and of course after having belittled the member for Victoria, which is very much in keeping with his style, he claimed there was no industrial carbon tax. It is a falsehood.

We have this funny tradition in Parliament. One can come into the House and lie all day long, but one can never be accused of being a liar because one is supposed to be an honourable member. The fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is making disinformation about the industrial price of carbon is a concern. Maybe he just does not know his file, but I do not think that is the case.

The Conservatives this morning, with some of the numbers they were talking about, were trying to claim that Bill C-50 is some kind of plot. They were saying that there were 1.4 million jobs, 170,000 jobs and 200-some thousand jobs that would immediately disappear if this happened. One can only make ridiculous claims like that if one deliberately shuts down the voices of the people who came to testify.

What happens when legislation is brought forward, and it can be good or bad and can be amended, is that we hear from the witnesses. Who were the witnesses who were not allowed to speak? The Conservatives did not allow the IBEW to speak. They did not let the carpenters union speak. They shut them down. It was the New Democrats who brought the people who have gone through the coal transition, and the Conservatives did not give a darn about those workers in the coal transition. They did not want to hear them. They did not want to hear anyone from Unifor. Those are the people who are working in the EV technologies. They shut them down and would not let them speak. They did not want the Alberta Federation of Labour to speak.

They did not want that, because if they let people speak who actually speak the truth, then disinformation falls by the side of the road. They cannot then walk around with claims of conspiracy and idiocy if there are people who say something is simply not true.

When one says to Conservatives something is simply not true, they really lose their minds. Look at the Conservative leader and his support from Alex Jones. Alex Jones is an absolute hate-monger. This is a man who taunted the families of 20 children who were murdered by an evil conspiracy hater. Alex Jones was on the John Birch Society podcast, which is another hate site, bragging about the member who lives in Stornoway. Does anyone think he was going to challenge that? Not a chance.

However, I challenged Alex Jones, and within an hour, photos of my daughters were online with their addresses. We know how the hate machine works. It is the politics of intimidation. When I take on the member for Carleton for not even bothering to show up for the election he is threatening to call, boy oh boy, within an hour their hate memes are going through my riding to call me and threaten me.

What Conservatives wanted to do was shut down Bill C-50. When they brought forward the amendments, most of which had to be generated by AI because I do not think the Conservatives were smart enough to actually bring them forward, we had to sit through hours with them screaming. They screamed for eight hours of intimidation. It was like gong-show Brownshirts. In all my career, I have never seen such deplorable and disgraceful behaviour.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. I want to talk about something that is critically important, and that is the transition to a low-carbon economy.

We live in an era where climate change is an existential threat to our planet and to future generations. I would also like to talk about the fact that, during the study at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the Liberals opted to impose a gag order rather than vote on the Bloc Québécois amendments. The government chose to ignore Quebec, even though the Bloc Québécois was proposing a simple solution that would allow everyone to move forward toward a real just transition.

In Quebec, the transition toward a low-carbon economy has been a major concern for several years because of the importance of our natural resources and our energy industry, as well as our awareness of the need to protect the environment. Quebec can accomplish this green transition because it made choices that ensure a wealth of renewable energies and natural resources.

In Quebec, as in Canada, this green transition must take into account the rights and needs of indigenous peoples to ensure a fair and inclusive transition. To successfully carry out this huge transformation, the federal government needs to fully support Quebec’s green expertise and innovation in such areas as the electrification of transportation, the production of carbon-free aluminum, forestry processing and environmentally responsible mining.

We are talking about a just transition. That is evident in how we operate mines in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, because things have changed. Mining companies are evolving. Our regional businesses are innovating. They are going above and beyond. Abitibi-Témiscamingue’s expertise is being exported around the world. We even have a joke back home that may well be true. It is said that there is probably someone from Abitibi-Témiscamingue in every mine in the world, given how much the people from the region have contributed, through their expertise, to building those mines throughout history.

Our post-secondary educational institutions, like the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue and the Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP, continue to conduct research in every area, including social licence, greener mining and better ore processing procedures. These are examples of jobs in a just transition.

Abitibi-Témiscamingue is ready, and so is Quebec. We have all the assets we need to become the green transition’s North American hub. This is a fact that the federal government should recognize and actively support.

The amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources sought to ensure that the bill would create high-quality job opportunities in low-carbon, high-value-added industries by 2050—while respecting the Canada-Quebec agreements on workforce development and Quebec’s legislative authority, of course.

However, with their gag order, the Liberals said no to the Bloc Québécois and to Quebec. What did they say no to, exactly? The Liberals refuse to recognize the Quebec government’s leading role in workforce development and the key role of the network of labour market partners within the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail.

The Liberals refuse to have the minister use an adapted approach that takes into account the expertise and responsibilities of Quebec’s Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. The Liberals refuse to have the bill apply in a manner consistent with the Canada-Quebec workforce development agreements.

By imposing a gag order, the government has also rejected all the Bloc Québécois’s amendments that were based on suggestions by unions and environmental groups aimed at improving this bill. The Liberals refused to adopt a clear definition of net-zero economy that would be in line with Canada’s international commitments and would make the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act consistent with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

The Liberals refused to adopt a clear definition of sustainable or green jobs, running the risk that the government’s strategy will move Canada farther away from its climate objectives. The Liberals refused to recognize that transitioning to a net-zero economy does not rely solely on job creation by the federal government, but on the actions of all governments and on the mobilization of workers, communities, industries and civil society. They refuse to co-operate with all the partners to plan for sustainable jobs and for the transition to a zero-emissions economy. The Liberals refuse to adopt appropriate principles to effectively guide green job creation and the transition to a net-zero economy or to take into account objectives involving economic, social and climate factors.

In creating their sustainable jobs council, the Liberals are refusing to take account of such factors as scientific knowledge, expertise and experience in the climate field. The Liberals refuse to add substance to their sustainable jobs plan and ensure it articulates a vision and objectives for implementing the energy transition and helping achieve net-zero. They refuse to equip the secretariat they are creating with the necessary means to oversee the implementation of the energy transition and coordinate sustainable job creation efforts. Lastly, the Liberals have rejected a number of measures aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability within their future sustainable jobs council.

We could say that Bill C-50 was problematic from the time it was first drafted, because it does not respect Quebec’s jurisdiction or the expertise of the Commision des partenaires du marché du travail du Québec.

Moreover, like it or not, the international climate agreements set ambitious targets for achieving net-zero emissions to encourage governments and businesses to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. The gradual shift away from conventional carbon-based energy sources is increasing demand for alternatives, such as solar, wind and geothermal energy and energy storage technologies. A just transition involves respecting indigenous peoples' right to manage their resources and territories. Free and informed consent is crucial for guaranteeing their informed participation in decision-making. Indigenous people are bearing the brunt of climate change, and their knowledge needs to be incorporated into climate change policies and legislation. It is too bad that, despite increased awareness of indigenous realities, we are still managing to ignore calls for action on the environment.

It is extremely important to recognize that the Earth does not belong to us. I want to remind every member of the House that we have a duty to protect the planet, preserve its biodiversity and reduce our environmental footprint. This also involves respecting the rights of the people who live in Quebec, including indigenous peoples, who have deep ancestral ties to their land. By adopting an attitude of respect and responsibility toward the Earth, we can contribute to building a sustainable future for all.

Last summer's forest fires raised serious concerns in my riding, so I am obviously worried about the people in the villages in my region and for the indigenous communities that were evacuated. I had hoped that the sheer extent of the forest fires and the forecast of another dry summer this year would get the members of the House to wake up. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I met with people who experienced tragedy last summer. I had hoped that my colleagues would support the Bloc Québécois, whose amendments were intended to recognize elements that would make it possible to take action while taking into account Quebec's specific characteristics and, more importantly, the need for greater coordination.

Paradoxically, Canada is moving in one direction while sabotaging its own efforts in another. On the one hand, it is flaunting its commitment to becoming a net-zero country, reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change. On the other, it is putting more money than ever into oil sands extraction, an activity known for having a large carbon footprint and disastrous environmental effects. This two-faced approach raises questions as to whether Canada's climate change policies are consistent with its actions and highlights the challenges facing this country in its transition to a greener, more environmentally responsible economy.

According to the Canada Energy Regulator, Canadian crude oil production has grown considerably over the last 30 years, from 1.7 million barrels per day in 1990 to 4.7 million barrels per day in 2019. In the span of 30 years, we have upped daily production by three million barrels. It is clear that Canada has failed to walk the talk. That is why Canada has one of the worst records in the world in combatting greenhouse gas emissions.

All of us here can support legislation announcing measures to mitigate the harmful effects of this increased oil production and to create a sustainable future for all. If we want to talk about a just transition, we must also talk about a paradigm shift in the transport sector. This involves the various regions but was not taken into account when this bill was drafted.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Greens for being honest about this bill. I would invite the member to expand, if he wants, on his thoughts.

There was a previous just transition study, and the Liberals and the NDP changed the name of it at the last minute. However, as the member pointed out, the bill would not deliver any jobs or skills training programs, particularly.

The member brought up the issue of trust, which is paramount, and it is certainly what Conservatives tried to embed in the legislation through our amendments. The Liberals even rejected a Conservative amendment that called for a fair and equitable approach specifically to ensure social support.

The truth is that polls show that Conservatives do not know what the just transition is, but once they find out, they do not want it, they cannot afford it, they do not want new taxes to pay for it, and they want bigger polluters around the world to take action before Canadians are punished and it costs them even more.

It would be great if the member would also recognize the fact that on Bill C-50, the legislation itself, because of the procedural tactics from the Liberals and NDP, not a single Canadian impacted by it will actually be able to be heard by members of Parliament.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as every member of the House should know, we are in a climate crisis, with a closing window of opportunity to act. I will share the words of the UN Secretary General about this: “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” He also says, “We are in the fight of our lives. And we are losing....our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible....The global climate fight will be won or lost in this crucial decade – on our watch.”

In the face of this crisis, as Greens, we are deeply concerned that the so-called Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, remains a massive missed opportunity and an example of checkbox politics rather than substance. This is about checking a partial box from the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. There are some members of the House who decry the bill as central planning and destroying the economy of Western Canada, but none of this is true.

I have the bill here and will share what it would actually do. In fact, it would do three things. First, it would create a group to give the minister advice, which would be called the sustainable jobs partnership council. Second, the bill would require a sustainable jobs action plan. As of the current version of the bill, this would be required by December 31, 2040. As Greens, we are glad the government has proposed amendments to bring the plan sooner. We have put forward an amendment to bring it forward as soon as possible; we have suggested December 31 of this year. Again, we are in a crisis that demands urgent action. Third, the bill would create a sustainable jobs secretariat to help the minister implement this act. That is it. In the words of public policy researcher and author Seth Klein, it is “a snoozer”.

There is actually nothing on the words “just transition”, which were long forgotten by the time we moved from the supply and confidence agreement to the bill. They are words that are a key principle of the Paris Agreement. Unions fought for the words “just transition” to be in the Paris Agreement; workers across this country advocated for that to be the case. There is nothing in the bill about meaningful investments in truly sustainable jobs, such as a just transition transfer that could be linked to climate infrastructure projects with training and apprenticeships, in the same way that we already have a Canada health transfer. There is nothing on provincial and territorial just transition agencies to ensure that the funds flow to affected workers.

There is nothing on a youth climate corps, a federally funded job training and placement program that already exists in other jurisdictions that could ensure that young people know there will be good, green jobs available to them in the economy in the years to come, as the MP for Victoria has proposed a motion for. There is nothing on investments in training and apprenticeships in the skilled trades, including the carpenters, electricians and plumbers we will need to support as we move to retrofit buildings across the country: homes, businesses and industrial buildings. These are good, well-paying jobs that the bill could have been investing in.

There is nothing in the bill that talks about the coal workers that the government consulted with in 2018, made promises to and has since provided no support to for things like job retraining that were promised to them. There is nothing in the bill with respect to Bloc and Green amendments at committee. Of course there were various partisan tactics that led to that not getting debated. However, when it came to the actual vote, none of those were accepted to be in the bill.

There is also nothing in the bill when it comes to actually investing in the economy of the future. As Greens, we have been putting forward that it is well past time that we put in place a windfall profit tax on the oil and gas industry. This is a measure that has already been taken by the government when it comes to banks and life insurance companies. It would be just a 15% tax on profits over $1 billion.

The largest oil and gas companies in the country, the most recent year we have numbers for, made $36 billion in profits. If we are going to put in place even a 15% windfall profit tax on profits over $1 billion, we would have $4.2 billion that could be invested in affordability measures for Canadians. It could be invested in workers who need that support, like some of the measures I mentioned earlier, or in apprenticeships and job retraining. Those are the investments we could be making. It is important that we point to revenue tools along with the measures that could have been in this bill, but none of it was.

Again, we are talking about three measures to put in place a council, an action plan and a secretariat. We are facing a climate emergency and are at a time when workers across the country, many of whom are anxious, recognize that they deserve supports. This was the moment to do it. This legislation was an opportunity to demonstrate to them that they were being listened to, unlike coal workers from 2018, and to build trust with them. It is why we will continue to advocate for better.

I encourage Liberals to read A Good War by Mr. Klein. I would encourage them to act like they understand the crisis we are in. The fact is that this remains a unique moment in time, one where we can stand up and say it is possible for us to hold onto 1.5ºC. It is possible to speak to young people today, recognizing the enormity of the challenge we face, and say that their government could take action at federal, provincial and municipal levels to invest in good jobs for them in the future and to take action while we still can, yet that is not what is here.

We will continue to advocate for better. We are going to work with all parties that are willing to do so. I will point out again that the Bloc proposed amendments that would have improved this bill, just as Greens did. We brought more forward at report stage to continue that advocacy. We will continue to do so, because we recognize that we are living in a unique moment, one where we still have this opportunity to act. We encourage the government to take it.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister was not on the committee, I appreciate his commendation of his cohorts for colluding in the costly coalition cover-up. The Liberal members of his party rejected a Bloc Québécois motion that would have ensured that Bill C-50 supported “the decarbonization of workplaces while preserving existing jobs, minimizing job losses, and encouraging the involvement of workers and trade unions in the associated transition processes”. How can he possibly rationalize that?

This is an important question, because in the Canadian energy sector, more than 90% of energy companies are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. In Bill C-50, the just transition actually does not contemplate those workers at all. We supported that Bloc amendment; the Bloc and the Green Party are the only parties being honest about the agenda that is actually included in Bill C-50, instead of pretending that it is about skills and jobs-training programs.

That amendment, as well as all the Conservative amendments, were the only measures that would have included provinces, territories and indigenous governance bodies for consultation and collaboration under the central plans by all the secret government committees that would stem from Bill C-50. How on earth can the minister defend Liberal members for rejecting these amendments?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to a vital piece of legislation, the Canadian sustainable jobs act.

To set the context, climate change is altering our world's natural environment in numerous harmful ways. In fact, last summer, Canadians experienced the worst wildfire season on record, destroying homes and livelihoods, blanketing cities and towns in smoke and putting brave first responders in harm's way. While some political leaders choose to deny, deflect and downplay such events, Canadians know the facts: Our planet is burning up, and climate change is the cause.

At the same time, climate change is also rapidly transforming the global economy and finance in ways that are creating enormous economic opportunities for those who approach the shift to a low-carbon world in a thoughtful, determined and strategic manner. The global energy transition that is already well under way is both an environmental imperative to protect the planet for our children and an economic opportunity on a scale similar to that of the Industrial Revolution.

In releasing “World Energy Outlook 2023”, Dr. Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, stated, “The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it’s unstoppable. It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’”.

The majority of Canadians are indeed concerned about climate change, but they are also concerned about their economic situation, and they want good jobs and economic opportunities for themselves and their children in the future.

In order for Canada to seize the extraordinary opportunities offered by the transition to a net-zero economy, we must accept the scientific reality of climate change and ensure that it informs and shapes Canada's economic strategy.

Since 2015, the federal government has committed almost $200 billion to the fight against climate change and to accelerating the development of a prosperous low-carbon economy. This includes the nearly $86 billion that last year's budget committed for tools, including major investment tax credits, to accelerate clean growth and ensure Canadian competitiveness; we are seeing significant progress from these investments right across the country.

In Newfoundland, Braya Renewable Fuels is converting its refinery to renewable diesel. In Nova Scotia, EverWind Fuels recently received approval to build North America's first facility to produce hydrogen from renewables.

In Quebec, progress was made on new lithium mines and the announcement of TES Canada's $4-billion hydrogen project.

In Ontario, we are seeing massive investments in the entirety of the electric vehicle value chain. In Saskatchewan, BHP is constructing the largest potash mine with the lowest emissions in the world. Companies in Alberta are developing net-zero and low-carbon industrial facilities, including Air Products' clean hydrogen facility and Dow's recently announced $12-billion net-zero petrochemical facility. In B.C., the recently announced $1-billion investment in the E-One Moli battery facility will create almost 500 jobs and will generate further employment in upstream activities.

To date, we have invested over $1.5 billion in measures for skills programming, supporting communities and industries across the country. The sustainable jobs action plan and the sustainable jobs act are both about creating low-carbon economic opportunities in all regions of the country that will create jobs and opportunities for generations. They are about ensuring that we prepare workers and communities to fully seize these opportunities.

As far as this piece of legislation is concerned, there are five key elements.

Firstly, the bill establishes guiding principles that ensure workers are at the heart of building a net-zero future. The original bill was enhanced by an amendment to include additional considerations of environmental sustainability and equity. This amendment ensures alignment with commitments made under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan.

Secondly, the bill would create a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of Canadians from sectors involved in the shift to a net-zero economy. This part of the bill reflects a tripartite-plus approach, ensuring dialogue among industry, labour, indigenous and other experts in policy-making. Amendments to the original bill provide further clarity about the exact composition of the council, as well as the co-chair and member appointments. This council would provide valuable advice to the Government of Canada, sourced, in part, from dialogues engaged in across the country, ensuring diverse and well-informed perspectives to shape policy recommendations.

Thirdly, accountability is reinforced by the requirement to publish action plans every five years. Amendments to the original bill in this section will ensure that areas of federal-provincial co-operation are taken into account in the development of action plans. The amendments will also ensure that analyses are regularly conducted to assess how action plan measures interact with those of Canada's emissions reduction plan.

Fourthly, this bill would establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to coordinate intergovernmental efforts and enforce compliance with the acts.

Finally, the bill designates the ministers responsible for implementing the act and the plan.

Overall, the amendments being made to this bill are the product of work by committee members, very much including Liberal and NDP members, with some helpful assistance from the member for Jonquière. I would like to specifically thank my Liberal colleagues, the members for Toronto—Danforth, Calgary Skyview, Cloverdale—Langley City, Sudbury, Vaughan—Woodbridge, Nickel Belt and Labrador, for their hard work and dedication. I must also say it has been a pleasure working with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, whose passion for this work is a strong example of the dedication he has brought to two decades of service to his constituents. He will be missed in the House of Commons.

The amendments noted would enhance legislated transparency, ensure effective representation on the partnership council, secure strong linkage to the climate accountability legislation and emphasize the pivotal role of provinces, territories and other levels of government as key partners in advancing sustainable job opportunities. This bill has gained strong support on the part of the labour movement and civil society. I want to thank leaders in the labour movement, and Bea Bruske in particular, for their strong and active support.

This legislation underscores the government's commitment to working collaboratively and thoughtfully to advance the prosperity and well-being of all regions of Canada, of all communities and of all workers as we look to seize the massive economic opportunities before us.

The fact of the matter is that this legislation represents a thoughtful approach to the future. It has been supported by Clean Energy Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Business Council of Alberta, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Climate Action Network, Electricity Human Resources Canada, the United Steelworkers, Environmental Defence, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Pembina Institute, the Power Workers' Union and many more.

Unfortunately, Conservatives' contempt for Canadian workers led them to engage in months of shenanigans in committee that I could only characterize as legislative vandalism. The fact is that not only has the opposition's obstructionism been a roadblock to environmental progress, but it also represents a direct attack on our economy and the livelihoods and prospects for generations of Canadian workers. In order to keep workers from the decision-making table, the Conservative Party submitted over 20,000 amendments on an 11-page bill.

I repeat, the Conservative Party of Canada submitted more than 20,000 amendments to an 11-page bill. Canadians expect better. They expect us to take this work seriously, to look at the bill first and to speak to the substance of the bill, even if we disagree. With their stunts, the Conservatives have proven that they have no interest in dialogue or serious governance issues.

They have been busy dog whistling about globalist plots and are increasingly denying the reality of climate change while they neglect their responsibility as parliamentarians, which is to act in the interest of the long-term prosperity of Canadians. For too long, the opposition has put the interests of an extreme climate-denying fringe above the well-being of our planet and of Canadian workers.

As we work to build a thriving, dynamic and prosperous low-carbon economy, we must ensure Canadian communities and Canadian workers remain at the centre of this critical work. That is precisely what this legislation would do. I implore all parliamentarians to stand with Canadian workers, who are calling on us to support Bill C-50.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege today to rise to speak to Bill C-50. I have spoken to it before. As well, I sit on the natural resources committee, and this is a bill that we studied. We heard a lot of testimony from different folks with all aspects of concern for and support of the bill. I plan to use my time this afternoon to make my case as to why this legislation is bad for Canadians and show the correlation between this bill and the carbon tax.

I will address the legislation directly, but I will take a bit of a roundabout way to get there, so I ask for the Chair's indulgence to do that.

Only the Liberal government would have the audacity to put forward this piece of legislation and call it a “sustainable jobs” plan. Bill C-50 is simply a rebranding of the Liberals’ so-called “just transition”, a plan that would shut down Canada’s energy sector and move to what they claim will be a more green, sustainable and just economy.

The Liberals could not sell it under that name. Nobody was buying it. Now, just like a shifty used car salesman, they have slipped on a new coat of paint and jacked up the price. It seems that the Liberals’ new approach to legislation is to title their bills to say the exact opposite of what they are actually going to do because, to date, the government has failed spectacularly at meeting one single environmental target.

The Liberals love to talk about the environment, but their first act in office was to authorize the City of Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. I think most Canadians would call that making pollution free again. Their promise to plant two billion trees never materialized. The said it would be two billion tree over 10 years. They have now had eight years. The time is nearly up, yet how many have they managed to plant? What percentage of those trees are in the ground after eight years? It is 0.05 of 1%, which is not even 1%.

They keep talking about net zero, and it is all over this bill, but the government has yet to meet a single emissions reduction target. It keeps upping what it says it will achieve, when it has not met a single target of it should have achieved.

Again, the government talks a big game, but it does not execute. Across the board, whether it is the economy, immigration, getting a passport or something as simple as sticking a sapling in the ground, it just cannot get the job done.

If we are going to talk about the environment failures, we need look no further than the carbon tax. The Liberal, NDP, and now the Bloc, carbon tax continues to drive inflation and drive up the cost of living for struggling Canadians because the carbon tax is a tax on everything.

The only thing, it seems, that remains unaffected by the Prime Minister’s beloved carbon tax is the environment. That the carbon tax has made little to no difference to the environment should not surprise us. The whole thing is a scam. It is another smoke-and-mirrors sales job, just like its “just transition” to cover up the government’s actual goal, which is its real agenda, the one thing that it has so far been successful at achieving, which is the redistribution of wealth.

That is what the carbon tax is all about. It is what a significant portion of its COVID policies were all about, and that is what this legislation is about. It is a classical Marxist redistribution of wealth.

Members can remember that day a while back when the Minister of the Environment got up in the House to proudly proclaim that he was a socialist, and all the Liberals around him applauded.

It was shocking, not just because of the dark and bloody history associated with such regimes, but also because a Liberal minister actually got up and told the truth about what they were doing. That is what this legislation is about. It is about the government picking winners and losers based on a warped ideology and redistributing wealth and opportunity to those it deems worthy. As retired General Rick Hillier put it just this week, “Ideology masking as leadership killed the Canadian dream.”

Before they start to claim that this is some far right MAGA conspiracy, I would point my colleagues to an excellent article written by Dr. Vijay Kolinjivadi. He is a post-doctoral fellow at the Institute of Development Policy at the University of Antwerp, an expert in the social and economic ramifications of climate change. Dr. Kolinjivadi is a firm believer that climate change is an existential threat. He says that we western governments are “'greening' ourselves to extinction”.

What Dr. Kolinjivadi means by that, and he makes a very convincing case for it, is that the so-called green policies of this and other western governments, or what he calls “fake” solutions, not only do nothing to stop climate change but are in fact a smoke-and-mirrors job to help governments and wealthy investors get even richer off the backs of the middle class and the poorest, most vulnerable, people on our planet. That is what he meant when he said that we are “'greening' ourselves to extinction.”

He is not alone. There is a growing recognition across the political spectrum that what these governments are doing, what our government is doing with these policies, is about wealth redistribution and not the environment. How do they do it? They do it by destroying the middle class. How did they do that? Members can look no further than the effect its COVID and environmental policies have had on our economy in just the last three years.

Can Canadians, particularly those would be the most affected by this legislation, Bill C-50, trust the Liberal government to transition them in a just and sustainable way? I think not, but I like to judge a person by what they do and not what they say. That brings me back to the carbon tax.

Let us look at the three main government talking points about the carbon tax. The first is that the carbon tax is putting a price on pollution. This is false. Eight billion litres of raw sewage went into the St. Lawrence River, and there was no price on pollution there. The carbon tax has made no demonstrable change to emissions, and no targets have been met, nor will they be, at least not from the carbon tax.

Those on the political left say that the tax is too low to force people to modify their behaviour. They complain that it leaves exemptions for large emitters, which it does. Those on the right are equally correct that taxing carbon in Canada is virtue signalling at best as Canada accounts for a mere 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that, if we were to shut down every single carbon-producing thing here in Canada, shut our whole economy down, we would make a whopping difference of 1.5% globally. In questioning the sanity of ignoring actual pollution while taxing a life-enhancing element of the very air we breathe, now, with Bill C-50, Liberals want to spend billions more of taxpayers' dollars to shut down not only the largest private sector driver of our economy but also the largest private sector driver of green and renewable technology as well.

The second talking point is that eight out of 10 Canadian families will receive more money back in rebates than they paid into it. That is false. Rex Murphy pointed out, in his excellent piece in the National Post:

Name a tax that makes the taxpayer richer. What a strange incentive that would be. Half of Canada would be upping the thermostat, putting the air conditioner on in winter, and driving day and night to burn up oil and gas so that they could get more back than they put in.

As the PBO has made clear, one is not getting more money back, and hardly anyone is. In fact, by the time the tax is fully implemented in 2030, eight out of 10 households will pay exponentially more, which is a fact even our proud socialist environment minister has admitted to. No tax makes the taxpayer richer. It only makes the government richer, which leads to the third claim.

The third talking point the Liberals have about the carbon tax is that it is revenue-neutral. This is false. Even if we were to believe the principle that the taxes collected all go toward rebates, which makes no sense, the Liberals are charging GST on top of the carbon tax, and that goes directly into the government’s coffers. We have learned recently that it is holding back billions of dollars collected by the GST on the carbon tax.

All three talking points are demonstrably false. By the way, the Liberals love to repeat their talking points, but one we have not heard in a while is that they are supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it. I guess that has changed.

However, what is true is that this tax, like so many others, is costing Canadians more money at a time when most cannot afford it, and despite its obvious failures, the Liberals continue to double down on this failed policy. Why is that? It is because it is successful in one metric, and one metric only, which is the redistribution of wealth.

It is to the destruction of the middle class to make more money for billionaires and Liberal insiders and to force more everyday Canadians into total reliance on government. This bill, Bill C-50, would do the exact same thing. It is just the next step in the plan. The Liberals’ so-called sustainable jobs plan would actually kill 170,000 Canadian middle-class jobs, displace 450,000 middle-class workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians.

In short, the Liberal government's just transition is anything but just, and its sustainable jobs plan is anything but sustainable. When those jobs have gone, as they were during COVID, when everyone but the giant billionaire chains were shut down, where else will people turn to but the government?

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-50, which can be summed up in one short sentence: It is an act to promote Liberal friends to fancy boards and to destroy the economy of western Canada. There is an obsession by this radical socialist environment minister to push his not-so-hidden agenda on Canadians, to wipe oil and gas production off the face of the earth and ensure that we all live in energy poverty.

If members do not believe me, they can listen to his own comments. He said that fossil fuels must be phased out by 2050, and even earlier if possible.

Let us contrast that statement with some comments from Japan’s ambassador to Canada about the role we could be playing in the world’s future energy mix, in particular when it comes to LNG: “The world is waiting for Canada...Canada can and should play a very important role to support the energy situation not only in Japan and South Korea, but the world.”

When it comes to Canada, we are the closest market to Japan and South Korea that could be providers of clean, sustainable and affordable LNG. Canada has a natural advantage in producing LNG, because of the naturally colder climate that we have for more than half of the year. Japan and South Korea are trying to find ways to avoid being energy-dependent on nefarious players like the Communist regime in Beijing. As the Japanese ambassador said, we have an important role to play, but the world is still waiting.

Look around the rest of the world, and we can see what other options there are available to us for selling our LNG. Last year, we saw Germany, Italy and France sign long-term LNG supply agreements with Qatar, but only after they came to Canada asking us to be their provider of choice. They came to us because they did not want to go to a country with a deplorable human rights record, like Qatar. They did not want to go to a country that is housing the leaders of Hamas, but, because of the minister’s blind and radical loathing of our world-class energy sector, he said no. The Liberals left those countries with no choice but to basically support the enemies of one of our most important allies, Israel, and in February it was announced that India and Bangladesh are signing agreements, and so has a Chinese company as well.

It is a shame, because if we look at the way the world is right now, there is both a moral case and a business case for producing and exporting Canadian energy, in particular our LNG, but the Liberal government does not get it. We have a radical environment minister and his incompetent Prime Minister, who apparently would rather see energy deals go to a country that houses the head of Hamas than to Canada, with our high standards for things like human rights, high regulatory standards and an abundance of supply.

How does that make any sense?

When the government stands against Canadian energy, we are not doing the world any favours. At the same time, it also hurts a lot of people in our own country, who benefit from having a successful energy industry here at home. There are so many communities that rely on the oil and gas industry for their survival. It is the industry that keeps the lights on at the hockey rink, at the community centre and at the seniors centre, and that pays the royalties and taxes that are needed to invest in things like hospitals, schools, libraries and emergency services.

Here in Ottawa, if we walk down the street across from Parliament, there is a good example of two different billboards, one after the other, that highlight the social benefits of the oil and gas sector. The first billboard says that Canada needs a fully funded Canada disability benefit. The second billboard is a message from Canada Action, and it says, “As Long As The World Needs Oil & Natural Gas Shouldn't It Be Canadian?”

Why are those two billboards related? It is because the royalties and the tax dollars that are raised when the energy sector is going strong fill the government coffers with the necessary money to invest in those types of social programs. They cannot exist or succeed in the first place without generating a significant amount of revenue from our energy sector.

As much as the NDP-Liberals keep trying, we cannot get away with spending money that we do not have. Sooner or later, it runs out, and bad things start to happen, like some of what we are seeing now with inflation. As we know, the Prime Minister does not have the type of common sense or self-control as the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, to be able to implement a one-for-one policy, whereby for every new dollar of spending the government has to find a dollar of savings.

As such, when the government sets out to destroy the very industry that massively funds government programs and the equalization payments that prop up Quebec, everyone loses. That includes indigenous communities as well.

Natural Law Energy is a company made up of a group of first nations in Saskatchewan and Alberta. They wanted to invest in the Keystone XL pipeline expansion so they could increase their cash flow, which would support their people. It would have been a great opportunity for economic reconciliation. Do members remember when the Prime Minister claimed that no relationship was more important to him than the one with first nations? Apparently, he said that for his own political gain, because once he had a chance to put his words into action, he was nowhere to be found, other than to say that, no, they do not get to participate in the economy or have any economic self-determination and reconciliation.

Then there are the thousands of jobs and economic spinoffs that come from having a robust oil and gas sector in an area. There was a local news headline in my riding recently that read “April Oil and Gas Public Offering Shows Kindersley Area Generated $234,074.68 in Revenue”. That is just from one public offering. It does not include all the wages of workers in the area or the money they are spending in their community.

This past winter was like every other winter across the Prairies, and we had some strong cold snaps. More urgently, there was a period of time when Alberta was sending warnings to its people to reduce their power consumption to avoid rolling blackouts during peak times when the temperature was in the -40°C range.

How could this happen to a province like Alberta? It had an NDP government that drank the same Kool-Aid as the radical environment minister and decided to close down the reliable, affordable baseload power and replace it with expensive, intermittent wind and solar power. The irony is that it was not due to a lack of wind. There is enough wind most days to produce power. The issue was that it was so cold that it was not safe for the turbines to operate. I have actually worked in the wind industry, and I know that actually happens, because it happened all the time on the wind farm I worked at. Quite often, in the winter, it was also overcast, and the days are short, so there was next to no solar capacity that was actually available. The previous NDP government in Alberta literally almost killed people because of its radical ideology.

Thank God that Saskatchewan had the ability and the capacity to fire up Boundary Dam Unit 4 to be able to help provide power to our neighbours. Thank God that our province has invested in natural gas power stations like the Chinook Power Station in Swift Current, which can provide the equivalent baseload power to hundreds of thousands of homes. If the Liberals’ radical agenda is allowed to proceed, this is only going to be the beginning, and this is just a snapshot of what we can expect. The Liberals have this idea that any new natural gas has to be phased out by 2035 too, if not sooner.

I met with some of the turbine suppliers, and they were willing to tell me some of the timelines to get the parts needed to build a plant now. In some cases it might take up to 10 years to get all the parts they need to build a power plant. It is the same story about trying to procure solar panels and wind turbine equipment, because there is minimal manufacturing in North America for that equipment and that industry as well. However, in order to comply with the regulations that the government is rolling out, they have to be in operation before 2035. Simply ordering the power plant prior to the deadline is not good enough. Canadians are at serious risk of being plunged into widespread energy poverty, but the Liberals know that. The regulations that are published in the Canada Gazette told us that the people most at risk or most likely to already live in energy poverty are single mothers and seniors living on a fixed income, and those regulations would disproportionately impact those people.

The Liberals also know the devastating unemployment that their transition is set to cause. The natural resources minister received a memo discussing exactly that. The Liberals' own government document says that their so-called just transition will affect over 200,000 workers in the energy sector. That is listed as 1% of our employment rate and, with how unemployment numbers are already rising, we really cannot afford for that to keep going up.

The memo also happens to mention 292,000 workers in agriculture and 193,000 workers in manufacturing. Does anyone really believe that the Liberals are going to replace hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line?

Combine all this with the carbon tax, the Liberal fuel regulations, the emissions cap regulations and other burdensome regulations like the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and it is quite easy to see the place where the Liberals are trying to take us. Their plan punishes Canadians, and it will bring misery and devastation upon them.

Thank God that there is an election on the horizon, in which Canadians can give this radical socialist environment minister the boot and get Canada back on track with a Conservative government that would axe the tax and fix the budget so that Canadians can get back to living in prosperity instead of poverty. Canada can become an energy-independent country that no longer relies on imported oil from dictators. We can use our own resources to produce what our country needs and what the world needs: clean, affordable, ethical and sustainable Canadian energy. Only a Conservative government would get it done.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that it was possible to participate in COP21 virtually, because our shadow minister for the environment did. He participated virtually.

I just want to acknowledge and credit the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party members here. Conservatives are the only pro-energy party and, therefore, the only pro-Canada party in the House of Commons. Of all of the anti-energy parties, the Bloc and the Greens are at least honest about Bill C-50 and what it is.

I want to say to the member, whom I also consider a friend, that she should be asking the Liberals why they rejected amendments from the Bloc which actually did talk about ensuring sustainability and reliable jobs and actually taking the needs of workers into account. Those amendments would actually have done what the Liberals claimed this was to be all about: jobs, skills training and an upskilling program. Of course, it is not that at all, and I would note that the Liberals rejected all of those amendments too.

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

Madam Speaker, that was a master class in disinformation, but it was a dismal example of what we have seen from that member in misrepresentations.

I was fascinated that the last time she did one of her spiels, she claimed that Bill C-50, which came to us from working with labour unions and energy workers, was a “woke globalist agenda.” Now, “globalist” has become very much identified as one of the key hate terms of conspiracy theories, and one of the people promoting hate conspiracy is Alex Jones, who of course is supporting the present leader.

I would like to give her the opportunity to explain why her party is so tied into using the hate language of Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and the extreme right on language like “globalist.”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, in December, while the NDP-Liberals’ self-proclaimed socialist environment minister hung out with 70,000 sanctimonious politicians and wealthy elites at a sprawling air-conditioned steel complex in a major petro-state, without a hint of shame or irony, I might add, who all flew from around the world on publicly funded, commercial and private airplanes and jets, even though virtual attendance was also an option, to scheme up ways to make life poorer, colder, dirtier, slower, darker, more inconvenient, more isolated, more uncomfortable and more expensive for everyone else, the NDP-Liberals colluded to ram through and cover up the pinnacle of their anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-capitalist agenda here at home.

From away, the minister announced yet more damaging policy for Canadians, and even bragged that he was the first environment minister in the world out of touch and radical enough to do something to Canada that no other major resource or oil and gas-producing country is doing to itself, no other country in the world at all, to impose a cap clearly designed to function as a Canadian oil and gas production cap, which really means a cap on the biggest private sector investor in Canada’s economy; a cap on affordable and reliable power and fuel; a cap on clean tech investment in Canada, which primarily comes from the energy sector; a cap on jobs, on businesses, on tax revenues for social programs and services for Canadians.

That is not leadership; it is putting one’s own radical activist ideology ahead of the best interests of the people he serves, which are supposed to be Canadians. It is not at all worthy of celebration.

No other competing oil and gas producer, for which global demand is expected to increase significantly for the foreseeable future, is doing this to themselves. They know it is bad for their citizens and bad for their countries. Rather, it is entitled, out of touch, powermongering and not worth the cost to Canadians.

The NDP-Liberals do not seem to know or care that petro-state dictators, terrorists and despots who control and weaponize the energy supply against others, and Canada’s best ally, customer and biggest oil and gas competitor, the U.S., are, at best, shaking their heads at our government’s self-inflicted harm on Canadians. Those countries are all ramped up to provide for the world’s energy needs, while Canada is home to an abundance of extraordinary resources, expertise and talent, which are, by the way, leaving in droves for friendlier jurisdictions.

The NDP-Liberals constantly roadblock, gatekeep, hamper, punish and kill, by delay, Canadian oil and gas development and exports. They reject every ally who desperately wants and needs Canada’s LNG. Their red tape prevents any meaningful production of critical minerals and rare earth metals, since mines can take up to 25 years to get going in Canada, Because of that, everything is broken and nothing can get built under these NDP-Liberals.

When the PM said he wanted to phase out oil and gas, many thought it was a gaffe, but, it was a tell, and every action, after eight years, shows it.

On one hand, it was appropriate that the announcement was there, given that it is exactly global planning gatherings for global economic and foreign policy like what happens regularly at the annual COP meetings, and many other global policy focused groups, where this whole concept of the just transition started and where it advances still.

On the other hand, it was very disturbing, because it truly shows how totally out of touch the NDP-Liberals really are with the realities of everyday life for the majority of Canadians and how far away the NDP-Liberals are from their long-ago empty claims that they valued inclusion, diversity, transparency and, most starkly, democracy.

The spectacle of the NDP-Liberal collusion and cover-up in the natural resources committee, to impose the globally-planned just transition on Canada and reject nearly all amendments proposed by Conservatives in the early hours of the morning and to silence and sideline every Canadian who will be impacted by the costly coalition’s anti-energy, anti-private sector agenda embodied in Bill C-50 immediately and in the long run, was almost shocking to witness, if it was not such a predictable pattern after eight years.

If there was any doubt left, it is more obvious than ever that the NDP-Liberals are focused solely on power, not principle; on power, not purpose; on their own partisan, political and parliamentary power and on currying favour with their fellow global policy elites, not on the Canadian people, not on the power of the Canadian people, not on the power to the Canadian people

Bill C-50 is the NDP-Liberals’ behind-closed-doors, top-down central plan for wide-scale, radical economic restructuring for Canada. It does not even achieve their own stated purpose for their power grab to ram it through, but what else is new with those guys?

The truth is that there is not a single tangible skills or jobs training program proposed or even outlined in the bill that the costly coalition says it has worked on, behind closed doors, for nearly two years.

What Bill C-50, which is the global just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals call it, which is anything but just in every possible way, would do is create a government committee behind closed doors that would create another government committee behind closed doors that would give instructions to governments to centrally plan Canada's economy on a cycle, every five years; soviet-style planning, every five years.

The words are in the title, but Bill C-50 does not actually mandate any transparency or accountability about the committees, the cost, the membership, their plans, except for the government to table reports, but it is granted extraordinary power to direct governments to radically overhaul Canada's economy and redistribute wealth.

The NDP-Liberals also know that their agenda in Bill C-50 would kill over 200,000 jobs in energy and threaten 292,000 Canadian jobs in agriculture, 193,000 Canadian jobs in manufacturing, 642,000 Canadian jobs in transportation and 1.4 million Canadian jobs in building and construction. Those last two are 10% of Canada's employment alone. That is what the government's own internal memo about Bill C-50, the just transition, means when it cautions about “significant labour market disruptions” and “larger-scale transformations” to jobs and the economy. It is sneaky bureaucratese and “parliamentese” that is common in government, but its meaning is clear and it should make every Canadian uneasy.

The NDP-Liberals even know it will lead to lower paid, more precarious work for indigenous and visible minority Canadians, because it is in a memo. They should already know that since indigenous and visible minority Canadians work in the energy sector at double the rate of other sectors. However, the NDP-Liberals do not care.

They will stick with their cruel carbon tax, their energy export ban, Bill C-48, and their half a decade old unconstitutional Bill C-69 and fight for their crazy plastics as toxins decree, even though provinces, indigenous communities and entrepreneurs challenge the NDP-Liberals on all of those harmful anti-energy agendas and policies through federal court and to the Supreme Court.

The NDP-Liberals that know that some Canadians will be hurt more than others. People in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta will be “disproportionately affected”, but the NDP-Liberals do not care.

Bill C-50 would build central planning ideological bureaucracy, not Canadian skills training programs; bureaucracy, not Canadian jobs; bureaucracy, not Canadian businesses; bureaucracy, not Canadian clean tech.

Canadians might be wondering what the heck is going on here. The truth is that the NDP-Liberals cooked up up Bill C-50 behind closed doors for about two years, introduced it last summer, with a last-minute spin job name change, and no debate. Before the committee even reported on what, in hindsight, was clearly a collusion charade to appear to help create the legislation in the first place, they brought it back in the fall; shut it down with less than a normal business day of debate for all MPs of all parties; spent a month obsessed with blocking Conservative MPs at committee; and censored any MP and any Canadian with a different view or even with any reasonable questions about their plan, which they imposed through a top-down edict from the House of Commons. By the way, that was used only twice in urgent scenarios in nine years under the previous Conservative government, but has been used at least 10 times by the costly coalition.

Let us talk about the kinds of amendments that were rejected, amendments that were proposed by the Conservatives.

We proposed measures to: ensure access to affordable and reliable energy; ensure a strong export-oriented energy sector; avoid regulatory duplication and necessary delays; outline how the federal government would help ensure the affordability and reliability of energy; improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth, private sector investment, the creation of sustainable jobs; ensure that major and clean energy projects under the federal regulatory framework could be delivered on time and on budget; the importance of collaborating with all levels of government, including provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and all relevant partners and stakeholders; the inclusion of representatives of provincial, territorial and indigenous governance bodies; measures to recognize local and regional needs, including indigenous communities; ways to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities; ways to promote economic growth, including the economic growth indigenous communities; mandate meaningful consultation and to account for the cultural values, aspirations, strengths; and to include at least two members who represent indigenous organizations, at least one of which has a substantial interest in Canada's natural resources sector.

The Liberals even rejected an amendment where Conservatives called on achieving a fair and equitable plan. The Conservatives will be—

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Given the large number of report stage motions for Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, the Chair would like to explain some of the principles applied in the selection and grouping of these motions. In arriving at this ruling, I have sought to be guided by precedents established by my predecessors, especially Speaker Milliken, whose landmark ruling on March 21, 2001, serves as the basis for our modern report stage practice, as well as one of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who faced a number of lengthy and complex report stages when he was Speaker.

In general, the motions most often selected for debate at report stage are those that delete clauses of a bill and those that further amend clauses that were amended at committee. Regarding motions to delete, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle remarked in decisions rendered on June 11, and December 12, 2012, the Chair frequently groups as many of them as possible and applies the vote on one to as many others as possible.

As for motions that further amend changes made in committee, the Chair often faces a dilemma in deciding how to group them in a way that ensures members can clearly express their point of view while appropriately managing the House's time. Where possible, the Chair has endeavoured to group motions that are similar or that deal with a similar subject matter.

Finally, the Chair would like to draw members' attention to the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), which states, and I quote:

For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage.

The Chair notes that, in several cases, the same member or members from the same party have submitted a variety of different proposals to amend the same line or lines of the bill. In some cases, each proposal is a slight variation on the other. It would be impossible to apply the results of the vote on one motion to the others, as a line can only be amended once. The Chair has sometimes provided for a distinct vote on each, but in cases where the above-mentioned note seems applicable, the Chair has selected only one proposal per party. I would refer members to a ruling delivered by Speaker Milliken on February 18, 2002, for an example of such an approach being adopted.

There are 207 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-50.

Motions Nos. 13, 43, 46, 50, 55, 62, 63, 65 to 68, 70, 72, 73, 81 to 89, 92 to 94, 98 to 100, 103 to 105, 107, 109 to 111, 114 to 116, 120 to 122, 124 to 126, 133, 135, 139, 150, 156 to 158, 167, 168, 170, 173 to 175, 179, 186, 195 to 198, 201 to 203 and 205 to 207 will not be selected by the Chair because they are similar proposals that affect the same lines in the bill.

All of the other motions will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put the following motions to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

If it helps, I would suggest, through you, Chair, that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources could perhaps enlighten this committee and all Canadians, including senators, investors, provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities, who have all challenged Bill C-69, including every single premier and territorial leader who either opposed it outright or called for major overhauls.

Moving forward, of course, the Supreme Court decision that less than 6% of the bill is constitutional and the vast majority is largely unconstitutional was made in December. Many of those clauses explicitly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister is suggesting that these senior qualified experts in the public service, who are trying to give the elected members of the government the rationale to cover for their own mistakes.... Perhaps she as the parliamentary secretary can actually give the answers that all of us need to know, about when the government will be bringing forward new legislation or amendments. I don't know how that works for a law that's already a law and no longer an act. It has been a law unconstitutionally for half a decade already under these NDP-Liberals. I think it would behoove her to answer, for clarity for the elected members here and all Canadians, when those changes would be happening.

I'll reinforce the point my colleagues are making, which is that it is ridiculous that we are being asked to pass this legislation, brought forward by the NDP-Liberals, when we made the proposal in December that they could take the time to get Bill C-69 fixed first. Then we would move to Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 after that. However, here we are in April and the government is saying they're still promising legislation. That hasn't happened.

The point my colleagues are making is that, obviously, if this bill gets passed with those sections unresolved, it will come into force with a lack of certainty and clarity about its constitutionality and legality. It will automatically invite legal challenges by the same groups, or by other groups involved in the challenges to Bill C-69, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I give kudos to the public servants for doing their jobs. This isn't their mess to fix, but it certainly is the minister's. Since the parliamentary secretary is here, and she is saying that the officials shouldn't answer any more of these questions, perhaps she can.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It is within the powers and the prerogative of the chair to call meetings, Mr. Kusmierczyk. Our clerk is looking at the exact ruling, if you wish, but it is fully within the powers of the chair.

For example, the Liberal chair of the natural resources committee called a meeting without anyone's knowledge in order to ram through the anti-Alberta, anti-energy industry bill, Bill C-50. It has been done in the past, and—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, and I answered the media about that, so I'm not sure why you're claiming it.

Second of all, thank goodness the Conservatives actually tried to propose amendments to Bill C-50, given that the government's own internal briefing shows that Bill C-50, the just transition bill, will kill 170 oil and gas jobs immediately and disrupt the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in construction, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and energy. Of course, the truth is that, because of the actions of the NDP, Liberal and Bloc MPs on this committee, there will be no debate on Bill C-50 and not a single Canadian will be able to be heard from on that bill.

This is why it's not sufficient. This is why—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suspect that MP Patzer will want to respond after, but I'll just take this moment to say this: Let's spare the sanctimony around here with the crowing about listening to provincial premiers, if we will, since the NDP and Liberals actually have zero problem ignoring the Liberal Newfoundland premier who has asked over and over that they spike the carbon tax hike on April 1.

We have already demonstrated our willingness to work in good favour by accepting the two subamendments. MP Patzer has summarized exactly why we are engaging the will of the elected members of this committee to consider including the Conservatives' specific language on protecting and maintaining the environmental characteristics in the case of offshore renewable development and explicitly include this in Bill C-49.

Here is why. It is because it is not enough at this point, after nine years, for the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, to say, “Just trust us.”

I will give this example. It has been five months since the Supreme Court of Canada said that the law based on Bill C-69, which has been in place for half a decade, is largely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that less than 6% of the law based on Bill C-69 stands up, including, as we've discussed multiple times in the debate on this rushed bill, the dozens of references that are here in Bill C-49 to Bill C-69. This will automatically cause this bill, if it's passed as written, to be vulnerable to litigation and challenges, causing even more uncertainty for offshore petroleum developers, obviously, but also for any private sector proponents who want to launch into offshore renewable development too.

This is why—so Canadians understand—Conservative MPs on this committee are trying to compel the NDP, Liberal and Bloc members of this committee to be explicit about our elected representatives' priority to protect and maintain the environmental characteristics according to the expanded new scope and scale of the mandate that Bill C-49 will provide for regulators. Also, in addition to my colleague's tough but fair and accurate comment on the Conservatives' 20,000 amendments to Bill C-50, the just transition bill, let me just say for the record—because I heard him quip it—that those were not generated by AI.

Second of all—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We learn something new every day. I'm like you; Bill C-50 was my first bill and this is my second. We're learning together.

If everybody is clear, G-5 was moved. We'll now proceed to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now proceed to CPC-8.

Would a member like to move it?

Mr. Patzer.

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

Okay. After four years, this is only the second piece of legislation I've ever had a chance to deal with. Bill C-50 was the first one. This is the first time I'm really seeing a package like this.

Normally, if there's a clause 47.1 or whatever, we vote for that whole clause. Then we do the next new clause, 47.2 or whatever. That's why I was curious about why it was labelled this way. All of a sudden we're still within the clause we were already working on.

At any rate, I appreciate it.

Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Madam Speaker, the member is asking the kind of thoughtful questions that should be asked in this place.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives never seem to ask a question that has any depth at all. In the case of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, he does extraordinary work in the agriculture committee, and he has done work in a wide variety of areas that help to really advance public policy in Canada.

The member is absolutely right, that what the Conservatives are endeavouring to do is to basically stop Parliament and stop getting legislation through that would actually help people. They want to block everything. Bill C-50 would actually provide for energy workers good well-paying jobs in the energy industry. I come out of the energy industry, having worked in an oil refinery, the Shelburn oil refinery, sadly now closed, in Burnaby, B.C. I know for a fact that it is important for energy workers to have access to good, unionized, well-paying jobs.

What was the Conservative response? A little like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who wants to shut down clean energy and ensure that those jobs do not come to Albertans, Conservatives want to block legislation and make sure that those good, clean energy jobs are not available.

That is why it is important to get it right. That is why it is important to have the health breaks when the Conservatives provide for obstruction. The members of the NDP, as the adults in the room, are going to make sure that we get the job done, and we do it in a way that does not harm the health and safety of the many employees who keep this place running.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to lower the temperature.

I really want to put today's motion in the context of Bill C-50 because I think that bill in particular illustrates the reasoning behind the motion. When Bill C-50 was at committee, the Conservatives, I highly suspect, used ChatGPT's AI technology to generate 20,000 amendments. Their plan failed, and those amendments were actually cleared in about an hour's time because they did not do their homework. The Conservatives are now trying the same thing at the report stage with 200 amendments.

I think some people watching this debate may get the incorrect idea that we are doing away with votes. I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be clear that we are still going to have those votes, but the motion would allow members to have those health breaks and would allow the important staff who support this place to have those health breaks as well, so we are not putting anyone's health at risk while still conducting the democratic needs of the nation in the House.

Government Orders No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very wary in doing this. I do not think I have ever made a point of order while interrupting a colleague's speech, whose speech is very important, but it is important to raise my concern. This is about a motion instructing the House to be able to get legislation finished, particularly Bill C-50, which has seen a lot of obstruction.

In the previous exchange between the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Liberal member, the Liberal member accused him of getting his children's private school funding covered by the Conservative Party, which I do not think is part of the motion, but I—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the record, Conservatives filibustered Bill C-50 for months in committee as well.

Mr. Crosbie, do you remember when Stephen Harper offered the ultimatum to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the Atlantic accord in 2006, when they wanted to axe the accord because we were already getting benefits under equalization?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to remind MP Jones that her party tried to put Bill C-50 in front of Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to see MP Angus blocking discussion about an initiative that would benefit indigenous people in communities all across the country, when he talks about lots of things that are going wrong but chooses to prop up the Liberal government anyway.

I will just continue to wrap up my comments as efficiently as possible, which of course will happen better without interruption. I know that it's important to every Canadian and every community and person invested in energy development of all kinds in all parts of this country.

Before I talk about a couple more of those indigenous voices that Charlie Angus and the Liberals around the table are trying to silence, while they also don't acknowledge the fact that it's their own government motion that pushed Bill C-49 behind Bill C-50. In fact it was my November 1 motion that asked this committee to get the government to fix Bill C-69 and then immediately move to work to move on Bill C-49, so that the government didn't pass a bill as written that has multiple sections the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. It would obviously cause uncertainty and invite immediate litigation on a number of grounds if they passed Bill C-49 as it's written.

No doubt I certainly appreciate and value the opportunity to fix Bill C-49 so that it will do what its proponents say they want, except that as of now, of course, the bill is one of additional red tape, lack of clarity and uncertainty that will block both traditional oil and gas and renewable offshore energy development.

To explain why the common-sense Conservative endorsement of this first nations resource charge is important, let's talk a little bit about the organization. It is important to note that it will build on the most successful first nation-led legislative initiatives in history, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, and of course there are now over 400 first nations using one or both frameworks.

I'm going to really put a fine point on why this optional tool is so important. It will especially help smaller first nations communities with capacity challenges and fewer resources to be able to bring home all of those economic and multiple other kinds of benefits from pursuing responsible resource development through this “reconciliACTION” initiative that Conservatives are proposing. It will help smaller communities to negotiate with big companies and law firms to secure benefits and opportunities.

To that end, I want to share the words of Chief Sharleen Gale who's from Fort Nelson First Nation in B.C. and she's the chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. She says,

For too long, our people and governments have been left out of the resource bounty of this land. Many of our nations and members want to be part of the resource economy. They want careers, business opportunities, and equity stakes in resource companies. The First Nations Resource Charge finally means our fiscal jurisdiction over the resources on our lands is implemented. The Resource Charge will mean we can increase the economic benefits to our members and regions, improve services and infrastructure and close the gaps with the rest of Canada sooner.

The chief and other members of the Doig River First Nation in B.C. say it's ridiculous that the smallest governments must navigate the most complex negotiations. They say:

We want to implement a charge like other Canadian governments to streamline business. The Resource Charge is going to provide the kind of revenues we need to have the water, health care, education, and opportunities that every other Canadian takes for granted.

They also say:

We have many resource projects in our territory. The current process for negotiating financial compensation for First Nations takes too long, and it costs too much. We are small administrations. We cannot respond and negotiate in a timely way. It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our time is scarce. It costs Canada tens of billions in lost investment every year. The FNRC changes this. It is a pre-specified standardized charge for doing business in our territory—whether that is forestry, mining, hydroelectricity, oil and gas or any other resource project.

That captures especially well why our common-sense Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada are urging the government to support this optional first nations-led tool.

Chief Donna Big Canoe, who was in Vancouver, from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Ontario, says:

Confederation in 1867 divided everything between federal and provincial governments, treating us as if we didn’t exist—wards of the state—leading to poverty, dependency, and the existence of residential schools for years. The solution is to bring First Nations into the federation by granting us tax powers to exercise our own jurisdiction. The First Nations Resource Charge aligns with this goal.

I'm mindful of Councillor Strater Crowfoot from the legendary Crowfoot family from the Siksika Nation in Alberta, who also supports this initiative. He says:

In 1989, we passed amendments to the Indian Act that gave First Nations the option to assume tax room and service responsibilities on reserve lands. A lot of people thought it was minor and would never amount to much. Other people thought we simply weren’t capable of carrying out such responsibilities. That, to me, is the most dangerous form of discrimination. Other people thought it was some plot to hold First Nations back. But First Nations all over the country proved the naysayers wrong. A lot has changed since then and for the better. I was there in ‘89, so I know. And I’m proud to be here now. This is going to allow many First Nations who were unable to take advantage of that earlier initiative to become more self reliant and more self-determining. It’s also a major step in acknowledging our rights and obligations over our historic lands. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition for supporting this, and I hope every political leader in the country will support this. It’s the right thing to do for First Nations and for the country too.

I will conclude, Chair, with a couple of other comments by indigenous leaders who've been involved in the work of developing this proposal, and I urge the members of Parliament and the House of Commons to consider supporting it.

Chief Darren Blaney from the Homalco First Nation in B.C.—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Minister, thank you for coming today. It's great to have you here. We hope to see you again.

Thank you, officials.

Minister, you are released from today's meeting.

Colleagues, if I could, I'll ask for just a few minutes of your time very quickly on some administrative items. I think it will take a minute or two just to go through these.

Earlier today, the clerk sent out some budgets.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt a study budget for Bill C-50?

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

Thank you.

As I was saying, given the stalling and delay tactics used by the official opposition on Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, I'm wondering if the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has expressed concerns to you about passing this legislation in a timely manner. Secondly, what are the potential impacts of having this legislation delayed by the official opposition?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—who brought Bill C-49 to this committee and put it behind Bill C-50.

The claim Mr. Aldag just made is not true. It's the Liberals who delayed Bill C-49 themselves, just for clarity.

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

Minister, what I was saying is the memorandum of understanding that exists right now between the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador identifies 16 bays as exclusive provincial jurisdiction. You touched on that in one of your responses to Mrs. Stubbs' questions. The legislation we have before us would allow the province to develop offshore wind farms as though.... Sorry, the province has the ability right now to develop wind farms as though they were on land. That's what I'm trying to say.

This legislation, Bill C-49, is needed to make offshore power production a reality. Premier Andrew Furey has said, “This crucial federal-provincial agreement puts us in the driver's seat and will allow us to reap the majority benefit from the endless possibilities of the new green economy”.

We've seen at this committee some of the stalling tactics employed by the opposition. We just saw them specifically on Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act. I'm wondering if the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador expressed any concerns to you about the passing of this legislation—

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

I look at Aberdeen, the land of my people. This is an oil town. It suffered from the decline. There were 15,000 new jobs last year alone in offshore wind, and over 42,000 have been created in Aberdeen. There are huge investments being made in Europe. There are huge investments being made in the United States.

How long do we keep hoping that they're going to pay attention to us if we're still sitting and talking about this legislation, still talking about Bill C-50 and still talking about ITCs? That investment is going to go elsewhere.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being back at your most welcome seat, where we love to have you. If you want to stay for a few extra hours, I'm sure we'd be more than willing to vote on it.

My concern is that over Christmas, we heard some really disturbing news. Canadian researchers tell us the Greenland ice shelves are melting at 30 million tonnes an hour. This is planetary breakdown in real time. We have parts of Alberta that are still burning from last summer—in January.

I hear positive talk from the government, but I don't see the action I'm seeing elsewhere in the world. China, in a single year, doubled its solar capacity. It increased its wind capacity by 66%. The Biden government brought in $132 billion in clean-tech projects in a year, yet our ITCs are still being talked about. We have Bill C-50 being monkeywrenched by the Conservatives. We also have Bill C-49, and they're sending a signal again on this.

My concern is that we have a window, and once that window passes, we're going to be left by the side of the road. With the Biden administration in the United States, one clean-tech offshore project in New Jersey will serve 700,000 homes, one project in Martha's Vineyard, 400,000 homes, and one in Rhode Island, 250,000 homes. These are being built right now, and we're talking about it. Why would investors come to Canada?

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, we are on a theme of Liberal promises that keep being broken.

Here is a question. We have Bill C-50, which is the sustainable jobs act, which kicked down the road coming up with a sustainable jobs plan until December 31, 2025. It then went to committee, where all the Liberal MPs present and all the NDP MPs present voted to extend that deadline to December 31, 2040.

Could the hon. minister tell us how this is going to be fixed? Can it be repaired? It so reminds me of Bismarck: Laws are like sausages, better not to watch.

Canada Labour Code

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to stand here today with a great piece of legislation that is going to help out Canadian workers and help our economy get to the next level. We believe that Canadian workers have the right to fair, honest and balanced negotiations, where replacement workers are not waiting in the wings to take their jobs.

That is why we have introduced this legislation, to ban the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. I have negotiated on both sides of the table, for the employer and for the union. I know for a fact that the best deals are always at the table. I know for sure that banning replacement workers puts that focus on the table to get the best deals possible.

This is where workers get those powerful paycheques that our Conservatives like to talk about. It is where Canadian workers secure reliable benefits and job security. The bargaining table is where Canadian workers secure changes and investments that make their workplaces much safer.

The threat of replacement workers tips the balance in the employers' favour. It is unfair and contrary to the spirit of true collective bargaining. Ultimately, replacement workers give employers an incentive to avoid the bargaining table. It is a distraction that can prolong disputes and can poison workplaces for years after. We have seen it throughout our history, both locally in my riding and across Canada.

Conservatives like to perpetuate the myth that workers want to strike. They pretend that workers have some devious plan to halt our economy. This could not be further from the truth. Workers drive our economy. Positive labour relations make Canada a great place to invest, which we have seen so much of recently.

Striking is a last resort for workers. Nobody wants to lose their benefits and live off strike pay. It is an anxious, uncertain state for anyone. It can hurt a family's financial and psychological well-being. Our government believes that it is in everybody's best interest to ensure that workers, employers and the government work together to build a strong, stable and fair economy that we all rely on.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will not feel threatened when workers use their bargaining power to demand better wages and better working conditions. As the Minister of Labour has said, bargaining is hard work. It is tense and messy, but it works really well.

I met regularly with my constituents about labour issues, including the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council and the United Steelworkers, just to name a few. They are thrilled that we are doing this at a federal level. They want to see the same kind of leadership to benefit provincial workers in Ontario as well.

Just last week, I was at the Standing Committee on International Trade, where Robert Ashton, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, said the following: “If Bill C-58 had actually been in use for the last couple of years, all these lockouts and these strikes, where the employers have been using scabs and have drawn it out, would have been a lot shorter.”

He joined a chorus of union leaders who supported this legislation. This includes the United Steelworkers Union, which reported, “Federal anti-scab legislation will help 80,000 USW members and approximately one million workers across Canada.”

Lana Payne, the national president of Unifor, said, “This legislation is a step toward levelling the playing field. It will be good for the economy and good for labour relations”.

I know the opposition does not listen to workers, but maybe the Conservatives might listen to the 70 labour experts who signed an open letter calling on Canadian policy-makers to support Bill C-58. The letter states, “By adopting Bill C-58, Parliament has a historic opportunity to advance workers' rights and improve labour relations in federally-regulated workplaces by:

“Strengthening the collective bargaining process and levelling the playing field in contract disputes;

“Banning the use of strikebreakers that inflame tensions and poison workplaces [for very long periods of time];

“Reducing instances of picket violence and vandalism;

“Incentivizing employers to focus on reaching negotiated settlements at the bargaining table rather than strategizing over how to best undermine union members exercising their right to strike.

“Bill C-58 offers practical and meaningful measures that would help to address longstanding imbalances in the labour relations regime.”

We have heard from experts, from labour leaders and from Canadian workers. We have also heard from members of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, who have expressed their support for this legislation. However, we have not heard from the Conservatives. In fact, today, the CLC continues to issue statements calling on the Conservatives to tell us what their position is.

It is no surprise that the Conservative leader, who has spent his entire career standing against working people, has not shown his hand. He proclaimed himself dedicated to bringing the right-to-work laws to Canada. These notorious U.S. laws are aimed at undermining unions; ultimately, they are about worse conditions and smaller paycheques. The Leader of the Opposition has enthusiastically served wealthy interests most of his life. Under the previous government, he championed two of the most anti-union, anti-worker bills that the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377. We repealed them right away. In 2005, he even opposed child care, because the workers would be unionized.

Actions speak louder than words. Recently, the Conservatives have been opposing Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which would bring workers to the table so that workers decide how we meet our economic opportunities. Instead, the Conservatives submitted 20,000 amendments at committee and then tried to submit another couple of hundred frivolous amendments to put the brakes on it. The race is on to seize the greatest opportunity of our time, which is to unlock the potential of renewables, to create thousands of jobs and to drive sustainable economic growth. Right now, companies are deciding where to invest and build. The Liberal government is meeting this momentum, but the Conservatives are throwing temper tantrums.

Now Conservatives, again, have not told us where they stand with respect to Bill C-58. In fact, in 2016, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan opposed similar legislation, arguing that replacement workers offered opportunities for the unemployed to gain temporary work and valuable experience. Think about being so out of touch with working Canadians that one thinks temporary jobs to replace working Canadians are somehow a solution. More recently, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster complained that similar legislation would result in a higher share of company profits going to unionized workers. In a time of record corporate profits, it is hard to imagine being upset that working Canadians might get a greater share of the profits that they are responsible for producing.

We know how important this legislation is to Canada's labour unions and the workers they represent. We know that experts support this bill. The bill has the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party. I urge my Conservative colleagues to reconsider their efforts to oppose working Canadians and consider, just this once, actually supporting workers.

Indigenous Affairs

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the PM said he values indigenous people most, but that is only true when they agree with him. After eight years, indigenous leaders fight the NDP-Liberals' anti-private sector, anti-resource, anti-energy agenda.

There are 130 Ontario first nations that will take the NDP-Liberals to court over their colonialist carbon tax. It does what Conservatives warned. Everything is more expensive. Those who can least afford it are hurting the most. Rural, remote and northern indigenous, and all, Canadians can hardly survive. They are forced to choose between heating, eating and housing.

B.C.'s Lax Kw'alaams sued over the NDP-Liberals' export ban, Bill C-48, to make its own decisions about jobs, energy and fish. Alberta's Woodland Cree sued over the unconstitutional “never build anything” bill, Bill C-69. Five years ago, Conservatives warned both bills would hurt indigenous people. The Liberals ignored that; it is death by delay.

Indigenous leaders oppose the emissions cap to cut production and the central plan of the just transition bill, Bill C-50, to kill the Canadian jobs and businesses where indigenous people work the most. The Liberals block indigenous-backed pipelines, the oil sands, LNG and roads to the Ring of Fire. They stop all the deals for education, recreation, health and wellness.

It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals censor and cover up their costly anti-Canada collusion. Common-sense Conservatives will turn hurt into hope for indigenous and all Canadians.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will endeavour to keep it under six minutes. I hope, given the precedence you've highlighted with the range of topics as it relates to the specific motion, you will give me much latitude before the onslaught of points of order from my colleagues across the way.

In addition, we seem to debate for a lengthy period of time a study that isn't in this motion. This motion itself is the government trying to pat itself on the back for a policy that gives it a chance to wax poetic about how it wants to change our country and our economy to some sort of, essentially, planned economy. It's going to make all these investments and it's going to choose winners and losers and sectors that it thinks are more appropriate than the jobs that support the communities I represent and the communities that are supported across this country by our natural resource sector.

Now we get the chance to highlight that the first nations across Ontario are bringing forward a lawsuit against the federal government. I will quote from an article, where Grand Chief Abram Benedict said, “The government has boasted that Canadians will pay a carbon tax, but through the rebates, through the subsidies they will actually receive more than what they have paid. That doesn't ring true in First Nations communities”. It doesn't ring true in the Northwest Territories, where their premier has just said that this is too costly for northerners. It doesn't ring true in any communities that I represent.

My colleagues across the way may choose to tell people “this is helping you” and “please believe us” and that this must be true, but they don't. If you feel differently, I think we should bring the grand chief here. You should tell him that you think he is being misleading in his lawsuit, as well as the Northwest Territories premier, in saying on behalf of their constituents that the carbon tax is indeed making life simply unaffordable for them.

It's part of a long attack on our natural resource sector with Bill C-50, the so-called “just transition”, where we're just going to move jobs around the economy as we see fit because Ottawa must know best. That's not a just transition, but a part of a lengthy approach from this government to try to kill our natural resource sector, and it is unacceptable.

My colleague across the way said we need to debate making changes to our economy and to our society. I look forward to that opportunity, and it will happen in the carbon tax election, where I know Canadians are going to choose to axe the carbon tax instead of quadrupling the carbon tax.

I will say one last thing, because my colleague across the way brought up that I'm expecting a child soon, which is extremely exciting for me, of course. I think we're going to take a somewhat different vision. After that carbon tax election, I'm going to be able to look proudly at my children and grandchildren and say that our future Conservative majority government created prosperity for this country and did our part to solve environmental challenges here and around the world, and I'll be darn proud of it.

Energy Sector

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, my second petition draws the attention of the House to the following: The value of the energy sector is about 10% of Canada's GDP. It pays over $26 billion in taxes at all levels of government, and it paid about $48 billion in royalties and taxes in 2022.

Constituents are calling for Bill C-50, the “unjust transition act”, to be abandoned. They say that a central planning agenda is not fair, just or right. Instead, they would like the acceleration of Canadian energy projects and infrastructure, technology and exports and green-lighting of green energy projects.

Natural Resources

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Labour

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we brought together labour leaders from all across the country at our new union-led advisory table, which will advise the government on some major macroeconomic issues that have real kitchen-table consequences on a lot of workers in this country, namely the energy transition, climate change and the housing crisis.

We will do that at this table in the same way we will with Bill C-50, an 11-page bill that the opposition has found 20,000 reasons to oppose to prevent workers from having a say at the table. What are they so afraid of? Why are they so afraid of workers?

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Calgary Skyview will hold their MP to account for his betrayal, and he will pay at the ballot box.

Bill C-50 is the top-down just transition that will end oil and gas in Canada in favour of dictator and U.S. oil. The NDP-Liberals know it will kill 170,000 oil and gas jobs immediately and hurt 2.7 million Canadians working in transportation, construction, agriculture and manufacturing on top of it. It will make power and fuel prices skyrocket. The NDP-Liberals also know it will hurt indigenous and visible minority Canadians the worst.

It has never been more clear that Canadians cannot afford the colluding costs of the cover-up coalition.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the chair, the MP for Calgary Skyview, should be ashamed and will pay for his choice to betray his constituents.

Bill C-50 is the top-down global just transition that will end 170,000 jobs—

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax on Farmers, First Nations and Families

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

Mr. Speaker, it is another day that we have the privilege of rising in the House to speak for our constituents back home. I see some of my hon. colleagues who I was with for several hours last night at committee. It was great to finish clause-by-clause of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which will assist citizens across our country.

I am happy to participate—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague and I thank her for the question.

I do not agree with Bill C‑50 as it is currently worded. The work I was trying to do yesterday was to bring forward amendments that were proposed to me by environmental groups and unions. Unfortunately, we did not get to talk about those amendments because the Conservative party kept heckling and did not allow us to do our work as legislators. That is what happened yesterday.

I will follow up with all these people who proposed amendments to me. I will tell them that, unfortunately, the work that they did was in vain. All those hours they spent reading the bill to try to improve it were for naught and thrown out the window.

Why is that? That is because there are people in the Conservative Party who have decided to adopt the spurious strategy used by the member for Carleton to try to intimidate people. What we saw yesterday at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was intimidation pure and simple.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, where to start? I would like to make a little detour before addressing my Conservative colleagues' motion. I would like to provide a bit of context for the motion.

In my opinion, if we want to understand the context, we need to look at the current situation. We are in a climate crisis. There are two possibilities. Either the Conservatives recognize that we are in a climate crisis and commit to taking action to mitigate it, or they do not recognize that we are in a climate crisis. Our main problem is that, ever since the member for Carleton became leader of the Conservative Party, the official opposition has been using disinformation as their preferred political tool. As a result, we cannot have conversations about global warming with our Conservative colleagues. Whenever we try to, they become irrational. My colleagues will understand why I say this.

In my former life, I taught political science. The introductory course for first-year political science students teaches a simple concept. It teaches them what democracy is. To explain what democracy is, I would tell them that one of the key principles is that it is better to use reason rather than force. That is what democracy is. Democracy means people deliberating together. It means people having a dialogue to determine what is best for the common good.

For several years now, we have been witnessing the Americanization of Canadian politics. Dialogue no longer takes precedence over threats or over the imposition of ideas. Whoever is the strongest tries to impose their law using intimidation. That is how the United States currently operates. I do not want to compare the leader of the official opposition to Donald Trump right now. Let us set that aside. I do not want to compare the leader of the official opposition to Marine Le Pen or any of those other politicians in the western world whose questionable tactics involve taking liberties with the truth to avoid entering into discussions with counterparts who often think differently. I say this because dialogue is very important.

The reason I am bringing up this topic is that we reached the bottom of the barrel yesterday. When I was younger, my mother often used to say that all things pass, meaning even a person's stupidity eventually comes to an end. I hope that we reached the bottom of the barrel yesterday. Yesterday, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was carrying out its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-50. I have been involved in Quebec and Canadian politics since the early 1990s and, although I have always kept a close eye on parliamentary proceedings, I have never in my life seen anything as sophomoric as what I saw yesterday.

There is a key principle. We can raise questions of privilege in the House because we feel that members have the right to be heard. Letting members speak, letting members vote, is a key principle of democracy. However, even this key principle, which is fundamental to democracy, was not respected yesterday. I heard Conservative members yelling to ensure that no committee member would be able to cast a vote during clause-by-clause consideration. Worse than that, I saw some highly questionable actions on the part of the member for Brantford—Brant—

Climate Change

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fourth petition from my constituents calls for Bill C-50 to be abandoned, as the unjust transition act targets them specifically.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Can you give the rationale for that, since, of course, one of the main problems with Bill C-50 is that there are no costs outlined for any of what these things will be.

How can there suddenly be a rationale and declaration from you that this amendment won't work? You're asserting that it's going to add costs, but there are no costs outlined in the bill in the first place. This is a key problem with it, which we could have discussed if you guys had allowed this to go through the normal process.

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

This is a question of privilege, and clearly the House order does not preclude members raising questions of order or privilege.

Here is the issue. The House prescribed, I think, a very narrow and draconian but nonetheless specific framework within which the natural resources committee would consider the issues before it, namely Bill C-50. That motion prescribed within it that the committee would begin at 6:30 and would be able to meet for two hours, and then at 8:30 the successive voting would be taken up on clause-by-clause.

I think there's an argument that there are privilege issues raised even by that issue. Nonetheless, it was an order adopted by the House. When the House adopted that order, it was very specific about what time the committee had to start. It said “the committee shall meet at 6:30.” The chair provided an explanation for the committee not beginning at 6:30 saying there were technical impediments. Regardless of whether there were technical impediments, whether it was was through mal-intent or simply by accident, the fact is that the House order was not followed. The House order required the committee to meet at 6:30. That did not occur, which was a violation of the directive of the House.

Normally speaking, the privileges of members, which include the right to speak, are protected. They are sacrosanct. The rights of members are prescribed in the Standing Orders, and it is only when the House adopts a special order that those can be abridged. Obviously, we are operating under a special order, but any further abridgement of the rights and privileges of members that goes beyond the special order is a violation of their privileges.

Standing Order 116 specifies the following:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Standing Order 116(2)(b) provides that if the chair, in violation of part one of the standing order, violates the privileges of members—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe this committee should have gone to the full two hours.

I would move that the committee report to the House that the privileges of all members of the committee were violated when the chair limited debate on clause-by-clause of Bill C-50 to less than two hours, in violation of the House order adopted on Monday, September 24, 2023.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

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

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

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

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

On its website, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement, to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a conspiracy to silence me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, through you—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a thing to witness this coalition collude to cover-up and take a top-down action to force through a top-down bill. The Conservatives will not stop the fight for the people we represent and for the best interests of all Canadians.

To review, the Liberals rammed through first the Atlantic offshore bill, Bill C-49, which includes 33 references to the five-year-old unconstitutional law, Bill C-69, that the Liberals have not fixed yet. By the way, Bill C-49 would triple the timeline for offshore renewables in the Atlantic provinces. Then was the just transition bill, Bill C-50. This was after fewer than nine hours and eight hours of total debate from all MPs on each.

On October 30, the NDP-Liberals tried to dictate every aspect of how the committee would deal with those bills. They reversed their own order to hold back Bill C-49 and spent a month preoccupied with censorship and exclusion of Conservatives like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Peace River—Westlock.

The extraordinary motion being debated and the debate shutdown today mean the committee will be limited to less than two hours of scrutiny on Bill C-50. We will hear from no witnesses, no impacted workers or businesses, no experts, no provincial or regional representatives, no economists, no indigenous communities, no ministers and no officials, and MPs will only have one partial day each to review and debate this bill at the next two stages.

I never thought I would spend so much of the last eight years having to count on senators to really do the full scrutiny that the NPD-Liberals' bills require after the fact because the coalition circumvents elected MPs on the front end so many times. One would think after the Supreme Court absolutely skewered them all on Bill C-69, which both the NDPs and the Liberals supported, that we would see a change of behaviour and attitude, but no, not these guys. They are reckless and ever undaunted in their top-down authority.

The NDP-Liberals will say that the government has been working on it for years, that it has engaged unions all the time and ask what the hold up is. We heard that from the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier, even though what he did not admit was that at the time the committee was studying the concept of the just transition and the NDP-Liberals moved forward with announcing their legislation before it reported anyway. They will say that we should just get this done so Bill C-50 can give the reskilling, upskilling and job training workers need and want when they all lose their jobs because of government mandates.

I have a couple of points to make. First, it sure is clear the NDP-Liberals have been working together on something for a while since they were all together to announce the bill. Second, everybody needs to know there is not actually a single skills or job program anywhere in this bill at all. Third, cooking up something behind closed doors then being outraged and cracking down on the official opposition when we suggest we should all actually do our jobs, speak to represent our constituents, and most importantly, let Canadians speak so we can actually hear from them on the actual bill, and then analyze it comprehensively and propose changes and improvements, is a top-down central planning approach that sounds an awful lot like the way we have characterized Bill C-50, the just transition itself that has caused some outrage in the last few days.

Bill C-50, the just transition, aims to centrally plan the top-down restructuring of the fundamentals and the foundations of Canada's economy. It aims to redistribute wealth. It is a globally conceived, planned and imposed agenda. It is, in fact, a major focus of a globalist gathering going on right now, the same kind of gathering where it started years ago.

I confess, I do not really get all the consternation about stating that fact since the definition of globalism is “the operation or planning of economic informed policy on a global basis.” That is of course what is happening with the just transition and the many international bodies that bring together politicians, policy advocates and wealthy elites from around the world to plan economic and foreign policy globally. That is while they all contribute significantly to increasing global emissions to get there and back, while they dream up more schemes to tell the folks back home that they cannot drive; live in a house, on any land or farm; or, for those who can afford it, fly. We will all have to eat insects while they all do the exact opposite, even while they bring home agendas that will make essentials and daily life so expensive for all the rest of us that we will have no choice.

Globalism is literally the function of numerous organizations all explicitly heavily focused on imposing the just transition for years. Today, it is linked to the concept of the global citizen and of postnational states with no independent identities, just like the current Prime Minister said of Canada when he was elected.

That is what is happening at COP28 right now. It is in the UN 2030 plan. It is the top priority of lots of many well-known and respected gatherings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization and others. It is bizarre that the NDP-Liberals deny and attack all this now, when globalism is obviously implicit in its ideology. I thought they were proud of that. They have all been outraged about this, but the truth hurts. Anger is often a cover for hurt, so maybe that is what all their rage is about.

Maybe their issue is that I call it Soviet-style central planning, except for this: Bill C-50 really would create a government-appointed committee to advise the minister. The minister would then appoint another committee to plan the economy. This bill would not mandate that any of that would happen through openness and transparency. Neither of the committees would report either to Parliament or directly to Canadians along the way. I guess the coalition members want to say that it is a win that the reports would be tabled in the House of Commons, but that would not guarantee any kind of debate or accountability. The members are proving their true colours through how they are handling the bill now, especially since it is clear that they want to impose it all with little challenge and almost no scrutiny from beginning to end.

Oh right, it is there in the summary, in black and white for all the world to see. When would those plans from the government committees for Canada's economy be imposed? It would be every five years. That is literally the time frame for central planning that Soviets preferred. However, the NDP-Liberals are somehow shocked and outraged, even though the lead NDP-Liberal minister is a guy who is a self-declared “proud socialist”, as came out of his own mouth in this very chamber. Right now, he is at a conference about the progress of the global just transition.

There are no costs outlined in this bill either, even though it would obviously cost taxpayers, just as the NDP-Liberals' mega sole-source contracts for their buddies; infrastructure banks and housing funds that cost billions of tax dollars and build neither infrastructure nor houses, only bureaucracy; and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to tell the government to use fewer consultants. There would be a cost to create and maintain the just transition partnership council, on pages six to 10, that would advise the minister and then the secretariat that the minister would have to create. However, this bill does not tell Canadians about any of the cost that taxpayers would have to pay for all that, up front and after.

It is quite something to see the inclusion of the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the long title of Bill C-50, since it is all actually about government-appointed committees meeting behind closed doors and a minister who would cook up central plan after central plan. It would mandate neither transparency nor accountability at all, whether directly to Canadians or through their MPs, and it would not include an actual outline for one or any kind of skills- or job-training program.

That is how this whole thing was baked in the first place. Their rushed, top-down schedule today is to ram it through with as little analysis from MPs and input from Canadians as possible. It is a little silly for all the NDP-Liberals to be mad now that the official opposition actually wants MPs to do our jobs to debate, consult, amend and improve legislation, especially with such a wide-ranging and significant one such as Bill C-50 and the economic transition it would impose.

What about the tens of thousands of Canadians whose jobs were devastated by the NDP-Liberals' fast-tracked coal transition? The environment commissioner said this was a total failure. It left 3,400 Canadian workers in about a dozen communities completely behind. However, the government members say to just trust them to engineer an economic transition for 2.7 million Canadians and the entire country.

What about the nearly 40,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who were all put out of work completely when they were promised that the government would help them transition from cod? It was the largest industrial shutdown in Canadian history at the time. It was a disaster for all of them: their loved ones, their communities and their province. I hope they see Bill C-50 as the end of oil and gas in Canada bill that it is, because the impact of the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is a quarter of the province's total GDP. It is higher than that in Alberta. It is 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador's exports, and 6,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas service and supply sector have lost their jobs already, just in the last three years, because of the uncertainty and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy policies.

The government's intent now, through Bill C-50, is like nothing Canada has ever seen before. Canadians could be forgiven for knowing that this would not go well.

A truly bizarre point about all this that should be noted, though, is as follows: Despite the collusion between the NDP and Liberals on the bill for about two years, other opposition MPs such as Conservatives do not actually get to see the bills until the government tables them. Despite what I hear really were some round tables and consultation meetings, there is not actually any tangible delivery of what the bill's own proponents say that it does for skills and job training.

It is not in here anywhere, which is one of the many reasons Conservatives say that the natural resources committee must actually do its job and, most importantly, must hear from all the Canadians it would impact. Both union and non-union workers, as well as union leaders, should be outraged about it.

What really did happen with all the time, effort and money that was apparently sunk into developing it behind closed doors between 2021 and 2023? Since the bill sets up committees to plan to set up committees to plan from on high, why the heck did all this require a law in the first place?

Government, unions and businesses consult, develop plans and report. Okay, what is holding this up from going ahead? Why is Bill C-50 even required for that work to happen if they all want it to? How is this actually all the Liberal-NDP government has come up with?

How is any Canadian supposed to trust these guys to deliver on anything, when it took all this time and all these meetings and tax dollars, but there is not even an actual plan or program? They would not even get a recommendation for two years. It is sort of like the ITCs that the NDP-Liberals keep talking and bragging about, as if they are doing anything in our economy right now. Actually, they do not even exist at all in Canada yet.

Of course, Conservatives and more and more Canadians know that Bill C-50 really is all about the just transition and ending oil and gas in Canada as fast as they possibly can. The NDP-Liberals have shown this repeatedly after eight years. A government, of course, that did not want to kill the sector and all the livelihoods it sustains really would not do anything differently from what these guys have done and continue to do.

Everyone can read it. In the 11 pages and 21 clauses of Bill C-50, there is not one single instance of a skills- or job-training program. That is the truth.

Now, because of the NDP-Liberals, neither union nor non-union workers will be able to speak or be heard by MPs at any remaining stage of the top-down agenda for this bill. In fact, nobody will: no workers, contractors, business owners, investors or indigenous owners, partners, workers or contractors. Therefore, I will talk about some of those workers now. I have a few points.

First, the reality is that the biggest growth of well-paying union jobs in Canada right now is actually created by the big multinational oil and gas companies expanding and ramping up new oil, gas and petrochemical projects in Alberta. These are the same companies that made Alberta, by far and away, Canada’s leader in clean tech, renewable and alternative energy for at least 30 years.

For the record, today, Alberta is again Canada’s leader in renewable energy. In fact, the investment commitments for renewables and future fuel development in Alberta have doubled to nearly $50 billion of private sector money planned and ready to invest, since the premier paused to set the conditions, to guarantee consultation, certainty and confidence for all Albertans, while the regulator keeps taking applications. However, the NDP-Liberals will not admit that to us either.

Second, where we are at is that the major oil and gas companies are leading the creation of new union jobs in Canada. However, this is actually the very sector that the just transition agenda would shut down first. The main thing every union worker needs is a job. That is what is at risk.

Third, the anti-energy coalition also refuses to admit the fact that, in Canada, traditional oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies have been, far and away, the top investors in the private sector for decades and, today, in clean tech, environmental innovation and renewables among all the private sectors in Canada, excluding governments and utilities. Likewise, oil and gas is still, right now, the top private sector investor and top export in Canada’s economy. The truth is that nothing is poised to match or beat it any time soon. Nothing comes close. The stakes of the anti-energy agenda imposed by the costly coalition for Canada are exceptionally grave.

Here are some facts about the businesses and workers that would be hurt the most by the just transition agenda, Bill C-50. In Canada’s oil and gas sector, 93% of companies only have up to 99 employees. They are small businesses, and 63% of those businesses are considered micro-businesses, with fewer than five employees.

That is the truth about workers and businesses in Canada’s oil and gas sector, especially the homegrown, Canadian-based ones. They are not union businesses, although their jobs are also sustainable; they are also higher paying, with reliable long-term benefits, than jobs in most sectors.

Large employers, with over 500 people on payroll, account for just over 1%, not 2%, of the total oil and gas extraction businesses in Canada; that is it. Those businesses are mostly union workplaces and support more union jobs than the rest of the sector. However, they are also among the first businesses that Bill C-50’s agenda would kill and that, after eight years, the NDP-Liberals have been incrementally damaging. Again, there would be no oil and gas sector, no businesses and no jobs, union or otherwise. That is the truth. It also means higher costs and less reliable power, especially where most Canadians have no affordable options, as in rural, remote, northern, prairie, Atlantic and indigenous communities, with fewer businesses and jobs. There would be less money for government programs, since the oil and gas sector currently pays the most to all three levels of government, and less private sector money for clean tech and innovation.

Which workers do the NDP-Liberals already know that their unfair, unjust transition in Bill C-50 would hurt the most? If colleagues can believe this, it would be visible minority and indigenous Canadians. Both ethnically diverse and indigenous Canadians are more highly represented in the energy sector than they are in any other sector in Canada’s economy, but the internal government-leaked memo that I am assuming colleagues have seen says they are expected to face higher job disruptions than any other workers. They would also have more trouble finding new opportunities. They would end up in lower-paying, more precarious jobs, as would be the case for all workers who lose their livelihoods to this radical, anti-energy global agenda.

Canadians will know instantly, of course, from these numbers that the top targets to be crushed by Bill C-50 are the 93% and 63% of Canadian businesses, the small- and micro-businesses, their workers and all their contractors. Bill C-50 does not contemplate them at all. There is no consideration about all the non-union workers who will lose their jobs in the just transition agenda. These are the homegrown, Canadian-based and owned businesses with Canadian workers who have been doing their part for environmental stewardship, innovation, clean tech, actual emissions reductions and indigenous partnerships to the highest standards in Canada and, therefore, in the entire world, just like the big guys here.

Since the NDP-Liberals refused to allow this, my office spoke with one of those union workers last week, a worker from Saskatchewan. He said, “I am not happy with the fact that I will be displaced out of a job from a federal mandate.” No matter what the NDP-Liberals try to call this or say about it now, he had it right. That is exactly what would happen to that union worker.

There is nothing, not a single thing, about all the non-union workers, who would obviously lose their jobs first, nor is there any space for union workers who do not want the transition accelerated by the anti-energy, anti-private sector NDP-Liberals. There is nothing about the communities and the people who would be damaged the most, nothing about what sector actually can and will replace the jobs and economic contributions of the oil and gas sector. Of course, right now, there is no such sector. There is nothing about all those hundreds of thousands of oil and gas union workers whose employers would also be put out of work quickly, as is the actual aim of Bill C-50. It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals want to silence Canadians, so they can do this quickly and behind closed doors. They too must know that common-sense Canadians can see right through them, and they are running out of time.

I have a last point about the chair of the natural resources committee, the member for Calgary Skyview. When I congratulated him on his recent appointment, I told him the Liberals have done him no favours by putting him there to help impose their agenda. The people of Calgary Skyview will render their decision in the next election, as is their right, like it is for all Canadians.

I warned a former natural resources minister from Alberta that his constituents would see his betrayal. I said this in our last emergency committee meeting about the TMX, which has still not been built, in the summer heading into the 2019 election. Colleagues will notice that this member was not sent back here. I suspect that the people of Calgary Skyview will feel the same in this instance. In hindsight, I suspect this will not be worth it for the member for Calgary Skyview, but we all make choices and face the consequences.

I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) replacing paragraph (a) with the following:

“(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;

(i) the Minister of Natural Resources and its officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours;

(ii) members of the committee submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning the bill, to the clerk, and that the Chair and clerk create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

(iii) a press release be issued for the study of the bill inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions,”; and

(b) deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

Every member of the chamber has an ability to prove that they actually support democracy by supporting our amendment.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, as a former chair of the natural resources committee, I know we have seen three iterations of Conservatives cycle through the committee to make sure that no work gets done. That included when the committee had the hearings on the sustainable jobs work. The point is that, the previous Conservative member asked a question about disrespect. I would like the minister to flip that to demonstrate that this is a very respectful piece of legislation for labour. We know that the Conservatives stand up for big oil executives.

Could the minister explain to the House and the residents of Cloverdale—Langley City why Bill C-50 is so important and so needed?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of revisionist history in there. The committee has been blocked by the Conservative filibuster for six weeks, which is 11 meetings and about 25 hours. The committee has been stuck on the same meeting since October 30. The committee could have heard from witnesses on both bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, which were in front of the committee, but the Conservatives blocked it.

In terms of the work that we are doing to ensure that there is a prosperous future for every province and territory in this country, I would point the hon. member to the announcement of the $11.5-billion plant with Dow Chemicals in Fort Saskatchewan, where we worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta; the Air Products hydrogen facility near Edmonton, where we worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta; and the CCUS tax credit, where we have worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta, which will create thousands of jobs going forward in that member's riding.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will take this opportunity to ask the minister a question. I agree with him that what we have seen in recent weeks on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources is rather disgraceful.

However, one thing still has to be looked at. In Bill C‑50, the government unfortunately did not take into account the fact that there is a labour agreement between Quebec and Ottawa. I think that needs to be corrected.

I would like the minister to tell me whether he agrees with me that we must consider the workforce training agreements Quebec and Ottawa have previously signed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many Conservative colleagues who represent oil and gas workers and rural or remote northern Canadians and who will be hurt by the culmination of the anti-energy agenda, represented by Bill C-50 and the just transition's top-down, central-planning Soviet aim to restructure the Canadian economy and redistribute wealth, will have many questions today. However, I just wonder, off the top, how the minister can possibly justify such a significant, fundamental, never-seen-before piece of legislation and agenda for our country and for the fundamentals of our Canadian economy, and justify ramming it through with fewer than eight hours total of debate for all members of Parliament from every region of this country, who are just trying to do our jobs on behalf of the people who sent us here.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Usually how this goes is it takes another five minutes to go back and state the same types of things to prove the relevancy that was associated with it. If we don't deal with Bill C-69, if we can't therefore properly dispose of the discussions associated with Bill C-50, and if we then can't properly look at and be prepared to look at decisions with regard to Bill C-49, then anything we talk about within our own communities is held up by this blockage of legislation.

Of course, the things that happen in Timmins—James Bay are relevant to the discussion taking place here. You have people—the indigenous community—come, and you ask whether the government is overstepping its reach or whether they feel that they are back in a colonial era. That was the last topic we were talking about. Those are community people, specifically to Timmins—James Bay. We could go to that.

We look at the egregious parts of the Supreme Court ruling, which will affect Timmins—James Bay people. If we have something else that we put into legislation and then merrily go along our way, saying that the government said this is true.... Well, guess what? The Supreme Court doesn't like that one either. Why did the Government of Ontario, or why did this group, or why is it....?

I'm trying to remember. I think the first nations have taken the government to court too. I think this has happened on our carbon tax, but that's a different story. I would agree that that is perhaps outside this.

However, I really think it's relevant. How can you not say that the Supreme Court is making decisions, and they affect everybody's riding? They do. I believe that is certainly significant.

I fly over that part of our country twice a week. Unless it's at night, I take a look down there, and I see this amazing country we have. I know we have six time zones from one side to the other. I know there are only three provincial capitals that are north of the 49th parallel. I know that a massive amount of our population is within 50 miles, or 80 kilometres.... This is just to prove that I'm bilingual in math. That's where our population is; and those decisions, then, are made for the breadth of this nation and for communities, and they don't see what this country is like.

Yes, it concerns me, therefore, when someone says, “Yes, but Alberta, you want this,” or, “B.C., you want this,” or, “Saskatchewan is not being reasonable.” It's coming from a government that doesn't care, because its decisions are made for what it believes...for those who are hugging the U.S. border. Therefore, the Inflation Reduction Act and all of these kinds of things are significant, because where do you think all that action is going to come from? Where are all these billions of dollars going to be spent? They're going to be spent right next door. That's what we're going to see.

Quite frankly, no one has challenged them and asked if that's the right thing to be doing. When they say they're going to put billions of dollars into this project or that project, well, here's how they're doing it. They are basically saying to the States and the municipalities, “It's not going to cost you a dime. We're going to develop all of this, and we'll find out some way to get this back from the proponents later on. It's not going to cost you a dime.”

How sustainable is that, first of all? It's a lot more sustainable if you're the U.S. than it is here, because we look at the way our economy is tanking compared to the U.S., and so they have this flexibility. It's still wrong, but they do have this flexibility to continue in a wrong way for a lot longer than we do.

It's going to take a lot of nerve to say, “Here's where our strengths are.” We know that Canada can produce natural gas. We know that the world needs natural gas. We know that different parts of our nation have different strengths and different ways of creating energy. The worst part, though, is when one part of the country says, “We don't like yours, so shut it down and we'll do all we can. We will partner with like-minded individuals who really don't believe that your type of energy is the kind of energy that Canada should have.” Again, they don't make it too far off the 49th parallel when they come up with decisions like that, so I guess that's where we find this disconnect that we have as a nation.

Take a look at all of the potential natural gas we could have in Quebec. Go get it. We could use it, but that would take the narrative away from how we want to use all of our energy, we want to use.... We already have this area flooded, so now we have this green energy coming out of hydroelectric power. As long as nobody goes back and thinks about what it was like prior to that, and as long as we ignore the displacement of animals and humans, and so on, to get to that stage, then it's great. Everyone should be happy.

I remember as a kid—I guess I wasn't a kid at that time—when the Red Deer River was dammed. There are friends of mine who lost land. It had to be sold so that they could dam up the river. For years after, people loved it. It looked good, because you could put a sailboat on it and everything looked fantastic, and that must be environmental—until you saw these trees popping out. They pop up once the lake-bed has deteriorated. We know the methane that comes out of those. We know that any of the minerals and the toxic minerals that are associated with it will then get dissolved. We know all of those sorts of things, but it looks good. I congratulate the people in the community who take this facility and use it in a positive way. I don't go back and complain about it.

I'm not complaining about what the people in Quebec do. As a matter of fact, even if I were an eco-environmentalist, I wouldn't go to Quebec—if they were getting ready to go and flood the whole place to get their hydroelectric power—and tell them they couldn't. I'd say, “It's up to you. You make that decision,” but don't come back to me and say, “Hey, Alberta, we don't like your oil and gas, and we're going to stand up here and we're going to make sure you don't get to do that.” I see. Is that the duplicitous...? I'm not sure whether that's true—it may be two ways of looking at things, but—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I just want to again ask my colleague for relevance. We're not here debating Bill C-69. We're actually here debating a motion and a subamendment to a motion that deals with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.

I noticed that everybody wanted to get into the debate on eco-colonialism. First of all, it's a term that, when I was at environment committee, people from first nations used. Although people might believe that I'm attempting to claim it, it is not mine.

That is what has been said. I see this melding between my time in environment and my time here at natural resources. I tried to look at the mandate letters; I couldn't see any difference between the two.

We have a Minister of Natural Resources who still thinks he's the Minister of Environment, so I can't remember which one...whether it was discussions here or discussions there. I didn't coin it.

It's somewhat ironic that when Charlie is here and we talk about his community, I would think that is where you would find a lot of first nations people who want to be engaged in whatever type of development is going to take place, whether it's building a road to get there, getting the power coming from there. I've had lots of discussions with first nations leadership from Ontario, talking about this exact commentary. Yes, they know that if they have to follow the government's mantra there are certain boxes they have to check off, but they also know that in terms of those things that are important to their community, if you have a higher power that believes that it and it alone dictates how things are going to be done, that is exactly the colonialism that has been part of the discussion for over a hundred years.

I welcome the comment on it, but again, there are a lot of first nations people who believe that they should be the ones who have the right to make decisions in their lands. It's not me who presented that, even though I would be happy to take claim for it because, quite frankly, that is exactly what is happening when we talk about investments that people have.

Yes, it ties in to the fact that there are a lot more people being affected by that mindset than just native communities. Perhaps that's where the confusion is, but they believe that these things require us to work together.

You take Chief Helin—I'm grasping for his first name now—from British Columbia. One of the books he wrote was Dances with Dependency, which I would suggest people read, talking about what it's like being a leader in indigenous communities and the types of things that have prevented them from being able to do the things that are important for their community.

If we get to that stage, and their community has invested in oil and gas and mining and fishing and forestry, there are a lot of different things that communities in B.C. have been involved with, I think they would agree that there is a mindset here that says Ottawa knows best. As a matter of fact, Ottawa seemed to know best when they chose to take Bill C-50 out of our hands. The whole reason for that is the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that said parts of Bill C-69 were unconstitutional.

Therefore, the development of a bill that speaks to the workings in communities of a philosophy that says that we will do as much as we can to stop oil and gas development, or any type of development, and forget what the Supreme Court says.... When that affects that bill, it then takes us to the next part, which is to talk about Bill C-49. Whereas there are 33 references to the egregious parts of Bill C-69 within that bill, we get nothing from the government to say, “You know what? Maybe we should wait a bit. Maybe we should get some reference points.” All we get from the government and from the minister is, “Well, we don't believe that. That's just their opinion.”

Yes, it's their opinion; therefore, you should do something about it. Otherwise, you throw legislation to us, to each and every one of us sitting here, that says, “You have to rubber-stamp something that you know the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional.” How then are we supposed to proceed?

We've waited for a discussion of Bill C-69 and these egregious points from the Supreme Court ruling. We've waited for some discussion on that. People talk about how long October was. Well, we're still waiting. We're waiting for the Supreme Court decision to be addressed by this government, rather than, “Oh, it doesn't matter.”

Those are the issues we have, which is why we come back to say that, well, if people don't agree with this—

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

A few days ago, I had a chance to speak to both you and the clerk, questioning whether the following statement would be a point of order, and you suggested that no, it's best for me to bring it up when I have the floor, so I have patiently waited for that.

In my last intervention I misspoke. I indicated that it was a company by the name of Hoverlink that had been required to go and get funds from the U.S., actually through the Canada pension plan, in order to fund....

I made a mistake. It was actually in testimony from Mr. Zsombor Burany, who had said that he had needed to get a $250-million investment for his telecommunications company but that he was not able to get Canadian funds, so he had been required to go to the United States. It actually ended up being a U.S. company, but the irony, of course, was the fact that the funding for it came through the Canada pension plan.

I apologize for having made that mistake, but I did want to make sure that the record was corrected. That is the first thing I wanted to mention.

In my remarks, I went through a number of different issues. Again, one I had mentioned was the text of a book by the name of Factfulness by Hans Rosling. We, as politicians or business people, have certain ideas of what is happening in the world, based on our experiences and so on. It's not necessarily fact, and if you start to take a look at the way in which countries manage themselves, you'll see that things are a lot better off in the world than we perceive them to be.

One of the questions they posed—and this was posed to extremely intelligent people around the world— was about the average grade level of young men of 30 years old, who had 10 years of school. They then made the comparison and asked, “How many years of school do you think a young lady who is 30 years of age would have; nine years, six years or three years?” The vast majority of experts believed that it was three or six years. It's actually nine years, one year less than for a male equivalent, but that's not how we think. We have experts around the world saying that they are going to develop policies, make investments and so on, based on their perceived notion of how the world is.

When I read the book, I did the little quiz, and I realized that I am not much better at guessing than anybody else when it comes to that because that's my perceived notion. These are the things that I've heard since I was young. I also reflected on the point—and, of course, this got a little bit of excitement from the minister—about the sorts of things that I've been subjected to as someone who was born in the 1950s and grew up in the 1960s and so on.

I remember when I was a kid. It was only eight years after the Second World War, and the Cuban missile crisis was one of the key issues. My dad was part of a civil defence where basically he was the guy who had to have the Geiger counter out there in case we had an atomic war. That was the sort of thing I was subjected to when I was seven or eight years old—the idea that what is going to get us next could be an atomic war.

Then I started to hear things—this was in the 1960s—that oil was going to be gone in 10 years. In the 1970s, I heard that another ice age was going to take place in 10 years.

This is what got people excited. I mentioned that acid rain was going to destroy all of our crops in 10 years. People got excited about that.

Perhaps I should have explained the significance of the work that had been done in order to mitigate those and to look at that, but I didn't. That caused a little excitement for the minister.

There were similar types of things when we were discussing ozone layers. Again, there have been efforts associated with this. There's a lot to it, so I didn't give the two-hour dissertation about the relationship that exists about that. Nevertheless this is what was presented to people. That was the point I was trying to make—every once in a while or about every 10 years, we are given the next thing to worry about. In 1997-98, of course, it was Y2K—look how the world is going to fall apart, because our computers can't figure out what day it is. That was the next thing we looked at. Of course, in 2000 we talked about when the next ice caps were going to be gone.

Here are the issues. We are constantly given a barrage of information that says we are doomed. Every time we deal with that “we are doomed” scenario, somebody is out there making money. I think that's a critical point.

Again, being old enough, I remember Greenpeace. I remember their reason for being. I remember Patrick Moore and the efforts that he has made. Now he is some sort of a pariah in the environmental community, because he says that the people who have taken over these ecology-focused groups are not there for the environment; they are there to make sure they can get money. He said, “I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change [is] a complete fabrication.”

That all depends on where your definition is. I'm sure—as the last time the Minister of Environment took a run at me for stating some obvious facts, and the Minister of Natural Resources took a run at me for stating some obvious facts—that the climate does change. However, what we also have to recognize is that we need to use our strengths in order to make sure that we are helping humanity. Right now we have this thought, and we hear it constantly, that the earth is boiling, and all of these other kinds of things that are only meant to invoke fear in the populace.

You have others who sit back and say that it's not quite that bad, and maybe what we should be doing is using our wealth to come back to a spot where people are being looked after. That's not a bad idea. We have Dubai, where COP28 is taking place right now. The chair, basically, says that things aren't quite as bad as people think. Of course now you have the groups that ask why we decided to have a climate change meeting in some place where they actually produce oil, That's a dumb thing to have done. Well, no, maybe it's simply that they understand the realities of the world, and I think that's really a critical point.

Then we get back to Timmins—James Bay, and every other riding that we have. This is what I had mentioned last day, and I think it's critical. We have made decisions that say Canada, somehow, is going to be the leader in battery production, electric-vehicle production and mining. Sadly, we say that we will do that at the same time as we are going to minimize the oil and gas industry here in North America—so, our part of it. There are lots of contrary aspects and different things associated with it, but quite frankly, we know what is taking place in the rest of the world.

We know that China has a grasp on all of the supply chain as far as electric motors and battery parts are concerned.

These are the reasons we see companies backing off from their pledges of having this many electric vehicles by 2030.

We see that happening constantly, but here we sit down and say, “Not here in Canada”. We will keep going like a moose on a trail. Nothing that matters is going to change. We're going to stay on that trail.

That's where we have to be thinking. That's where when I go back to this Hans Rosling book. We have this concept that if this is what we have started on, nobody can tell us that anything else is relevant and, therefore, we are going to continue to push this.

We talk about Bill C-50, the just transition and so on. If you do a little bit of research on where that came from, it is a UN discussion. That UN discussion basically started off with a lady named Sharan Burrow who had written a commentary about how shared prosperity provides hope and security. It's basically giving everybody the thought that things are just going to be great.

Who is she? She heads the International Trade Union Confederation.

Basically she is saying that if we can convince everybody that they could change their job, but the only way that they're being saved is because we have trade unions that are going to be part of it and they will stand up for people.... That's not exactly how the world works, especially if you're looking at small business. The fact is that the majority of anything happening in this country right now is small and medium-sized businesses. They're not associated with trade unions. There are parts...but that isn't the reality, yet here is this UN Declaration that indicates that the world should be going through this just transition. That's the sort of thing we're dealing with.

When the UN presents this as one of their goals, they say all the right things. They say all the things that I hear our government talking about when it goes to international fora, about how this just transition is going to work out so well for us.

The reality is that's not the way the rest of the world is. Sadly, right now when we talk about what is happening in Europe.... As I mentioned, I've been part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We talk about food security, we talk about energy security, and of course we talk about what is happening in Ukraine. Those are the three main issues we have. A year ago, I was talking to these people and people from Ukraine, asking how we can help. How can we be part of this? Things have kind of fallen apart even worse now than they were a year ago.

I've been on the environment committee and the natural resources committee. I listened to my friends from the NDP and from the Bloc.They are adamant that there should be no nuclear energy development because of their concerns about something that I was concerned about back in the sixties because of nuclear war. We kind of realized that wasn't the reality of it, but they can still go back to that rhetoric that says that something terrible is going to happen.

They have no idea what it's like. They have no idea about the safety associated with it. They have no idea that the reason it is so expensive to produce is because we have all of these naysayers sitting on the sidelines saying that we have to make sure we do this. They say, “Fine, we will do it; we will prove it”. Once it's proven the first time though, you'd think maybe we could get to the stage where things could proceed a little faster.

Actually, they are proceeding faster now. If you look at what is happening in Europe, you see them expanding the number of nuclear projects they have to generate electricity, so much so that the next issue is how they transmit that. How do they get that energy to where they need to have it if they're going to concentrate on heat pumps, EVs and that sort of thing? They don't have a grid that can deal with that.

There are billions and billions of dollars that are associated with that part.

That's the reality we have, so those of us in our 338 communities start to look at the opportunities for us to be part of this new transition into electric vehicles. We have to be smart about it, and sadly, I don't believe that is the case.

As I've said on so many occasions, if you're not going to measure the environmental impact from the first shovel you use to dig something up until you're finished with it and have to shove it back in again and throw dirt on it, at the end—whether that be nuclear, hydroelectric, oil and gas, windmills or solar—if you're not going to measure it, then how can you say that you are actually doing anything for the environment?

However, we still do. We say, yes, but somebody told us this, or, we believe this is the case. Even though we might be completely wrong we believe it and therefore that is the path we are going to follow.

If we follow things that are wrong and we spend billions or trillions of dollars globally on these issues, what other things could we have solved in the meantime? I was on the health committee for quite some time. If we could spend our money looking at ways of helping with those things, whether it be cancer or other types of things that affect each and every one of us, if we were able to take the wealth we have and say, let's concentrate on that, instead of saying, the U.S. has the Inflation Reduction Act, so we've got to spend money or else we're going to be left on the wayside here....

It's not going to work for them either in the situations where they're doing it. It's not working from the perspective that they still have electric vehicle plants. They have all of these types of things. They have their own companies that are saying they can't keep up. This 2030 thing or 2035, there is no way that is possible. We are backing away from it.

They might have great ideas, but think, what was the last great idea that happened when this government was elected? The first thing that happened was that the president decided to shut down Keystone XL, and the little bit of push-back that the Canadian government gave, based on that, was very minimal. All that did was prevent our being able to take our rich natural resources that are produced in the most environmentally friendly way in the world from heading into the U.S. market because they didn't want it to move into the world market.

People have to understand the science associated with hydrocarbons. When you bring them in, depending upon how they come in, that's where you get the different types of products that can be used. They need them, so now let's start talking about Venezuela. How can we bring Venezuelan heavy oil in here so that the refineries we have on the gulf coast can actually do the things they need so that these products can be presented around the world?

When you have a neighbour who thinks that way about your energy resources, when you have a neighbour who says, you know what, now we are actually producing more oil and gas to send around the world than anybody else, how much do you really think they are going to be working with us as far as partners are concerned?

The president can simply say, we sure want to be engaged with some of your mining projects so that we can have the rare earth minerals that are required, whether it be for batteries or whether it be for engines and all those sorts of things, and we can look at that and we'd be happy to make you our partners. We have been partners before where we take what we have, dig it up and send it someplace else. Yes, there are lots of people who make money and we chip away at our wealth, give it to somebody else and we go from there.

That's not what the government is saying. The government is saying, “Yes, but we're not going to allow that. We are going to be the ones going in. We will make sure that, whether it's in Timmins—James Bay or Red Deer—Mountain View, we're going to get to these products that we have. We will try to find the supply chain to get them to markets, and everything's going to be great.” That's until, of course, you talk to the community and ask them what their thoughts are about different types of production in their communities.

I remember people being so upset that there were simply going to be transmission powerlines going through their part of the community. These weren't because of some windmills or anything else. It was just that somebody decided they wanted to change the line and then there was a lot of discussion based on that. That's the reality that each and every one of us is going to have to deal with when it comes to looking at what the future is going to be.

Now I know we have amazing wealth and amazing intellect as a country. We should not be stopping any options, but it does not mean we should be shutting down one part of our economy because of an ideological bent, which not just this government but other governments around the world believe is significant. I worry about that. The other governments still have their signatures on the bottom of these agreements, so they're not jumping up and down and saying what they're doing, but the reality is that within their borders they are changing things. I think that becomes a critical aspect of it.

We have had people here slamming the Alberta government because they chose.... As a matter of fact, I can't remember which minister it was as there's a sort of tag team on this. They slammed Alberta because of the moratorium on renewables, whoever it was—I think it was a minister. Nevertheless, what people don't recognize is that Alberta has a massive number of renewables, many more than other places, when you talk about what has been developed over the last number of years—

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I wasn't sure how long that would go on for.

I will resume the points I was making previously with respect to the substance of this issue. I will say in passing that Mr. Sorbara raised three points of order in quick succession, first interrupting the points I was making about workers and then saying on the third point that we should get back to talking about workers.

I hope I don't cause a flurry of disorder by saying that this is the kind of duplicitousness we have come to expect from my colleagues opposite, who, in one instance in this committee, claimed that they want to hear from witnesses, but I expect that they are planning on supporting a motion in the House that would make it impossible for this committee to hear from witnesses.

This is what is happening. This is what people need to know. This is what is really an unprecedented attack on the ability of our democratic institutions to do their jobs.

The way the legislative process is supposed to work is that bills, when adopted at second reading, come to committee. They are considered in committee. In the process of consideration, there is a consensual process around hearing from a certain number of witnesses, and then ultimately the individual clauses and related amendments are put to a vote, and the committee is able to use its expertise on the issues at hand to study the bills and their effects.

Parliamentary committees are not supposed to be simply a rubber-stamp process. They are supposed to be a substantive investigation of critical issues by the members who are tasked with being on this committee and, therefore, becoming expert in the particular issues associated with it. That's why we have parliamentary committees. That's a critical reason that we have a legislative process in general.

Too often this government has treated Parliament as if it's some kind of a rubber-stamping sideshow. In particular, parliamentary committees are essential to the process of crafting good legislation.

We have been trying to establish a good process for working through this legislation. I think, if you look at the extended committee meeting that has been ongoing for the last month, you will see that the majority, if not the vast majority, of the talking has been done by members of the NDP and the Liberals. There have been constant interruptions and almost no opportunity for members of this committee to put thoughts on the record.

I had an experience early on when I was planning to speak to this issue, and I had the floor arbitrarily taken away from me by the chair, but we have had many instances throughout, as we have just seen across the way, when reasoned attempts to make arguments about the substantive issues associated with this legislation are being put forward, there are constant interruptions.

I think the claim by the government that this is some kind of sustained filling of the time by opposition members is just not consistent with the record. The record is very clear here in terms of what has been going on.

Nonetheless, we have, as I have been trying to identify for the last half hour in the midst of interruptions, motion number 31, which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has put forward that radically abridges the committee study process and effectively eliminates the committee study process on Bill C-50.

Once adopted, it would give members less than 24 hours to submit their amendments, which is extremely limiting, especially given the constraints around the legislative drafting team to do great work. Demanding a turnaround of a couple of hours if there are multiple complex amendments is obviously quite unreasonable. Even the ideas that we would want to hear, about what type of amendments would happen and the possible refinements of those amendments that should be coming, we will not be hearing from the witnesses, because witnesses will not be able to appear.

The motion created by the government involves no witnesses and no ministers even coming before committee to explain their position around the bill. It envisions a process where, after a mere two hours of clause-by-clause consideration, the committee would be subject to a procedure whereby there would be no debate whatsoever on the clauses. This is in part 4 of the government motion that, after 8:30, all remaining—

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

—from Bill C-50, get to voting on amendments or subamendments and so forth, and get the conversation on relevance.

This is not about me, Garnett. This is about Canadians, about labour and about working together with industry, and that is what Bill C-50 is.

It's not about Francesco, or about anybody in this room. It should be about them, so let's get back to relevance.

Thank you, sir.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I would like to make it very clear that on Friday Ms. Dabrusin spoke in the House very passionately about Bill C-50 and about the work of this committee. She made a declaration in the House that day saying that she's looking forward to hearing witnesses here at committee. She knows full well that the motion that's presented by her party would prevent any witnesses from attending committee, so she's being very duplicitous in her comments between the House and our committee. I think she should maybe take an opportunity to clarify what she meant on Friday in the House by saying she was looking forward to hearing from witnesses she knew would never appear.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will remain relevant, as I always have.

Maybe to make it explicit for Ms. Dabrusin, who I'm sure is following intently every word that I am saying, the motion before this committee relates to the business of the committee, the study of bills, in particular, including Bill C-50. The amendment and the subamendment deal with which witnesses would be called during consideration of that bill.

Meanwhile, we have a motion before the House that, if passed, would make it impossible for this committee to hear from any witnesses. The government, with their coalition partners in the NDP, are moving in the House to impose a shutdown of debate here at the natural resources committee. Committees are supposed to be masters of their own domain, and we could be debating this subamendment based on the idea that we actually get to decide. It is the intention of the government to rob us of our historic and ancient rights and privileges as a committee, by imposing upon us this draconian situation where we would not be able to hear from any witnesses.

That is not merely tangentially relevant to the point; that is the point, because the subamendment is about which witnesses we would call.

This motion from the House, which I was discussing before being interrupted by Ms. Dabrusin's point of order, would make it impossible for the committee to hear from those witnesses.

Again, based on the government's scheduling and intentions, it appears to be their intention to impose the passage of this motion by the end of day today, December 4. This means that tomorrow would be the deadline for submitting amendments, and that the committee would meet “the second sitting day following” at 6:30 to begin clause-by-clause. I believe that means two days after, so that would be Wednesday. It would have two hours to do clause-by-clause; and if, by 8:30—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to respond to my colleague.

I have a great deal of respect for bilingualism and the French language. Your intervention clearly had nothing to do with the Standing Orders.

In fact, the chair lied to the committee. He said that when lots of people speak at the same time, it's a health issue. I would say that while it might make it difficult for the interpreters to do their work, it's not a health issue. We've already discussed this, but I'll take the opportunity to reiterate my position on this issue.

It's obviously not ideal when many people speak at the same time, but it doesn't have anything to do with the interpreters' health. That's obvious. We were therefore given inaccurate information.

Mr. Chair, we are now discussing committee business, but it is important to say in the context of that discussion of committee business that we now have a motion that was initially debated. It's begun debate in the House.

It would seek to impose an approach on the committee of considering this bill. This is motion number 31. It is an unprecedented, egregious and very draconian approach that the NDP-Liberal government is taking to impose a very specific timeline on this committee for Bill C-50. It's a timeline that is completely different from the approach that committees would normally take. This limits our ability to hear from any of the witnesses the motion we're currently debating would propose to enable us to hear.

The motion that is being debated before the House, which was put forward by the government—by all indications, with the support of its coalition partners in the NDP—says that in consideration of this bill, there will be, in effect, no witness testimony. Amendments would have to be submitted by four o'clock the day after the motion was adopted. It seems the government's intention is that the motion be voted on today, so amendments would have to be submitted by four o'clock tomorrow. The committee should meet “at 6:30 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of the motion”—

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not?

Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government. After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are.

The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government. She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years.

Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims. Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later.

Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary. It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals.

Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime,being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison. As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.

To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it.

Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49, a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals. The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade.

That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree.

On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49. The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days. It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.

No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.

When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50, which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021.

They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.

Bill C-50, which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days.

Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else. At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.

However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50, the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49, the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.

Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills.

On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do. I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69, which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49, and then move to Bill C-50, the just transition.

Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians. The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills.

Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop.

For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.

I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that.

That brings us to today, Friday, December 1. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50.

The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy.

I want to make the following point clearly. Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50. No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us.

This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country. They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before.

There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”. The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.”

The article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition.

The article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.

For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all. They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about.

Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election. Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff.

The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later. The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.

I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.

The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept.

I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”. However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too.

It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, what does the member have to say to the 92% of Canadian oil and gas companies that have 100 employees or fewer, and the 60-some per cent that are considered micro-businesses with five or fewer employees, none of whom are union workers and none of whom Bill C-50 contemplates?

[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 rise today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In this capacity I hold a responsibility to ensure the advancement of our legislative agenda in vital areas of public policy, including the future of our energy system.

I stand here today to provide an update on the status of Parliament's review of two very important bills, Bill C-50, Canada's sustainable jobs act, which this motion specifically addresses, and Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accords.

Both of these vital pieces of legislation passed through second reading and were referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources well over a month ago. Parliamentary committees have a responsibility to Canadians to prioritize the laws that are put before them and to review these pieces of legislation. This is a principle responsibility of members on committee, and I believe that is well understood by every member in this House.

However, I regret to inform the House that after being at the natural resources committee for over a month, with more than 20 hours of scheduled and publicly available meeting time, the committee on which I am proud to serve has been ground to a standstill by Conservative members who are deliberately blocking the work of the committee. We have not even reached a vote yet on a routine scheduling motion to put the study of this bill in place.

Let me set the stage. On October 30, a member of the committee brought a motion for a concurrence study of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords act. This was a routine scheduling motion that would simply allow these pieces of legislation to be discussed and examined in a manner expected of elected officials.

Conservative members sought an amendment to that scheduling motion to add another area of study that was not a review of these bills and was designed to delay the bills that were before the committee for as long as possible. Not only that, they proceeded to stop votes on this motion via filibuster and then resorted to bringing subamendments to call witnesses from specific ridings. To date, our committee remains stuck because of Conservative obstruction. We are on the consideration of the subamendments, with no progress to getting to a decision on the scheduling motion for the concurrence study of these bills.

We are stuck in a scary pre-Halloween world. The Conservative Party continues to waste taxpayer resources with pointless interventions, unrelated amendments and nonsensical ramblings designed to block these bills from being discussed and from allowing workers to have a seat at the table.

For instance, the member of Parliament for Provencher wasted time discussing the challenges of drinking a triple-thick strawberry milkshake through a straw and about his love of muscle cars, including the Chevrolet Vega. I love the Vega. My grandmother had a Vega. That's a great conversation topic at a family table, but that is not on topic at all for something related to the bill, the sustainable jobs act, or the amendment they had proposed to that scheduling motion or the subamendment about calling witnesses from specific ridings. It was just a self-indulgent ramble to waste the committee's time.

The member of Parliament for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a tangent undermining the science of climate change and denying that extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency. I would expect better from a member of Parliament whose own community was blanketed in wildfire smoke this summer and faced severe drought.

The Conservative members were disrespectful, played childish games and did all that they could to ensure the voices of workers were silenced. If most Canadians had been able to watch this display of unpleasant and frankly unparliamentary behaviour, workers would have seen the disregard the members of the Conservative Party showed toward them. They would have been appalled.

Some Canadians were watching. A member of the natural resources committee explained that this horrible and shameless filibuster was being taught in university as an example of how parliamentary process can be undermined. Labour leaders also came to Ottawa to watch these proceedings, and they were not just shocked but outraged by what they saw.

After seeing the Conservatives resort to whatever tricks and conspiracy theories they could think of to block workers from coming to the table, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “What we saw...in the committee meeting last night is the worst kind of performative, deceptive politics.... The Conservative members of the committee...are counting on Canadians not [reading the bill]”.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also in response to this horrible display, said, “By holding up this bill continuously, the Conservatives are not speaking for workers on this issue. They are not making sure workers have a choice or ability to have robust debate as they are holding up this bill. It is incredibly frustrating, it is disrespectful to workers who are worried about their futures and it is disrespectful to communities. We need it to stop.”

It gives me no pleasure to recount all this and what we have seen in terms of the time and taxpayer dollars, frankly, being wasted by the members of the Conservative Party in this nonsensical campaign of obstruction.

The scheduling motion, which we have been blocked from adopting for over a month, would have allowed for the efficient review of both bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, in a concurrent manner, allowing for orderly witness appearances and deliberation.

Unfortunately, here we are today, left with a Conservative Party that has ignored the pleas of workers, labour leaders, industry, environmental organizations, two premiers and all the other recognized parties in the House. They have asked the Conservatives to end the filibuster and allow these bills to at least be discussed. The motion we are debating today is the only option available to ensure that this important legislation moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner.

Before I return to the challenges faced in the natural resources committee, I will first remind the hon. members of what this legislation means for Canada and our future. Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is critical to Canadian workers, to our economy and to Canada's future.

I wonder what part of this bill is so egregious to Conservatives that they would not even be willing to allow us to begin the study at committee. That is where we are at. Is it the “Canadian” part of the Canadian sustainable jobs act? Bill C-50 supports Canadians in every province and territory by bringing their voices to the decision-making table.

The bill supports Canadians by ensuring that they can access the most up-to-date data, resources and staff, to help our growing clean industrial facilities. It supports Canadians, because it allows us to get ahead of the pack and ensure that skilled Canadian workers can lead as we build the future economy today.

Perhaps they are opposed to the fact that it is a Canadian “sustainable” jobs act. We certainly heard an earful at committee from the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires, which we saw in our country just this summer, as a narrative that leads people to believe in climate change, but, as he said, “The facts don't bear it out.” Based on his own statements, I do not believe that sustainability is his top priority.

Perhaps the Conservatives are opposed to the “jobs” part. We already know that they oppose and voted against the tens of thousands of jobs we are attracting to sites such as the Volkswagen gigafactory, Stellantis plants in Windsor and Brampton, Northvolt in Quebec, Michelin in Nova Scotia, Air Products and Heidelberg in Alberta, BHP in Saskatchewan, E-One Moli in B.C. and so many more.

We know that they are not just against job creation but also good-quality jobs, including union jobs. Right now, they refuse to share their stance on Bill C-58, which would ban replacement workers and ensure that unions and employers can negotiate better deals. This is a win for workers and the economy. They also refuse to condemn their Conservative provincial partners in Alberta, who are putting in place a $33-billion moratorium on renewable energy products and the thousands of jobs they create.

It seems that perhaps they oppose the Canadian sustainable jobs aspect of this legislation. I can tell members one thing that they are not opposing: the final word, which is “act”. Acting is precisely what they have been doing over the past 20 hours and, during committee work, for over a month. I would say that they have done so quite dramatically. It has been a month of acting.

They have been acting as though they care about workers, while they actively prevent the union that represents hundreds of thousands of Albertan workers from speaking on the public record. They have even been acting as though they care about due process and democracy, while they shout into microphones in committee and, for weeks on end, prevent members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay, from speaking about the motion and the bill, when he clearly had the floor to speak.

In fact, we know that it is an act because they have almost exclusively used this filibuster to create fodder for social media clips and fundraising efforts. This is all premised on baseless assertions relating to a bill that they have clearly not begun to read or study.

It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in serious issues of public policy and are not friends to working-class Canadians. They have deliberately worked to ensure that Parliament does not work, and they are purposely ignoring Canadian workers, communities, industries and civil society, which are calling for an end to their acting and to begin real legislative action.

That brings me, and all of us, back to today. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress acknowledged recently that there is a lot at stake here in terms of moving this bill forward. She said, “This bill can make a meaningful difference to workers. It can give a real voice to their future.... It can strengthen good jobs and vibrant communities by supporting the decarbonization of good union jobs that exist today in those communities, and it can ensure that...as the rest of the world is attracting investments in future industries and good jobs that Canadian workers are not left behind in those investments.”

This delay is preventing Parliament from conducting an in-depth study of these two important bills. Despite the Conservatives' filibustering in committee, the Liberals and others continued to work with environmental groups and experts, unions, businesses, indigenous peoples and others in order to move forward on shaping our net-zero future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative energy critic publicly committed to blocking, delaying and challenging workers to prevent them from sitting down at the bargaining table and entering the workplace. We cannot let this ideological and obstructionist attitude curb our economic potential. I would like to quote the executive director of the Climate Action Network, who said, “The Conservatives can filibuster this bill but they cannot filibuster the energy transition.”

Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is an essential bill that will help Canadian workers build a prosperous economy. It also builds on the work that our committee did last year when it studied the future of sustainable jobs. During a previous study of this bill in committee, the Conservatives filibustered in dozens of meetings to prevent the witnesses from speaking, because they are obviously afraid of workers being represented.

At the same time, we are taking action. That includes making historic investments in clean technologies in budget 2023 and taking collaborative action with other levels of government and international partners. This solid foundation has put our economy and Canadian workers in a position of strength that will continue to build if we pass Bill C-50.

I would like to share with the House the five key elements that make up this legislation.

First, it would use guiding principles, such as social dialogue, that let us learn from international best practices to get this right.

Second, it would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of workers, industry, experts, indigenous peoples, youth and others who would provide independent advice to the government on an annual basis and engage with Canadians.

Third, it would commit to publishing action plans every five years. The plans would build on the council's expertise and ensure that Canada is able to continue to chart a path forward that responds to our labour needs in decades to come.

Fourth, it would coordinate action across the federal government through a sustainable job secretariat.

Fifth, it would designate responsibilities to ministers for implementing this legislation as a standard practice.

The other side may fearmonger and claim that, with this bill, the sky will fall and pigs will fly. However, the fact is that these are responsible and targeted legislative measures to ensure that workers have a seat at the table and that we get them on job sites that we are building right across this country. The opportunities for workers are enormous, including the opportunities that exist today.

Since taking office, the government has invested in clean growth and building a strong economic future, and our work is being noticed around the world. Companies are choosing to invest in Canada and create jobs here, because of our very clean electrical grid and the work we are doing to support clean technologies. The Conservative delays are risking the once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canadians to take the lead in these jobs and in the innovations that will reduce carbon emissions right across this country.

By the end of this decade, RBC predicts that the global move toward a low-carbon economy will add as many as 400,000 new jobs to the Canadian workforce. To best seize this opportunity, we need legislation that helps us to get the right skills and training to workers today, which Bill C-50 will do. Workers, labour market experts and employers have been clear, and so has this Parliament when we sent Bill C-50 to committee to be studied. Because of the Conservative tactics at committee, we have not been able to do this.

When we talk about the job opportunities, I also want to make sure we remember that some of these jobs are going to be due to offshore wind energy, which Bill C-49 was designed to facilitate. The delays we have faced at the natural resources committee have prevented us from doing the concurrent studies of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, at the very moment when we are being told by Atlantic premiers and residents that they want to see this move forward. Let us not forget that the motion Conservatives have been delaying for over a month was one to concurrently review Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, allow witnesses to appear and allow the committee to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. The witnesses would have appeared by now.

I want to make it very clear that we have an important choice to make today. On the one hand, we can choose, as Conservatives have, to waste our time waxing poetic about the days when it was easier to sip triple-thick milkshakes through a straw and drive around in muscle cars that were not even built in Canada. On the other, we can choose what Canadians and workers want. We can work to build an economy for the future that includes having workers at the table as we decide those next steps. We can build cars here in Canada, with skilled jobs, skilled workers and investments that are being made right here. We have that opportunity to be creating well-paying jobs that are, often, union jobs. It can be about developing the energies the world wants, such as offshore wind in the Atlantic provinces, in Canada. That is going to be the energy that powers our future and creates well-paying jobs.

To me, as I stand here, the Liberals have made this choice very clear: We are rolling up our sleeves to stand alongside Canadian workers and build that economy of the future. We are ready to build an economy that is responsive and has those opportunities put forward.

What the Conservatives have clearly chosen, from what we are seeing at committee, is to spend their time talking about themselves and not talking about Canadian workers and the needs of our country. That is why, today, I am asking the House to support the motion that has been put forward to allow the legislation to move forward and to do the work we need to do. It is important for the House to respect what it has voted upon in prioritizing the legislation to be sent to committee to be studied. It is also about respecting Canadian workers and respecting what Canadians expect to see us do in this place. I would ask that we continue to work together towards that.

Canadians want us to claim our share of the global clean energy market, and the hundreds of thousands of high-quality, sustainable jobs that will result.

Parliament has a duty to study and to advance these two vital pieces of legislation. We cannot allow ourselves to sit back and allow rage farming and social media clips to be happening at committee. We need to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I stand here today asking that this be exactly what we work together to have done. That is why the motion we are discussing today would enable an expeditious review of the much shorter Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill. Then, it would allow for the committee to review Bill C-49 afterwards.

I would remind the House that we have been debating a scheduling motion, actually not even a scheduling motion but a subamendment to an amendment to a scheduling motion, for over a month. Since October 30, we have been debating that simple point. We have not been allowed to study the bill.

The Conservatives have points they want to register about the bill itself. The place to have done it would have been in the study of the bill. However, the Conservatives chose otherwise. They chose to filibuster a scheduling motion. That is not how we get work done here. It is not respectful to the process, to each other, or to Canadians and the workers who sent us here to get the job done. That is what we are asking today: Let us get the job done. Let us make sure that we do what Canadians sent us here to do. Let us get to studying the bill we have before us, Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform.

Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns 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. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day.

For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

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

That was an interesting intervention, because over the last four or five meetings, again, it was the member from Timmins—James Bay who kept on saying, no less than 15 times—actually, I think it was closer to 20 times—that he was being abused by Conservative members. I didn't hear a single objection from anybody on that side of the committee room to him using that kind of language, which was very unparliamentary, not to mention the fact that it completely undermines people who are legitimately, this very second, experiencing abuse. There was no objection to that, and that's disgusting.

The fact that Mr. Angus went on and on about not being allowed to speak means that saying he was whining fits. It was appropriate. When he finally did speak, he didn't even talk about Timmins—James Bay. He didn't talk about the motion either. He spent his whole 45 minutes not even talking about it.

I spent my whole hour and a bit talking about how this is going to impact projects in Timmins—James Bay. I listed seven projects that are currently under way in Timmins—James Bay, not one in Alberta. That was brought up by somebody else. I've been speaking about the projects in Timmins—James Bay and how the Impact Assessment Act is going to be, if it's not fixed, a problem for them. That's what I've been talking about. That's what I spent my time talking about.

I've been telling you why we need to prioritize the Impact Assessment Act so these projects in Timmins—James Bay can continue to go ahead and so more projects like them can be proposed in Timmins—James Bay and in other parts of the country. That's what I've been talking about for over an hour and a half and that's what Mr. Angus was not bothering to talk about for the hour that he had the floor—nor were any other members who were saying they were not being allowed to speak. When they finally got the floor, they didn't even bother to speak to the subamendment either. I am speaking to the subamendment and I am using and will continue to use language that is parliamentary.

It's important that the federal government set the tone. The point I was about to make before the last couple of points of order was that the rules matter. Whether it's the rules of this committee, the laws of this land or our Constitution and the way it's set out for the provinces within Confederation, rules matter.

I mentioned earlier that the federal government is on a bit of a losing streak in the courts as of late. Most recently, it was the plastics ban and the regulations around it that were unconstitutional. In particular, the Impact Assessment Act was ruled largely unconstitutional. When the government deliberately sets rules and laws that are unconstitutional, it creates disorder and issues.

We've seen the provinces, as I mentioned earlier, draft legislation to shield themselves from overreach in the federal government and to reassert that they have jurisdictional authority over provinces. By the way, I'll make note that in Saskatchewan it was supported unanimously by the NDP. It's because they know what's happening with this federal government. Even the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan know the federal government in Ottawa is overstepping its bounds. Generally, they are quite aligned with the federal government, but even they are starting to see that the federal government is offside.

It's true of the NDP in Alberta too. They're starting to wise up to that as well. Despite their desire to try to please the federal government, even they are now starting to see and realize that was probably not the best idea. Now we also have the UCP government in Alberta and the Saskatchewan Party government in Saskatchewan actively working to shield themselves from the overstepping of the government.

That's the tone this government has decided to set. It's decided to say, “This is the way we're going to go. We don't care what you think. You're going to have to do this.” Not only do the provinces say no, but the Supreme Court did too, and here we wait for the government to act, to do something and to remedy the situation.

We know it is a usual practice for the government to create a problem for people and at the same time think it's creating the solution. This is one of those few times when we say the government has to provide the solution, but the solution is going to be undoing the disaster it created in the first place. That's what we are hoping to get to, start with and prioritize in this committee. That way, more projects in Timmins—James Bay can happen and more projects across the country can happen.

Again, we have the Atlantic accord legislation, Bill C-49, here with us as well. That needs to be done and dealt with, and the government prioritized that over Bill C-50. For some reason, the minister decided to wait over a year to do anything with it. We've also seen Auditor General reports talk about how the government has basically done nothing, particularly over the COVID years. For two years, it did absolutely nothing to get people and communities ready for 2030. They are still waiting for the coal transition funding they were promised by the government.

Over 3,400 or 3,500 workers were impacted by the microtransition that happened in coal in Alberta. Entire communities were devastated. Who knows? Maybe the Liberals will put forward a subamendment to hear from people from Hanna, Alberta. I think they would probably want an opportunity to speak to this as well and how the just transition worked for them. However, we're talking about Timmins—James Bay, so we'll see if the Liberals want to move that subamendment later.

Just looking at the list of the projects going on in Timmins—James Bay, I see that one of them is a phosphate project.

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

Thank you.

Right off the top, it's probably worth mentioning that it was nice, at the last meeting, how things just went along. Everybody was respectful. The points of order.... Only a couple of them happened, and they were, I think, received well. I can count on one hand how many points of order we had last meeting, so that was quite nice and a bit of a change of pace.

I want to welcome Ms. Zarrillo to this committee, as well. It's nice to see her here.

On the point about the subamendment to bring witnesses from Timmins—James Bay, my colleague Mr. Falk did a great job talking about a lot of the mining companies that exist in that particular part of the country. It's important to have people from there speaking at the committee. I think they would generally be concerned about what is going on. One way to find out, obviously, is by inviting them. I think they would be concerned about the development of multiple pieces of substantive government legislation being ruled on and referred to as largely unconstitutional—in particular, the Impact Assessment Act and the way it's going to impact mining as we go forward. I think those mines, especially the ones Mr. Falk was mentioning, will play a big role in Canada going forward. I don't think it matters whether you think everybody should be mandated to drive an EV or not. We're going to need these resources one way or another.

As we continue to develop new ways to generate power and new technology.... It goes outside energy production. It's just technology, generally speaking. The technological advances we have seen, certainly in my lifetime, have been remarkable. Sometimes it almost scares me when I think about the kinds of technologies we're going to come up with, which my kids are going to see as they grow up and enter the workforce—the kinds of things they're going to have at their disposal. The advances in things are going to be quite remarkable.

Those minerals or elements will come from mines in Timmins—James Bay and lots of other places across the country. The problem we're seeing right now is that it will be pretty difficult to get more and more of these mines and projects built when we don't have laws that are constitutional. The certainty required for investors to make investments in Canadian energy, development and exploration.... I know the government said it made the IAA to create certainty, but the problem is that, practically, this has not been the case. It has not been the reality of the situation on the ground.

Given the importance of mining to Canada's strategic positioning in the energy world, globally.... Again, the potential for our country, generally speaking, beyond what we have by possessing all these rare earth minerals here in Canada, which are still largely untapped and not being developed.... We're seeing investment fleeing Canada, or not even looking here at all, because they know they can build projects more quickly, get a return on investment faster and make more money elsewhere. That means jobs are elsewhere. The tax dollars needed to maintain, build and even create new communities are so important.

I think we need to hear from these folks, because they're going to bring a valuable perspective.

I was in a meeting the other day with some folks who were representing some of the port authorities on opposite sides of the country. One of the fundamental concerns they have, and part of their budget submissions, was to figure out a way to reduce timelines for major projects for approvals, because for them to expand their ports or to do any major projects, they have to wait a minimum of five years to get approval. I asked them if that was for the Impact Assessment Act, and they said yes. They had been waiting five years to get an approval.

This is important because, as much as we would like to have all of our rare earth minerals mined in Canada and then turned into products in Canada, the reality is that we're going to be exporting a lot of them. We're going to be exporting them through our ports.

The folks from Timmins—James Bay, much like the people from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, rely on those ports to be able to get our products, our commodities, out to the global marketplace. When we have largely unconstitutional laws in this country, it severely impacts what we're able to do and get done.

I think it's important to note that on this side of the table we want to make sure that we're passing laws that are constitutional and will withstand that challenge. I think we have outlined previously some of the issues we have with the potential constitutionality issue of Bill C-49 because of its 33 references to the Impact Assessment Act and, in particular, the parts that were referenced as largely unconstitutional.

It would be important to hear from these mining communities and the workers about how this has impacted them and their ability to do their jobs but also to have that certainty long-term knowing that their jobs are going to be there for them tomorrow, next year, and the year after that and make sure that there is a future for their jobs and for their communities. I think that's an important perspective that we will look forward to hearing from witnesses and, particularly, hopefully, from people from Timmins—James Bay.

Part of that, too, is that, when you meet with people in mining and in construction, even at the ports and other places, they talk a lot about the layering on of regulations, and the layering on of costs that continue to pile up and create problems for them. They are just looking for a streamlined process. I know that the people in Timmins—James Bay would benefit from having a streamlined process, the un-layering and unpacking of all of these layers upon layers of regulations and costs.

We know that Canada has some of the highest standards for how we develop our resources. We know that if the rest of the world adopted our standards, the world would have a much lower greenhouse gas emission footprint, yet we still seem to see the need from this government to continue to layer and pancake on regulations rather than trust the process and trust the industries that have really been world leaders at the forefront of the development of this to do what they do, rather than putting them through the gauntlet of regulatory death, basically.

We've seen that multiple times on multiple projects, where they're waiting for approval, waiting for approval, and it's delay, delay, delay. Then, finally, the proponent withdraws the proposal because they know they're either not going to get the approval or the uncertainty and the delays have cost them so much money they'd be better off to cut their losses at that point and run. That's not a situation we want Canada to be in, particularly as we have all the resources in this country that the world wants and needs.

I think we need to make sure that we are prioritizing people who can speak well to these things. That's going to be people who are working in the industry in Timmins—James Bay. They're going to want that certainty.

When Mr. Angus was still here.... He likes to talk a lot about the union jobs, which is fine. It's good that he does that, but what's important is that there will be no union jobs if there are no new projects, if there is no certainty, if there's no investment, if there's no streamlining of regulations or even just making them compliant with our constitution. I think that's of utmost importance.

Part of the reality with rural and remote communities, and with our indigenous communities as well, is that sometimes the only source of jobs is just resource development. That's the opportunity for them. That's where they see the ability for them to have self-determination, to have fair and equal economic participation in the economy. It comes from resource extraction and development and refining.

They also want certainty. They want to know that when a project that's going to be good for their people is proposed, it's not going to take 10 years to get approvals or to finally get a shovel in the ground and start building something or developing a mine or developing the resources they have available to them. That's why Conservatives want to see some witnesses from Timmins—James Bay who can bring that perspective. I think that would be very valuable.

I think part of what's going on with this committee, with this government, with the policy objectives and the multiple court rulings that have gone against the government in recent weeks.... Part of what the government is supposed to do is set the tone for how industry is going to be, set the tone so that there is a sense of optimism.

That's what Brad Wall did so well in Saskatchewan, to turn Saskatchewan from a have-not province to a have province. He set the tone by saying it's good to be from Saskatchewan. We don't need to apologize for being from Saskatchewan. He set the tone because he knew that Saskatchewan had the potential to be so much more than what it was under the NDP for years and years. Many people who left Saskatchewan found a home in Alberta, next door.

You're welcome, Mr. Chair.

They all came back to Saskatchewan because they saw the opportunity because of the tone that was set by the premier. That started in the mid-2000s with him saying that it was good to be from Saskatchewan, that Saskatchewan had what the world needed. It had what our country needed, and we were going to do what we could to provide the goods and services that were needed, both here and across the world. For the next number of years, we developed our resources in a sustainable, environmentally friendly and beneficial way. That has allowed economic participation by people from all across our province.

We have uranium developments in the north. We have potash developments all across the province. We have a lot of oil and gas extraction and development, quite frankly, all across the province, as well, particularly a lot in my riding. That comes because the government set the tone. It set out a framework for how it was going to be done, and we got things done.

The federal government then decided it was going to put a stick in the spokes, with policies like the carbon tax and the Impact Assessment Act, and really gummed up the system in the process. All of it was done under the guise that it was going to save the environment from these crazy people who were developing resources. It's really unfair to the provinces and the industry, which have done a great job of trying to make the processes better.

They have quite often done that without the government stepping in saying, “This needs to happen, that needs to happen, and that needs to be done, or else.” Definitely, taking a sledgehammer and holding it over an industry is not the way to work collaboratively, as we hear from the government a lot. Rather than working with industry to figure out how it can best figure this out, there's the stick approach instead of the carrot approach. The folks in Timmins—James Bay would agree with that, as well. As they do a lot of resource development and extraction there, it would be important to hear their views and perspectives on that, as well.

We're starting to see the provinces take matters into their own hands, yet again. That's because of the way the government has decided to set the tone. It has decided to set the tone in a way that is combative, oversteps boundaries and oversteps jurisdiction. We now see multiple provinces telling it to back off, because it is their jurisdiction, their area, and they are doing the best they can. That is why the provinces are passing a Sovereignty Act and the Saskatchewan First Act. I think our colleague, Mr. Simard, could tell us about the viewpoints of some people in Quebec about how they feel, especially regarding provincial jurisdiction.

Our provinces shouldn't have to constantly be putting the shields up and drawing their swords against the federal government, one that talks about collaboration. It says it's going to work collaboratively, and then it dumps burdensome, unconstitutional regulations and laws on top of the provinces. It then acts all surprised when the provinces are all of a sudden saying, “Excuse me”, and, like porcupines, they get their quills up, and their tails are ready to swing. That's where the provinces are at right now. They have their quills up, because they know they are being threatened by the federal government with regulations, laws, and the tone that's coming from Ottawa toward them. It is harmful to the provinces. It is harmful to their objectives and what they are trying to do.

We know the folks in Atlantic Canada want to develop their resources. Obviously, this is why the government prioritized it first in the House of Commons and passed it first. That's something we would like to see, the Atlantic provinces having the ability to develop their resources, and we're looking forward to getting to Bill C-49 first, hopefully. At that point, we will also be able to have a good, fulsome conversation and discussion around the former bill, Bill C-69, which has caused large amounts of investment to leave Canada. It's a healthy part of the job losses that have impacted non-unionized and unionized labour. It's impacted our indigenous communities, our rural and remote communities, from being able to develop their resources and being able to offer jobs and employment to their people and their residents.

It's important that the federal government deal with matters that are deemed unconstitutional. That, you would think, would be priority one, trying to resolve that. That would be my hope, that it would be resolved, and there has been no indication that will actually be the case. There were some soft words that it would work to make those sections compliant, but we've heard nothing. We haven't seen any urgency to try to get that done and get that dealt with. Certainly, on our side, we would like nothing more than to get that sorted out and dealt with.

That's part of the main motion—sorry, the main amendment to the motion that we have put forward. Of course, we're on the subamendment for members to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay, and I think they would also like to see the certainty that prioritizing the Impact Assessment Act and fixing that would bring for them, for their jobs, for their industries, for their communities. I think they would really appreciate that, so I hope the government will take that seriously and actually consider what it is that Conservatives are trying to work on when it comes to the Impact Assessment Act, and what industry has been saying and what community leaders have been saying on this. It would be a great way to do something that's good for the entirety of the country, for once. I don't think that's asking too much.

I know that our provincial counterparts would appreciate it as well, as they are looking at how best to provide more affordable, more reliable power and energy for their citizens, as that is their provincial responsibility, and having the certainty within the Impact Assessment Act would help bring that for them. I know that in Saskatchewan, for example, there's a lot of conversation happening now around identifying sites where we could build small modular reactors. They would definitely appreciate having an approval process in place that is going to be expeditious and fast, and there will be some certainty provided in it. We know the province wants to do this because they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they also want to make sure that we have reliable power that's generated right in Saskatchewan. We have some nice inner ties with Alberta, Manitoba and Montana.

When you look at the SaskPower website, you can see which direction power is flowing—if we are sending power out of province, or if we are bringing power into the province through the interties—but the Saskatchewan government wants to be able to develop uranium deposits further. Certainly, our rural and remote indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan want to see that development as well, because it means jobs and opportunities for them, much like it would mean jobs and opportunities for the folks in Timmins—James Bay.

I think across the country, there will be a lot of demand for Saskatchewan uranium. I think these are the SMRs. Even if they were to build another CANDU reactor, for example, if somebody were to do that one day, it would be beneficial, and Saskatchewan uranium could be the ticket for that, to be able to get it done. It's a good Saskatchewan resource for good, truly clean, zero-emitting power that for years the current government has said it doesn't want and we can't have, but we know it's up to the provinces how they are going to develop their resources and provide power for their citizens. Getting this right would be the least this committee could do.

The former member for Sudbury, when we talked about this in a previous Parliament, was adamant: “No. We fixed the assessment. It was your process that was flawed. That was the problem. Ours is perfect. Ours is good. It's not the problem.” We have been hearing—and we've done multiple studies across multiple committees—that this is just not the case, and the Impact Assessment Act has caused extra delays, extra uncertainty and problems for getting projects developed.

I'm sure Mr. Lefebvre would agree that getting the process right this time around would be a good thing, after his assertions in the previous Parliament that everything was fine and that wasn't the problem. Now that it's been proven that it is unconstitutional and creates problems, I think he would agree that we should make sure we get it right this time around. I won't put words in his mouth. I know he is not here to defend himself on that, so I won't do that to him. However, the reason why I said that is that I think it's worth noting the position over multiple Parliaments that the government has had on this particular issue and its refusal to admit that there are problems.

That's what brings us to where we are today, once again talking about the Impact Assessment Act, how it's going to be a problem for Bill C-49 and how it will absolutely be a problem for Bill C-50. This is because, again, the whole just transition plan by the government is to transition workers out of the.... For sure, it's to make sure that there's no more coal in this country, but for the oil and gas sector, it would be a supposed just transition or, as we call it, an unjust transition for these workers that's going to happen.

If the government is successful in ramming this unjust transition down the provinces' and the unionized and non-unionized workers' throats.... They're not going to be okay with being janitors, as some of the briefing notes that have come to light have indicated or hinted at, and they're certainly not going to be okay with a 34% pay cut to go and work in the renewables sector right now. We heard that witness testimony a little while back. That's not to mention the fuel, the energy and the power that will have to be developed to replace the losses from those plants being shut down. That will be of the utmost importance.

It's interesting to note that in the so-called clean electricity regulations from this government, a power plant could operate for 450 hours if it's emitting after the deadline comes and goes. That amounts to less than 18 days. It's around 18 days. My quick math might have me off by a day or two. Forgive me for that. If somebody decides to fact-check me, I admit that I might be off by a day or two.

The point is that in Saskatchewan, for close to seven months of the year, it's below zero degrees. A large amount of our power in Saskatchewan comes from coal and from natural gas. It's about 73%, on average, on a daily basis. In Alberta, I think it's 85%, or somewhere around there, largely in natural gas.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for focusing me again, Mr. Chairman.

The fact that Mr. Simard brought up my muscle cars just made me think back to the 1970 Challenger Hemi that I bought, which I had for a period of time, and the big-block Chevelle convertible, which was just phenomenal. Then I bought a Chevrolet Vega that somebody had wedged a little 327 Chevy into, and that thing just went like a bandit.

That really refocused my thoughts, my little diversion there on muscle cars, and what that has to do.... The fact is that the industry we have here in Canada that is using our natural resources is becoming more and more efficient. I was talking about the amount of hydrocarbons that I was burning back in the seventies. Now, with the technology that we have today that is making the same amount of horsepower, we're using about half of the fuel that we did before. That's amazing. Why is that important? It is important because if we're burning half the fuel, we need to produce half as much, or we can sell that much more. Whether it's in the oil and gas industry, whether it's in the forestry industry or whether it's in mining, which is what we have in Timmins—James Bay, we know that if we can become more efficient users of the natural resources that we have, they're going to last longer. They're also going to create lower emissions.

I think that creating targets that are reasonable and sustainable is important. We know that this Liberal government, in spite of the carbon tax, which was supposed to be a cure-all for everything, hasn't met any of its emissions targets—and that's unfortunate—except for the one year during COVID when nobody was driving or moving anything.

What we need to do is protect our natural resource industry. I know there are a lot of advances in technology. I know that solar and wind are important, and I know that this is the direction that Bill C-50 would like to take the natural resources industry in here in Canada. It was interesting, because we had industry on the Hill here last week, and there were industry representatives. I went to one of the receptions and was talking to one of the producers there. They were boasting about how their whole facility was solar powered. They showed me the rows upon rows of solar panels. I told them that was very interesting. They said that they have a connection to the grid in the case of the solar system not being able to provide enough energy to properly run their plants. The question I asked this young lady was this: If there wouldn't have been a subsidy to have installed these solar panels up front, would it be economically viable to be using solar energy versus the hydro energy that we have in Manitoba? The answer was no. The only way that a lot of this stuff works is if we take tax dollars and subsidize it. I think we have to look seriously at whether that's the direction that we need to go. Do we want everybody else to pay to subsidize our reduced energy bills? I don't know if that's fair. I don't think it's the right way to do it.

My point in talking about muscle cars and where that whole industry has evolved to today is that as time moves along, industry and technology advance to the point where we become more efficient. I think that over time, that happens in the energy industry as well. However, when we force it to happen this way, there's nothing efficient about it, and it takes huge amounts of tax dollars to achieve the results that we get. I believe that we'll get the same results at the end of the day if we allow these things to naturally progress, if we allow industry and technology to use our resources responsibly to create our desired results while using less of our resources, and I think we can do that.

We know that there are a lot of things that we need to consider when we're studying these bills here at the committee. I think that if we get representation in here from the mining industry, in particular from the Timmins—James Bay constituency, we're going to hear reports from these miners and company owners about how difficult it is for these junior miners to start up and how absolutely necessary the products are that they produce.

I listed several of the junior mining companies in the list that I provided for committee just a few moments ago. You could see that several of these mines are lithium mines. Lithium is a project that's required in the production and development of the batteries that need to power our electrified economy, and in these batteries that we want to make in Stellantis and Volkswagen. I think Ford is considering something as well.

It's important that we hear from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay about how they'll feel about it, and not only on the labour side. I think the labour side is very important. We want to make sure that Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques, and that they can keep a higher percentage of those paycheques in their pockets and not have to pay them through increased costs related to the carbon tax—with the higher cost of groceries, the higher cost of home heating, the higher cost of fuel in their vehicles. With powerful paycheques, we're going to build a powerful economy that is going to continue to drive the welfare of our country.

We're also going to be able to see our export markets expand. We know that Europe has a huge market for us. There are 500 million people as part of the CETA trade pact that we have access to with the free trade agreement. We can access these people with our natural resource products here. We have lots to offer them, whether it's LNG or whether it's our clean hydrocarbon diesel fuel and gas, whether it's forest products, or whether it's the lithium that comes from the mines—the cobalt, uranium—all the stuff that we need and other countries need that we have. We have that here.

We need to be responsible with how we're going to develop these resources. Bill C-69 was an abject failure in that regard. It got nothing done. It made it burdensome for the industry. It created an untenable situation for anything to happen in the natural resource sector. I think that's something we can improve on.

There's a reason this committee should be looking at Bill C-69. It should also be looking at the decision on plastics, like I said before, because of the importance of milkshakes and other things.

This committee needs to be working on legislation that the courts have said is not constitutionally compliant. It's absolutely important we do that, especially if we think we should be studying legislation that references failed legislation. We need to get it right on Bill C-69. We need to get it right on the regulation from the Liberal cabinet on single-use plastics. I think those are the issues this committee should be seized with and should be studying.

Mr. Chair, I think I've made my point, and why it's important that we hear from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay in forestry, in mining, because of the products they produce and also because of how important it is to our studies.

With that, Mr. Chair, I think I've made a good argument.

I've heard from several committee members on why they're not going to support my subamendment. I don't know why they wouldn't want to get witnesses in from Timmins—James Bay. What do these folks have against folks who live in Timmins—James Bay? Why wouldn't we want to hear from them and hear what's important to them?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, Earl Dreeshen, for a wonderful explanation of why we need to consider this subamendment. He really created a great platform to help Canadians who are watching on TV understand what this is really about, the importance of the work this committee does and the importance of the order in which we do things in this committee.

Thank you, Earl, for doing that. You've helped, I think, all of us around this table, and certainly viewers who are watching, to understand the importance of the work that we're doing here, as well as the importance of the sequence of the work that we're doing.

Getting back to the subamendment, which was to make sure that this committee will be hearing from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay, someone might ask questions. Why Timmins—James Bay? What is so important about Timmins—James Bay? Why do we need to hear those witnesses?

It is quite simple: There is a lot of natural resource activity in that particular constituency of the country.

I acknowledge that there are 338 constituencies in Canada, many of which have natural resources. Mr. Dreeshen talked very articulately about the natural resource sector in northern Alberta, but Timmins—James Bay has forestry and lots of mining. Some of the bigger mines there are the Alamos Gold project and the Victor Mine. We hear lots of the big names fairly regularly. They come to Ottawa and solicit tax dollars for consideration, but there are a lot of others.

The concern is that we're going to be looking after labour there. That's why they want to discuss these bills, both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. They cite the concern of wanting to make sure that labour is properly addressed there. We know there is labour involved in mining activities.

I also want to point out to folks who are watching, and to this committee, that there are lots of junior miners we never hear about that also have employees who also need to be able to count on that paycheque coming every two weeks so that they can feed their families, heat their homes and put fuel into their vehicles. These are all things that have been very negatively impacted, Mr. Chair, by a carbon tax. We've seen the price of all of those things significantly increased by a carbon tax.

It's interesting that this Liberal government carved out a geographical area of our country and gave it a carbon tax exemption or holiday. It's very interesting, because apparently it's an ideological platform of this government to have a carbon tax, and now it's carved out for a geographical area—Atlantic Canada—a carbon tax exemption to make life more affordable there.

None of the other areas of Canada received that same exemption. They didn't receive it because they're heating with more fuel-efficient methods, like hydroelectricity or natural gas from Alberta. They experienced the same cost increases due to the carbon tax, yet they did not get the benefit of that carve-out exemption that was provided to Atlantic Canadians.

We know the reason that happened. It's because the Prime Minister's polling numbers were plummeting in Atlantic Canada, and he tried to address that by throwing them a bone, as we would call it in the industry. Maybe it was keep them happy and get their support onside.

There are people in Timmins—James Bay who have experienced the same increased cost of living in heating their homes, putting fuel in their vehicles and buying groceries at the grocery store, all of which have been impacted by the carbon tax. That's no small matter here. I think this committee should be seized with the cost that carbon tax has added to everyday living.

I want to list some of the junior miners that find themselves domiciled in Timmins—James Bay. I went on the Internet to get a list of the junior mining companies in Timmins—James Bay. I would like to make mention of them, because they're why we need witnesses from these mining companies.

They include Patriot Battery Metals, Osisko Mining, Li-FT Power, Critical Elements, Lithium Royalty, Brunswick Exploration, Fury Gold Mines and Arbor Metals.

As well, we have Azimut Exploration, Benz Mining, Power Nickel, Midland Exploration, Vanstar Mining, Max Power Mining, Superior Mining, Champion Electric Metals, Ophir Gold, Consolidated Lithium Metals, Hertz Lithium, Comet Lithium, Sirios Resources, FE Battery Metals, Targa Exploration, Harfang Exploration, Quebec Precious Metals, Canadian Critical Minerals, Lithium One Metals, ALX Resources, Stelmine Canada, Dios Exploration, Niobay Metals, Medaro Mining, Opus One Gold, Green Battery Minerals, Mosaic Minerals, Stria Lithium, Genius Metals, SPOD Lithium, Metalex Ventures, Battery X Metals, TomaGold, Clarity Metals, SLAM Exploration, Durango Resources, Lancaster Resources, Rockland Resources, Arctic Fox Lithium, K9 Gold, QcX Gold, Bullion Gold Resources, Victory Battery Metals, Brigadier Gold, Lithium Lion Metals, Musk Metals, MegaWatt Metals, Fabled Copper, Nordique Resources and Q2 Metals.

That's the listing that you can find on the Internet, Mr. Chairman, about junior mining companies in the James Bay area. There's a whole host of them there, and all these mining companies have employees who work in that area and are dependent on their paycheques. What we do in this committee matters. It matters greatly, and that's why it's so important to hear from them.

However, we also need to go back and look at the platform this premise is based on and why we need to reconsider, very carefully, whether we're addressing things in the right order here. We know that the Supreme Court issued a reference on Bill C-69, which is the impact assessment legislation this government passed, which has also been referred to in the industry as the “no more pipelines” bill. We know that there was a referral that struck down about 80% to 85% of that bill as being non-charter compliant or constitutionally challenged.

This committee should be absolutely seized with getting that legislation back here to committee and identifying the areas that the Supreme Court has referred to as not being compliant with the Constitution. We should be looking at those areas and correcting them, if they can be corrected. I suspect that in a lot of instances we're going to have to just discard big segments of that bill, because it just doesn't pass the litmus test.

I think it would be very wise of us to conduct a study on that bill first and to bring in witnesses from Timmins—James Bay and see how that particular piece of legislation has impacted their companies and impacted their employees, because the Supreme Court says that it doesn't work. Then, also, the Federal Court recently ruled that the ban on single-use plastics also wasn't constitutional. I know that the NDP-Liberal government is moving ahead with contesting that further and challenging that decision. I know it is a very welcomed decision from the Federal Court.

Mr. Chairman, I get into my riding very late in the evening when we're done here in Ottawa, and I like to treat myself. I swing through McDonald's on the way home and pick up a strawberry milkshake. I have about an hour and a quarter drive to my home from the airport, so I do that quite frequently. I was reminded again last week when I went home that I put that paper straw into the strawberry milkshake and started sucking it. Well, that just doesn't work so well. You have to look at the cost-benefit aspect, and with a paper straw, the suction that you need to get that triple-thick strawberry milkshake from McDonald's up the straw and to your palate takes an incredible amount of work. We very much welcome the decision from the Federal Court to strike down this plastic straw ban.

That decision is going to be welcomed by Canadians as they go to have their strawberry milkshakes, which are an important staple here in our Canadian diet. Both of these decisions are important to this committee. Our committee should be consumed with addressing these two pieces of... One is a regulation that came out of cabinet, I suppose—the plastic straw ban—but certainly the decision of the Supreme Court on Bill C-69 is something this committee should be bringing back and studying.

Why is it important to prioritize that? It is because both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 reference Bill C-69, which the Liberals have proposed as the next pieces of legislation on our work schedule here at this committee. If they're referencing a flawed piece of legislation, we know in turn that this legislation is also flawed. That gives us many reasons that we should be prioritizing the study of Bill C-69 over Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Let's get Bill C-69 right, or let's actually recall all of Bill C-69 and discard it and present legislation to this committee that will give Atlantic Canada a regulatory platform for tidal power.

We could talk more about Bill C-50, which was at one time called the just transition, and then industry referred to it more as an unjust transition, which probably more adequately described the intent of that bill. The Liberal government, in an effort to try to save face, renamed that bill “sustainable jobs”, when the sustainable jobs were already there. They're in oil and gas. They're providing above-average income levels for the families involved in that industry, and in the production of the world's cleanest and safest fuels by way of diesel fuel, gas, aviation fuel and liquefied natural gas.

When this Liberal government came to power back in 2015, there were 18 LNG projects on the board. Do you know how many of them have actually been built and are in production at capacity? Zero. Zero projects have been completed. It's important for Canadians to know that. The Liberal government has either been the cause of these projects being cancelled or of their not being completed.

Meanwhile, the Americans, whom we refer to a lot around this committee when we talk about the IRA.... To folks watching on TV, the IRA is the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden has implemented in the United States. It's a massive spending bill. We always seem to want to compete with that piece of legislation on the Canadian side. I don't know why we're so eager to race to the bottom with Joe Biden, but for whatever reason, that's the direction the Liberal government has decided to pursue.

In spite of the IRA, and in spite of the massive spending and tax credit regime the Americans have created south of the 49th parallel, they have still built and completed almost half a dozen LNG projects. Canada had opportunities in Europe and Japan to sell our liquefied natural gas, coming from the cleanest processing plants the world has ever known. Our gas and oil industry has the cleanest and safest energy model. Instead of our being able to capitalize and sell to countries like Germany, the rest of Europe and Japan, our clean LNG products are now being sold by the Americans. That's another opportunity that has been missed by the government, while at the same time it wants so desperately to compete on so many levels with the American government on its IRA.

I guess another example of that is the massive amounts, the billions of dollars—I think it's close to $31 billion—that this government has committed to large multinational corporations that want to build battery production facilities here in Canada. We're going to be giving them $31 billion of taxpayers' money.

I think Canadians need to understand what this Liberal government has committed to here, because it is no small sum. It will create some jobs, but by the way, 1,600 of them, we're told now, will come from Asian countries in the form of temporary foreign workers. When Canadians were first told about the investment into these lithium battery manufacturers, I don't think they were told that these temporary foreign workers were going to be the mainstay of the employee workforce. That's something on which we haven't seen complete integrity and openness from this government, but it's come to light now. Many of these workers who are going to be employed in these battery plants that are being built on taxpayer dollars here in Canada are actually going to be foreign nationals. That's another aspect of trying to compete with the Americans on their IRA, on their Inflation Reduction Act. I think, Mr. Chairman, that's just a race to the bottom.

I think we, as Canada here, are incredibly blessed with our God-given natural resources, whether it's oil and gas, whether it's in our mining sector, or whether it's in our forestry, all things that this committee should really be studying. We need to develop these resources. They weren't given to us just to keep in the ground and stay buried, covered in a pile of dirt.

No, we have these resources, and we've been given these resources to be good stewards of them. I think the mining industry and the oil and gas industry have shown that they're responsible and that they are good stewards of the resources that we have here in this country. We have a phenomenal amount. We're the envy of the world.

We also have clean water. We probably have the largest amount of clean water resource on the globe, and I think our natural resources companies have been great stewards in protecting the integrity of our clean, fresh water resource that we also have here.

However, there's mining that needs to happen, and we know that Bill C-69 has made mining very difficult. It's happening in Timmins—James Bay with the regulatory process that's necessary to open up new mines and to continue to develop existing mines. It's very difficult, and that is something that needs to be studied.

Just recently someone pointed out to me—and it's not a recent fact but an age-old fact—that when we look at the air that we breathe, the composition of that air.... We hear so much about carbon and the need to reduce the carbon input and we hear that we're responsible for creating all this carbon pollution everywhere. It was pointed out to me that 78% of the air that we breathe is nitrogen and 21% is oxygen, so 99% of the air that we breathe is nitrogen and oxygen. The other 1% is comprised of argon and carbon, and 0.03% is carbon.

I don't have the data to show that it's true, but some folks say that the impact of the carbon in the air could be manipulated by about 20% by human activity. If that's true, then it would be 0.006 of 1%. That's six one-thousandths of a per cent of impact that all human activity could actually have on the quality of the air we breathe in relation to carbon. Those are things that we need to consider before we light our hair on fire talking about carbon pollution.

Do we still want to reduce pollution? Absolutely, we do. Do we still want to find out more efficient ways to burn hydrocarbons? We've seen the industry really step up and do that. We've seen miles per gallon per vehicle significantly increase in the last two decades.

I remember growing up in the 1970s. I'm a little behind my colleague Earl here, from Red Deer. He grew up in the 1960s and I grew up in the 1970s. I was really fond of muscle cars.

Some of the muscle cars that I owned at that time.... The very first one I ever bought was when I was 16. It was a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland automatic. It had a shaker hood. It had the louvres on the rear window. It was blue with black accents. It was a wonderful car. I would have been very lucky in those days to get 15 miles to the gallon—very lucky. I had an awful lot of fun burning that gallon of gas for every 15 miles I drove.

We have cars being produced today with the same amount of horsepower, or more, that will get 30 miles to the gallon. That's a testament to industry, to how far technology has come. We've reduced the amount of hydrocarbons we consume for the same amount of horsepower that we create, whether that's in gasoline-powered engines or diesel-powered engines. We know this carbon tax is particularly burdensome to our transportation industry, which has some of the heaviest users of diesel fuel in our country. We know that every semi truck driving down the highway is burning diesel fuel. The construction industry also is consumed with heavy equipment that—

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Again, as we speak about various parts of the country, whether they be provinces, regions or each and every one of our constituencies, this is the point I wish to make, and I'm about to make it with regard to the dear friends from the Bloc that I had with me in Mexico City.

As I said, the public comments were these: “I love Canada. I love Quebec. Two great countries.” I didn't see eye to eye with that part, but nevertheless, that was what was being said.

I realized that they wanted to make Canada strong because it gave them an opportunity to be strong within a Canada that was going to be able to go around the world and be beneficial and that then they would be able to work well within that in their aspirations on sovereignty and so on—because it was the Bloc—and that it would have gone someplace for them.

Now when I listen to my friends from the Bloc, their commentary is this: “This country is so dysfunctional that we can't wait to get out of here.” It's quite a change in 12 years from “We love this country, we love your country, and we want to work together because we can see that it's positive” to the labelling and the pitting of one group against another. Believe me, it has done a lot of damage to this country.

I can see what the Bloc would do with that and how they would simply ask, “How do you expect us to want to be part of this group? You guys can't get along. It's east against west.”

Let's talk about a language against this and about the different types of energy. I would love to for us to be able to work through with the energy we have. Getting back to the natural resources side of it, I am happy that we have the great ability of this country to have so much of our electricity coming from hydro power. The point that gets me—and many people have heard me say this—is that those dams didn't just happen. The environmental damage that is associated with flooding vast sections of Canada in order to ensure we have electricity is something.... I've always said that you have to measure the environmental impact from the first shovel you use to dig something up to the very last shovel you use to cover it up.

Now, when it comes to hydro power, it's going to be a long time before we cover it up, but we should recognize that which is there. I can go through all the scientific aspects of it. I know a little bit about science. I can go through all of that, but that's not my point. My point is the metrics of analysis. When we then talk about, for example, nuclear energy.... Again, I'm dealing with this because we're part of natural resources.

Thankfully, with all of the discussions we have had over the last number of months as we've had the nuclear industry here and they've been chastised for all of the different things and so on, finally they got some recognition, recognition that if we want emissions-free electricity, then we shouldn't be damning the nuclear industry in the same way that we're putting the oil and gas industry in the crosshairs. Thankfully, that has happened. I'm happy to see that, for many different reasons, but we still have this....

I constantly hear from people I know, who know better, that what we must do is minimize and get rid of our hydrocarbons. Well, when I fly to Vancouver, I take a look at where they load all of the coal. I know where it's going, as does anybody else who flies in and out of Vancouver.

That's okay. However, if you fly over Fort McMurray, it's not okay. All this oil that has been seeping into these rivers in northern Alberta for millennia.... We've now put a stop to it. We collect it and sell it around the world, but this has been demonized. I keep telling people that the oil and gas industry hurt itself with this. It felt, “Well, anybody would understand what we're doing and how much better we are doing it than any other place in the world.” They didn't do a very good job of selling that. Therefore, it was easy for groups, especially from Europe—although we certainly have groups here in Canada—to say, “You know, the tar sands campaign”—of course, tar is something you get from a process, not what we have there—“will be something we can get a lot of money out of.” That is exactly what took place. It took place for decades. It's pitting one group against another.

I know the massive dams on these rivers are going to look like that for hundreds of years. When a pit has been completed in Fort McMurray, within 40 years, you cannot tell the difference between it and any forest that would be there. Actually, after 20 years, you can't tell the difference, except the Alberta government won't allow a complete reclamation—or whatever the term is—until after 40 years. That's what you get in Alberta. You don't get that in Venezuela. You don't get that in Nigeria. You get it in Alberta.

I have to listen to different groups demonize the oil and gas industry in my province—and worse than that, in my country. That's the part I believe is very important, which is why, when I look at what is happening with Bill C-69, I believe it is rather important that we respect that process and work from there. Those are some of the things I believe we should be paying attention to.

Talking about our own constituencies, I know oil and gas found disfavour, because it was easy for environmental groups to get money to demonize it.

Look at our agriculture area. I've been a farm kid since I was born, and I still continue to farm. I know we have a tax on agriculture as well. We do a great job. That's why, when I was at the OSCE, we talked about food security. When I went to Asia Pacific and the ParlAmericas and so on, food security was critical. I could tell them what we do in agriculture—the significance of Canadian agriculture and of what we sell. I also tied in how that's what we do with oil and gas.

The next part of it is this pass we seem to give the mining industry. Here we have an opportunity to do mining for rare earth minerals and that type of thing. We believe the people who made all their money going against oil and gas and conventional agriculture are going to let mining get this great pass.

When we talk about what is happening in Timmins or in Sudbury or in my riding, it's “Don't worry about that. That's for the greater good. That's for electric vehicles or that's for some other type of thing we have. We'll be fine. Just you guys stop with this hydrocarbon development, because we believe that's a problem”—“we” being the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources.

That is the reason I am so concerned about the way we are going in this country. We are looking at ways that we could pit one group against another. I do not believe that it will change with this present administration, and that is something that bothers me.

I would think that somewhere along the line, people could look at what we do and what Canada does, be proud of that and speak about the things we do together, rather than people such as me having to go to international fora. I listen to our government talk about how embarrassed they are that we are a major oil and gas-developing nation and that with any luck they will be able to come up with another plan. Those are the things that concern me.

There are other aspects when we speak about Bill C-50 and the transition away from traditional oil and gas jobs, about how things are going to be so much better if we can just tie into the new world order that we see and be prepared for all of us to use a new energy source and change our way of doing things.

Depending upon which way the earth is turning, it takes me four hours on average to get from Alberta to Ottawa, which is about the same amount of time it takes if I want to fly to Mexico. We have six time zones in this country. When I look out the plane window, I see the amazing things we have, the natural beauty and the water. I know that we have minerals there. I know the other things that are associated with it, and I am proud of every part of this.

My wife's family came from Prince Edward Island. They were there in the 1800s. They were mariners. I have a great sense of pride for that part of the country and for the Maritimes. I have friends I went to school with who are from Quebec. They are great, hard-working people. Then there's Ontario and all of the western provinces.

In my role with indigenous affairs and northern development, I have met some amazing individuals in that community. Believe me, I would tell people that if they wanted to find a CEO to come and work in their company, they should talk to these people. They understand what's going on. They know what is taking place.

My thought when I became an MP was that we would find ways of bringing this country together and be proud of it, rather than finding ways of dividing. Sadly, we seem to make sport of that. That is something that I feel is not standing us in good stead.

I've been fortunate in that I've spent time on the agriculture committee. I've spent time on public accounts, so I understand how the funding of government goes. I also understand what happens when things go awry with government. I've also been on international trade, so I know how important it is to trade our goods around the world. I know how well respected our goods are around the world.

I've been in South America, talking to mining companies there that are Canadian. We have a lot of Canadian mining companies. Yes, sometimes they take over a mining operation that was not looked after very well, so we have groups here in Canada that will attack them.

I remember one group—I believe it was in Colombia—that basically made a point. They said they needed consultants. Here's how they were going to use consultants: They weren't going to take some American consultants who came down, or somebody from Canada. They were going to go to the local colleges in these countries and bring these people to be their consultants so that they could have respect and talk to the priests, the community leaders, the government, the environmentalists, the farmers and everybody. That's how they were going to deal with that.

They brought the groups together. These Canadian mining companies basically said that they needed to do that to gain trust, so that's what they did.

At the same time, I remember that here, we had motions coming to the floor from the Liberals that were basically criticizing our mining companies around the world. By extension, then, that would include these that were doing a great job.

It gets a little frustrating when the mindset is, “Let's be critical”. The mindset is to look at these things and find out just what to do to minimize the efforts of expert Canadians.

I suppose I'm going back to my 34 years as a teacher in math, physics, biology and chemistry—primarily math and physics. The problem is that we have preconceived notions of what is happening in the world.

One book I've been looking at is called Factfulness by Hans Rosling. He was a medical doctor as well as a statistician. He goes through a series of questions that he would ask the public. They're simple types of things. I'll just take an example. I think you'll be curious to see this.

In all low-income countries across the world, how many girls finish the first five grades of school? Here are the options: (a) 20%; (b) 40%; or (c) 60%. In low-income countries around the world today, how many girls finished the first five grades of school? I'm not a teacher anymore, so I'm not going to make a test out of it. It's 60%.

That's not what the results were when they gave this question to the general public, to people we depend on in different world-wide organizations or to academics. They got less than what it would have been if they had randomly chosen it.

Another question is, “In the last 20 years, the proportion of the world's population living in extreme poverty has...”. The options are “almost doubled”, “remained more or less the same”, or “almost half”. Well, most people think poverty is getting worse, but no; it's half of what it was before, because of different things that we've done.

For life expectancy in the world, they had a) “50 years”; b) “60 years”; and c) “70 years”. This is in the world. It's 70 years. That's what it really is.

I don't want to belabour it, but my point is that people like me have these preconceived notions of what is taking place. I grew up in the sixties, and these were the things that we were all bombarded with. We teach teachers—the older ones teach the younger ones. This is our preconceived notion of what is taking place in the world, so that is something we present.

However, when we look at it statistically, we see that we've been wrong. Governments bring together their sayers of sooth, but they're wrong, and we make decisions and policies that are related to that. The only thing on which they agree with us is the 13th question.

Actually, I want to go to the 12th question. It asks, “How many people in the world have some access to electricity?” The options are 20%, 50% or 80%.

Well, it's 80% of the world that has access to electricity.

Another one asks “How many of the world's 1-year-old children today have been vaccinated against some disease?” Option a) was 20%, b) was 50%, and c) was 80%.

The answer is 80%.

We don't think that way. We don't look at those statistics. We believe the things that we are told through social media, through reports that we see on various news agencies. I won't go into the ones that I think are somewhat off.

The only one on which it seems that we have it right says, “Global climate experts believe that over the next 100 years, the average temperature will: a) get warmer, b) remain the same, or c) get colder.”

Well, it is true that global climate experts believe that it will get warmer.

Again, I mentioned that it was the sixties when I grew up. It was a little before that when I was born. However, I remember all of these different stages—here is the next ice age; here is what is going to happen with our ozone layers; this is going to happen here, and everything is going to be flooded. It was all of these problems. We are going to have massive hurricanes. We are going to have massive forest fires. We are going to have all of these types of things. If you believe that narrative, then you are prepared to make statements that say that the Earth is boiling and you will believe somebody who says that.

The facts don't bear it out. The sad reality is that one of those other groups that have been criticized for not doing their job has been forestry. Of course, forest communities live around the forests. They have not done those things that were necessary for them to be able to protect themselves. The opportunities are there, but they just have not used them.

How can we here, in Canada...? We've had some terrible things, and I know people who have lost homes and so on. We have people who categorically will state that it is all because of climate change. Well, the U.S. doesn't have a carbon tax, and this last year has been one of the least severe fire seasons ever—with no carbon tax.

I know that this correlation doesn't make sense, any more than the correlation makes sense that if you charge a carbon tax, you're going to be able to solve these problems.

The correlations don't make sense, but they sure make good clips in the House of Commons. They make pretty good clips when you say, “This person here is a climate denier.” I've had that accusation.

All I simply said is that I remember going to Drumheller Valley and looking at a sign that said that 10,000 years ago, we were under a kilometre of ice. Yes, there has been global warming. At that time we were only under a kilometre of ice. Montreal was under two miles of ice, so they had even more hot air there as things changed.

I don't know how many people know about Lake Superior. It wasn't there about 15,000 years ago. It was carved out of the glacierization. The fact is that as massive dams of ice broke as the climate started warming, the Great Lakes were formed. That's the reality we have, but nobody pays attention to those things because they'd sooner talk about somebody being a climate denier or this sort of thing. There are all these things that nobody pays much attention to, so it's important that if we're going to make up policies, we take a look at all politicians who give that simple argument as to how this can happen and how that can happen.

In our case, it's how far down the road we are going to be before we can fix some of the problems we see, and there are a lot of them. The main one is that we have such wealth in this country. We have so many unique innovators in this country. We've heard—and I can't remember whether it was here in the natural resources committee or back in the environment committee—about a group who built hovercraft in Ontario. In order to get funding to proceed, they had to go through the U.S., and where did they get their funding from? It was Canada pension plan. That's where the money came from when they went to the States to be able to develop the programming they had.

It seems a little odd to me that we can't figure out a way to make those types of things happen. Nevertheless, that's what we are dealing with when we have ideologically driven leadership, because they stop thinking.

We talk about how every one of our communities is affected by the IRA in the U.S., which Biden has signed on to. We are expected now to change all of our rules for our investments and all of the things that are taking place.

The first thing that the Biden administration did when they came in was to shut down Keystone XL. When they realized that they needed a little bit of diesel and they needed a few other things, they asked where they were going to get this from. They made deals with Venezuela to get their heavy oil.

Again, not a lot of people understand the science of all of this, but heavy oil has all of the different things you need. It has what you're going to use for asphalt and it has what you're going to use for diesel. It has the gasoline, and you have the propane. You have all these things.

It all comes out of one pot. It's how you deal with it that is important, but we seem to forget that. We seem to forget how much of what we do and what we use is actually coming out of the hydrocarbons that we have. That's why these different regions get a little upset when someone does not respect those parts of the country that champion these new technologies.

Before people just say, “You don't like the concept of a carbon tax” and all this other kind of stuff—because I know I'll get that—Alberta has had a fee for heavy emitters for close to 20 years. There was no way that each and every one of those businesses could take an amount of money and efficiently fix or change their industry, so they put it together into a fund, and that fund, as it grew, was then able to fund industry-wide solutions, such as carbon capture utilization and storage, such as taking nanoparticles of carbon and putting them into different types of products, whether it was steel or whatever. Those are the things that are done if you are wise.

How do you get to the stage where you can afford to be wise? You take a product you have, make it the best in the world, sell it and get tax dollars to build schools and hospitals in your province. You have tax dollars that go to helping other provinces in this country. You have tax dollars to help with all the needs the federal government has, and you have tax incentives and dollars to make the environmental aspects of what we have in this country even better. What can you do with that? You sell it around the world.

What are we going to do with things the way we have set it up? We will chase that innovation out of this country, similar to the hovercraft, and then we will buy it back from others around the world. Where is the logic to have other provinces suggest that Alberta is doing all this damage to the world and that they are going to do all they possibly can to stop it? Where is the advantage to having political parties that believe it worked for Greenpeace and for all these other groups? Lots of money comes in if you fight them, so that's what they will do again. Where is the advantage? How does that build a nation?

As I mentioned earlier, I can see where the Bloc would look at it and say, “Who cares? We don't want you guys to build a strong nation. We have an exit strategy.” However, it should matter to my friends in Quebec. It should matter to my friends in the Maritimes. It should matter to my friends up north. It should matter to my friends in Ontario. It should matter to my friends in the west, and it should matter to my friends whom I have met and have spoken with for many years around the world when I say, “If you would just come to Canada, and if you would just look at what we produce, how we produce it and why we would do it this way, you will be impressed.” That would mean there is no better place for you to invest. Certainly, if you need products, take a look at Canada and what Canada has to offer. That's where I'm going with this.

I believe that such an amazing country, with 338 ridings at this point in time that depend so much on oil and gas and its byproducts.... We look at the things we have around this table and at the things we wear. All of those things are critical. Why would we want to go someplace else or not have that opportunity to at least sell and buy that product? Those are some of the things that I'm extremely concerned about.

As I've said, on the world stage, we have lost our way. I can't believe the way in which we are portrayed around the world at this point in time. I have friends who have been in India, Asia and so on, and when I was on the international trade committee, we spent time with the ASEAN countries and talked to them. This was at about the time when the Prime Minister went to India with his family and sort of embarrassed things a bit. Maybe some people didn't think so. Nevertheless, even Liberals who were with me on that committee—I won't name names—were scratching their heads as to what was taking place.

We had the same sort of thing happen with trade developments. When we talked about CETA, the ball had already been hit out of the park. All this Prime Minister had to do when they brought it back to home plate was to put his signature on it. That is how far CETA had been. Then, of course, he decided, “Well, there are a few other things I'd like to see added to this thing, so let's open this up.”

The same kind of thing happened in Vietnam in the meetings there: “If I show up on time, it's probably because I've been working on these great things to add a few more letters to the agreements.” The people who were there would look at it and say, “Well, why? Why would you do that? I thought we were talking about trade. I thought that was the rationale. I thought that was the reason we had.”

Again, on this latest issue they're trying to say, “Don't you know that Ukraine has a carbon tax?”, and all of this kind of stuff, thinking that they've really found something special to hang their hat on. Well, when you go from a 56:1 ratio to an 80-some-to-one ratio, of course people knew that they had to sign on to an agreement to be part of the EU, but when you take a look at the other aspects of it, again, it's back to the history of what happened in Berlin.

Canada was saying, “Hey, we're going to do this carbon tax, so why don't you guys get on our side and make it so much easier?” In Birmingham they said: “Well, we've even gone a little further because we have a Minister of Environment and a Minister of Natural Resources who just love this stuff, so we're going to say that as Canadians we are going to do all we can to limit the expansion of hydrocarbons, even though it's here in our country and it would really hurt us more than anybody else.”

That's really where we're at. Those are the reasons I am so concerned about how each one of our ridings is going to deal with the issues that are taking place. Again, I go back to what I said about from the first shovel to dig something up to the last shovel to cover it up.

I know that there was a great discussion having to do with biodiesel or ethanol and those types of things as farm products. All I can say is, that's great. I know we can do these things. As a matter of fact, probably 30 years ago I was approached by a group to commit about 500 acres of barley to a project that would have turned the barley into ethanol. Then you would take the ethanol and move it off, and then you would take the mash and you would feed it to animals. Then you would take the methane you would have from those animals and that would help run your system.

There were two things.

First, it would have probably been useful. The only thing was that they said it would work dependent upon subsidies that we could get from the Alberta government. Well, I look at subsidies as “that's my tax dollar” and “that's my neighbour's tax dollar”. I can't do something just because it came from my neighbour's tax dollar. It has to do something on its own.

It would have been a neat thing to do, but I didn't feel that it was right. It got to the stage where we talked about zoning and how we would do all of this stuff, and how it was a “good idea”, but it wasn't the right thing at the right time.

If I were going to deal with what I was getting out of this, I would have had to look at how much fuel I was going to use for this 500 acres of barley that I had to commit, so I would have had to treat it in exactly the same way and manage it and analyze it in exactly the same way I would if I were selling it for cattle feed. I'd have to do that. I'd have to then look at the cost of the facility and the cost of everything else associated with that, as well as the trucking. Those were some of the metrics I looked at.

We need to do that for everything else we do. When we say, “Oh, I think we'll go to Timmins and we'll start digging up there, and everybody's going to be happy.” Well, that's not likely. We can try to find all of the rare earth minerals around Canada, and it's not that we can't do it, but at what cost?

Right now, we're still sending coal to China, and if they're producing and mining in their country, where are we going to buy these things from? We're going to buy them from them, because they are part of that supply chain. With them as part of that supply chain, we will not be able to compete. We will not be able to compete with the way in which they have taken over African countries and the way in which they get cheap labour in order to produce these products that we all seem excited about having.

We're going to say we're going to do it and we're going to say because the U.S. is doing this, we have to make sure we get in on it as well. Again, as I mentioned before, sometimes we hear things and we think that we know everything, so I'm going to preface some of this.

When we hear that companies in Europe—GM, Ford, Stellantis and so on—are actually cutting back on their electric vehicles because of the supply chain, the costs, the high electricity rates, then we start to think that yes, this was a good idea, but how do we make it work? How do we measure the environmental impact as we do the mining in our region and do all of the other things that are there?

We, as Canadians, go over and above everything to make sure that we have satisfied any group that wants to send in a brief or have a discussion, and we do that. We encourage it, so we should actually listen to them when they come.

That's the issue we have right now. That makes it kind of difficult for us to proceed.

As I mentioned before, if you have billions of dollars of subsidies to these companies, even if they're suspect as to how they might get built and by whom, still it's $15 billion from Canadians for this kind of a project. Wouldn't it better to look at the strengths we have and take vehicles, as we have, that have gone from 10 or 12 miles per gallon to 30 miles per gallon? Wouldn't that be a better way?

As we purchase this fuel that we have, we then put that money into our schools, our hospitals and our national defence and into all of the things that Canadians need. We help out those provinces that for some reason or other have a different way of analyzing their balance sheets. I would think that would be a wise thing to do.

How do you do that in a country that pits one group against another? How do you that when the mandate letters for the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources just cut and paste from one to the other? How do you look at a department?

I understand government. They are beholden to the thoughts and ideology of a government. I understand that's how it's done, but how do we find our way through when this is what we are doing to this wonderful nation of ours?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, have been waiting for this opportunity to speak and to discuss some of the significant aspects of what we have before us, including, as other speakers have just mentioned, what the order should be as far as Bill C-49 or Bill C-50.

Of course, I think many people are aware of the major concern with Bill C-69, which of course affects all ridings. It affects Timmins; it affects my riding, and it affects every one of the 338 ridings in the country where the Supreme Court has found that there are aspects of Bill C-69 that are unconstitutional.

We then look at Bill C-49, which has, at initial count, 33 references to the points in Bill C-69 that have been deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, the suggestion is made that maybe we should actually look at that which the Supreme Court said was so egregious before we as a committee...or for that matter before the government decides to push forward with legislation that it knows is formed on something that has been challenged.

This, I believe, is the critical aspect of the discussion. When we say there is something that the people in each of those 338 ridings need to be aware of, it is the court's decision on those parts of Bill C-69 that have already been made to the citizenry. How then can we justify dealing with legislation until that has been dealt with?

How is the government planning on dealing with that?

We listened to the Minister of the Environment basically saying that he doesn't think they're right, so we'll just kind of shuffle it around a bit so that we don't have to worry about that.

Well, that isn't exactly what the Supreme Court suggested as the solution to the fact that these points were considered unconstitutional.

We have seen the same attitude since then. The point I want to make has to do with attitude. That is with the plastics ban. Again, the Federal Court is saying that this, too, has remnants that are unconstitutional. The suggestion is just that we'll run roughshod over this, too. It's not an issue.

Of course, then we come back to the stage where we say that this is natural resources, so the fact that the Minister of the Environment chooses to get engaged in that discussion and so on.... Maybe we should just deal with what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say. Of course, we've made reference to having both of them, and even others, come to speak to the committee.

I made a very significant point, when I was on the environment committee, of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of the Environment. Then, when I moved here to natural resources, I made a special point of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources.

I challenge people to find where the major differences are. When we have a Minister of Natural Resources who has not been charged with finding the very best opportunities for every one of Canada's natural resources and when he is using the same set of metrics he had when he was environment minister or when the new environment minister came into play, how does that become significant as far as natural resources are concerned?

We have heard, through our discussions in the past, that parts of their legislation have been unfair. It has been unfair to regions. It has been unfair to provinces. Quite frankly, after the many years I spent on aboriginal affairs and northern development, I know it has been unfair to our indigenous communities, because they have a lot of money already in the game of natural resources.

We talk about some of the other features of how the government looks at our natural resources and how we, as a country, can manage them.

I'll go back a number of years to a meeting with the OSCE in Berlin. At that time, there were discussions and different things taking place. Of course, the environment, science and technology were some of the main features there. The contribution Canada brought to the table in an amendment to one of the major supplementary items being discussed on the floor among this group of 50-something countries—it is beyond the European Union—was that.... They wanted that group to more or less rubber-stamp the fact that Canada believed a carbon tax was the very best solution for managing environmental concerns. That was our contribution to the discussion. We had others: some workings on helping women be involved in parliamentary associations and that type of thing, and on helping out journalists who were being attacked. There were a lot of other things there, but that was our contribution—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a wonderful thing to be able to speak. It's something we haven't had a lot of opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are able to weigh in on the subamendment we have today, as well as the amendment and, ultimately, the main motion.

Like my two colleagues before me, I would like to encourage us to move forward as expeditiously as possible. We have two very important pieces of legislation before us. I'm hearing from thousands of Canadians in my constituency office about the importance they see in Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There's an appeal that we get on with this, and in large part, that we make room for labour at the table.

I need to reflect on the fact that it is interesting how our Conservative colleagues, particularly the leader, talk about being friends with labour; yet, every chance that the leader and his caucus have to prevent things from moving forward, they seem to take that opportunity.

We're seeing it with Bill C-58 and Bill C-50. I really would hope that.... We have these important pieces of legislation before us, and I'd like to see us actually move forward for the benefit of Canadian workers.

We've heard a lot of discussion about whether this is a programming or schedule motion. I'd like to remind all my colleagues here that the original motion, when we finally get to it, will allow us to deal with both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 concurrently. I think that's a really wise way to go. It would allow us to have witnesses, the minister and others to deal with both pieces of legislation, so we can get them back to the House in a timely manner.

I won't take up a lot more time. I'm ready to move forward with the vote on the subamendment and, hopefully, a vote on the amendment, so we can get to the main motion as soon as possible. We can build on the work that our committee did previously when hearing from many witnesses on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. We have the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia asking us to move forward with those pieces of legislation as well.

The motion we have from my colleague is a very good motion that will help us advance both pieces of legislation and, ultimately, get them back to the House, so the House can do its job and move forward with the legislation.

That's my intervention on the subamendment we have before us this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

As my colleague Ms. Dabrusin pointed out, we've been caught up in a never-ending tangle since October 30. We've spent a month trying to determine who should be able to speak. We spent a month discussing a subamendment that is perhaps there just to frustrate Mr. Angus. I may not be Mr. Angus's greatest admirer, but the purpose of this subamendment is simply to annoy him by saying that he's not prepared to support witnesses from his region and his riding. It's a political ploy like any other, but I don't think it contributes at all to the public debate.

I have a confession to make, Mr. Chair. My son is a political science student who listens to our debates. The idiotic things he has tuned into in recent weeks were discussed in one of his courses, in connection with how elected representatives can paralyze the democratic system, sometimes, I believe, with questionable intent.

Mr. Chair, I'm telling you this because people do watch the debates we are currently having. I know this because I've taught political science and studied politics for over 20 years. People are getting more cynical about politics. What they might be watching here over the past month would do nothing to reduce the level of cynicism about politics. I don't agree with anything in Bill C‑49. Nor do I agree with anything in Bill C‑50. In fact we voted against the latter in the House.

On the other hand, on what grounds could I possibly express my disagreement with these bills by attempting to obstruct committee studies? I believe that in doing so, I would be acting irresponsibly. I won't be taking that approach, and would rather try to improve the bills to make them acceptable to me. If that proved to be impossible, I would just vote against them. That's the straightforward democratic principle.

I am therefore hoping that we'll be able to quickly finish debate on this amendment, because I don't see what it has to offer. We can invite anyone we want to testify before the committee. It's up to the members to suggest which witnesses they would like to hear from. I don't see what that would contribute, other than causing us to waste valuable time. I would ask my colleagues to show their integrity. People can disagree with bills that are introduced, but at the very least, we can hear what the witnesses have to say and allow the democratic process to proceed freely.

I would ask you to vote as quickly as possible on this amendment so that we can return to what's on the table, meaning the study of two bills that are, after all, rather important, even though we may disagree with them. That's what I encourage everyone to do.

I'll conclude by pointing out that everything we do has an impact, and that people are watching us on TV. People can see what has been going on for the past few weeks. It has been a free-for-all shouting match over whose turn it is to speak next. I don't think that this is helping to advance the democratic process.

Let's be responsible. Let's say what we think about the amendments before us and stop wasting everyone's precious time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to be able to take a moment to speak about this subamendment that was proposed, as you said, by Mr. Falk. The subamendment is to add specificity to witnesses being called from one riding as part of a study that's proposed within an amendment to our study.

I trust that all members of this committee will make decisions to call everyone we need to be heard as part of our study of offshore wind and Atlantic accords in Bill C-49 and sustainable jobs in Bill C-50. I don't think that we need to be naming specific ridings. There are 338 ridings, all of which may have really important witnesses to call.

I will not be supporting this subamendment. I think that we have, throughout all of our studies, been very able to call the witnesses who need to be heard for a study. There's a process for that.

I was trying to figure out where the location for this meeting was. I realized I had to look back to October 30. This is actually a continuation of our October 30 meeting. That's basically a month that we have been at the stage of continuing to debate, essentially, the subamendment. It has been a long wait. I'm happy to see that today I have been given the floor.

I know that people in our communities are eager to see us study offshore wind in Bill C-49 and sustainable jobs in Bill C-50. This is a moment for us to move forward. Both of them provide economic opportunities for our country.

This is a really nice morning to see us actually get into the debate on the subamendment and talk about how we could move forward with a concurrent study of these two bills. I'm looking forward to doing it, and I'm hoping that we can keep this pace going so that we can all move forward with these very important bills.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Chair, it's a real honour to be able to join you and all of the members of this committee here. It's nice to meet many of them for the first time. As the rookie in Parliament, it's a real special place, to be in the company of so many tenured people.

Today is a really important debate in the finance committee. It's affecting my own province of Alberta, which is a part of the country that was a big part of the solution in recovering from the 2008-09 global financial crisis. It's a part of the country that fuels, feeds and supports our national economy as the backbone of our success as a country. That can only happen if it has a partner in a federal government that understands how national unity works and is an ally to our energy sector, to the energy workers and to the people who do great work every single day across a range of issues.

As I think about what we're here to debate, after eight years of Justin Trudeau, provinces have actually never been as divided. This government inherited a legacy of national unity and of a country confident about its future. It has found a way to pit one group against another and traffic in identities, with one region against another. Provinces are planning to just not collect the carbon tax because of their prime minister's unfair application of a temporary pause. His Liberals voted just against a common sense, fair motion to extend this temporary pause to all Canadians.

I have constituents who I now represent who called and told me that they might be losing their house at the end of this year. Their costs are going through the roof; their mortgage is out of control. They have three children they're trying to feed and put through school. They asked why only one part of the country gets relief from this painful carbon tax. Why, in our own backyard in Calgary, do we not feel like we are eligible for that kind of relief?

Provinces have also taken the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court to fight their unfair energy policies. They are at the natural resources committee now trying to ram through another bill that is bad for Alberta, which is Bill C-50, the unjust transition bill.

With this bill, I think there's some expertise we could reflect on that is non-partisan and comes from a place of love for country and the unity we represent. I'd love to take a minute here, with your permission, Chair, to explain some of the thinking that came to us as early as last year.

One of the greatest scholars in this country is a woman named Heather Exner-Pirot. She's at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. She's a senior fellow there who leads on Arctic, energy and critical minerals. She's one of the most important thinkers of our time. I can say she's a dear friend and former colleague of mine.

Back in May, 2022, she published a really important article entitled “Ottawa's 'just transition' needs to be challenged for encouraging fantasy around oil and gas”. I think that says something. It's about a government that divides Canadians on the basis of region and traffics in fantasies that undermine a wellspring of support for this country.

Our energy industry has the capacity to lower international emissions if we could only get other countries off dirty coal. Our energy has the ability to partner with first nations in true economic reconciliation in this country. Our energy sector would have the capacity to fund whatever entitlements the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal partner, Mr. Singh, would invent next. It would rebuild our armed forces. It would defeat Russia, Iran and China in their ambitions to have hegemony around the world.

I think her article is quite apt and worth paying attention to. Let me share it with colleagues around the table at this point. She writes:

A fantasy has emerged in Canada called a “just transition.” In this paradigm, the transition from dirty fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy in the form of solar panels and windmills will create a prosperous, low-carbon future with a thriving green economy. Taking action now will make our economy stronger and more competitive.

The catch is that workers and communities who depend on the oil and gas sector will be disadvantaged. The “just transition” ensures no one is left behind, with workers given the supports to succeed in other, more sustainable, fields. So committed is the federal government to this version of reality, that it is planning to introduce legislation in its name, to codify its “people-centred just transition principles.”

We've heard “peoplekind” before. Maybe that's not her intention or what the intention was in the preamble for this legislation.

She continues:

The first and most obvious challenge to this premise is that there isn’t much of a transition yet. Global demand for oil and gas is as high as it has ever been. Whether you think this is good or bad, it is a fact. Years of underinvestment in production, now topped with sanctions on Russia, mean that prices for LNG and refined products are at record levels. Energy experts think crude oil will soon hit $180 a barrel or higher. Even if demand does eventually match up with supply, it still makes sense for the western world to maintain some production of its own, instead of relying on OPEC and Russia. Canada, by far the world’s biggest oil exporter that is a democracy, should be the last man standing.

Furthermore:

It seems almost farcical to dedicate legislative effort and taxpayer dollars to training programs for unemployable oilpatch workers, or to help oil and gas regions become economically viable. Canada has never exported more crude and bitumen than it does now, buoyed by the recent completion of the Line 3 pipeline, the reversal of the Capline pipeline, and global markets taking whatever we could muster. But labour, especially experienced labour, is a constraining factor, and is hampering growth, even with wages at three times or more the Canadian average.

These are high-quality jobs that Heather is describing, with people wearing boots, vests and hard hats and getting things done for this country. She adds:

The joke is they need to start retraining coders to become drillers.

This is an argument she's making pitched to modern reality:

Critics might concede that, yes, although there is a temporary reprieve in demand, in order to save the planet we need a transition, the sooner the better. The idea seems to be that we can, or should, stop using petroleum products, and any oilsands project or pipeline we build now is destined to become a stranded asset. This is the fantasy that “just transition” encourages. But it needs to be challenged.

Thank God Heather is doing that challenge here, in stating:

The average Canadian thinks of petroleum use in terms of pumping gas into their vehicle, and therefore subscribes to the fallacy that when we all drive electric vehicles, the need for fossil fuels will disappear. But there are infinite uses for hydrocarbons. They are an incredibly flexible, available, and useful molecule, and even when we stop using them for combustion

[Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour]

Thanks. Good morning.

As you said, my name is Gil McGowan, and I have the honour of serving as the elected president of Alberta's largest worker advocacy group, the Alberta Federation of Labour, which represents workers in all sectors of the Alberta economy.

On behalf of our members, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to share some of our concerns and suggestions about the economy and the next federal budget. In the short time available to me, I'd like to focus on three issues of major concern to our members: the affordability crisis, the unfolding global energy transition and the Alberta government's proposal to pull out of the Canada pension plan.

When it comes to the affordability crisis, we wholeheartedly support federal initiatives to work directly with municipalities to build more housing. However, we humbly suggest that greater efforts should be made to ensure that those projects pay prevailing wages and provide opportunities for skilled trades apprenticeships. Frankly, too many contractors in the residential and commercial construction sectors cut corners on wages, and most of them are not holding up their end on training the next generation of tradespeople. If they are going to get public money, they should be required to do better.

Another concern on affordability has to do with the temporary foreign worker program. The government clearly has given in to lobbying pressure from low-wage employers and has opened the floodgates to guest workers in the low-skill categories. This is putting upward pressure on housing costs and downward pressure on wages, the opposite of what working people in the province want to see during these inflationary times.

Also on the issue of affordability, we would like this committee to seriously consider the idea of introducing an excess profits tax to discourage oligopolistic companies from using their market power to jack up prices. Frankly, we're tired of inflation being blamed on worker wages and government spending when it's clear that the real problem is that many big companies, including grocery chains and oil and gas companies, have used the pandemic as a pretext to boost profits by gouging consumers.

Here in Alberta, we also have the problem of power companies using market manipulation tactics, like so-called economic withholding, to impose obscene price increases on residential and commercial customers. Our provincial government has refused to do anything about this highway robbery, so we would like the federal government to consider stepping in.

On the subject of the global energy transition, we would like to sincerely thank the federal government for the investment tax credits included in budget 2023 and for the labour conditions that were attached to those credits. However, we want to draw your attention to efforts being made by some corporations here in Alberta to game the system. In particular, a number of big project sponsors are trying to water down and get around requirements related to prevailing wages and apprenticeships. This can't be allowed to continue.

Also on the energy transition, we want to stress the need to pass the sustainable jobs act so that workers have a seat at the table when we're shaping industrial policy. We also encourage this government to start looking at the clean energy regulations as a platform for industrial policy and job creation, not simply as a mechanism for emissions reduction. We would like to encourage the government, again, to look at the Biden administration for inspiration, particularly its strategies to speed up the approval of the diversification projects and its announcement of a youth climate corps, which is an idea that we find very intriguing and that we think would be enthusiastically received by young workers here in Alberta.

Finally, with regard to the Alberta government's proposal to pull out of the CPP, we would like to encourage the finance minister to direct the chief actuary to do more than just calculate the amount that Alberta could take out of the CPP fund should it decide to leave. She should also be asked to clearly outline the impact that this proposed divorce would have on the retirement security of workers and retirees in both Alberta and the rest of the country.

I think my time is up. With that, I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, members of the natural resources committee have had their work brought to a standstill by a reckless and wasteful Conservative filibuster. The Conservatives are deliberately trying to stop workers from getting a seat at the table and trying to end Atlantic Canada's offshore renewable energy opportunities by opposing vital legislation.

Can the parliamentary secretary please share with the House the negative impacts that delaying these important bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, will have on the lives of Canadian workers?

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

—by taking the floor away from him on the debate on the programming motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

[Chris Roberts]

Bill C-50 and the sustainable jobs framework contemplate a partnership council that will bring workers, industry and other interests together to address the skills and labour market programming needs to make that transition.

We can similarly fashion institutions that bring workers and their organizations into the process. There is an AI advisory council currently. Unfortunately, it's constituted exclusively by industry and academics. There are no civil society, labour or human rights advocacy organizations, etc.

That would be a starting point—to create a body that can identify skills needs and programs that are required, collaboratively, and instill some of that social licence that's required. Then, I think having sectoral tables as well that identify industry and sector-specific needs in response to AI development and the digitalization of work would take us a long way down the road.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an absolutely fascinating and timely discussion. Today President Joe Biden tweeted about his executive order on AI. I know that tomorrow the U.K. will be hosting an international summit on AI safety. Again, this is a very, very timely discussion. I want to thank my colleague, Michael Coteau, for bringing this study forward to the committee.

Mr. Roberts, I was very interested to read the report that was published by the CLC and the Pembina Institute and that just came out in September, “A Sustainable Jobs Blueprint”. It talks about how Canada can build a framework of supports that can help workers transition to a zero-emission economy. It's a great read. I highly recommend it. It really dovetails nicely with the legislation that's in front of Parliament right now, Bill C-50, which we brought forward.

Can you talk about some of the parallels or lessons from that conversation or from that process and how they might apply to this conversation about the challenges, whether it's AI or whether it's automation or digitization, and about what lessons and parallels we can draw from that?

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

I want to clarify what I heard from Mr. Simard. I want to have this clear so that I understand it going forward.

Mr. Simard said if members, say, Mr. Perkins or Mr. Viersen, who are not voting members of the committee attempt to speak, he will object. That will mean they actually have no right to speak, because their right to speak is contingent upon the committee agreeing to let non-members speak.

Is that what I heard from Mr. Simard? It would make Mr. Genuis's point moot, but he could talk all night about whatever he wants to talk about, because we're dealing with a filibuster against Bill C-50.

On the issue of non-voting members trying to speak, if there's an objection raised, they will not be recognized.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her hard work for her community and for workers across Canada. The Atlantic accords act and the Canadian sustainable jobs act are key to unlocking generational economic opportunities for Canada.

The Atlantic accords act would allow for the development of an offshore wind industry, which would create thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada. The sustainable jobs act would bring workers to the table and equip them with the tools and skills they need to thrive.

I call upon the Conservative Party to end its wasteful filibuster and allow committee members to consider these bills. It should heed the call of premiers, industry, workers and the House to advance Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is simply wasting time and the money of taxpayers.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the detriment of our economy, the Conservative Party is blocking two vital pieces of legislation that would create sustainable jobs, bring workers to the table and build important renewable energy projects.

First, it blocked workers from speaking at committee. Then it cancelled debate in this chamber, and now it is filibustering the natural resources committee to stop consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Could the minister inform the House of the importance of the sustainable jobs act and the Atlantic accords act?

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will continue to push forward on this. This legislation has to be passed.

This committee had 56 meetings with 133 witnesses and over 112 hours of testimony. We know what the energy file is. We know what the sustainable jobs issue is. We need to get this legislation passed.

We are hearing from labour groups across the country who are very concerned. I'm hearing from investors who are looking to shift investment to the United States because they are seeing that Canada is becoming a gridlock, with the Conservatives blocking Bill C-49, when there are such opportunities.

To that, this motion that I read, or my attempt to speak to this, was referred to us because two pieces of legislation were referred to our committee. As someone who has been in Parliament for multiple years and in opposition for all that time, I don't always agree with how government works. I know that when government moves legislation to the committee, it becomes the priority of the committee. The committee has to address that legislation.

What we saw from the Conservatives was an attempt to monkeywrench that motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 by introducing another study on top of that. I reached out to the Conservatives. I said that I'd be more than willing to look at that study, but that study would have to come in order. It doesn't get to pre-empt the work that has been given to us by Parliament. There is a timeline ticking on this. We need to get this done. This is what we're hearing from labour.

We have a series of these amendments that are very.... First, it was Sudbury. Suddenly, we're going to have people from Sudbury. It wasn't really clear who we were going to have from Sudbury, but we were going to get somebody from Sudbury. The Conservatives suddenly were really fascinated. It's funny. They didn't have anybody come when the coal transition happened. It was the New Democrats who brought representatives who went through the coal transition. They didn't bring anybody. Suddenly, they wanted someone from Sudbury.

I believe the motion was that they wanted representatives from the mining industry in Timmins, which I think is a great idea. I would love to have a set of meetings with representatives from the mining region of Timmins, maybe Val-d'Or, maybe Sudbury, but outside of this meeting on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because it would certainly be a huge education to my Conservative colleagues.

If they think that the mining representatives from northern Ontario are going to come down and back their climate-denying anti-investment in EV technology, I think they're going to be in for a big surprise.

We have Alamos Gold in Matachewan that's running 8,000 tonnes of gold a day underground. That's massive. When I go underground at Alamos, we talk about the really important need to move from diesel to electric trucks. That's a huge investment. Those ITCs will be huge for being able to move those kinds of underground pit trucks to battery power.

There's the Newmont mine. I would love to invite Newmont to come and talk about Borden. Borden is a mine that's running almost entirely green now. It is possible.

Again, this is something my Conservative colleagues would not probably know anything about. When you work underground in a diesel environment and work with oil from the drills, the lung cancers and stomach cancers are enormous, just from what you're breathing.

When you go into a clean battery-driven mine, the air is so much cleaner, and it drops your costs enormously. What you pay in battery investments, you actually make up in less cost for underground fans. When you have to run fans, let's say at Creighton, deep, 9,000 feet underground, you're pumping a lot of cool air down at those depths. When you run diesel motors at that depth, you have to run really heavy fans.

I talk to mining representatives, and I'm sure they would love to come to this committee to talk about how ITCs would help in those investments so that we could make switches. For example, I believe Vale, which is not in my region, but is in Ms. Lapointe's region, is running 72-ton haulage trucks now on batteries. That's a really transformative moment. People didn't think that was possible. Certainly the flat earth EV deniers would say that you couldn't run trucks that big. What they can do now, because of how they've tied the batteries to the braking energy on those pit trucks, is run from six hours to 10 hours. A 10-hour shift on a battery hauling 72 tons of ore is a major transformative moment.

I would love to have them come and talk about that technology and why they are absolutely committed to the clean-tech future, because they see the opportunities for mining.

Whenever I talk to people in the mining sector, they get it. If we're going to be competing against China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there are horrific human rights abuses, we need to have a supply chain that is free of the abuses that are happening in places like Congo, but also that has a clean energy footprint. We can't say we're going to be a clean energy superpower and get critical minerals unless our mines are able to start running on clean energy.

That leads to questions on the grid.

I know, Chair, when you were sitting as just one of the members, we were going to study the grid, something my Conservative colleagues don't seem to want to deal with. But the grid is important, because we actually can't move some of this battery technology for big industrial projects without dealing with issues of the grid.

I think it would be really great to have representatives of the Timmins mining industry. They would also explain to the Conservatives that Bill C-69 has really nothing to do with how mine projects are developed. I know Conservatives are going on that it takes 10 to 15 years to get a mine up and running, and they blame the Liberal government for that. Well, it always takes 10 to 15 years for a mine, because when you're talking about a multi-million dollar investment underground, you have to make sure you really know where you're putting your infrastructure. If you put the shaft in the wrong place, you're going to go bankrupt pretty quickly, and you're not going to be able to raise the money on the international market until you've done all the important steps that are necessary.

Take Doug Ford. He announced he was going to run a bulldozer through the Ring of Fire. Well, that didn't go so well. I wouldn't be betting any money on the Ring of Fire right now, because it was Conservative politicians who shot their mouths off about the Ring of Fire. If you go to Neskantaga First Nation, they're saying, “It ain't going to happen, because it's not done properly.” To build a mine properly, you have to have a proper environmental plan, a proper financial plan, the support of first nations, because when you have the support of first nations, things move a lot quicker.

For example, we had representatives from the Timmins mining region come—

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting, because, again, we have not been able to discuss this at all without the Conservatives losing their minds on this, interrupting, demanding that I speak on what they want me to speak about.

I am here to speak about important legislation, two pieces of legislation, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we move Bill C-50 forward. What we've seen is interference by the Conservatives to discuss other things, to move ahead, to ignore something that was moved in legislation. Bill C-49 is absolutely essential, because we are dealing with the need to be able to compete on the maritime east coast when we're losing out to the Biden administration. That is something the Conservatives don't want us to talk about, so I'm not surprised they are interfering and attempting to, again, play gong show games here.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have to say I'm absolutely not surprised that I was interrupted, even trying to read the motion, because this motion instruction is about getting, number one, Bill C-50, which is very important legislation about having workers at the table for the transition that is happening. Every time we have tried to bring workers here, we have seen gong show tactics from the Conservatives that have stopped them from speaking, so I'm not surprised that they're trying to interrupt this important work now.

When the carpenters' union came we had a Conservative gong show and they didn't speak. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers came and there were gong show tactics from the Conservatives. They didn't let them speak. They represent so many people in the oil patch, and they have so much to say, so I'm not surprised that we're dealing with these constant games to stop legislation that is about making sure the workers have a right to be here, because they have stopped workers speaking every moment.

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

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Angus started the meeting with the floor. He was not interrupted until he finished reading the motion, but he conveniently left out the amendment the Conservatives put forward to make sure that Bill C-49 is actually given precedence. We want to undertake a study on Bill C-69, but of consequence, we want Bill C-49 to go ahead of Bill C-50, for the sake of ordering.

I just want to make sure all committee members remember that Bill C-49 should come ahead of Bill C-50, and we would like to see Bill C-49 first.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I want to provide a reminder once again. We had a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the Atlantic accords, Bill C-49. We have an amendment brought forward to Mr. Sorbara's main motion by Ms. Stubbs. We have had a subamendment brought forward by Mr. Falk.

We are on the subamendment by Mr. Falk. Mr. Angus has the floor on the subamendment with many other members waiting.

We have a few folks on a point of order. I'm going to go through the points of order of a few people.

I'm going to go to Ms. Stubbs first on a point order. Then we'll go to the next member after Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, as I reminded other committee members, please be succinct on your point order.

The floor is yours on the point of order.

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

If we can go down that tangent as quickly as possible, Bill C-49 is important for Atlantic Canadians and Bill C-50 is important for all Canadians.

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

Chair, I very much wish to be quite brief.

I put forward a motion, I believe a regular scheduling motion, for our committee to go over Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

It is November 8 today, if I am correct. We would have had the minister here with us today at committee looking at two important pieces of legislation for all Canadians and for all parts of the country. I believe there's an amendment on the table, or a subamendment on the floor, if I could get clarification.

There's a subamendment that is being debated right now. I would hope that all parties can get to a point where we can vote on the subamendment and then vote on the revised amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Falk, I'm going to you on a point of order, but before I do, sir, for committee members, I'm going to give a quick reminder on some important reflections I've had over the last few minutes.

On page 1058, in chapter 20, partway down the paragraph on disorder and misconduct, it states, “If a committee desires that specific sanctions be taken against those disrupting the proceedings, it must report the situation to the House. The House may then take such measures as it deems appropriate.” Then it says, “In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored.” That's what I've done on several occasions today.

In previous meetings and in this one, the health and safety of our interpreters with members speaking over each other with many mikes on was a concern, and it still is a concern. Today, I'm very delighted to see that we have not gone down that path. I know that our interpreters are very grateful for one mike at a time, and I'm very grateful that we are taking the health and safety of our interpreters seriously. I hope that will continue. As mentioned, I will suspend the meeting if I feel that the health and safety of our interpreters is being jeopardized.

Under “Decisions of the Chair and Appeals” on page 1059 of chapter 20, it says, “Decisions by the Chair are not debatable.” It says that very clearly here. It also says, “They can, however, be appealed to the committee.”

Colleagues, every member of this committee has the right to participate in the proceedings of this committee. If you feel that a decision that's made is not one that you believe is the right one, you have the right to challenge the chair and the ruling—not to engage in debate but to challenge the chair. That is a clearly stated rule. I would encourage members to use that if you deem it's necessary.

I would also encourage members to allow members to participate. An important part of this committee's proceedings is that members who have the floor are able to debate the motions that are presented.

I'm going to remind everyone, for all those folks sitting at home who may have just tuned in, where we are. We have a motion on the floor presented by Mr. Sorbara regarding the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the Atlantic accords bill.

We then have an amendment that was brought forward by Ms. Stubbs.

We then have a subamendment that was brought forward by Mr. Falk, which we are currently on, and we are debating. On that subamendment, Mr. Angus has the floor and, as a member of this committee, has not been given the opportunity to participate in debate on an important subamendment that is actually related to his constituency.

I hope that provides clarity to all members. I know that Mr. Falk, who has brought forward this subamendment, would like to see it presented and debated. I know that Mr. Falk also has a point of order.

Before I go to Mr. Falk on a point of order, I would ask members, on points of order, to please be succinct and let's not engage in debate. I want to give you the opportunity to make your relevant points of order.

Mr. Falk, you have the floor, sir, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I've given you an opportunity to present your point of order. I've given Mr. Angus an opportunity to respond. I'm going to ask you to hold for a second.

Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Genuis. I do not find Mr. Angus's intervention unparliamentary, not from what he said and just restated. Clarification was provided.

I will ask all members once again to not use unparliamentary language in this committee room with one another. Focus on the work we are here to do in committee, not on making accusations and using unparliamentary language against one another, whoever that may be. We've had a number of meetings. We should not be resorting to using unparliamentary language. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching our deliberations today.

Focus on the task at hand. I will remind everybody that the task at hand is the motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara regarding Bill C-50 the Canadian sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords bill. The motion was moved by Mr. Sorbara. An amendment was moved by Ms. Stubbs. Then a subamendment was moved by Mr. Falk. That's where we are.

Mr. Angus has the floor. The chair's ruling has not been challenged. This committee is at the point where Mr. Angus has the floor to debate. We have other points of order. I'm going through the other points of order.

Mr. Falk, you have a point of order. Thank you for waiting very patiently.

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

The issue here, Mr. Chair, is this. The member has denied that I had the floor, which is a falsehood. The chair has ruled on that, but he will not challenge him. The chair has ruled. The ruling of the chair has been sustained.

Now we see his attempt to drag out a fight with Ms. Lapointe, who I think has held herself with dignity.

This attempt to personalize it with me is.... I am somehow a problem for being denied the ability to participate by these constant attempts to interfere.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, to move on, because I have the floor.

I am certainly ready to start speaking to the motion regarding Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because I have workers who depend on us doing something. If Mr. Genuis's feelings are being hurt because he's being called out for his behaviour, misconduct and disorder, as you said, that is his issue. My issue is speaking for the workers of this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I am going to ask you to hold, Mr. Patzer. We are not going to engage, as I mentioned earlier.

A point of order is for a procedural issue, not for debate. I do have you on the list. At the time when you have the debate, if you would like to debate on the subamendment, you'll have the opportunity to do so, but we have dealt with the point of order.

I've already dealt with the issues of committee disorder earlier in my opening remarks. I think colleagues are quite aware that I've had to suspend many meetings over the last several weeks because of disorder, and I have done so again today.

I would ask members throughout the meeting to allow other members to participate, and to use parliamentary language, because as honourable members we all have the honour and privilege of being on this committee to do important work for Canadians. We'll remind everyone we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, Bill C-50, and on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords. We also have an amendment placed by Ms. Stubbs and we now have a subamendment placed by Mr. Falk on Timmins—James Bay. That is where we're at.

I have Ms. Dabrusin. I know you've been very patient. Thank you.

I have one more point of order by Ms. Stubbs and then we will proceed to.... We'll go to Ms. Stubbs on a point of order.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It is actually great to be here. I know you're probably thinking, “What did he have to drink before he came here”, but I certainly didn't drink anything.

Number one, I'm hoping I get to hear Mr. Angus take the floor, but I also want to highlight how important the motion and Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 are, if I may. In Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia, and in particular in Cape Breton—Canso, where I'm from, the amendment to the Atlantic accord—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think I have addressed your point of order. If you have another point of order, I'll ask you—

Once again, colleagues, I don't need a number of people to tell me who's next or who's not. I heard a point of order on your point of order. I've addressed that. If there is another member, I will address them.

I want to remind colleagues that we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara. We have an amendment by Ms. Stubbs. We have another subamendment on Timmins, for which Mr. Angus last had the floor. He is our next speaker, who hasn't been allowed to speak.

Colleagues, we all discussed last meeting the importance of this bill and the amendments. I hope today we can get through this subamendment on Timmins, go through our speaking order on Timmins—all the members who want to debate this important component of the subamendment—so we can get to the amendment that Ms. Stubbs brought forward. We can debate that and we can get to the main motion.

I'm really hoping that we can work together as a committee, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, studying the motion that Mr. Sorbara brought forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and then the additional amendment that Ms. Stubbs has brought forward.

This is the work of this committee, which Canadians expect us to do. If we can work together, everybody will have an opportunity to participate in debate and we can move forward.

I need all members to be very clear on where we are.

Ms. Dabrusin, you reminded us, and I should remind committee members of where we are as well, so there is no confusion.

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

Thank you.

Under Standing Order 116 and the ability of members to speak, we've had 56 meetings, 133 witnesses and 112 hours on the energy file. We're more than ready to move forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I'm looking at the motion that was provided by the Liberals. Given that we've had this relentless gong show of interruptions, people might not be aware of what we are actually debating. I think it's important to read it into the record:

That given 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, and Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. That is a privilege motion, which is now properly before the committee.

I will now speak on that question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee ultimately to determine whether to forward a report on that matter of privilege to the House. That is a privilege motion and I will now speak to it.

We were undertaking a debate on an important matter, which is Bill C-69, an amendment in relation to a programming motion on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There was an amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Patzer had the floor on a point of order, and that's the ruling.

The committee upheld and sustained the ruling of the chair. With that, I see that the committee members have confidence in what we are doing today and the important work on C-50 and C-49, the motion that was brought forward, the amendments and now the subamendment.

I would like to get back to the subamendment and to the individuals who were speaking so that we can continue to debate the subamendment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

We can spend the whole day naming everyone's ridings and saying we want to add them, but I don't think that'll change much. We can also shout the words "common sense" at each other 15 times, but I don't necessarily think that's "rational".

I see that my Conservative colleagues want to be heard. The best way to do that maybe to conduct the clause‑by-clause consideration of Bill C‑50. If they don't agree, they need only vote against it. I personally voted against Bill C‑50 in the House and did the same with Bill C‑49. I'm nevertheless prepared to hear the witnesses who will be here to express their views on the bill, just as I'm prepared to hear the minister and officials tell us about bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I don't know what my Conservative colleagues are trying to do with this mountain of oddball amendments they're proposing to us this morning, but I know that people are watching us now. Some of them are starting to think my colleagues' conduct is a bit much. The Conservative Party leadership tells the House that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat. Some people in my riding who hear that find it appalling.

There are some MPs here today who, instead of seriously discussing a bill, are proposing oddball amendments and citing the ridings of certain members in an attempt to find an excerpt that suggests those members don't want to listen to the people. I don't think that's a serious gambit. If we're being serious today, this afternoon, we will promptly vote on the subamendment and Ms. Stubbs' amendment. Then we'll decide on the motion before us so we can begin the work we have to do on bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I'm telling you that even though I voted against those bills in the House. I'm prepared to hear witnesses because the mandate given to me by the people in the riding of Jonquière is to act as a legislator, not as a buffoon. I therefore request a vote on my colleague's subamendment.

Perhaps then we can move on to something else.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.

The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.

Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.

Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.

It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.

Thank you.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm a bit puzzled here. I know I missed a few hours of the Conservative filibustering here on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Where in this motion are heat pumps? Clearly, there are issues here where we're looking at inviting the minister to come to speak on both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.

Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, an Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.

Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.

Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.

That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, the issue of critical minerals is essential to the Canadian economy. We know that the EV battery investments that have been put in are set to create two million cars coming off the line. That is going to dramatically change the economic landscape and the energy landscape, yet the Pierre Poilievre Conservatives get up day after day in the House to ridicule EV technology. They say that these vehicles catch fire, that they freeze. They're really doing everything they can to undermine.... The member for Sarnia—Lambton is always saying how it would have been better to give $10 million to every resident in her riding rather than make these investments. I'm very concerned about this ongoing sabotage against a clean-energy economy.

With regard to Ms. Lapointe's concerns, however, I would certainly support having witnesses come from the base metal regions to talk about their clean-energy investments and the importance of the critical minerals strategy. However, I think that should come in a separate motion. I think that should be a study on its own. I think what we're seeing here is an attempt to hijack the motion that was brought forward to get Bill C-50 done.

We've had over 112 hours of testimony. We've had multiple witnesses. The Conservatives have interrupted time and time again. Any time that we had representatives of workers and workers from western Canada who wanted to speak about getting this legislation passed—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I just want to acknowledge the subamendment that's been made by MP Patzer. I do want to talk about how important the work of this committee is and how important it is that we get to the motion that was tabled this morning by MP Sorbara about our dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. These bills are very important for us all across Canada, as well as specifically for Sudbury, as the subamendment has been tabled.

As I stated and will reiterate, the people of Sudbury certainly want to talk about creating good, sustainable jobs for workers. We also want to talk about economic growth within a net-zero economy. This is extremely important. Critical minerals will be a very important aspect to our reaching net zero, and Sudbury will be a key player in that. We look forward to our role in that. This committee did a study around the Inflation Reduction Act and how Sudbury can position itself in Canada, as well, around being not only competitive but also collaborative with that. It will be very important. Critical minerals present a generational opportunity for wealth for Sudbury and in turn Ontario and Canada.

It is vitally important that this committee get on with the work of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. I look forward to doing that. I look forward to inviting some really good expert witnesses from Sudbury and northern Ontario, as well, to weigh in on this important discussion that Canadians and people from Sudbury want us to have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, prior to having the point of order, I was actually speaking about where the folks of Sudbury are getting their energy, where their power generation comes from and where rural Ontario gets it from. This is why we put that specific common-sense subamendment in place. There was a point of order while I was talking about that. I was merely offering up a quick response to the point of order because I found it quite fascinating myself, to be honest. What I was getting at was the fact that there's over 10,000 megawatts of gas and oil being used for power and energy for rural Ontario and for communities like Sudbury.

It is important, when we have a common-sense subamendment outlining the people of Sudbury, how it relates to the motion, which is its link to Bill C-69. This is because of the reference case by the Supreme Court of Canada making it largely unconstitutional. How's that going to implicate Bill C-50?

Again, let's just pretend for a moment that Bill C-50 was somehow magically going to work. It's not going to work because it's a job-killing initiative, but let's just pretend for a moment that it would. There are going to be issues trying to get the jobs and the energy transition for these workers and for these communities like Sudbury to be able to have reliable, affordable energy going forward.

In order for Bill C-50 to possibly be effective, Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first and foremost. When we see that gas and oil is 28% in Ontario for the high-voltage provincial grid, it is important that we speak to why Bill C-50 has a part to play and what's going to happen to the people of Sudbury—which is what my subamendment is all about.

Providing context to amendments and subamendments is important. That's what I am trying to do. That's the point I'm trying to make and, unfortunately, I keep on getting points of order over that.

I don't know if it's because when people hear how this is going to go and how this will be laid out...because, as I mentioned earlier, there was already an attempt at a coal transition in rural areas of Alberta. I mentioned the thousands of jobs that were lost. Workers were not transitioned into other jobs. They were certainly not given what was mentioned, which was that there would be sustainable, well-paying jobs for everybody.

Again, it's fantasyland to think that the 177,000-plus direct jobs are all of a sudden going to get the same or jobs or greater jobs that are talked about by the minister in the just transition or the Canadian sustainable jobs act.

We know it's not going to be a just transition. That's why the government has moved to try to change the name and the title of it. The Minister of Labour actually admitted that people don't like the phrase “just transition”. I think it's because people know what it actually means. It's just going to be a transition into unemployment for a lot of folks, or into a position where they are going to be out of work or be paid substantively less. We heard a witness the other day say that 34% less is what people will be paid when and if they are transitioned to a different job.

I can guarantee that the people of Sudbury do not want to take a 34% haircut. That's not what people want. The bill actually does nothing to make sure that it is going to say...we've seen government internal documents even admit and say that this is not going to happen.

We have on the record from the government that this is going to be problematic, and we're still ramming through legislation that was time-allocated after minimal debate in the House of Commons. That's what happened back in 2018-19 with Bill C-69. It's what happened with Bill C-50. It's what happened with Bill C-49.

It's also important to talk about the energy transformation going forward for the people of Sudbury. That's why we want to have people at committee to testify to this. It's because when we see what the coldest temperature on record for Sudbury was recently, over the last couple of years, last winter, in fact, the coldest temperature was -37°C.

There was no carve-out for the carbon tax in Sudbury. People are going to need to heat their homes with a heat pump that only works up until -7°, which is about 30 degrees short of what people are going to need to stay warm. This is why we're talking specifically about making sure we get people from a community outside of Toronto to testify at committee.

This committee is also going to study the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the resource sector, and we want stakeholders from Sudbury to be included in that study. That's the main point of the common-sense subamendment that we have.

I think it's important that we let the people of Ms. Lapointe's riding have a say. That's why we moved this common-sense subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I'm waiting for an applause. I'm going to end my remarks there.

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

Thank you.

Sometimes it's fascinating to see how certain points of order end up going and why people want to them bring up. Certainly, government talking points are not what any individuals want to see. They want to see actual results and to see things happen. They want certainty. They want to know what's going to happen to their future. They want to know what's going to happen.

Just as an aside, Bill C-50 doesn't actually have a plan for how to address that. It's a plan to make a plan. We've seen that over and over again with this government.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

They want us to be able to get to the important work of dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

Thank you.

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

How rude of me; my colleagues haven't had a chance yet. I'm sure we'll get to them soon.

As I was saying, Mr. Chair.... I was speaking to the subamendment. I was talking about energy and power generation in the communities of Ontario, particularly Sudbury, which is why I moved that common-sense subamendment about including a specific region of Ontario that will be part of this 28% of oil and gas used for the grid in Ontario.

Conservatives want the country to know that we care about the entire country. Just because I'm from Saskatchewan does not mean I don't care about the energy future of Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and the territories. That's why the common-sense subamendment to a very strong, common-sense amendment was put forward.

Within that 28% of oil and gas for Ontario and rural Ontario.... Boy, that's 10,482 megawatts—a substantial amount of power generation out there, which will be impacted by what's going on with these bills. Bill C-50 will deal with that 28%, but if Bill C-69 is not addressed and dealt with first, there's no point in talking about Bill C-50 and what we're going to do with that 28%.

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

On a point of order, through you, Chair, we are, to my understanding, dealing with a very specific subamendment at this point in time in the debate about bringing Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 to this committee for study, two pieces of legislation that are very important for Canadians.

I'm not too certain as to the member's comments. Are they with regard to this subamendment or are they with regard to something else?

I'm not seeing the connection there, Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All these bills, Bill C-49, Bill C-50and Bill C-69, which is from a previous Parliament, obviously have a far-reaching impact across this country.

If I recall correctly, after I moved my subamendment, I was speaking to the types of witnesses we would need and the importance of them. I moved the subamendment because we need to hear from witnesses from all across the country.

Mr. Chair, I promised you earlier that I would talk about the good people from southeastern Saskatchewan—actually, south Saskatchewan, the southeast corner of my riding. Geographically it would just be the due south of Saskatchewan there in Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch. It's a great part of the province, a great part of the country.

There are going to be witnesses coming from that region for sure, but, as you know, the reason we have the subamendment is to make sure we don't forget about other parts of the country that are going to be impacted potentially by Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 but also if we do not make changes to Bill C-69. We do know this is the “don't build anything” bill, as it's now become and as we've heard numerous times in committee, whether this committee or industry or environment or any other. Even in finance we hear that regularly. I think it's important that we make sure we address Bill C-69 with witnesses from all over.

I know some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada are looking forward to bringing witnesses as well. They are obviously going to be bringing in multiple witnesses for multiple pieces of legislation, whether it's Bill C-49 or Bill C-69. I'm sure they will be very keenly interested in Bill C-50, because the fate of Bill C-49 is going to be tied to what happens with the just transition as well, since they are from part of the country that generates its electricity largely from coal and other means. They will also be disproportionately impacted by all the pieces of legislation we're talking about in the motion, the common-sense amendment and the subamendment.

I spoke a little bit about the jobs that are going to be impacted in Saskatchewan. I spoke a little bit about what's happening in Alberta as well, and in Atlantic Canada. I think it's important that we get a good list of witnesses.

Really, people are going to be concerned and talking at length, I would imagine, about the Supreme Court ruling.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I just wanted to assure my colleague MP Patzer that I look forward to inviting many witnesses from Sudbury on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

Thank you.

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

Oh, thank you.

Mr. Chair, I was speaking about the fact that Saskatchewan relies on natural gas and coal for the majority of its baseload power right now. Interestingly enough, on their website for the Government of Saskatchewan—it actually lists this on the SaskPower portion of that website—you can go through and you can see where the province, within the previous 24 hours, got its energy from. You can see where all the kilowatt hours were produced and where they came from. Routinely, about 70% of that was drawn from natural gas and coal. The third highest would be hydro power there. We have a couple of hydro dams in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, I don't know that we would actually be able to build and complete one single hydro dam in the amount of time that the government is trying to phase out fossil fuels.

We've heard about timelines for approvals. That's part of the problem with Bill C-69, and now we have the largely unconstitutional part with what the Supreme Court made their ruling on. There's also the practicality of what we are going to replace the generation of gas and coal with.

We look at how long it has taken for a few hydro projects around the country to be complete. We're talking decades. Yet the government has this plan that by 2035 there will not be any natural gas. Natural gas would be basically banned at that point in time. Coal is suppose to be gone by 2030. We're seeing some difficulty around the country in trying to get the reliability factor for wind and solar. We've seen the blocking of new technologies such as tidal power already. Now that wasn't in Saskatchewan where the tidal project was moved, of course. It's a landlocked province. I'm just speaking generally about around the country how that's going to work and how that's going to play out.

With wind and solar, solar regularly accounts for less than one per cent of the power usage and energy consumption in Saskatchewan. Wind is regularly less than 10%. It's regularly a single-digit number. Sometimes, it goes a little bit higher. Sometimes it's a little bit lower. Specifically, people are concerned about peak usage and peak demand, right?

Now, for those of you who don't follow the weather patterns of Saskatchewan, in the past week, it's been as cold as -15° already and -19° in some areas. I think it's important that people realize that this assertion that you can just throw a heat pump or two on and you'll be good in the middle of winter—I mean, already in October, most heat pumps wouldn't have worked in Saskatchewan. I think it's important that this be noted.

In fact, when I was driving home on Friday after flying home from Ottawa, one of the news talk radio shows in Saskatchewan had a conversation around heat pumps. There are people who do use them up at their cabins. The people who have them speak specifically to how that is a three-season solution, mainly because it can be used as an air conditioner in the summer. You might be able to get some warmth in late May or early May at the cabin. Certainly, September into October you can get a little bit of warmth out of it.

As I said, it's already been close to -20° in Saskatchewan. That's a common occurrence at this time of year. If you look at October, November, December, January, February, March and into April, the majority of the year, you're not even going to be able to use that as a source of heat in your home reliably.

I think that it's important to have that on the table. We talk about the issue of a supposedly just transition and where people are going to get their energy from to heat their homes, to do their laundry, to cool their homes, and we have those severe differences in our temperatures from summer to winter.

We can be in the plus mid-thirties or in the minus mid-thirties, and sometimes you can see that in a span of a week, depending on the time of year. It's important that people have reliable energy, reliable power.

That's why Bill C-49, Bill C-69 and Bill C-50 all need to be discussed, but it's also why Bill C-69 needs to be dealt with first: because Canada's strategic advantage over the last number of decades has been the affordable, reliable, sustainable energy sources that we have in this country.

There are many countries around the world that would be jealous and envious of the situation we have with our abundance in natural resources and also the diversity of ways in which we generate power and our energy. I think it would be important for us to make sure we keep that. Certainly, Bill C-69 has been a barrier to enabling that to continue, because our population continues to grow, which is always a good thing.... It's good to see our population growing, but it also means that we're going to need more energy.

It's interesting to note that it's not going to be very long before, in a province like Quebec, which has a very robust hydro-powered grid, demand is going to outgrow capacity. I'll give credit to Quebec. They do have one of the more robust energy...where's the specific phrase I had here for it? Its grid is one of the most extensive systems in North America. To their credit, that includes the Americans. Also to their credit, they have a very extensive system, but that doesn't change the fact that if we don't have the capacity we need to continue to grow our population, it becomes a problem. That's where Bill C-69 comes into play.

Certainly, the folks in Atlantic Canada want to see growth in their capacity to produce energy, to produce power, and that's why they want to see Bill C-69 dealt with and addressed, but because it's also tied in with Bill C-49, which is obviously the Atlantic accords, that is why we have a motion and an amendment before us here today.

When we talk about what's happened in other provinces.... For example, with the coal transition that supposedly happened, there were thousands of people who at the end of it were put out of work. They were not transitioned to new jobs. We've seen entire towns in Alberta decimated by that. Bill C-50 is the government's attempt at doing this across the entire country, which is why Conservatives talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to be lost, eliminated, because we do have a model to go on that the government has tried.

We've heard in other committee studies about how, when there was a transition that was going to happen in fisheries, it just didn't work. Mr. Angus has talked about how workers have been left out in his riding when it comes to plants being shut down or mining projects being closed. I think it's important that this Bill C-69 that has been looming over our country for the last four or five years gets dealt with, gets addressed and gets prioritized.

Mr. Chair, when it comes to a potential subamendment, I think of one thing that would help to make the original motion work.

I'm just going to discuss this out loud here. I'm not officially moving anything. I just want to talk this out quickly. Some of the dates that are trying to be prescribed in this programming motion obviously are going to be problematic.

In order to make sure that this motion works, getting rid of those dates or bumping them down the calendar at least a little bit, for the flexibility of the committee to be able to properly and appropriately deal with the study—I'm just thinking out loud here—removing those dates is probably going to be best.

We want to make sure that we hear from Canadians, from employers, employees, and certainly we'll hear from the private sector unions. We're definitely going to hear from people who aren't in a union, because we have heard from many people that if we talk about what this just transition supposedly is going to do, it's going to drastically impact the work of folks who don't belong to a union.

When we talk about the indirect jobs, that number is huge as well. We have to make sure that it considers those folks.

That's part of why I think putting in rigid timelines in the programming motion is going to be problematic. It also is going to be a barrier to getting the proper ordering of the motion with the amendment in it that my colleague from Lakeland moved. It would be appropriate for us to look at removing that.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move a subamendment that in section 3, as it's been ordered by my colleague from Lakeland, there be a subamendment that we would remove the reference to the dates in paragraph (a).

Paragraph (a) would read, “That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50”. We'll just leave that open-ended so that we have that flexibility as a committee. Then (b) would say, “That the minister and officials...”. I think we would have to remove (b) all together. Again, that's one that's prescribing. It's programming a set date for officials in there. We haven't even agreed to our witness list yet. We have to do that first before we can start putting dates in there for what point officials should appear.

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

On a point of order, Chair, it's now clear that the Conservatives will do anything to filibuster Bill C-50.

I had asked earlier about whether or not we have the resources until, I think you said, 2:30 p.m. Do we have resources to go beyond so that we can finally put an end to this filibuster and get back to the work that has been laid out in the motion?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague for her respectful intervention there.

No, I've been working toward.... I've been speaking off the motion and the amendment here. I think it would be important, Mr. Chair, that, first of all....

I'm working on a subamendment here, looking at the original motion. When we order Bill C-49 and Bill C-69 ahead of Bill C-50, obviously it will cause some issues, I think, with the original motion as it is. I'm just kind of working toward that subamendment that I think will be needed to address a few things here.

I just wanted to finish a thought I had about the impact on jobs in Saskatchewan. You know, 41% of our available generating capacity comes from gas, and 26% comes from coal. We're already looking at close to 70% of our energy capacity being gas and coal. Yes, we have the just transition legislation in front of the committee, but it still doesn't lay out a plan or a path to actually do something to replace that. It's just a plan to have a plan. That's essentially what that bill is.

I think this speaks to why the priority and the precedent should be given to Bill C-49 first and foremost, so that we can deal with that issue. If we're going to change the generating capacity in Saskatchewan, we need the regulatory certainty to be dealt with, which the government is trying to ignore in Bill C-69. If we don't deal with that, how will any provinces, for that matter, whether it be Saskatchewan or Alberta or whether it be the Maritimes, as we're seeing with the Atlantic accord, deal with that?

Bill C-69 clearly needs to be the priority for this committee. That is the point we have been trying to make all along here. I think it will be important to get to those bills first, to Bill C-49 and Bill C-69, ahead of Bill C-50.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. I do appreciate that.

I think this amendment is solid. We're trying to order Bill C-49 ahead of Bill C-50 with our amendment because of the at least 32 times that Bill C-69 is referenced in Bill C-49. Because the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a reference on the largely unconstitutional nature of Bill C-69 and since it is referenced in Bill C-49, that is why there is a priority by Conservatives to start with Bill C-49, but that would of course mean that we need to deal with the case of Bill C-69. The court specified that legislators had to find ways to answer to the reference—not maybe they should find ways, but they had to find ways.

We spent a big chunk of this meeting laying out the case as to why we need to do the order in this manner now that we have our amendment on. Again, it's of the utmost importance that we do it in this fashion because part of Bill C-50 talks about the jobs. This is a jobs bill. It's a just transition. It's going to kill jobs, but let's just say that the government somehow is able to be successful and transition people to jobs. They won't be, but the issue is that we have heard in this committee—I have been on other committees as well where we heard this—over and over again from the private sector, but also from the public sector, and perhaps even more importantly from indigenous leaders, that Bill C-69 is the single largest barrier to actually getting projects done of any kind of any type of energy, or any type of project they are trying to do whether it's traditional oil and gas, whether it's renewables, whether it's various projects, and we've heard it numerous times.

That speaks to the urgency as to why we need to address Bill C-69 and particularly as it pertains to Bill C-49, because this is obviously about jobs in Atlantic Canada and trying to deal with the energy situation there. It would absolutely be appropriate that we deal with Bill C-69 and the impact it has first and foremost.

There's a good note from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation to minimize risks that some major projects pose to the environment. However, “this scheme plainly overstepped the mark.” That's what the Supreme Court said. Moreover, “it is open to Parliament and the provincial legislatures to exercise their respective powers over the environment harmoniously, in the spirit of co-operative federalism.” That's another quote from the Supreme Court ruling.

The whole point about Bill C-69 was every single province, every single premier said there were issues, and the territorial leaders did too. It is important that is noted, that going all the way back to 2018-19 when this was debated, flags were raised over issues with this bill by members of Parliament. In particular, all three at this table on the Conservative side spoke to it. In fact, my colleague from Lakeland did multiple times, and the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers spoke against the overreach of this. Particularly the Ontario premier very strongly stated on it.

It's important that this be considered as we look at the ordering of these bills. That is why the Conservatives have put this amendment forward, because we need to respect provincial jurisdiction, which is why the Provincial Court of Alberta made a ruling on Bill C-69, which of course the federal government challenged at the Supreme Court. We then saw the Supreme Court make its ruling in the reference case.

I would just like to note that all throughout the history of Canadian parliaments, any time the Supreme Court has made a reference ruling, Parliament—the government of the day—has decided to make the necessary changes to it.

For the certainty of communities and people who are looking for certainty going forward, I think it's extremely important that we address this first.

I'm going to read something from the Saskatchewan government. The first line here is, “5-2 Decision Finds That The Federal Government Overstepped Constitutional Authority And Should Be More 'Cooperative' With Provinces In The Future.”

The opening statement lays out the case as to why and how co-operative federalism is actually supposed to work. It clearly was not done in this case. The rest of the quote contains kind of no-brainer points. It reads:

Saskatchewan welcomes the Supreme Court of Canada's...ruling against the federal government's environmental Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69.

“This decision is nothing short of a constitutional tipping point and reasserts provinces' rights and primary jurisdiction over natural resources, the environment and power generation,” Justice Minister and Attorney General, Bronwyn Eyre said. “It should also force the federal government to reassess other areas of overreach, including capping oil and gas production and electrical generation. The IAA has stalled everything from Canadian highway and mine projects to LNG facilities and pipelines. It has thwarted investment, competitiveness and productivity across the country. This major decision will correct course.”

That last sentence, “This major decision will correct course”, is why our amendment has been moved. That's why we feel this bill needs to be done first.

I'll finish the article:

The IAA received royal assent in 2019. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal (in a 4-1 majority) held that the IAA was unconstitutional, violated the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces, and took a “wrecking ball” to exclusive provincial jurisdiction under Section 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal government appealed the decision to the [Supreme Court of Canada].

Last March, Saskatchewan was part of the constitutional intervention, along with seven other provinces, before Canada's top court, arguing that the IAA had exceeded federal jurisdiction.

The majority recognized that the IAA is a clear example of federal overreach. Specifically, the Supreme Court majority held that the IAA's designated projects scheme, by which the federal authorities could permanently put a project on hold was an “unconstitutional, arrogation of power by Parliament” and “clearly overstepped the mark.” The majority also found that the Act “grants the decision-maker a practically untrammelled power [of] regulated projects qua projects.”

In 2023, Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan First Act to [deal with] matters of provincial jurisdiction.

My own province has made it very clear where it stands on this case and on this point. We know all of the other provinces did as well when it came to the government tabling Bill C-69 back in 2018-19.

The fact that the Supreme Court has made its ruling kind of puts us in the position we're in now, where we have a largely unconstitutional bill impacting a lot of things that the government is trying work on—multiple pieces of legislation. It's not just Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Other issues will arise if it is not dealt with and addressed.

Quite frankly, it is hamstringing the provinces to be able to proceed with projects. We heard about LNG. We heard about simply trying to get highways built or repaired.

I mentioned earlier that some of the first nations leaders were concerned about this as well because they're looking at timelines. They're looking at how there will be opportunity for self-determination, economic participation for their residents and economic reconciliation.

Many of them have earmarked and flagged natural resource projects and development and also renewables, which also gets to the point though of why we have a problem with Bill C-69. They have told us over and over again that even on the renewable side, Bill C-69 is a problem. It's not even just about this being the.... It was originally dubbed the “no more pipelines” bill. This is just a “no more energy” bill. That is what we have here in front of us.

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

I have a point of order.

I'm sorry. I don't want to belabour things in terms of resources.

If it's being translated, should we suspend for five minutes? That might give you a chance to see if we can get resources for longer than until 2:30. I think it's very important that we get Bill C-50 debated and back to the House. If it takes longer, then maybe we need to see if we can obtain more resources, but I leave that you, Mr. Chair, and to our wonderful clerk.

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

Let me finish. I don't believe it's in order, and it also leaves off Bill C-50, which was part of the amendment, so, in order to address this you have to—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

There was no harm, no foul on the headset and all of those things. It's just amazing. Even on Friday, I was in a call and forgot to unmute my mike. You'd think that this far in we would know these things, but here we are.

Again, colleagues, I hope I have made an effective case to you and all Canadians about the importance of this work and why we must put first things first in this common-sense approach to our scheduling for this committee, especially because it's so important to bring home affordability and combat the cost of living crisis the NDP-Liberals have caused. They've admitted this as of Friday, with their temporary sham of a relief of the carbon tax for only one area, which pits Canadians against each other. This is their MO. Obviously, all these things are interconnected, and they are extremely important. I agree.

As Conservatives, and as our leader Pierre Poilievre has always said, we want to accelerate both traditional and renewable energy development, exports and technology in Canada. We want light, green projects. We want to make Canada the supplier of choice for all kinds of energy sources and technologies for our allies around the world. We also want to bring home energy security and self-sufficiency, as well as affordable power and fuel bills, especially for people who have no other options, which is the case for many Canadians right across the country.

This is connected to Bill C-69, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. They all work together. In different ways, they are going to hold back, roadblock and gatekeep both traditional and renewable energy development, which will cause a brain drain and limit innovation as well as entrepreneurial and private sector creativity in Canada—for which we are world-renowned—when it comes to developing the fuels of the future and continuing the energy transformation that has been going on for decades among oil and gas workers, energy developers and innovators in Canada. All of these things are extremely consequential. They certainly are to our ridings individually and to the entire country as the resource development-based economy and country we are, which we should be proud of.

I have an amendment to the NDP-Liberal programming motion that seeks to dictate all of the work unilaterally, complete with dates for our committee. Again, I note it's the opposite of the legislative way they brought these bills through in the first place. It still doesn't make any sense.

I move that, before the committee consider Bill C-50, the just transition....

You'll note there was only one committee witness who called it “sustainable jobs”. It was quite clear that when the NDP-Liberals put their documents out, they had done a last-minute copy and paste everywhere it said “just transition” to replace it with “sustainable jobs”. That's because Canadians didn't know what the just transition was, at first. Once they found out, they sure didn't like it. Of course, the NDP-Liberals are masters of words and words over action, and they tried to slip that in and pull the wool over everybody's eyes. I suggest that's not going to happen here, but we'll see.

To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to this programming motion by the costly coalition. Before the committee consider Bill C-50, that it, one, first undertake the following study on Bill C-69: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. As mentioned, members do have the right to enter the room and leave the room, as many do, to follow the proceedings in the natural resources committee, because we're debating some.... Really, we're talking about some important topics and about an important motion on the floor, brought by Mr. Sorbara, on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, which we're discussing today.

I want to make sure that Ms. Stubbs, because I think she was alluding to.... She might have an amendment or she might be wrapping up—I don't know—so others may get a chance to have the floor and others can debate. I know that others are eagerly waiting to get involved as well.

Ms. Stubbs, there are no more points of order. The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate so much your giving me the opportunity to do this. I know in your riding in Calgary, you represent many oil and gas workers and their families, and oil and gas businesses, so I'm sure that's why you also believe that this is a very critical and crucial discussion for the people that you represent.

We're both Albertans. I have been working on this file for a long time, and I worked on these policy issues long before I was elected, as you may know. I'm certainly very familiar with Calgarians, their values, their priorities, and their deep concern about all these bills, so thank you for this, despite all the interruptions which are delaying this point, for still giving me the time to address this. Thank you.

I do have an amendment, but as you can see, I feel it's my duty, given the delay on dealing effectively with Bill C-69 I really want to make sure I'm making the comprehensive case to Canadians and to all the members here why we certainly cannot support this scheduling motion as written, and as was just brought to this committee with no notice to any of us, and seeks to dictate every single aspect of the work and the timelines of what we do in this committee.

I hope I have already addressed why failing to deal with Bill C-69 is nuts and destructive to the country. The way that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 certainly will open it up to litigation and delays, which no person in Atlantic Canada or the premiers want. They want a clear, predictable regulatory environment for both offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy. That's why they want the bill and they want the provincial ministers to have a say. They don't want this all just to be cooked up on the back door by the federal representatives. I hope I have explained why those two things are linked and why Bill C-49 has to come first.

Of course, according to the NDP-Liberals' own schedule under which they brought the bills through the House of Commons, which was Bill C-49 first and then Bill C-50.... Of course, the arguments about other ministers or other ministries aren't really relevant on any of them since Bill C-69 was a joint initiative by the environment and natural resources ministers. Bill C-49 was the same. Of course, Bill C-50, the just transition, which will be transition to poverty, was also brought forward jointly by the environment minister, the natural resources minister and the labour minister.

To the schedule which the NDP-Liberals have put on the table today to dictate every single aspect of the work of this committee, here are the problems.

For Bill C-50, we have this date.... No, this one is good. If we can get the minister....

Actually, the minister hasn't been here for a while, so I really appreciate that we do have this date for him to come. Of course, he should come for a whole bunch of other reasons so that's cool beans to me.

Let's go down here. We have the minister again. That's fine. We should have the minister in, obviously, as soon as possible as this motion does outline. Definitely.

Here's where we start getting into the problem. There are dates here that are tying us based on the other work that we have to do to ensure that all Canadians who will be impacted by all of these bills will be heard. They must be heard. In the House of Commons and committee, it is our job to demonstrate our diligence, to demonstrate accountability, to do the work that Canadians expect of us to pass legislation that, for example, won't be litigated until kingdom come and won't be declared to be unconstitutional five years later. We don't want to do that again. I'm sure we all agree. This is why it's so important that we do our jobs.

One can understand that even though parties, various groups and the government have been working behind the scenes—and they have; I mean that's how things get developed—for a year or two years on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.... For Conservatives as the official opposition, of course, our tools are to litigate that and to do our due diligence in the House of Commons and in committee.

We in the official opposition—Conservatives—who also did gain more votes individually from individual Canadians in 2021 and in 2019, haven't been working on this in the back doors with NDP, Liberals and various other groups for one to two years.

The only thing we can do is fight for the ability to do our jobs on behalf of the common sense of common people who have sent us here. That's our job.

I hope that this helps explain why we can't possibly support this scheduling motion that is aiming to drive through and dictate every step of what we do next on this committee.

Viviane, you asked me if there was an amendment, and there is.

Let me get to it at long last, unless members are still unclear why I am making the case that Bill C-69 is so important and that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 and why Bill C-49 must come first and then we must do Bill C-50. Is anyone still questioning that?

Certainly, not to further delay, but I understand, Marc, that when you have the official opposition, who hasn't been included or involved in any of this work, and they're now really trying to do their jobs as members of Parliament, as the official opposition.... In my case it's as the vice-chair of this committee, as a shadow minister for natural resources. There are my colleagues representing the Saskatchewan riding, Manitoba riding; my colleague, Earl, who's been here, I think, the longest of any of us, and he represents an Alberta riding; and Mario, who needs to do his due diligence for his constituents.

I understand that my colleagues in the NDP-Liberals might find this inconvenient. They might be annoyed at this. I mean, this is democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for the point of order, Ms. Lapointe.

Ms. Lapointe asked in her point of order if you have an amendment that you're bringing forward, Ms. Stubbs. If you do, I would like to hear it, but also the floor is yours to be able to provide your debate on these important bills, the motion by Mr. Sorbara that was brought forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Through your debate, if you can allude to whether an amendment is coming, that would be great. The floor is yours.

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

I just have a quick procedural question.

Out of the corner of my eye, I caught lights flashing, so I don't know if there's a vote. We have important work to do, so if that is the case, I would ask for unanimous consent to continue with this important discussion.

My office is getting a lot of calls from Albertans who are asking us to get Bill C-50 done, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I ask all colleagues to use parliamentary language in all meetings and that we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, whether we're in the House of Commons or this committee room. It's important that we use parliamentary language and respect each other as colleagues. Have vigorous debates. That is important on issues of legislation.

We have a motion on the floor today on the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50 and on the Atlantic accord bill, Bill C-49, an amendment, and a subamendment for Timmins.

All members have a right to participate.

Mr. Angus has the floor. He was unable to participate in the debate last meeting and is unable to today. I will once again—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, I have a point of order, Chair.

Of course, the top of Monday's meeting, which is technically still this meeting, was about scheduling. My immediate response, of course, was about an amendment to add to the schedule for this committee business in the exact order that you guys brought in and passed legislation, which was Bill C-49 first and Bill C-50 after. That's what started Monday.

What has elapsed since is hours and hours of NDP and Liberal MPs trying to kick off and shut down Conservative members of Parliament on this committee who have a right to be here. That's what we're talking about now.

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

I'm now into the second day of attempting to speak to legislation that was voted on by Parliament.

I am very concerned, number one, about the health and safety of our interpreters because of the abusive behaviour of the Conservatives. Also, there's the abusive behaviour of attempting to undermine the chair to limit the right of other members to speak. You ruled that I had the floor at the last meeting. I was shut down from speaking by these constant interruptions. I am now over an hour into this attempting to do my good faith diligence on Bill C-50 and BillC-49.

I'm asking, since you have ruled, that we shut down this obvious attempt at intimidation. I would like to hear from my other colleagues, too. We have to move on. This legislation is important to all of us, to Canadians and in particular Canadian workers, who are very frustrated by these tactics to stop us from making sure that workers have a seat at the table.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Well, from my perspective, there does continue to be a delay in my ability to do just that because of all the interruptions. We'll see how far I get this time, Chair.

Here's another section of Bill C-69 that is in Bill C-49. This is why Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first—I'll get to that in a second—and then Bill C-49, and now Bill C-50.

As I was saying, Bill C-49 incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which, again, as we all know, was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC. It was called largely unconstitutional by the majority of the Supreme Court.

Section 64 of Bill C-69 is fundamentally connected to the consideration of factors set forth in section 63 of Bill C-69, which, the Supreme Court made clear in paragraph 166, “represents an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament”.

I'll conclude on Bill C-49, hopefully, but this is a fact: Bill C-49 has incorporated all these proposed decision-making processes and facts into several sections in Bill C-49. Given that the decision-making power and the entirety of the “designated projects” scheme are unconstitutional, the risk, and lawyers will certainly litigate this, is that components of Bill C-49 are unconstitutional as well, as written right now. This is why the government had to actually deal with the massive mistake, disaster and mess on Bill C-69 that they were warned about, that's been unconstitutional for five years and that has caused untold destruction in communities, the economy, and jobs and businesses. That's why it has to be dealt with first.

Then with Bill C-49, because that then flows to us being able to deal with Bill C-49, knowing and being confident that these sections from Bill C-69 have been fully corrected and fixed, it seems to me that there's no way we can really do our due diligence on Bill C-49 unless that part is fixed first. Of course, there's Bill C-50, because the topic is relevant, but it's not the same as Bill C-49, where literally verbatim sections and words from Bill C-69 that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49 as written. It was in Bill C-49 as written when it passed the House of Commons. That's why Conservatives opposed. It's in Bill C-49 right now, when it's going to come to us. This is why we're making this issue.

Now, the worst part is that Bill C-49 already had all kinds of problems even before this decision. It already had these lengthy and uncertain timelines with all kinds of opportunities for political intervention. It tripled the timeline. Bill C-49 actually triples the timeline for a final decision on offshore renewable energy as compared with petroleum.

Of course, this bill deliberately—NDP-Liberals do want to shut it down, because that's what the just transition is about—is a death knell for offshore petroleum developers due to all the uncertainty and the lack of clarity in the timelines for private sector proponents, for provinces and for workers in the sector. Those were already problems in the bill. If we'd had more debate in the House of Commons, maybe we would have wrested all this out and known about it.

With that Supreme Court decision, which was an utter indictment of the NDP-Liberal cornerstone major legislation that impacts the entire economy and Canadians everywhere, this is now urgent. I can't get my head around how we are able to assess Bill C-49, given that it contains these various verbatim and as-written sections from Bill C-69 that have now also been declared unconstitutional.

To the scheduling motion, this is why Conservatives, we in the official opposition, who were elected by more individual Canadians in the 2021 election and in the 2019 election....

We might just remind everybody that we're not actually in a majority government scenario here. We are in a minority government —

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I really hate interrupting my honourable colleague, but we have to get some facts on the table. The Conservatives tabled a concurrence motion to cancel debate on Bill C-50. When she talks about us stopping the debate, there was a concurrence motion by the Conservatives to cancel the debate on Bill C-50 in the House of Commons. We have an opportunity here in committee to get the witnesses and get the minister to debate the issues.

I don't understand why there's a delay here. Is this a filibuster? What's happening? Why is there a delay here to get this legislation looked at by witnesses and the minister?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you for congratulating me for getting to the point that you want me to get to.

I will just finish, if I could, Chair. I know you're trying to give me every opportunity. Maybe the others around here could help a guy out once you give me this opportunity that you're so generously offering.

I will just finish my explanation, though, about what else of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 to make the case that Bill C-49 has to come before Bill C-50.

Here's another fact about Bill C-49. Perhaps if there was more debate in the House of Commons all of this would have been wrestled out. Again, it was introduced, time allocated, debate was limited and here we are. So here we are. Bill C-49 also incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I just wanted to address my honourable colleague. When you're looking at obviously Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and the Conservative members want to bring Bill C-69 into the debate, you'll have an opportunity with this motion. This motion, as I said, would invite the minister. You'll be free to ask questions about Bill C-69 and how it intertwines with Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Let's ask the minister those questions. Plus, as the honourable member knows, you'll be able to invite a lot of witnesses to come to the committee. She references what's happening in the House, but we have the bills. Right now one could argue that the Conservative Party is delaying the witnesses coming in to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I don't quite understand what the honourable members are bringing forward because we have the opportunity to bring witnesses and talk to the minister about exactly the issues you're bringing forward.

Isn't that what we want to do here as legislators in the committee?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly apologize if I gave that impression. I didn't intend to suggest that Mr. Angus shouldn't be able to speak at this meeting. I just noticed his hand was up, and you had said that I could continue if there weren't any other points of order. I guess you can see it in front of you, Mr. Chair. I was looking behind your head, so I thought I would mention it. I don't have that angle.

Of course, I certainly would not, on this side of the table, vote for censorship, shutting people down or not allowing people to speak. I'm just endeavouring to make my case in a comprehensive way.

It's certainly not our job as the official opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada to fail to argue to do our due diligence to ensure that members of Parliament deal with these consequential pieces of legislation in a rush and in a hurry because others want to get their agenda through on their own timelines, which they are trying to dictate in real time to this committee. It is not our job to help that happen. It is our job to fight for members of Parliament to do their duty, to do their due diligence and to make sure that we get things right and do first things first.

Again, I'm confused about why I'm having to make the argument to the NDP-Liberals about the order of these bills' coming in to committee, which should be Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50. Of course, the NDP-Liberals introduced and time allocated and then passed second reading. In the case of Bill C-49, it was 7.5 hours, over two days, of debate—that's it—in the House of Commons, and it was passed on October 17. The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberals used a very similar tactic with Bill C-50, the just transition, which, at the last minute, they're calling “sustainable jobs” because they're afraid of the fact that when people realize what it is, they don't like it. Bill C-50 was introduced and then time-allocated, also with very little debate on the floor of the House of Commons. That passed on October 23.

I'm actually making the case even for the NDP-Liberals' own legislative schedule and agenda in the way they brought these pieces of legislation forward. I find myself in the position of thinking, like, “Guys, just take yes for an answer. Let's do the order you've already outlined.”

Again, let's go back to Bill C-69. Now, I am going to read it from Bill C-49, as there was a technical issue.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I've sat here fairly patiently and listened to Charlie Angus interrupt the committee several times on a point of order. He always talks about relevance, that Bill C-69 is being referred to.

The problem is that Bill C-69 is so intertwined in both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 that it needs to be referenced in order for Ms. Stubbs to build a proper road map to try to explain to the committee why the schedule that they've proposed—

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

Each time, we get told that the Conservatives want to debate Bill C-69, then somehow they use Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50 as their platform to discuss Bill C-69. That's not what we're discussing.

The motion is on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and we actually have the opportunity to bring the ministers here so they could question them. I think that would be flame to those fireworks, but this is—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

On the motion, again, we talk about Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. The member says she seems to have issues with Bill C-50 being first, and she's okay with Bill C-49.

I would remind all members that the motion itself is concurrence. We have the opportunity to bring the minister to talk about both motions. Actually, the minister could have been here today, in the next session, to talk about both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. This is important.

Again, as Francesco mentioned, if there is an amendment to this motion, I encourage the member to do so. If not, we can move ahead on these two important pieces of legislation, which the committee has a responsibility to do. It's good for jobs, and it's good for Canadians.

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

I have a point of order.

I'd just like to do it after Mr. Angus and before Ms. Stubbs begins. I don't want to interrupt her.

On the bills at hand, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and on the motion I read out—thank you, Parliamentary Secretary Serré for the differentiation between the scheduling and programming motion. It's always good to have a refresher.

We do operate here on committee and in the House under the Standing Orders. I think we all know that. There are a set of rules and within those rules we debate, bring forth legislation and do the work that our residents, who voted for us, sent us here to do.

I would agree with Ms. Stubbs on that fact.

I would actually like to ask MP Stubbs if there are amendments to be brought forward on the motion that was put forward. We can get work together to ensure we invite the witnesses that all parties wish to invite, so we can look at the legislation.

If there are things the official opposition wishes to bring forward, we're obviously here to work collaboratively to get through the legislation that the House has sent us. It is our responsibility on this committee to look at these two pieces of legislation.

With regard to—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

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

I'd ask my colleague to keep relevant to the motions at hand, which are Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and to what's been presented here today.

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

I hate to keep interrupting, but we are debating Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Ms. Stubbs continually wants to debate Bill C-69. That is not the issue here.

I've reached out to her office and said we're more than willing to bring forward a motion, but she doesn't have a motion. She can't off-end what's being debated now.

I would suggest, Chair, that we keep it focused. We could be here all day and all night perhaps. We have to get this motion passed so we can get down to committee business.

We're discussing Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize for the length at which I'm dealing with this issue. It's just that it is crucial to the livelihoods of the people that I represent, to my relatives and my family members in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario. I know each and every member of Parliament here takes that seriously for their own constituents, and also for all Canadians.

It might seem to Charlie that this is irrelevant, but it's not. I'll explain why.

We are talking about the order and the scheduling as Marc had pointed out to me. We are talking about the scheduling that will dictate the order by which we do our duties as members of Parliament and assess the bills that must take precedence over our already existing work.

The reason we are saying Bill C-69 must be dealt with urgently.... It's, frankly, by the Prime Minister and the NDP‑Liberals, and it's shocking that this hasn't actually happened in a tangible way yet, but what else is new. They're now going to add more uncertainty, and a lack of clarity.

I'm also talking about Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, because that's germane to this exact motion that has been dropped on the table here, and it is the content of the scheduling that we are discussing. Another reason that Bill C-69 is so germane to the legislation that's coming to this committee—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I've been listening very closely, but we are debating Bill C‑50 and Bill C‑49. We're not debating Bill C‑69. We have a motion before us, and we have to address that motion. If Ms. Stubbs wants to bring another motion, and we finish the legislative agenda, we can actually deal with that, and see what we can do, but right now, she has diverted from the topic at hand. Either she moves on and lets another member speak or she speaks to the motion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. I certainly will.

I'm sorry that it's lengthy. I'm trying to map out for all Canadians why it's important we do the first things first, and get this right, but also why it is so important to every single Canadian in every single province and region that we do this.

My colleague, Marc, and I sat together on this very committee between 2015 and 2019 when I was in my first term. He was also in his first term. During that time, I was also the vice-chair. It happened at that time under different leaders, and I was also the shadow minister for natural resources.

I remember well the introduction and the debates on Bill C‑69. Of course, the fact is that bill was announced in a dual way by both the former environment and natural resources ministers involved. Since the Liberals also want to...I know Charlie does, since the NDP‑Liberals want to assess Bill C‑50 through this committee, and I certainly also want to do that, but the trouble with a caution about Bill C‑69 being environment is that, of course, Bill C‑50, the just transition—

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

He's claiming to have a motion when I have the floor.

Chair, if you will allow me to continue, because I am here to do my job as a parliamentarian to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and the need for us to respond to the—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleague for explaining that to me. You could see, even as you were explaining it, how easy it is to mess those up, so I appreciate that advice and that friendly and constructive criticism of what I've said here. I can certainly tell you one thing, though. The people of Lakeland definitely didn't send me here to worry too much about our navel-gazing, inside baseball or fancy parliamentary procedures. They just want me to be here to fight for their livelihoods and for their communities, and I think all Canadians do as well.

Chair, as I was saying, these are the reasons our position remains the same. Regarding the order when we are discussing these bills coming to committee and the precedence they must take, it is blatantly and blindingly obvious that Bill C-49 must be first because the Atlantic premiers want it, and then Bill C-50 must be after that. We cannot agree to timelines. We cannot agree to clause-by-clause. We can't presuppose how this is all going to unfold, because Canadians must be heard.

Of course, the most pressing and most urgent and biggest issue this committee ought to be dealing with and that, certainly, the government should have addressed by now.... Imagine the outcry if a Conservative government had rammed through a cornerstone, significant, wide-ranging, sweeping bill that was passed and was then on the books and then the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada said, “Hang on a second. The vast majority of this is largely unconstitutional.” I can't imagine. Well, I think we all can. Of course, the most urgent issue of all for the Prime Minister—but since he won't do it, I guess we have to try to deal with it here in committee—is to deal with this decision on Bill C-69 and to fix the bill and fix all the problems that Conservatives warned about, as did all the provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents and municipalities—all of them—when it was leaving the House of Commons.

Then, of course, Alberta pursued a court case against Bill C-69 primarily focusing on jurisdictional division—a warning Conservatives gave on Bill C-69 would become a problem—but, importantly, Alberta was supported by seven other provinces through this charge. The Alberta court said, “Yes, Alberta, you're right. This thing is unconstitutional. Just as Conservative official opposition members said when it was in debate and just as thousands of Canadians spoke out against five years ago, this thing is unconstitutional.” The Prime Minister immediately said he would appeal it to the Supreme Court. What happened a couple of weeks ago was that the Supreme Court said, “Yes, Justin Trudeau, you're wrong, and these seven provinces are right. Get this thing fixed.”

On Friday, the Minister of Environment said he guessed you guys were going to get around to that in the next couple of months, but what's terrifying is that what he said he would do would be to take the approach of these interim guiding principles. Well, I would remind everyone that's exactly what they did in our first term when the Liberals froze all of the existing major projects across all aspects of natural resources development. They froze all of those applications for two years, threw the economy and the sector into utter uncertainty, disarray, lack of clarity and, frankly, fear. The consequence of that was, over the years, losses of literally billions of dollars in projects that are especially important in remote, rural, indigenous and low-income communities.

I'm getting there, Charlie.

This is how important this issue is. This was all ignored, and the Supreme Court has now said it's a big deal. Now the environment minister is saying, “We'll get around to it in a few months, but right now, we're going to do these interim guiding principles,” but that's what happened the first time. It caused chaos for two years, an absolute collapse in oil and gas investment, collapses in all that investment in clean tech that's done in that sector, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs and, of course, as you know, particular harm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, because of the importance of the leading private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and still to this day despite all the hostility and anti-energy, anti-development, anti-private sector policy, it still remains Canada's top export. It underpins the entire Canadian economy, including, obviously, the TSX, the importance of energy stocks there.

People on Bay Street and people in Toronto also need to be worried about their jobs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As my colleague has pointed out, of course this is a new motion, an attempt to ram through scheduling, complete with dates and timelines. It presupposes the number of Canadians who must be heard and how long that will take on two bills. Of course, as we explained before, this is before all of those details are worked out, like witnesses, and until we hear from every Canadian who would be impacted by these various bills.

In the case of Bill C-49, people with many different livelihoods, and those impacted provincial governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland do of course want this regulatory framework. That's one reason why, of course, this should come first, including coming before Bill C-50, including the fact that it was introduced, time allocated and passed at second reading, all before Bill C-50.

Also regarding Bill C-50, I am aware that this committee did study it. I think I came into the committee on the back end of that. Given the importance, significance, and the scope and scale of Bill C-50, this is at once a plan to plan jobs and skills training, but it is actually about the fundamental economic restructuring to a top-down, central, five-year planning approach that will immediately destroy 170,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector. This will impact the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians otherwise, and cascade through the entire economy, which is what the internal documents of the NDP-Liberal government show.

Of course, years ago we warned on the carbon tax that the same thing would happen.

These bills are extremely significant, and Conservatives can't possibly support this before we have had a discussion with all of the Canadians, who must be heard from on all of these bills. We can't ram through a scheduling motion right now that is full of dates.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I will begin from the top. As someone who has spent my career in opposition, I'm well used to committees having their work schedule thrown out of whack by legislation, which bumps other considerations.

We have two pieces of legislation that have been referred to us over the last two weeks, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we get to them quickly.

In terms of Bill C-50, we had 26 meetings with 64 witnesses in the preparatory study that led up to the legislation. If you add the emissions cap study, that was 21 meetings and 53 witnesses. The emissions reduction fund was nine meetings with 16 witnesses. On energy issues, that totals over 133 witnesses, 56 meetings, over 112 hours of meeting and analysis, so I think we are all very well placed to deal with Bill C-50.

I'm willing to bring forward our witnesses but I do believe that at the end of the day we have to move this because what we learned over many months of studying this is that the world is moving dramatically fast past us in terms of a clean energy portfolio. Half the world is now past peak fossil fuel generation for power. It is going to be peak CO2 emissions in 2023 and then start to dramatically put down. In 2022, imagine this: The investment in clean tech matched pretty much dollar for dollar oil, gas and coal, and that was for the first time. Within less than a year, clean-tech investments have almost doubled that of oil, gas and coal.

If we don't move with a sense of urgency, we are going to be left behind. We cannot allow the sabotage to the Canadian economy, what Danielle Smith has done to the Alberta economy. The Americans are moving dramatically fast. The Chinese are moving. The Europeans are moving. We need to be competitive or we are going to lose out, so the longer we dither and delay and obfuscate, the more Canadian workers are going to lose out.

We've been hearing from Canadian workers again and again. They want this plan in place. There is a sense of urgency that we need to get moving on.

I would agree with my colleagues to move to Bill C-50 first, then move to Bill C-49, which is important. We see massive investments from the Biden administration on offshore Atlantic. We need to be able to compete or we're going to lose out.

I would say that at this point we have an obligation to the Canadian people. We have an obligation to workers and people who are expecting us to deliver. We have an obligation to start setting the stage for the future Canadian economy because this global capital movement of investment is moving and either Canada is going to be at the game or we're going to be left out, and we can't afford that.

I am ready to move on this. I'm ready to sit down and get the work done as soon as we can and get these bills passed. The New Democrats will be there. We will be bringing our witnesses. We'll be bringing our amendments and we're ready to get this job done.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday to everyone back in Ottawa and back to work for the constituents and residents of your respective ridings.

Mr. Chair, I want to start this morning by moving a scheduling motion as a basis to begin our committee discussion today. I believe we forwarded the motion to the clerk, who will forward it on to all the honourable and esteemed members who sit on this committee.

I move:

That given 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, and Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been both referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 with the following schedule:

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50, on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday November 8, 2023;

b) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on C-49 on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday December 6, 2023;

c) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-50 by 12pm on Friday November 3, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

d) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12pm on Friday November 10, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

e) That the Chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources available, for up to three hours each;

f) That the Chair issue press releases for C-50 and C-49 inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;

g) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-50 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-50 is scheduled;

h) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-49 is scheduled; and

i) That the Chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for C-50 and C-49 in advance of the beginning of their respective clause-by-clause considerations, but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings for each, and that the Members of the Committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the Committee, submit to the Clerk all of their proposed amendments to C-50 and C-49 no later than 5pm on the respective days established by the Chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to Members.

Mr. Chair, the committee clerk should be distributing this motion now in both official languages, French and English.

I would add that we've been waiting for the sustainable jobs legislation and amendments to the Atlantic accord acts for some time, given that they were both introduced before the summer.

On Bill C-50 specifically, our study on the topic has already made this committee well acquainted with the subject matter. Now that Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 have both been referred to this committee, it is our obligation as parliamentarians and members of this committee to move forward with examining them. That is our job. Legislation has always been considered a committee priority. The sustainable jobs act is a brief 11 pages. It is self-explanatory, and the committee is well acquainted with the subject matter. Labour groups are calling for its consideration.

Bill C-49 is a much larger bill, and a very important bill that the governments of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are calling on us to advance. It is in the interests of their provinces and our country.

This motion lays out a reasonable timeline to begin consideration of both bills concurrently and to submit witness lists for both bills for the respective public panel hearings.

It would have the minister appearing on Bill C-50 first, perhaps even this week if we can vote on the motion today, and Bill C-49 in the coming weeks. As mentioned, we believe this motion lays out a very reasonable and pragmatic timeline for consideration of both bills, but if members want a little additional flexibility, we are certainly prepared to consider amendments today.

It includes at least four public hearings on Bill C-50 and at least four public hearings on Bill C-49, for a total, if we have two-hour meetings, of 16 hours, and three-hour meetings in addition to. It calls for additional time to be added to scheduled meetings so we can facilitate the inclusion of even more meetings.

At a minimum, we'd be looking at a month or more of public hearings, which will allow for substantial witness participation. It allows time for whatever is required for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 for the consideration of amendments. It allows for this committee to strenuously and judiciously analyze both bills.

Colleagues, I hope we can allow for a vote on this matter today so that we can move forward on the business of the House of Commons, the business of our residents and the business of all Canadians with regard to this very important committee and the matters that have been referred to this committee.

I thank everyone for listening to me on this Monday morning. I look forward to hearing everybody's feedback and hopefully moving forward as expeditiously and collaboratively as ever.

Thank you, Chair.

[Diana Sarosi, Director, Policy and Campaigns, Oxfam-Québec]

The soaring cost of living is now a predominant conversation topic among Canadians. Low-income Canadians in particular struggle with a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis, yet Canada’s biggest corporations are reaping record level profits and not paying their fair share of taxes. In 2021, corporations enjoyed their lowest ever recorded income tax rate, despite having their third-highest recorded profit rate, thanks, in part, to over $100 billion in federal pandemic support. Canadian corporations pay so little tax that less than one week of revenues covered all their income taxes for the entire year in 2022.

Meanwhile, public services that benefit all Canadians, such as health care, disability care, long-term care, education and public transport, remain dramatically underfunded. Also, a lot of the public services, especially in the care sector, are disproportionately done by women. In Canada, care workers make up nearly one-fifth of the total employed labour force, yet the care sector is characterized by low wages, low status and poor working conditions, especially for racialized women. The sector is left with a recruitment and retention crisis due to high levels of burnout.

Budget 2024 should respond to our current economic crisis by investing in the people who keep our society strong and resilient. Expanding the care economy and the public and emergency services on which Canadians depend should be a core priority.

Establishing a national care economy commission can identify current gaps, recommend solutions and best practices, and direct federal investments in a strategic manner.

To pay for the essential services on which we all depend, the federal government should raise new public revenues by implementing a wealth tax on the super rich and windfall taxes on large corporations that are reaping super profits.

The government should coordinate its investments in the care economy with its sustainable jobs agenda. A just energy transition presents a unique opportunity and avenue to promote gender equality and inclusiveness in the world of work. The sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, mentions “the creation of employment opportunities for groups under-represented in the labour market, including women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized individuals, 2SLGBTQI+ and other equity-seeking groups”.

This will require significant investments and a workforce strategy that explicitly recognizes care infrastructure as part of Canada's climate resilience. Canada's care strategy and climate action must come together in the sustainable jobs agenda.

To conclude, Canada's next budget should make clear that a more green, stable and fair world would benefit all Canadians.

Thank you.

The House resumed from October 19 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.

[Daniel Cloutier, Québec Director, Unifor Québec]

Good morning. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our point of view on the topic of this study.

Unifor members are active in every economic sector, including aerospace, education, fisheries and food, in addition to a number of industry sectors that are facing very rapid transformations in terms of decarbonization and biodiversity protection efforts. From natural resources to manufacturing, every sector is affected. Whether we are talking about vehicle and bus manufacturing, aluminum, energy, aerospace, forestry, and a host of other fields, our members are leading the way.

Major transformations are under way. While these create historic opportunities, they also raise crucial issues for the future of workers. Will the same number of workers be needed for the production of electric vehicles, which have far fewer parts than today's vehicles? With the transformation of aluminum manufacturing technology, will the same number of workers be needed when anodes need replacing only every 30 months rather than 30 days? Will the cost of decarbonization initiatives be taken into consideration for our industries when they have to compete with products from countries that are less environmentally conscious? Will some border procedures be adjusted? Will the new green low-carbon economy result in good, well-paying jobs for workers, and enable them to exercise their right of association?

Unifor firmly supports the transition to clean energy. It is nevertheless very vigilant about the risk that this transformation might become a pretext for doing away with good union jobs. We shouldn't have to choose between the creation of vulnerable new jobs in a “green” economy on the one hand, and the decent retirement provisions, health and safety benefits and years of skills we have all fought so hard to acquire.

The fact is that the transition is not being deployed everywhere in the same way or at the same speed. That's why support mechanisms have to be flexible and adapted to the circumstances.

Unifor believes in a comprehensive approach tied to compensatory and transformative measures. Although support measures may be compensatory and designed to protect things like income security or facilitating requalification, we think that in most instances, support measures will be needed to assist with the transformation of existing activities and jobs and to help workplaces make the transition to decarbonization.

This requires an enormous effort that is going to increase over the coming decades. To meet the challenge, we need a broad and coherent industrial strategy. We need intelligent investment and targeted support measures for workers in key sectors. We have seen how the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act was a game changer in that country and everywhere else. According to estimates by the Climate Power non-governmental organization and others, approximately 300 clean energy projects in more than 40 American states led to the creation of no less than 170,000 jobs. That's impressive.

Canada is not being left behind. In the most recent federal budget, nearly $80 billion has been allocated to similar incentives. From Volkswagen to Northvolt, we can see that some efforts have yielded results. Nevertheless, we believe that these substantial investments of public funds need to have conditions attached.

Last January, during the consultation on clean energy and hydrogen credits, Unifor gave some concrete illustrations of the methods we advocate. One example was the introduction of a salary floor, a requirement for a 10% to 15% percentage of apprentices to offset the labour shortage and ensure the transfer of skills, the need to provide credits for activities other than those linked to the construction of new projects, such as production, in addition to ensuring the neutrality of recipient companies during unionization activities.

To conclude, I wish to underscore just how grateful we are for the language used by the federal government in its last budget. I am speaking more specifically here about the explicit reference to the role of unions as stakeholders in sustainable job initiatives.

Unifor believes that a fair transition must be planned, fuelled by social dialogue, and in particular that it should involve unions. Through the creation of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, Bill C‑50 gives us an opportunity to walk the talk. To succeed, however, the current wording needs specifically to require that one-third of the seats on the council be for union organizations. It's not too late to get things right and to improve the bill.

Thank you for your attention. I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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 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?

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.

Second Reading

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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 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, 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.

[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?

[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]

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—

[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.

[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.

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.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

[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?

[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?

[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.

International Trade

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

Madam Speaker, it is almost Halloween. Our colleague is trying to scare us, putting on a shocked schoolgirl act. The Liberals cannot believe the Conservatives' approach. In fact, they are one and the same. When one side is not obstructing, they are moving closure. I cannot remember how many gag orders there have been in the last two years.

We should be talking about important things, including Bill C-50, which deals with sustainable jobs. We could talk about housing. We could talk about the cost of living. We could talk about seniors. We talked about that earlier; we voted on an important bill. There is so much we could be talking about.

With the Conservatives filibustering and the Liberals imposing gag orders, one wonders where Canadian democracy is headed.

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

Madam Speaker, let us just be frank about what is going on here. Today, the Speaker of the House of Commons basically told the House, including Conservatives, that we have to behave ourselves. Conservatives are upset about that. They tried to prevent him, on a number of occasions, from giving that statement today.

Now, they are using this tactic in order to slow down the House, because they are frustrated and upset. It is actually behaviour for which I would scold my five-year-old and my seven-year-old, but that is actually what is going on in the House of Commons right now, demonstrated by the Conservative Party of Canada. In the next eight or nine minutes, I will demonstrate why I believe this to be the case. For starters, the Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion to bring forward. I have had the opportunity, since we started debating this, to have a look at the motion. There are six recommendations in it. The government agrees with five recommendations, and accepts and acknowledges the sixth one.

The Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion. At least they could have picked something that is slightly more controversial. This is a concurrence motion on a report about which the government has already put in writing that it agrees with over 80% of it. This is about trade relations. It is important for the public who might be tuned in right now and watching this to fully understand what is going on here.

The government had put on the Order Paper that we would be talking about Bill C-50, sustainable jobs, today. That is what we were supposed to talk about. There is a whole other issue that I do not have time to dive into, about why Conservatives are not interested in sustainable jobs, but let us just park that for a moment and focus on their objective today. The government said that this is what we were going to talk about. The House commenced at 2:00 p.m. today. The Speaker, a brand new Speaker, tried to rise to give a statement about how he plans to conduct the House, in terms of decorum. He cited numerous references of other Speakers, including, at great length, what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said when he was the Speaker, and he just established a benchmark for what the Speaker expects from the House.

Conservatives heckled, made points of order and did everything they could to prevent the Speaker from even giving that statement, which I think was incredibly petty. Then we got to the point where we were supposed to go to Government Orders and start the listed item for today. There is an opportunity in Routine Proceedings to put forward a concurrence motion. This basically sucks up anywhere up to three hours of House time. Conservatives looked at the clock, and they knew that if we started this concurrence motion, the three hours would expire before the House needed to adjourn, and the government would not get to dealing with its business today. That is the Conservatives' objective. That is what they did.

However, the motion they did it on I find to be so perplexing. It is a set of recommendations in a committee report about our borders, particularly postpandemic. I did not really read it or even know it existed before the concurrence motion was put on the floor. There are many committees submitting many reports, and I was not aware of this one. However, I did take the opportunity to have a good look at it since then, in the last 40 minutes or so since we started debating this. Here is recommendation 1: “That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders.” It goes on to list how to do that. The important thing is that the government agrees with the recommendation and accepts the recommendation from the committee.

Recommendation 2 reads as follows: “That the Government of Canada enhance its efforts designed to increase domestic and international awareness that Canada has removed COVID-19–related public health measures.” There is nothing the Conservatives would want more than to do that. Again, the government agrees and says it is a good recommendation, that we need to make sure that the world knows Canada is open and ready for business and tourism, that this is a great recommendation and that we should move forward with this one. The government agrees with that recommendation.

Recommendation 3 is “[t]hat the Government of Canada ensure that international bridge authorities and commissions, as well as duty-free stores in Canada, are eligible for federal financial support if the Government decides to close—for any length of time— the borders that Canada shares with the United States.” This is the one thing the government responded to and said it acknowledges but that it might not be as simple as how it is being portrayed.

For example, the government did assist with the tourism sector quite a bit. The government also assisted with businesses, as we know. The government assisted in many different ways, including trying to reopen borders that Conservative supporters were trying to close. The government did a lot to ensure that we supported businesses throughout the pandemic. Although the government acknowledges the recommendation, it said that it is a bit more complex, as there are various sectors involved, and that this needs to be looked at more closely. It certainly did not outright reject the recommendation.

Then there is recommendation 4, which says, “That the Government of Canada enhance safety and security, reduce delays and backlogs, and improve processing times at Canadian ports of entry”. Once again, the Government of Canada agreed with that recommendation.

Also, I am sorry. There were not six recommendations; there were five.

We have the fifth recommendation, which the government agrees with. My point is that there were five recommendations, and the government agreed with all but one but did acknowledge that it was important and tried to explain what the government was doing about it.

What the public needs to know is that 99.9% of the time that somebody in this House moves concurrence on a report from a committee, they agree with it. They are basically saying that this report is so important that it is not enough to table it for the government, even though the government already responded to it: They need to force Parliament to vote on it so they can solidify the support of this House and not just the committee. That is what they are saying.

Why do I point that out? I point that out because the Conservatives put this forward as if they support it, because one only puts forward a motion of concurrence if one supports it, and then turned around moments later and put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean as if it did not exist, sending it back to committee. I could not put together a scenario in which the Conservatives would look more petty than we have right here, right now on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am sorry the Speaker told the Conservatives today that they have to behave themselves, that it is time to play nice, that they cannot be heckling and making up fake names for ministers, shooting them out like this is some kind of wild frat party. The reality of the situation is that maybe a little decorum is required in this House from the Conservatives, as day after day we hear personal attacks and name-calling.

The Speaker did the right thing by pointing that out. Then what do they do? They act worse than I expect of my children with the games they play and with what they are doing right now to delay talking about a very important piece of legislation on how we create, manage and ensure that sustainable jobs are here for the future of Canadians. How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about jobs and needing to make sure that we put the right groundwork in place for jobs? Just two days ago, a minister of the Crown went to my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to make the announcement of 600 sustainable jobs. These are sustainable jobs.

This is the bill we are talking about. This bill is about how we ensure there are more of those jobs throughout our entire country. How do we continue to attract clean-tech jobs from Germany or Belgium, as we see with Umicore, and bring them right here to Canada?

I think this is very petty. It is very unfortunate, but for eight years I have been watching it occur time after time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member is very much aware that there are all sorts of opportunities for him to exercise those sorts of questions and look at ways in which matters can be studied in standing committees and so forth. This is the challenge I would put to the member across the way. Today, we were actually supposed to be debating jobs and job security through Bill C-50. That is what we were supposed to be doing.

Like the Conservative member who just stood up did, at the end of the day, the Conservatives can continue to focus all they want on the whole area of character assassination. However, I can assure members that whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or anyone else in the Liberal benches, we will continue to be focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and on how we can build a stronger, healthier country from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, I should inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It is interesting to try to get into the minds of the Conservatives. I would suggest that it is dangerous. I am really amazed by the amendment the member has brought forward. Not only have the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that defies logic, but they have brought forward a concurrence motion to filibuster one of the issues that is so important today in Canada, no matter what region of the country.

Under the new leadership, I do not know if Canadians are prepared to risk having the Conservative Party ever become government after seeing the types of behaviours we have witnessed, not only today, but also previously. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-50, legislation that is all about jobs, and the Conservative Party does not want to talk about that. They say that they want to talk about ArriveCAN.

We can see why the Conservative Party stands to says it wants concurrence on x, y and z. It is to prevent government legislation from passing, and then it is critical of the government for not being able to pass legislation or having to bring in time allocation. It is silly, especially when we look at the type of legislation we are bringing forward. Today, as I said, it was all about jobs.

I think of what the mover had to say about this concurrence report, and the seconder. What their speeches had in common, outside of using the word “ArriveCAN”, was the personal character assassination of the Prime Minister. In the speeches they delivered, they both talked about the Prime Minister. One talked about dictatorship, yet this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. The member across the way, when talking about ArriveCAN, talked about the Liberal leader being a dictator. I guess he is trying to feed the misinformation spin that constantly comes from the Conservative Party.

When the other member stood, all he wanted to talk about was scandal after scandal. That is the way the minds of the Conservatives think. We have seen that since day one. Even when I was in opposition before being in government, they made personal attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. That is their focus. I have stood in my place before and said that, while the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, the interests of Canada and building something solid for the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

The principles, ideas and thinking behind the ArriveCAN app supported it in good part. It was the right thing to do. However, instead of the Conservatives wanting to have a healthy debate on issues that are impacting Canadians, they have once again chosen to prevent that debate from occurring. If we read the amendment, we get a good sense of what the Conservative Party is attempting to do.

For those who follow the debate, let me suggest that this particular concurrence motion, which was reinforced by the type of amendment they brought forward, did not need to be debated here. It could just as easily have been brought to a standing committee, because what the members of the Conservative Party are ultimately arguing is that they have some other issues and that they want the standing committee to deal with them.

Nothing at all prevents the House from concurring in the report. In fact, I believe that there are a number of the recommendations to which the government has responded very positively. However, the reality is that this was not the purpose of the Conservatives in bringing forward this particular report. We see the purpose in the amendment they brought forward, because they are not concerned about issues. Their concerns are how they raise the issue of character assassination, which is their real issue. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada today is all about. This is why, as a result, we have a minister who stands up and brings time allocation in regard to Bill C-50. Then the Conservatives say, “Well, there you go. Look at that; they're limiting time.”

I do say, “Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.” On the one hand, its members try to be critical of the government for not allowing as much time as they would like to see in debate on legislation, yet they bring in concurrence motions. They adjourn debates and they try to adjourn the sessions. There are all sorts of dilatory motions and other actions taken by the Conservative Party in order to prevent debate from occurring. Nonetheless, they feel that they can come forward and say, “You know what? We don't think the government is doing enough to pass legislation”, and be critical of the government for not having a legislative order in place.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The government has in fact brought forward legislation, and we have had to; it was not by choice. Canadians said that it was going to be a minority government, so we work with New Democrats or the Bloc at times in order to be able to bring in things like time allocation. Without that support, we would not be able to pass anything, including legislation from the past that has supported Canadians in a very real and tangible way, from putting money in their pockets to building a stronger, healthier country for our middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We take this job seriously. We believe that the legislative agenda should be debated, instead of having the constant games that are being played by the official opposition.

The principles behind our border controls and ensuring that we can get traffic going between Canada and the United States is absolutely critical to Canada in many different ways. One can talk about everything from the social side of things in terms of the amount of tourism generated just because of family connections, which contributes to the economics of both countries, to the amount of merchandise that goes between Canada and the United States every day. I believe that Emerson, in my home province of Manitoba, is in somewhere around fourth spot in the nation in terms of two-way traffic between the U.S. and Canada.

I know the importance of trade. On many occasions, I have stood in the chamber and talked about how important trade is to Canada. We have to do what we can to enhance that trade and encourage and provide support so we can have the type of traffic that will meet the demands of today in a very real way. That was the idea behind ArriveCAN, and there are other thoughts and ideas that come. Some stay longer than others—

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

Madam Speaker, I will get to what I really think about the Conservatives' tactics shortly, but I have a question for the member.

Given his background, I am sure he would realize that nothing prevents committee members of a standing committee from meeting to determine what they want on their agenda.

The member just moved an amendment to send this report back to get the committee to look at x, y and z. Why would his members not just raise that at the committee itself and get it onto the agenda if they felt it was something they could do? I guess it is because then they would not be able to filibuster Bill C-50 today. Is that correct?

Bill C-50—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[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.

[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.

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.

[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, 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—

[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, 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.

[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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at 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. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

[Bea Bruske, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee members.

I'm coming to you from the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin territory. It's my honour and my pleasure to be here with you today.

The Canadian Labour Congress advocates on behalf of all workers in Canada.

The 55 national and international unions that are affiliated with the CLC bring together over three million workers in virtually all sectors, industries, occupations and regions of this country.

Workers in Canada currently are suffering intense cost-of-living pressures, but with bold action, we believe that government can help alleviate these pressures. Government can make ambitious investments to provide more affordable, non-market housing for workers in need.

The CLC recommends that budget 2024 allocate $20 billion per year in capital funding to the national housing co-investment fund. Together with provincial partners and other public contributions, this will help build a minimum of 100,000 new units per year.

Budget 2024 should accelerate the rollout of the national housing strategy's federal lands initiative for affordable housing. Government should introduce a dedicated five-year, $10-billion public land acquisition fund to acquire additional land for the construction of non-market, affordable rental housing.

In order to assist the community housing sector to acquire existing affordable rental buildings, the government should create a $20-billion housing acquisition fund in order to maintain the supply of affordable housing for low-income and modest-income households.

The CLC also recommends that in order to cope with high food prices, budget 2024 impose a windfall profit tax on large food retailers and use the revenues to fund an extension of the existing grocery rebate program.

The situation with the cost of prescription drugs is also a major affordability issue for Canadians. We call on the federal government to accelerate the current plans to introduce a national public pharmacare program in Canada. That should entail passing enabling legislation by the end of 2023, implementing—without delay—an essential medicines formulary, and implementing the bulk purchasing plan by the end of 2023. The multi-payer, patchwork system that we currently have has left Canada paying among the highest prescription drug prices in the world. We know that Canadian households paid nearly $7 billion out of their own pockets for prescription medicines in 2020.

Numerous studies have linked the high cost of prescription drugs and related charges, like deductibles and co-payments, to patients' not taking their drugs as prescribed. That, overall, raises the cost of our health care system.

Canada's unions want to see a truly universal pharmacare plan, implementing a single-payer system of public insurance coverage for prescription drugs.

I'll remind you that the Hoskins report advocated a “universal, single-payer, public pharmacare” program and noted that it would reduce the cost of prescription drugs for employers and businesses by $16.6 billion and for families by $6.4 billion.

I also want to address the issue of employment insurance. Since 2019, the federal government has committed to creating an EI system for the 21st century that works for everyone. Canadians are still waiting to see the results of years of consultations on EI.

First, we had a global pandemic, and then this year we've had disastrous floods and the worst forest fire season on record. These disasters have displaced tens of thousands of Canadians from their homes, jobs and communities. Now the economy and the job market are beginning to cool, with the possibility of an economic downturn in the near term. The CLC calls on the government to introduce an annual government contribution of 20% to EI program costs, and we know that this will help pay for improvements while minimizing employment insurance premium increases.

We call on the government to commit to improving access by establishing a lower, uniform, national entrance requirement of the lesser of 360 hours or 12 weeks of insurable employment, and to provide up to 50 weeks of regular benefits to meet the needs of seasonal workers across this country. We're also calling for a raise on the ceiling of insurable earnings and for a substantial increase to the 55% benefit rate. We expect to see the end of a clawback of EI benefits due to severance and vacation pay that workers have earned prior to a downturn requiring them to apply for EI. We also expect to see the end of a 50-week restriction on combined special benefits with regular benefits, which disproportionately punishes women.

Finally, I want to touch on budget 2024 investments in sustainable jobs and the environmental transition. The CLC welcomes the sustainable jobs act. We want to see greater investments in social protections for workers in sectors at risk due to climate change. That includes transition supports for workers, including skills recognition, training and retraining, relocation assistance, mental health programming, family supports and other assistance programs. Budget 2024 investments in decarbonizing the economy have to include job-quality strings, building on the climate-focused investment tax credits that were announced in budget 2023.

Job quality requirements will ensure low-carbon jobs that are well paid and safe and that will afford workers a say through access to a union and ensure that green investments are made in consultation with workers.

Thank you. I welcome any questions from the committee members.

[Gil McGowan]

Thanks very much for the question.

As I said in my opening remarks today, I think what the IRA does for us is provide a model that can be followed and should be followed. The good news is that the federal government, as I've said, has received the memo. They've looked across the border and they see how well the IRA is working in terms of attracting and incenting investment, creating jobs and building industries.

There's a model there for us to follow. As I said in my opening remarks, and as our labour coalition has talked about in our reports, on getting to where the puck is, the answer is actually industrial policy in the public interest—the same kind of industrial policy that helped build our oil sands and petrochemical industries when Peter Lougheed and his PC government in the 1970s and 1980s realized that we were running out of conventional oil. He didn't wait for the market to decide. He didn't put his finger up to the wind to see which way the wind was blowing. He saw a crisis looming on the horizon, and he decided to use the levers of power to address it.

The answer is industrial policy. The best example is right across the border with the IRA. It's working. Doing nothing, frankly, is a dangerous option. As I said in my opening remarks, denial is not a plan. Delay will just put off all the investments that are necessary, and we may get left behind. That's our biggest fear.

I think the federal government has taken the necessary initial steps with the $80 billion they've earmarked in the budget. There's a framework for consultation and worker involvement in the sustainable jobs act, which is before Parliament right now. We are moving in the right direction, but because of our federal structure, what we're worried about is that the provinces may get in the way.

That's what we're seeing in Alberta. Just last month, our provincial government and our premier, Danielle Smith, introduced a surprise moratorium on renewable energy investment. It's that kind of thing that's going to trip us up. We're already losing jobs in oil and gas and have been for years. Even though production has been going up and investment is going up, employment is going down because companies are automating. They're automating our jobs away.

Our future lies in an IRA-style pivot towards a lower-carbon economy. That's where the jobs will be for all Canadian jurisdictions, including Alberta. That's where we need to go.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)