Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Back to you. You have the floor.

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

Yes. I was making sure that I finished that thought for everybody here, especially for you, Mr. Chair, because I do think it would be helpful.

I was getting to the point of the private sector investment in the many great projects that are happening in Timmins—James Bay. As I was saying, it was a shame that he wasn't here to hear my intervention and the interventions of many of my colleagues, as he missed three meetings.

When he did speak, you know.... We have the transcripts available. We can actually see what he was talking about, and there was very little that actually was directly related to the subamendment. He was talking about all kinds of things all across the country, but on the—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, I'll ask you to hold. We have a point of order from Ms. Dabrusin.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin on a point of order.

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

It's relevance. We're looking at CPC-4. I believe he has moved it. Can we talk about the amendment, please, and a little less about other members on this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'll ask my colleague to focus on the amendment at hand, on CPC-4, and to make sure the remarks he is making are relevant to clause-by-clause and the amendment he's moving. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

As I was saying before I was interrupted again, it was about the private sector investment in Timmins-James Bay. We would hope you would see that anyway, but, you know, after eight years of this government, we have seen a lot of that flee the country, for sure.

I think making sure that at the very least there's language that will provide some certainty around whether or not the government's actually serious about promoting economic growth, or private sector investment, would definitely be good to see. But we all know that the way this bill will go, it will crush any opportunity for the type of economic growth that the current natural resource industries provide; the private sector investment that at one point it did, prior to this government's getting into power eight years ago and the chaos that, along with the NDP, it has invoked upon the provinces and on the sector at large.

I do think this is a good amendment for us to be able to start this debate off on. As I say, it's to improve affordability. That's what this gets to at its very heart and core. We know that affordability in our small towns and communities like Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch will suffer when this bill gets rammed through, much like it did in the town of Hanna, Alberta. That's why we're making sure that we have some language like this. We want to make sure the government is actually accountable for what it is going to be trying to do for our communities.

Now, in terms of the creation of sustainable jobs, I'm of the opinion that the jobs people currently have are quite sustainable and in fact should be prioritized and not just thrown by the wayside. We know that these current jobs lead to the revenue that these companies make, which allows them to make the private sector investment that we were talking about earlier, which leads to economic growth. Sustainable jobs already exist. There might be some ideologically driven folks around the table who think otherwise, but we know that sustainable jobs do exist. There are private sector investments from these companies. They are the ones who are largely investing in, say, wind power or solar. They want to be investing in some of the other emerging things that have come and will be available.

For example, in my neck of the woods—Mr. Aldag has family in that neck of the woods, which I've talked about before—is the SunBridge wind farm. Suncor invested in wind, one of the very first companies in Saskatchewan, and I would suggest probably in other provinces as well, to do so. They were one of the early investors in wind. Enbridge partnered with them to be able to build that wind farm to provide power for the power utility in Saskatchewan, which is SaskPower. That's why it's called the “SunBridge” wind farm, because it was Suncor and Enbridge. They are oil and gas companies. Over 20 years ago they made the decision that they were going to become energy companies, because they saw that there was the opportunity for expanded economic growth and the opportunity to grow the types of services or I guess the type of power and type of energy they were going to provide to people. They wanted to make sure they were involved in that. It created jobs. It created wealth for communities. It expanded the tax bases of some communities in the area.

Unfortunately, what's happening now, because of what's going on with this government, is that the wind farm is being decommissioned. It's not going to be replaced because of the lack of certainty that comes from this government. Bill C-50 will only create further issues for the types of companies that want to invest in energy production in this country.

I think it's important to acknowledge what the private sector can do, the role they actually have to play in energy production across the country and what that means for sustainable jobs. Those are jobs that actually already exist. It's not some new concept that this government is going to pretend to invent and take credit for. These sustainable jobs already exist. They do exist in the oil and gas industry. They do exist in all parts of the economy and in all sectors.

To make sure that we prioritize will mean an effort to see more affordability for Canadians, because Canada's strategic advantage for years and years and years has been affordable, reliable energy. That's in large part due to our oil and gas companies, which have provided reliable, affordable, environmentally sustainable sources as well. That's not to mention the indigenous partnerships that have come from these resource companies and the fact that they are continuing to work toward economic participation and self-determination for first nations.

As such, there are companies like Natural Law Energy. This government has actually denied this company the ability to participate in the economy, by getting rid of things like Keystone XL, not bothering to put any effort into having any advocacy on that to make sure that those projects, which were good for Canada and good for our energy security and our future going forward.... There were good opportunities there that were lost. This type of bill will make absolutely sure that those folks don't have that opportunity.

At the very least, we could put in some friendly language around affordability and prioritizing economic growth, private sector investment and the creation of...well, sustainable jobs, because a “just transition” bill is what this is. We could say that this bill is not going to do anything about sustainable jobs, but we're still going to put the reference in there, because we think those jobs already exist and that the government should prioritize those jobs.

I hope colleagues all around this table will be voting for this amendment. I know I'm excited for it. I'm looking forward to seeing what other people think.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We'll now go to Genuis. After Mr. Genuis, a number of speakers want to intervene on this amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is my first chance to speak in the context of this bill. I'm grateful for that opportunity, and I will be speaking, of course, to the amendment. However, I do also want to move a subamendment that I believe the clerk has. I submitted it in writing, so I'll go ahead and state that subamendment. The requirements have been met. I gather that it will be distributed when it's translated.

The amendment is to add, after the words “sustainable jobs”, “that provide powerful paycheques to Canadian workers”. I think this is an important addition to the excellent amendment from my colleague Mr. Patzer. It really underlines what the bill should be about. We are in the purpose section of the bill. We're describing what should be the purpose of the bill.

Sadly, I don't think it is the purpose of the bill as written. That is, I don't think it is the purpose that the minister had in mind when proposing this bill. I don't think it's the purpose that the government had in their thinking when they put this bill forward. The government's approach to our economy is, sadly, not about creating more private sector investment or creating sustainable jobs that provide powerful paycheques to Canadian workers. That is not the approach of this government, but it should be.

We are in the process of looking at amendments for this bill and putting forward this amendment to the purpose. Of course, we will have other subsequent amendments that give greater voice and life to that amendment and that will shift the purpose of this legislation to where we should be. In my remarks on this amendment, I want to talk about where we are right now with this government and with the current purpose of the bill, and then I want to talk about where we should be.

Here is where we are. We have a piece of legislation that this government is increasingly embarrassed about. We know they're embarrassed about it, because they have put forward an unprecedented, draconian programming motion in the House that does not even allow this committee to hear from any witnesses. No workers, no companies, no affected families, no first nations—nobody—will be able to address the committee on this bill because of a motion adopted in the House that narrowly prescribes.... That includes no ministers, by the way. We won't hear from ministers. We have a draconian—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause for a second. Hold that thought.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus, on a point of order.

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

I love listening to Mr. Genuis. Once he gets wind in his sails, he goes straight for the rocks. We're talking about a subamendment, and what he's talking about has nothing to do with the subamendment. Can we keep focused on the issue?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I would ask my colleague Mr. Genuis, as you continue, to stay relevant to the subamendment that you proposed to the amendment.

We have another point of order.

Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

It feels like almost a deja vu moment, because I recall having this point of order two days ago on the issue of relevancy. My Liberal colleagues were continuously interrupting members on the Conservatives side during their interventions, because they deemed the content not to be relevant.

I ultimately raised the point of order and brought to the attention of the chair and every member of this committee that in a legal context—and I view committees to be quasi-judicial in their formats—the word “relevancy” is subjective. It's not objective. What is relevant in the eyes of Ms. Dabrusin or Mr. Sorbara, Ms. Lapointe, Mr. Aldag or Mr. Fonseca ultimately is up to the member who is speaking. In this case it is my colleague Mr. Genuis, who is getting to the point.

The fact that he's not getting to the point as expeditiously as Liberal members would like is not the point. The point of the matter is that his content is very relevant to the overall bill itself and that he be afforded, and most chairs do this, a very wide ambit and a wide latitude to intervene—in this particular case, on a subamendment—to get to the relevancy aspect.

I'm asking the chair to not rule without allowing Mr. Genuis to fully flesh out and articulate his points in relation to the subamendment. I've always believed Mr. Genuis to have relevant points, and he may not describe the relevancy initially, in the first couple of minutes, but eventually he gets around to it. Therefore, I'm asking the chair to provide that latitude to all members of this committee, and in particular to my colleague Mr. Genuis.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Brock, for your point of order and for providing that additional context. We've had a number of relevancy questions over the last two months as we've been debating this.

I do provide members the latitude to be able to express themselves as they move an amendment or a subamendment, but I would remind members that they do have the right, across the floor and around the table, to make a point of order if they believe there's something potentially that's not relevant and that we need to focus on the relevancy of the motion at hand. As well, thank you for providing your point of order and your insights on that.

I'm going to turn back to Mr. Genuis to allow him to continue on with his intervention. The only thing I would ask of you, Mr. Genuis, is to keep it relevant to what you're providing.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. Mr. Angus made some comments about my remarks, relating them to having wind in one's sails. I would only say that it shows he knows as much about sailing as he does about the interests of energy workers.

The central issue in this subamendment....

Mr. Angus says he's never sailed. I'm sure he'll have lots of time for that after the next election, and I do wish him well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to pause.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Order, members.

Mr. Genuis.

I see Mr. Angus on a point of order.

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

I really think we're going to be here a long time. I'm going to try to pull back so that we don't see this kind of toxic behaviour from the Conservative. I made a comment earlier that I'd like to apologize for. I compared them to European soccer players, and then Mr. Patzer made a “wah-wah” sound, which I didn't quite understand.

I'd like to apologize, because certainly there are European soccer players, like Beckham, De Bruyne, Mbappé and Vinicius, who get the ball in the net. Regarding my comparison to European soccer players and the behaviour of the Conservatives, as we come down to about 37 minutes left while they talk the clock out, I would like to withdraw that in a way of showing goodwill towards my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for retracting your remarks from earlier.

I don't want anybody to be offended by any remarks regarding soccer or anything else. I know that Mr. Fonseca is Portuguese, and Cristiano Ronaldo might be a fan of his—and others as well.

We all have opinions, but let's focus on the work we're doing here at committee on Bill C-50, on the clause-by-clause and the subamendment we're on now.

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order and for retracting your remarks from earlier.

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

Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to do that. I feel better.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I will ask you to proceed and maybe conclude if you're on the subamendment, so other members can also proceed.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I think Mr. Angus should consider letters to various European ambassadors to apologize for the gross generalizations he's made about people from a particular continent and culture.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'm going to ask you to hold.

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

I have a point of order.

I'm trying to work here with my colleague. I would like to work with Mr. Genuis, because I probably do need to apologize to European ambassadors for comparing them to some of my Conservative colleague's tactics.

If he has ambassadors who can work with me—because I haven't done a lot of international work and I know he has—I would be more than willing to work with his office. I would send those apologies—nice, personal, signed letters.

If he wants to work with me on that, I'd take that as a sign that we can get through this tonight.

[Voices]

[Inaudible—Editor]