Debates of April 11th, 2024

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Bloc members speak to whether they want to be implicated by the globalist conspiracy-spouting Conservative rhetoric. However, I would say that type of amendment actually is already the whole thrust of the bill, which is about building a prosperous economy as we move through a transition to a low-carbon future that includes input from labour, industry, environmental organizations, indigenous communities and youth.

The Conservatives' 20,000 robo-amendments that actually would redo the same amendment many different times on each different section were not thoughtful amendments; they were simply about blocking. This is not the way Parliament should work, and the Conservatives should know that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to those nearly 20,000 Conservative amendments.

I agree that our democracy should not be operated by robots that block our political and democratic institutions. The problem is that gag orders are also used as a tactic to block democratic and political processes that help improve bills.

Another problem arises in a democracy if provincial jurisdictions are not respected when a bill is drafted. Quebec and the provinces were not consulted. The expertise of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail was not taken into account.

My question is very simple. We are at report stage. If the minister could go back and rewrite his bill, would he give greater consideration to the reality and the needs of Quebec and the provinces, especially by showing respect for the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot of consultation since 2019.

We have certainly had conversations with industry, with provinces and territories, with indigenous groups and with environmentalists. The bill was introduced here in June of last year. It stayed here for eight months, which is a long time.

Having said that, we respect provincial jurisdiction. This bill focuses on areas of federal jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly what we have seen from the Conservatives is part of the pattern of toxic disinformation. The only way one can get away with standing up in the House and making ridiculous claims about some kind of international globalist conspiracy that will kill 170,000, 190,000 or millions of jobs is if they try to shut down the facts.

We saw at our committee that every time workers came to speak, the Conservatives shut them down. They shut down the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, whose members work in the oil patch. They shut down the carpenters union, whose members work on so many of the building projects. They shut down the Canadian Labour Congress. They shut down Unifor, which represents workers in the EV plants. They shut down the Alberta Federation of Labour.

What is it about the Conservatives that they are so angry and are ensuring that the workers who brought the bill forward are not allowed to speak, so the Conservatives can get their disinformation sock puppets to spread falsehoods? Why is it so important that we actually have the voice of labour at the table when we are talking about the transition that is under way?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that we have the voices of workers at the table. The transition obviously would fundamentally affect them. It would create opportunities that would actually engage workers, their families and their communities in the development of whole new industries around hydrogen, critical minerals and critical minerals processing, biofuels, nuclear technology and a whole range of other things. It is enormously important that good public policy is informed by conversations with the stakeholders affected, and that very much includes the labour movement.

Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege from the member for La Prairie with respect to announcing certain policy initiatives.

Page 899 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “Speakers have maintained that [budget] secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention rather than one of privilege.” On November 18, 1981, in relation to budget secrecy, Speaker Sauvé noted, “[budget] secrecy has no impact on the privileges of a member”, and goes on to say, “but [further]...has nothing to do with [the] privilege.”

The House will have opportunities to consider the budget when it is properly before the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has announced that she will be presenting the budget to the House at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16. Following the presentation of the budget, the House will have four days of debate, and the opposition parties will be able to move an amendment and a subamendment to the budget motion. Following a vote on the main motion for the budget, the House will consider a ways and means motion, and, following its adoption, will see the introduction of the budget implementation bill.

Where privilege arises is the period between when notice is given of the budget bill and its subsequent introduction. However, if the measures to be contained in the budget implementation bill are tabled in the form of a notice of ways and means motion while the bill is on notice, members of the House will already have the contents of the budget implementation bill to consider, which by its very tabling in the House of Commons obviates the ability to raise an associated question of privilege.

Budget secrecy is a matter of convention. The executive has the right and the ability to communicate with Canadians about proposed budget measures in advance of the tabling of the budget. This represents the fundamental right of the duly elected government to present its plan to Canadians about how it will help them, as is the case with the Speech from the Throne.

These are policy proposals, and their announcement does not, in any way, interfere with the rights of the members of the House. The matter in no way interferes with the rights and privileges of members, as has been established by precedent. Perhaps it is due to the popularity of the proposals with the public that the member may seem be taking some offence.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague provide further thoughts regarding the benefits of the sustainable jobs action plan? We are talking about every five years, and there is a great deal of merit for that. I do not quite understand why the official opposition would see that as a bad thing. It is more of a longer-term plan that could have a positive outcome, when we start consulting with Canadian workers and others to ultimately come up with a plan.

What does he think?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is right in that an action plan is a good thing. The concern is that it does not meet the moment we are in. Talking about an action plan, whether it is December 31, 2040, or whatever it ends up getting moved up to as a result of votes this evening, is not recognizing that we need investments today. We need action today. We need to talk about a just transition transfer today and a youth climate corps today.

There is this idea of one day in the future writing an action plan that could have ideas in it that would have helped us if we had done it in 2024. That is the reality. Our kids are going to look back at this moment and ask what we were thinking. Yes, he is right that an action plan is a good thing. It is not nearly enough if it is some day far in the future, if we recognize we are in the midst of an emergency now.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were procedural games on all sides when it came to December and the discussion on amendments to the bill.

On the member's point about trust, that is a really important one. On that point, we can agree that we need to be doing more to be more honest with workers about what is actually in the bill.

The member mentioned the words “just transition”. This is a term that has been deeply turned into a partisan context. However, the reality is that the term just transition speaks of justice for workers. We need to centre the interests and rights of workers in the transition to a clean economy.

I am disappointed that the term has become as politicized as it has. I am disappointed that it is not in this legislation, because it is workers who fought for it to be in the Paris agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Green Party colleague for his excellent speech. This has happened in politics before. Consider the Parti Québécois. Only three Parti Québécois members were elected in the last election. Now, less than a year later, it is leading in the polls.

There is going to be an election within a year and a half, so there is still time for Canadians to develop their environmental common sense. The Green Party could be leading in the polls before the next election.

I would like to know how the Green Party, if it were in power, would draft a genuine just transition bill. What measures would it include in its draft that could make things better? How would it guard against democracy being thwarted by artificial intelligence or a gag order?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a nice question from my Bloc Québécois friend. If the Greens were in power, they would make the investments and, as I mentioned in my speech about what experts and workers across the country are calling for, they would support a just transition.

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

Before we resume debate, I want to remind hon. members to keep their questions and comments short so that everyone gets a chance to participate in the debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. He did a great job describing the issues associated with climate change and the fight against climate change, as well as ways to approach decarbonization. Frankly, I wish today's debate were more focused on all these aspects.

I would like to ask a question because I too believe that the provinces' jurisdiction should be respected. At the very beginning, when the federal government proposed a price on pollution, it offered the other provinces the option to adopt a system similar to the one used by Quebec and British Columbia.

Would my colleague care to comment on this? Why did the other provinces not opt in to the carbon exchange?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, debates must be held at the appropriate time. Today's debate is not about the carbon tax.

We are currently studying the bill at report stage. At a time when there could have been real debate on the amendments, the government imposed a gag order in committee. That is why the debates could not take place. That is why we find ourselves taking up yet more of the House's time. We are caught up in procedure again this morning with another pointless vote to get back to the orders of the day. Why is this happening? It is to prevent these bills from being passed.

The fault therefore lies as much with the official opposition as with the government, which lacks the will to pass a just transition bill that is coherent and feasible to implement while respecting everyone, including indigenous communities and the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a plan for having a plan.

When the Liberals chose their friends to be on the council to decide on the plan, the eyes of Parliament were not on the plan. I do not think that is in keeping with our democracy.

What does the member think?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, when someone uses artificial intelligence to generate more than 20,000 amendments, as the Conservatives did in committee, I also worry about the impact this may have on democracy. They got robots to think for them so they could filibuster in committee. That bothers me a little.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to clarify the record, artificial intelligence was mentioned. I want to clarify that it was Adam Church intelligence for those amendments.

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

It is a good clarification.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, that is confirmation that the Conservatives did use AI on those 20,000-plus amendments, I see.