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.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak right after the leader of the NDP, who gave an excellent speech. He outlined the framework for this discussion and explained where we stand right now as a society, what people need and the risks associated with either the Liberals' inaction or the Conservatives' cuts.

Over the past two years, we have seen what can be achieved when NDP members are on the job. We delivered results by pressuring the government and making real gains for people, for workers, for seniors, for families and for students. That is the contribution the NDP caucus can make, using its position of strength and balance of power to obtain things that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals had ever agreed to before.

With a bit of a wink and a nudge, I would like to point out that, for two years, the Bloc Québécois criticized us for negotiating with the Liberals to make gains. Now that we have torn up the agreement, it is rather ironic to see the Bloc Québécois wanting to negotiate with the government as well, but that is politics, after all.

We were able to achieve tangible progress of historic importance. Think of the 10 days of paid sick leave for federally regulated workers, which did not exist before. We saw how important it was to grant workers this right during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the NDP that did that.

The anti-scab law is finally in effect, 50 years after Quebec passed its own law. We fought and forced the Liberal government to introduce anti-scab legislation, which was a historic demand of the Quebec and Canadian labour movement. I am very proud to have been able to negotiate with the then minister of labour. It is an important piece of legislation that is a true hallmark of the gains the NDP was able to achieve. The anti-scab legislation is a victory for the NDP.

The big one is universal public pharmacare. This is so important to so many members of society, in both Canada and Quebec, who are suffering because our hybrid private-public system is flawed. The NDP was able to get $1.5 billion. The bill is currently before the Senate. This will make a difference in people's lives, especially the first phase that provides access to contraception and diabetes medications. Millions of people with diabetes will be reimbursed for the cost of supplies and drugs to fight this terrible disease. This is a victory for the NDP and its work. It is also what the Quebec labour movement is calling for. The FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ and the Union des consommateurs du Québec all know that a universal public pharmacare program is the best way to get truly affordable drugs to treat people and save lives. That has been proven in study after study over the past few years.

We secured $8 billion for indigenous housing. We forced the Liberals to ensure that the federal child care transfer will go to public and not-for-profit child care run by community groups and non-profits. That is a win for the NDP.

There is also the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, which ensures a just transition, a green energy transition, as well as job creation for workers. The NDP fought to have union and worker representatives at the table to ensure the success of this transition, which is so important to the future of our planet, our economic development, and good jobs for workers. I salute the work of some of my colleagues, including my colleague from Victoria, who is right over there. I also salute my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his very hard work on Bill C-50.

Obviously, the NDP deserves credit for all the work it accomplished on providing people with access to dental care. Some of them had not been able to afford a visit to the dentist in years. We were able to secure these major gains by putting pressure on the Liberals. So far, 3.5 million people in Canada have registered for the program. Some 645,000 people have managed to see a dentist and be reimbursed all or 80% of the cost of their dental care. That is huge. The health and lives of those 645,000 people has changed for the better through the direct efforts of the NDP here in the House. I am very proud to say that those 645,000 people include 205,032 Quebeckers, who were able to see a dentist thanks to the NDP's work and victory.

This means that 32% of the people who have benefited from the program are Quebeckers. The program is therefore very beneficial for Quebec, for Quebeckers, who are participating more on average than people in the other provinces. We represent 23% of the Canadian population, but 32% of the people who have received this service are from Quebec. I would remind the House that not only did the Bloc Québécois oppose dental care, but the Conservatives have always voted against it, and the Liberals also voted against it before the last election. This just goes to show that if we had not been there, if we had not twisted their arm, this would never have happened.

The agreement lasted a while, but we were not married to the Liberals. We were carpooling. We eventually realized that it was time to go our separate ways, so we got out of that car and into our own, to regain our independence and autonomy. Going forward, we will decide on a case-by-case basis how we are going to vote in the House as a political party.

We also put an end to this agreement because of a build-up of frustration with the Liberals' inaction, half-measures and lack of courage on a whole host of issues. We decided that we are going to be completely autonomous. There are some things that we completely disagree with the Liberals on and so we want to be able to exert all the pressure we can and to do our job as the opposition as effectively as possible. I am talking in particular about environmental and climate issues.

One can only imagine how infuriating it is to face the Liberals' inaction and contradictions, when this failure to make the necessary decisions today is going to affect future generations, our children and our grandchildren. In the last budget, the Liberals backtracked on taxing the excessive profits of big oil. Big oil lobbyists came to Ottawa, to the office of the finance minister, and the government decided that it would not tax the windfall profits of oil and gas companies after all.

The fact that there is no emissions cap in the oil and gas sector is shameful. One has to wonder why it still has not been set. Then there are the tax credits for carbon capture, an unproven technology that does not work. It is a great subsidy for the oil companies, but not as great as buying the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost Canadians $36 billion.

That $36 billion means that everyone in the country, whether they are a grandpa, a grandma, a student or a baby, paid $1,000 to buy that pipeline and increase our greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals took $1,000 from every Canadian to buy a pipeline that no one wanted. Even the private sector did not want it.

There is also the matter of the inaction in relation to the housing crisis and the price of groceries, despite the fact that there are solutions. There is the Liberals' lack of courage regarding the genocide in Gaza, the lack of recognition of the Palestinian state, the lack of sanctions against Netanyahu's extremist ministers, and the continued sale of arms to this regime, which has been dropping bombs on ordinary people every day for over 10 months now. Then there is the Liberals' failure to reform EI, despite their promises.

Although we are debating this motion today, the NDP's message is clear. We will not play the Conservatives' game. We are not going to play the Conservatives' game, because we remember the dark years under Stephen Harper.

We remember the attacks on science, the blindness or indifference to the climate crisis and the cuts to culture. We remember the $43 billion in cuts to our public health care system, the repercussions of which are still being felt today. When the Liberals came to power, they did not reverse those budget cuts.

They cut seniors' pensions by increasing the retirement age to 67. They abolished 26,000 public service jobs and closed nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices. They made cuts to employment insurance, to support for indigenous communities, to protection for women and women's issues.

As far as women's rights are concerned, the right to abortion is still under threat. Things are not entirely clear in the Conservative caucus. Statements are vague. There are photos with certain groups, with certain demonstrators here on Parliament Hill. This morning, in the Journal de Montréal we read that the Conservative member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands visited a creationist and anti-abortion, or anti-choice, church in Florida.

He was invited to deliver a speech at an extremist church in Florida, and it was the church that paid for not only his flight, but also all the expenses. A Conservative member went to Florida and was paid by a church to speak against women's rights. After all that, it should come as no surprise that people question whether the Conservatives will protect women's rights or if a private member's bill will be introduced if ever, by some misfortune, the Conservatives form a majority government.

I see that my time is up. I could have gone on. I still have a lot more to say, but I can elaborate in my answers to the questions and comments.

Energy Sector

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present a petition on behalf of thousands of Canadians who call on the government to stop its divisive anti-energy, anti-private sector, top-down Bill C-50 just-transition agenda, which would cause fuel and power shortages, and even more energy poverty, while hurting Canada's standard of living.

The NDP-Liberal's so-called just transition would hike the cost of living in urban and rural Canada. It would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs, displace 450,000 direct and indirect jobs and threaten the jobs of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces in energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture. It would especially harm remote, rural, indigenous and resource-based communities, provinces and regions; blue-collar and lower-income workers; and indigenous and diverse Canadians, who will face higher job disruptions and more challenges finding new opportunities because they work in Canada's oil and gas sector at a much higher rate than in other sectors.

The NDP-Liberal agenda to phase out Canadian oil and gas compromises Canadian energy and national security. Therefore, Canadians across seven provinces and two territories call on the government to stop its unjust transition and to value private sector-led energy transformation through technology, not taxes, instead of through government-centred plans and subsidies, to bring home Canadian energy jobs, technology and investment, which would benefit all Canadians in every city, town and region.

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.

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.

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—

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?

Sitting Resumed

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Order.

It being 9:16 a.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the House will now resume the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-50.

The question is on Motion No. 79.

A negative vote on Motion No. 79 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 80.

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.

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.

[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—

Oil and Gas Industry

[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.

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.

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.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

On its website, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement, to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a conspiracy to silence me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, through you—

[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.

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.

Natural Resources

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

Madam 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?

[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?

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.

[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.