Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Ms. Lapointe, on your point of order.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through the chair to my colleague MP Patzer on the subamendment dealing with Sudbury, I'm going to tell you quite clearly that the people in my riding want us to talk about sustainable jobs. They want to talk about getting economic growth from a net-zero economy. Certainly, Sudbury's critical minerals will be a key element to that. There is no getting to net zero without critical minerals.

What the people of Sudbury don't want—

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

This is debate.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

—are all these delays.

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

This is debate.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

They want us to be able to get to the important work of dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

On a point of order, what Ms. Lapointe is doing isn't even close to a point of order. This is debate.

You need to give her instructions: Get on the speaking list and you'll have your opportunity. You'll have all the opportunity in the world to voice your opinion, put your rationale forward and present it to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I will ask all members, including the one who raised the point of order, to make their point of order based on the point of order, not debate, so that we can continue to have a great debate around the table.

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

Thank you as well, sir, for your interjection on the point of order.

We'll go back to—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I could continue. I have more to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

No, you've made your point of order clear.

We'll move back to Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you.

Sometimes it's fascinating to see how certain points of order end up going and why people want to them bring up. Certainly, government talking points are not what any individuals want to see. They want to see actual results and to see things happen. They want certainty. They want to know what's going to happen to their future. They want to know what's going to happen.

Just as an aside, Bill C-50 doesn't actually have a plan for how to address that. It's a plan to make a plan. We've seen that over and over again with this government.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

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

On a point of order, I think we've all been very respectful, listening to this hour upon hour, but if we're speaking to the subamendment, then he needs to speak to the subamendment. Otherwise, he should cede the floor. That's fairness. Right now, what's happening is not fair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Patzer, your subamendment was on the inclusion of the word “Sudbury” in section c) of the amendment. I'd ask you to keep your comments relevant to the importance of your subamendment to the amendment so that we can continue on and other members also have the opportunity to debate this important insertion of your subamendment.

Relevancy is important, so let's keep it relevant.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, prior to having the point of order, I was actually speaking about where the folks of Sudbury are getting their energy, where their power generation comes from and where rural Ontario gets it from. This is why we put that specific common-sense subamendment in place. There was a point of order while I was talking about that. I was merely offering up a quick response to the point of order because I found it quite fascinating myself, to be honest. What I was getting at was the fact that there's over 10,000 megawatts of gas and oil being used for power and energy for rural Ontario and for communities like Sudbury.

It is important, when we have a common-sense subamendment outlining the people of Sudbury, how it relates to the motion, which is its link to Bill C-69. This is because of the reference case by the Supreme Court of Canada making it largely unconstitutional. How's that going to implicate Bill C-50?

Again, let's just pretend for a moment that Bill C-50 was somehow magically going to work. It's not going to work because it's a job-killing initiative, but let's just pretend for a moment that it would. There are going to be issues trying to get the jobs and the energy transition for these workers and for these communities like Sudbury to be able to have reliable, affordable energy going forward.

In order for Bill C-50 to possibly be effective, Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first and foremost. When we see that gas and oil is 28% in Ontario for the high-voltage provincial grid, it is important that we speak to why Bill C-50 has a part to play and what's going to happen to the people of Sudbury—which is what my subamendment is all about.

Providing context to amendments and subamendments is important. That's what I am trying to do. That's the point I'm trying to make and, unfortunately, I keep on getting points of order over that.

I don't know if it's because when people hear how this is going to go and how this will be laid out...because, as I mentioned earlier, there was already an attempt at a coal transition in rural areas of Alberta. I mentioned the thousands of jobs that were lost. Workers were not transitioned into other jobs. They were certainly not given what was mentioned, which was that there would be sustainable, well-paying jobs for everybody.

Again, it's fantasyland to think that the 177,000-plus direct jobs are all of a sudden going to get the same or jobs or greater jobs that are talked about by the minister in the just transition or the Canadian sustainable jobs act.

We know it's not going to be a just transition. That's why the government has moved to try to change the name and the title of it. The Minister of Labour actually admitted that people don't like the phrase “just transition”. I think it's because people know what it actually means. It's just going to be a transition into unemployment for a lot of folks, or into a position where they are going to be out of work or be paid substantively less. We heard a witness the other day say that 34% less is what people will be paid when and if they are transitioned to a different job.

I can guarantee that the people of Sudbury do not want to take a 34% haircut. That's not what people want. The bill actually does nothing to make sure that it is going to say...we've seen government internal documents even admit and say that this is not going to happen.

We have on the record from the government that this is going to be problematic, and we're still ramming through legislation that was time-allocated after minimal debate in the House of Commons. That's what happened back in 2018-19 with Bill C-69. It's what happened with Bill C-50. It's what happened with Bill C-49.

It's also important to talk about the energy transformation going forward for the people of Sudbury. That's why we want to have people at committee to testify to this. It's because when we see what the coldest temperature on record for Sudbury was recently, over the last couple of years, last winter, in fact, the coldest temperature was -37°C.

There was no carve-out for the carbon tax in Sudbury. People are going to need to heat their homes with a heat pump that only works up until -7°, which is about 30 degrees short of what people are going to need to stay warm. This is why we're talking specifically about making sure we get people from a community outside of Toronto to testify at committee.

This committee is also going to study the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the resource sector, and we want stakeholders from Sudbury to be included in that study. That's the main point of the common-sense subamendment that we have.

I think it's important that we let the people of Ms. Lapointe's riding have a say. That's why we moved this common-sense subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I'm waiting for an applause. I'm going to end my remarks there.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Next on the speaking list—this is on the subamendment presented by Mr. Patzer—we have Mr. Falk on the subamendment to the amendment.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the subamendment to invite constituents from the Sudbury area as witnesses to come to committee to give testimony as to what they think is important in Sudbury, whether it's the fact that they're paying carbon tax on their home heating, groceries and just about everything else they buy—fuel.

It's interesting. Last week, the Liberals announced an exemption to the carbon tax for home heating for folks in Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. I guess there were some Manitobans who took exception to that and asked why they aren't getting those exemptions in Manitoba.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus.

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

Mr. Chair, we can't let this descend into a Conservative gong show.

We've had an amendment. Then they went to a subamendment, and now they want to start talking about carbon tax.

This is not the issue. Either he's speaking to the subamendment or he's not, and if not, then let's vote on the subamendment, vote on the amendment and get back to the motion at hand. That's how committees work.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Falk, I would ask you to focus your intervention on the subamendment on Sudbury. Be succinct in your remarks, but make sure it relates back to the subamendment proposed by Mr. Patzer.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that reminder.

Thank you to the member for Timmins—James Bay for his concern that my remarks would be addressing the issue of inviting witnesses from Sudbury—Ms. Stubbs' amendment to the motion that was brought forward earlier today—because I was getting there. If Mr. Angus had been a bit more forbearing for a few moments, he would have soon discovered why I was making the comments I was making. But I'll get back to that.

Evidently, Manitobans feel they should have been exempted from paying carbon tax for home heating as well.

Minister Gudie Hutchings' response to their concern was if they'd vote for more Liberals from the Prairies, they'd get an exemption too. Wow. The folks in Sudbury didn't get an exemption to their home heating, and I'm thinking, do they not have a Liberal enough member of Parliament to get them that exemption?

Obviously in Manitoba, Terry Duguid, Minister Dan Vandal, Kevin Lamoureux and Ben Carr were not Liberal enough to get Manitobans exemptions. I think it's important to hear from constituents of Sudbury at this committee to ask why they weren't good enough to get an exemption on the carbon tax for their home heating.

That's as succinct as I'll get for you, sir.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We need to ensure that this debate is an accurate one, and the exemption on home heating oil is country-wide.

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

I think that was debate, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for the point of order.

Actually, Ms. Lapointe, I have you on the speaking list next, as I believe you raised your hand earlier. I just want to make sure that you want the opportunity, because Mr. Falk has concluded, so the opportunity is yours now. The floor is yours, Ms. Lapointe.

I'll just remind you that we're on the subamendment to include Sudbury in the amendment.

Mr. Angus, I see that your hand is up as well, so I've put you on the speaking list after Ms. Lapointe.