Skip to main content
Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 298

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 11, 2024




Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates

Volume 151
No. 298
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Thursday, April 11, 2024

Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus

    The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayer



Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

  (1005)  

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
    While I am on my feet, I move:
    That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
    The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government has just moved a motion, but the Chair had given notice that a ruling on a question of privilege would be forthcoming. Because it is a question of privilege, that always supersedes everything else that goes throughout the day. I was wondering if the Speaker would be delivering his ruling on the question of privilege before entertaining this motion.
    I thank the hon. member. I will consult with the table officers to ensure that is the case.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker, the only concern I would express is that we actually now have a motion on the floor, and I think the motion has to be dealt with before anything else. That would be my interpretation.
    I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary and I would like to thank the hon. House leader for the opposition for raising the point.
    Questions of privilege, once accepted, do supersede other considerations, but the Chair has not given his response to the question of privilege. Yes, the Chair did give indication to the opposition House leader that we will be providing a response to the question of privilege, and I will endeavour to do that as soon as possible, once this matter is dealt with.
     If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
    Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
    Call in the members.

  (1050)  

[Translation]

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 686)

YEAS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Beech
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 164


NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson

Total: -- 143


PAIRED

Members

Barlow
Blois
Davidson
MacDonald (Malpeque)
Plamondon
Rodriguez
Vandal
Zimmer

Total: -- 8


    I declare the motion carried.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[English]

Speaker's Ruling 

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

[Translation]

     In general, the motions most often selected for debate at report stage are those that delete clauses of a bill and those that further amend clauses that were amended at committee. Regarding motions to delete, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle remarked in decisions rendered on June 11, and December 12, 2012, the Chair frequently groups as many of them as possible and applies the vote on one to as many others as possible.
    As for motions that further amend changes made in committee, the Chair often faces a dilemma in deciding how to group them in a way that ensures members can clearly express their point of view while appropriately managing the House's time. Where possible, the Chair has endeavoured to group motions that are similar or that deal with a similar subject matter.
     Finally, the Chair would like to draw members' attention to the note to Standing Order 76.1(5), which states, and I quote:
    For greater clarity, the Speaker will not select for debate a motion or series of motions of a repetitive, frivolous or vexatious nature or of a nature that would serve merely to prolong unnecessarily proceedings at the report stage.

  (1055)  

[English]

    The Chair notes that, in several cases, the same member or members from the same party have submitted a variety of different proposals to amend the same line or lines of the bill. In some cases, each proposal is a slight variation on the other. It would be impossible to apply the results of the vote on one motion to the others, as a line can only be amended once. The Chair has sometimes provided for a distinct vote on each, but in cases where the above-mentioned note seems applicable, the Chair has selected only one proposal per party. I would refer members to a ruling delivered by Speaker Milliken on February 18, 2002, for an example of such an approach being adopted.
    There are 207 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-50.

[Translation]

    Motions Nos. 13, 43, 46, 50, 55, 62, 63, 65 to 68, 70, 72, 73, 81 to 89, 92 to 94, 98 to 100, 103 to 105, 107, 109 to 111, 114 to 116, 120 to 122, 124 to 126, 133, 135, 139, 150, 156 to 158, 167, 168, 170, 173 to 175, 179, 186, 195 to 198, 201 to 203 and 205 to 207 will not be selected by the Chair because they are similar proposals that affect the same lines in the bill.
    All of the other motions will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
    I will now put the following motions to the House.

  (1100)  

[English]

Motions in amendment  

    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting the preamble.
     That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 2 with the following:
“fostering the creation of sustainable jobs;”

[Translation]

Motion No. 3
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 2 with the following:
“fostering the creation of sustainable jobs and, given an anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses plus a further 2,700,000 disrupted jobs, imple-”
Motion No. 4
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 2 with the following:
“menting measures to assist workers;”
Motion No. 5
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 41 on page 2 with the following:
“ing good-paying, high-quality jobs — including, but not limited to,”

[English]

Motios No. 6
     That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 43 and 44 on page 2 with the following:
“trade union — as well as job security, social pro-”
Motion No. 7
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended
(a) by replacing line 48 on page 2 with the following:
“and potential of workers and communities, and”; and
(b) by replacing lines 2 to 7 on page 3 with the following:
“sive economies and societies;”
Motion No. 8
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 3 with the following:
“(v) advance the well-being of workers;”
Motion No. 9
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 3 with the following:
“(v) recognize the anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses and 2,700,000 other jobs which will be disrupted and, therefore, advance the well-being of workers and”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 7 on page 3 with the following:
“communities;”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 3 with the following:
“communities, recognizing that 93% of the oil and gas sector is composed of small businesses each employing fewer than 100 individuals, as well as the achievement of”
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 3 with the following:
"communities and provinces and territories, which all"
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 3 with the following:
“communities, non-unionized workers, non-governmental organizations and”
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 31 on page 3.
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following:
“tories have their own constitutional jurisdiction relevant to the shift to a net-zero economy;”
    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hesitant to interrupt you, as I was the Speaker. I have had my hand up for quite a while, but I did not want to interrupt. I am looking for unanimous consent to see my vote as yes.
    Some hon. members: No.
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 31 on page 3 with the following:
“risdiction, without interference from the federal government, to support the shift to a net-zero economy;”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 3 with the following:
“reduction, are committed to working to ad-”

[English]

Motion No. 19
     That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 3 with the following:
“reduction, are committed to working in their respective areas of responsibility to ad-”
Motion No. 20
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 3 with the following:
“roles in their respective areas of responsibility, given an anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses and 2,700,000 other jobs which will be disrupted, to ad-”
Motion No. 21
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 48 on page 3 with the following:
“zero economy and the creation of sustainable jobs, bearing in mind the disproportionate consequences of this transition on lndigenous peoples,”

[Translation]

Motion No. 22
    That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 49 to 51 on page 3.
Motion No. 23
     That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting the short title.
Motion No. 24
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 25
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 10 on page 5.

  (1105)  

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 10 on page 5 with the following:
“net-zero economy means an economy in which any anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere over a spcified period. (économie carboneutre)”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 10 on page 5 with the following:
“municated in accordance with the Paris Agreement. (économie carboneutre)”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 10 on page 5 with the following:
“net-zero emissions. (économie carboneutre)”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 16 on page 5.

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 5 with the following:
“from the atmosphere. (carboneutralité)”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 32 on page 5.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 24 to 32 on page 5 with the following:
“sustainable job means any job which provides a powerful pay cheque for a Canadian worker. (emploi durable)”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 5 with the following:
“Canada's pathway to achieving a net-zero-emissions future and that reflects the concept of”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 5 with the following:
“decent work, namely work that can support the work-”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 5 with the following:
“decent work, namely work — including, but not limited to, jobs in which workers are represented by a trade union that has entered”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 5 with the following:
“such as fair income, job security and social protection. (emploi durable)”

[English]

    That Bill C-50 be amended by restoring Clause 3 as follows:
    Purpose
3 The purpose of this Act is 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 through a framework to ensure transparency, accountability, engagement and action by relevant federal entities, including those focused — at the national and regional level — on matters such as skills development, the labour market, rights at work, economic development and emissions reduction.
Motion No. 38
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 39
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 40
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 41
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 14 on page 6 with the following:
“through skills development, training, retraining; and”

  (1110)  

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 6 with the following:
“economic development and diversification; and”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 6 with the following:
“eral-territorial initiatives; and”

[English]

Motion No. 45
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 19 and 20 on page 6 with the following:
“Ministers, amend the terms of reference.”
Motion No. 47
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 48
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 6 with the following:
“strategies and measures to encourage growth in goodpaying, high-quality jobs;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 6 with the following:
“strategies and measures to encourage growth in goodpaying, high-quality jobs including jobs in which workers are represented by a trade union — in a net-zero economy;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 6 with the following:
“tainable jobs;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 7 on page 7.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 6 on page 7 with the following:
“ters on potential areas of cooperation in relation to the Sustainable”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 7 with the following:
“ments of the provinces and territories and Indigenous governments in Canada in relation to the Sustainable”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 7 with the following:
“(e) engaging relevant partners and stakeholders in accordance with the terms of”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 7 with the following:
“cluding at the national, provincial and territorial levels, in accordance with the terms of”
Motion No. 58
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 59
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 7 with the following:
“8 (1) The Council consists of no more than 15 members, including two co-chairs, who are to be appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommend-”; and
(b) by deleting lines 19 to 28 on page 7.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended by deleting lines 19 to 28 on page 7

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended
(a) by replacing line 19 on page 7 with the following:
“(1.1) The Council includes the following mem-”; and
(b) by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 7 with the following:
“(b) two members who represent trade unions;
(c) two members who represent Indigenous peoples;
(d) two members who represent industry;”

[Translation]

Motion No. 64
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 7 with the following:
“(b) three members who, among them, represent unionized and non-unionized workers;”
Motion No. 69
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 7 with the following:
“(c) three members who represent lndigenous peoples, of whom at least two also represent workers or employers;”
Motion No. 71
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 25 to 28 on page 7 with the following:
“(e) two members who represent other key stakeholder groups.”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 7 with the following:
“and underrepresented groups;
(a.1) the importance of having a balance of members who represent labour, Indigenous organizations and industry; and”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 8 with the following:
“(i) the key sectors impacted by the shift to a net-zero”

[English]

Motion No. 76
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 77
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 78
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 79
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 9 with the following:
“than October 15 of each year.”
Motion No. 80
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 9 with the following:
“than 20 days after the day on which a fall economic”
Motion No. 90
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 91
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 9 with the following:
“within 30 days after the day on which the Minister re-”
Motion No. 95
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 21 and 22 on page 9 with the following:
“prepare a written response to the Council’s annual report and must make public the response within 120 days after the”

[Translation]

Motion No. 97
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 9 with the following:
“must make public the response within 80 days after the”
Motion No. 101
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 102
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 29 on page 9 with the following:
“search and report on any particular matter specified by the Minister and the Minister may make”
Motion No. 106
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 108
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 15, be amended by replacing line 33 on page 9 with the following:
“activities specified by the Minister within 30 days after”
Motion No. 112
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 113
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 10 with the following:
“Action Plan no later than December 31, 2025 and must”; and
(b) by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following:
    “2025; and”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 10 with the following:
“Action Plan no later than December 31, 2025 and must prepare a new Plan no later than December 31 of every fifth”;
(b) replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following:
“2025; and”; and
(c) replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:
“the fifteenth sitting day of that House after December 31”
...
...

  (1120)  

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 3 and 4 on page 10 with the following:
“Action Plan no later than December 31, 2024 and must prepare a new Plan no later than December 31 of every fifth”
(b) by replacing, in the French version, line 6 on page 10 with the following:
“au plus tard le 31 décembre de la cinquième année.”
(c) by replacing line 10 on page 10 with the following:
“2024; and”
(d) by replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:
“the fifteenth sitting day of that House after December 31”

[Translation]

Motion No. 119
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended
(a) by replacing line 4 on page 10 with the following:
“prepare a new Plan no later than December 31 of every fifth”; and
(b) by replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:
“the fifteenth sitting day of that House after December 31”
Motion No. 123
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 23 on page 10 with the following:
“ing five-year period”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 10 with the following:
“to sustainable jobs for workers, particularly those who are lndigenous peoples or Black or other racialized individuals;”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 24 and 25 on page 10.
Motion No. 129
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following:
“ing the guiding principles set out in the preamble while respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories;”.”
Motion No. 130
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following:
“ing the guiding principles set out in the preamble, including the recognition of an anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses and 2,700,000 other jobs which will be disrupted;”
Motion No. 131
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following:
“ing the guiding principles set out in the preamble, including the recognition that 93% of the oil and gas sector is composed of small businesses each employing fewer than 100 individuals;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 31 on page 10 with the following:
“identified to be implemented,”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 10 with the following:
“relating to skills development and measures that support workers on an”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 10 to line 6 on page 11 with the following:
“include a summary of available data related to economic growth and the labour market in a net-zero economy;”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 11 with the following:
“growth and the labour market in a net-zero economy;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 4 on page 11 with the following:
“and that was used in the development of the Plan, along with a description of how”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 11 on page 11.

[English]

Motion No. 141
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 11 on page 11 with the following:
“graph (c);”
Motion No. 142
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 11 with the following:
“ing data in relation to Indigenous peoples or Black and other racialized individuals, describe”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 12 to 16 on page 11.

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 11 with the following:
“skills development, training and retraining;”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 20 on page 11.

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 25 on page 11.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 11 with the following:
“of the provinces and territories and Indigenous govern-”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 11 with the following:
“ments in Canada in relation to the Plan;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by deleting lines 26 to 31 on page 11.

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 11 with the following:
“territories, Indigenous peoples, trade unions, non-unionized workers, munici-”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 11 with the following:
“tribute to the creation and retention of sustainable jobs and to sup-”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 30 and 31 on page 11 with the following:
“tribute to the creation of sustainable jobs; and”

[English]

Motion No. 154
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 155
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 12 with the following:
“tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15”
Motion No. 159
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 160
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 11 on page 12 with the following:
“federal ministers;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing lines 10 and 11 on page 12 with the following:
“labour market analyses;”

  (1135)  

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 12 with the following:
“isting emissions reduction measures;”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 12 with the following:
“isting and planned emissions reduction measures, together with their implications for workers who are Indigenous peoples or Black and other racialized individuals;”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 12 to 15 on page 12.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 20 on page 12.
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 12 with the following:
“ritories, Indigenous peoples and any other ex-”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 12 with the following:
“perts, partners and stakeholders, including those representing Black and other racialized individuals or from non-”

[English]

Motion No. 171
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 172
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 12 with the following:
“later than June 1, 2034 and additional progress reports”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 19, be amended by
(a) replacing line 22 on page 12 with the following:
“later than June 1, 2028 and additional progress reports”; and
(b) replacing line 25 on page 12 with the following:
“tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 12 with the following:
“later than June 1, 2027 and additional progress reports”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 33 on page 12 with the following:
“(3) Each progress report must describe the progress made towards achieving the milestones under the most recent Sustainable Jobs Action Plan.”

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 12 with the following:
“cent Sustainable Jobs Action Plan.”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 12 with the following:
“of any additional measures that are being tak-”
Motion No. 182
    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 183
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 16 on page 13 with the following:
“Jobs Action Plan, including by coordinating the implementation of measures set out in those plans across federal entities, including those focused — at the national and regional level — on matters such as”

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 13 with the following:
“eral government in relation to”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 13 with the following:
“those measures across federal entities, working within their respective areas of jurisdiction and responsi-”
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 21 to 24 on page 13 with the following:
“(c) coordinating specific federal-provincial initiatives related to the Plans;”

  (1140)  

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 13 with the following:
“al-territorial initiatives related to the Plans;”
Motion No. 189
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 13 with the following:
“ing with the governments of provinces and territories;”
Motion No. 190
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 13 with the following:
“(c.1) serving as a source of information in respect of federal programs, funding and”

[Translation]

    Que le projet de loi C-50, à l'article 20, soit modifié par suppression des lignes 31 à 35, page 13.

[English]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 13 with the following:
“contact in respect of federal programs and”

[Translation]

     That Bill C-50, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 13 with the following:
“services for workers with respect to”

[English]

    That Bill C-50 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

[Translation]

    That Bill C-50, in Clause 21, be amended by
(a) replacing line 1 on page 14 with the following:
“21 (1) Within 10 years after the day on which this Act”;
(b) replacing line 3 on page 14 with the following:
"period of 10 years, the Minister must cause a review of”; and
(c) replacing line 6 on page 14 with the following:
"tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15”
Motion No. 200
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 14 with the following:
“period of 10 years, the Minister must cause a review of”
Motion No. 204
    That Bill C-50, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 14 with the following:
“tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first five”

[English]

    Madam Speaker, in December, while the NDP-Liberals’ self-proclaimed socialist environment minister hung out with 70,000 sanctimonious politicians and wealthy elites at a sprawling air-conditioned steel complex in a major petro-state, without a hint of shame or irony, I might add, who all flew from around the world on publicly funded, commercial and private airplanes and jets, even though virtual attendance was also an option, to scheme up ways to make life poorer, colder, dirtier, slower, darker, more inconvenient, more isolated, more uncomfortable and more expensive for everyone else, the NDP-Liberals colluded to ram through and cover up the pinnacle of their anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-capitalist agenda here at home.
    From away, the minister announced yet more damaging policy for Canadians, and even bragged that he was the first environment minister in the world out of touch and radical enough to do something to Canada that no other major resource or oil and gas-producing country is doing to itself, no other country in the world at all, to impose a cap clearly designed to function as a Canadian oil and gas production cap, which really means a cap on the biggest private sector investor in Canada’s economy; a cap on affordable and reliable power and fuel; a cap on clean tech investment in Canada, which primarily comes from the energy sector; a cap on jobs, on businesses, on tax revenues for social programs and services for Canadians.
    That is not leadership; it is putting one’s own radical activist ideology ahead of the best interests of the people he serves, which are supposed to be Canadians. It is not at all worthy of celebration.
    No other competing oil and gas producer, for which global demand is expected to increase significantly for the foreseeable future, is doing this to themselves. They know it is bad for their citizens and bad for their countries. Rather, it is entitled, out of touch, powermongering and not worth the cost to Canadians.
    The NDP-Liberals do not seem to know or care that petro-state dictators, terrorists and despots who control and weaponize the energy supply against others, and Canada’s best ally, customer and biggest oil and gas competitor, the U.S., are, at best, shaking their heads at our government’s self-inflicted harm on Canadians. Those countries are all ramped up to provide for the world’s energy needs, while Canada is home to an abundance of extraordinary resources, expertise and talent, which are, by the way, leaving in droves for friendlier jurisdictions.
    The NDP-Liberals constantly roadblock, gatekeep, hamper, punish and kill, by delay, Canadian oil and gas development and exports. They reject every ally who desperately wants and needs Canada’s LNG. Their red tape prevents any meaningful production of critical minerals and rare earth metals, since mines can take up to 25 years to get going in Canada, Because of that, everything is broken and nothing can get built under these NDP-Liberals.
    When the PM said he wanted to phase out oil and gas, many thought it was a gaffe, but, it was a tell, and every action, after eight years, shows it.
    On one hand, it was appropriate that the announcement was there, given that it is exactly global planning gatherings for global economic and foreign policy like what happens regularly at the annual COP meetings, and many other global policy focused groups, where this whole concept of the just transition started and where it advances still.
    On the other hand, it was very disturbing, because it truly shows how totally out of touch the NDP-Liberals really are with the realities of everyday life for the majority of Canadians and how far away the NDP-Liberals are from their long-ago empty claims that they valued inclusion, diversity, transparency and, most starkly, democracy.
    The spectacle of the NDP-Liberal collusion and cover-up in the natural resources committee, to impose the globally-planned just transition on Canada and reject nearly all amendments proposed by Conservatives in the early hours of the morning and to silence and sideline every Canadian who will be impacted by the costly coalition’s anti-energy, anti-private sector agenda embodied in Bill C-50 immediately and in the long run, was almost shocking to witness, if it was not such a predictable pattern after eight years.
    If there was any doubt left, it is more obvious than ever that the NDP-Liberals are focused solely on power, not principle; on power, not purpose; on their own partisan, political and parliamentary power and on currying favour with their fellow global policy elites, not on the Canadian people, not on the power of the Canadian people, not on the power to the Canadian people
     Bill C-50 is the NDP-Liberals’ behind-closed-doors, top-down central plan for wide-scale, radical economic restructuring for Canada. It does not even achieve their own stated purpose for their power grab to ram it through, but what else is new with those guys?

  (1145)  

    The truth is that there is not a single tangible skills or jobs training program proposed or even outlined in the bill that the costly coalition says it has worked on, behind closed doors, for nearly two years.
     What Bill C-50, which is the global just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals call it, which is anything but just in every possible way, would do is create a government committee behind closed doors that would create another government committee behind closed doors that would give instructions to governments to centrally plan Canada's economy on a cycle, every five years; soviet-style planning, every five years.
    The words are in the title, but Bill C-50 does not actually mandate any transparency or accountability about the committees, the cost, the membership, their plans, except for the government to table reports, but it is granted extraordinary power to direct governments to radically overhaul Canada's economy and redistribute wealth.
    The NDP-Liberals also know that their agenda in Bill C-50 would kill over 200,000 jobs in energy and threaten 292,000 Canadian jobs in agriculture, 193,000 Canadian jobs in manufacturing, 642,000 Canadian jobs in transportation and 1.4 million Canadian jobs in building and construction. Those last two are 10% of Canada's employment alone. That is what the government's own internal memo about Bill C-50, the just transition, means when it cautions about “significant labour market disruptions” and “larger-scale transformations” to jobs and the economy. It is sneaky bureaucratese and “parliamentese” that is common in government, but its meaning is clear and it should make every Canadian uneasy.
    The NDP-Liberals even know it will lead to lower paid, more precarious work for indigenous and visible minority Canadians, because it is in a memo. They should already know that since indigenous and visible minority Canadians work in the energy sector at double the rate of other sectors. However, the NDP-Liberals do not care.
     They will stick with their cruel carbon tax, their energy export ban, Bill C-48, and their half a decade old unconstitutional Bill C-69 and fight for their crazy plastics as toxins decree, even though provinces, indigenous communities and entrepreneurs challenge the NDP-Liberals on all of those harmful anti-energy agendas and policies through federal court and to the Supreme Court.
    The NDP-Liberals that know that some Canadians will be hurt more than others. People in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta will be “disproportionately affected”, but the NDP-Liberals do not care.
    Bill C-50 would build central planning ideological bureaucracy, not Canadian skills training programs; bureaucracy, not Canadian jobs; bureaucracy, not Canadian businesses; bureaucracy, not Canadian clean tech.
    Canadians might be wondering what the heck is going on here. The truth is that the NDP-Liberals cooked up up Bill C-50 behind closed doors for about two years, introduced it last summer, with a last-minute spin job name change, and no debate. Before the committee even reported on what, in hindsight, was clearly a collusion charade to appear to help create the legislation in the first place, they brought it back in the fall; shut it down with less than a normal business day of debate for all MPs of all parties; spent a month obsessed with blocking Conservative MPs at committee; and censored any MP and any Canadian with a different view or even with any reasonable questions about their plan, which they imposed through a top-down edict from the House of Commons. By the way, that was used only twice in urgent scenarios in nine years under the previous Conservative government, but has been used at least 10 times by the costly coalition.
    Let us talk about the kinds of amendments that were rejected, amendments that were proposed by the Conservatives.
    We proposed measures to: ensure access to affordable and reliable energy; ensure a strong export-oriented energy sector; avoid regulatory duplication and necessary delays; outline how the federal government would help ensure the affordability and reliability of energy; improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth, private sector investment, the creation of sustainable jobs; ensure that major and clean energy projects under the federal regulatory framework could be delivered on time and on budget; the importance of collaborating with all levels of government, including provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and all relevant partners and stakeholders; the inclusion of representatives of provincial, territorial and indigenous governance bodies; measures to recognize local and regional needs, including indigenous communities; ways to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities; ways to promote economic growth, including the economic growth indigenous communities; mandate meaningful consultation and to account for the cultural values, aspirations, strengths; and to include at least two members who represent indigenous organizations, at least one of which has a substantial interest in Canada's natural resources sector.

  (1150)  

    The Liberals even rejected an amendment where Conservatives called on achieving a fair and equitable plan. The Conservatives will be—
    I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.
    Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
    An hon. member: Listen.
    That is the problem, I was listening.
    Madam Speaker, the amount of information coming from the member was somewhat misleading. One would think that we have shut down the oil industry completely. By mid-July, we will have had more oil going from Alberta to the west coast than Harper did in 10 years.
    In fact, with respect to the TMX, I would like to quote her idol of all premiers, Danielle Smith. Danielle Smith said that the Prime Minister “made the right decision to purchase the project six years ago.” If memory serves me correctly, that very member was soundly critical of the Prime Minister's decision back then. I wonder if she would agree to flip-flop on that position in support of her idol, the Premier of Alberta.
    Madam Speaker, on what planet have I ever advocated and would ever support the concept of requiring taxpayer subsidies and governments to nationalize and socialize the energy sector in Canada? The Conservatives, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, eliminated the vast majority of direct subsidies to oil and gas companies, yet the Liberals, who I have been happy to defend for the last nine years, have taken care of the rest that was left.
     It is true that they have given a historic subsidy to an energy pipeline that never required a single taxpayer cent. All it required was a government to assert provincial and legal jurisdiction to ensure the private sector proponent could build its approved project and create jobs to the benefit of all Canadians.
    I want to remind members that unless they are being recognized to speak, they should not be yelling across the way. All members should not be having conversations across the way, no matter who they are.
    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Madam Speaker, that was a master class in disinformation, but it was a dismal example of what we have seen from that member in misrepresentations.
    I was fascinated that the last time she did one of her spiels, she claimed that Bill C-50, which came to us from working with labour unions and energy workers, was a “woke globalist agenda.” Now, “globalist” has become very much identified as one of the key hate terms of conspiracy theories, and one of the people promoting hate conspiracy is Alex Jones, who of course is supporting the present leader.
     I would like to give her the opportunity to explain why her party is so tied into using the hate language of Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and the extreme right on language like “globalist.”
    Madam Speaker, it just happens to be the case that I have an academic background in political philosophy and globalism is a legitimate and actual theory of policy development. The just transition has been developed over time at global gatherings of countries that are imposing global policies or are aiming to impose global policies on countries around the world.
    The Conservatives want to bring home energy jobs, energy businesses, energy technology and energy brainpower to the benefit of all communities in our country. We want to green-light green projects. We also know that part of the way it must be done, because the vast majority of clean tech investment in the private sector comes from the energy sector in Canada right now, is to accelerate and expand the development and the exports of Canadian oil and gas, technologies, clean tech and expertise around the world to help lower global emissions and get our country back on track so Canadians can once again afford fuel, home heating and housing.

  (1155)  

    Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Lakeland is my friend. Among the things she has said that need correction is that it was possible to participate in COP28 virtually. It was not. That is why the Government of Alberta sent so many people and so did the Government of Saskatchewan. The size of the Canadian delegation ballooned with members of the delegations of those provinces, that did not contribute to the negotiations at all but held side events for publicity against action on climate.
     I wonder if she wants to correct the record while she has the chance.
    Madam Speaker, I know that it was possible to participate in COP21 virtually, because our shadow minister for the environment did. He participated virtually.
    I just want to acknowledge and credit the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party members here. Conservatives are the only pro-energy party and, therefore, the only pro-Canada party in the House of Commons. Of all of the anti-energy parties, the Bloc and the Greens are at least honest about Bill C-50 and what it is.
    I want to say to the member, whom I also consider a friend, that she should be asking the Liberals why they rejected amendments from the Bloc which actually did talk about ensuring sustainability and reliable jobs and actually taking the needs of workers into account. Those amendments would actually have done what the Liberals claimed this was to be all about: jobs, skills training and an upskilling program. Of course, it is not that at all, and I would note that the Liberals rejected all of those amendments too.
    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-50, which can be summed up in one short sentence: It is an act to promote Liberal friends to fancy boards and to destroy the economy of western Canada. There is an obsession by this radical socialist environment minister to push his not-so-hidden agenda on Canadians, to wipe oil and gas production off the face of the earth and ensure that we all live in energy poverty.
    If members do not believe me, they can listen to his own comments. He said that fossil fuels must be phased out by 2050, and even earlier if possible.
    Let us contrast that statement with some comments from Japan’s ambassador to Canada about the role we could be playing in the world’s future energy mix, in particular when it comes to LNG: “The world is waiting for Canada...Canada can and should play a very important role to support the energy situation not only in Japan and South Korea, but the world.”
    When it comes to Canada, we are the closest market to Japan and South Korea that could be providers of clean, sustainable and affordable LNG. Canada has a natural advantage in producing LNG, because of the naturally colder climate that we have for more than half of the year. Japan and South Korea are trying to find ways to avoid being energy-dependent on nefarious players like the Communist regime in Beijing. As the Japanese ambassador said, we have an important role to play, but the world is still waiting.
    Look around the rest of the world, and we can see what other options there are available to us for selling our LNG. Last year, we saw Germany, Italy and France sign long-term LNG supply agreements with Qatar, but only after they came to Canada asking us to be their provider of choice. They came to us because they did not want to go to a country with a deplorable human rights record, like Qatar. They did not want to go to a country that is housing the leaders of Hamas, but, because of the minister’s blind and radical loathing of our world-class energy sector, he said no. The Liberals left those countries with no choice but to basically support the enemies of one of our most important allies, Israel, and in February it was announced that India and Bangladesh are signing agreements, and so has a Chinese company as well.
    It is a shame, because if we look at the way the world is right now, there is both a moral case and a business case for producing and exporting Canadian energy, in particular our LNG, but the Liberal government does not get it. We have a radical environment minister and his incompetent Prime Minister, who apparently would rather see energy deals go to a country that houses the head of Hamas than to Canada, with our high standards for things like human rights, high regulatory standards and an abundance of supply.
    How does that make any sense?
    When the government stands against Canadian energy, we are not doing the world any favours. At the same time, it also hurts a lot of people in our own country, who benefit from having a successful energy industry here at home. There are so many communities that rely on the oil and gas industry for their survival. It is the industry that keeps the lights on at the hockey rink, at the community centre and at the seniors centre, and that pays the royalties and taxes that are needed to invest in things like hospitals, schools, libraries and emergency services.
    Here in Ottawa, if we walk down the street across from Parliament, there is a good example of two different billboards, one after the other, that highlight the social benefits of the oil and gas sector. The first billboard says that Canada needs a fully funded Canada disability benefit. The second billboard is a message from Canada Action, and it says, “As Long As The World Needs Oil & Natural Gas Shouldn't It Be Canadian?”
    Why are those two billboards related? It is because the royalties and the tax dollars that are raised when the energy sector is going strong fill the government coffers with the necessary money to invest in those types of social programs. They cannot exist or succeed in the first place without generating a significant amount of revenue from our energy sector.
    As much as the NDP-Liberals keep trying, we cannot get away with spending money that we do not have. Sooner or later, it runs out, and bad things start to happen, like some of what we are seeing now with inflation. As we know, the Prime Minister does not have the type of common sense or self-control as the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, to be able to implement a one-for-one policy, whereby for every new dollar of spending the government has to find a dollar of savings.
    As such, when the government sets out to destroy the very industry that massively funds government programs and the equalization payments that prop up Quebec, everyone loses. That includes indigenous communities as well.
    Natural Law Energy is a company made up of a group of first nations in Saskatchewan and Alberta. They wanted to invest in the Keystone XL pipeline expansion so they could increase their cash flow, which would support their people. It would have been a great opportunity for economic reconciliation. Do members remember when the Prime Minister claimed that no relationship was more important to him than the one with first nations? Apparently, he said that for his own political gain, because once he had a chance to put his words into action, he was nowhere to be found, other than to say that, no, they do not get to participate in the economy or have any economic self-determination and reconciliation.

  (1200)  

    Then there are the thousands of jobs and economic spinoffs that come from having a robust oil and gas sector in an area. There was a local news headline in my riding recently that read “April Oil and Gas Public Offering Shows Kindersley Area Generated $234,074.68 in Revenue”. That is just from one public offering. It does not include all the wages of workers in the area or the money they are spending in their community.
     This past winter was like every other winter across the Prairies, and we had some strong cold snaps. More urgently, there was a period of time when Alberta was sending warnings to its people to reduce their power consumption to avoid rolling blackouts during peak times when the temperature was in the -40°C range.
     How could this happen to a province like Alberta? It had an NDP government that drank the same Kool-Aid as the radical environment minister and decided to close down the reliable, affordable baseload power and replace it with expensive, intermittent wind and solar power. The irony is that it was not due to a lack of wind. There is enough wind most days to produce power. The issue was that it was so cold that it was not safe for the turbines to operate. I have actually worked in the wind industry, and I know that actually happens, because it happened all the time on the wind farm I worked at. Quite often, in the winter, it was also overcast, and the days are short, so there was next to no solar capacity that was actually available. The previous NDP government in Alberta literally almost killed people because of its radical ideology.
     Thank God that Saskatchewan had the ability and the capacity to fire up Boundary Dam Unit 4 to be able to help provide power to our neighbours. Thank God that our province has invested in natural gas power stations like the Chinook Power Station in Swift Current, which can provide the equivalent baseload power to hundreds of thousands of homes. If the Liberals’ radical agenda is allowed to proceed, this is only going to be the beginning, and this is just a snapshot of what we can expect. The Liberals have this idea that any new natural gas has to be phased out by 2035 too, if not sooner.
     I met with some of the turbine suppliers, and they were willing to tell me some of the timelines to get the parts needed to build a plant now. In some cases it might take up to 10 years to get all the parts they need to build a power plant. It is the same story about trying to procure solar panels and wind turbine equipment, because there is minimal manufacturing in North America for that equipment and that industry as well. However, in order to comply with the regulations that the government is rolling out, they have to be in operation before 2035. Simply ordering the power plant prior to the deadline is not good enough. Canadians are at serious risk of being plunged into widespread energy poverty, but the Liberals know that. The regulations that are published in the Canada Gazette told us that the people most at risk or most likely to already live in energy poverty are single mothers and seniors living on a fixed income, and those regulations would disproportionately impact those people.
     The Liberals also know the devastating unemployment that their transition is set to cause. The natural resources minister received a memo discussing exactly that. The Liberals' own government document says that their so-called just transition will affect over 200,000 workers in the energy sector. That is listed as 1% of our employment rate and, with how unemployment numbers are already rising, we really cannot afford for that to keep going up.
    The memo also happens to mention 292,000 workers in agriculture and 193,000 workers in manufacturing. Does anyone really believe that the Liberals are going to replace hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line?
    Combine all this with the carbon tax, the Liberal fuel regulations, the emissions cap regulations and other burdensome regulations like the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and it is quite easy to see the place where the Liberals are trying to take us. Their plan punishes Canadians, and it will bring misery and devastation upon them.
    Thank God that there is an election on the horizon, in which Canadians can give this radical socialist environment minister the boot and get Canada back on track with a Conservative government that would axe the tax and fix the budget so that Canadians can get back to living in prosperity instead of poverty. Canada can become an energy-independent country that no longer relies on imported oil from dictators. We can use our own resources to produce what our country needs and what the world needs: clean, affordable, ethical and sustainable Canadian energy. Only a Conservative government would get it done.

  (1205)  

    Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to Conservatives speak to this legislation. Obviously, they are four-square against the legislation. They are in election mode. They hate this legislation.
     Canadians need to have an understanding of what is actually in the legislation itself that the member is so adamantly opposed to, such as the sustainable jobs partnership council. What is wrong with a council working with Canadians in communities, looking at sustainable jobs into the future and providing a strategic annual report and a report that comes out on a five-year plan? What is wrong with that?
     The Conservative Party believes, at the end of the day, that anything that includes the word “sustainable” or “environment” is bad for Canadians. I have news for the Conservative Party: These are good things. Working with Canadians is a good thing. Why is the member opposed to that aspect of the legislation?
    Mr. Speaker, there are so many things wrong with this bill. The member referenced part of it. As I said in my opening, this is an act to promote Liberal friends to fancy boards. That is all that is going to happen. There is going to be a board of Liberal elites who are going to write reports to talk down to and explain to the provinces and the people in the community I represent how they should live their lives and that what they are doing is wrong.
    We have seen the job numbers from the internal government briefing department that said there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to be destroyed. Where are they going to be destroyed? They will be destroyed in southwest Saskatchewan, in Lakeland, in Battle River—Crowfoot, in Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, in Grande Prairie, in Fort McMurray and all over western Canada. It is going to have a ripple effect across the entire country. The Liberals have failed to recognize it, but Canadians know it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I am a little shocked to see the use of yet another gag order in the House. The truth is, this principle does not respect the spirit of the Constitution.
    Here is another thing that does not respect the spirit of the Constitution: infringing on provincial jurisdictions. Employment falls under provincial jurisdiction. Has my colleague done anything to ensure that this will be respected? Do any of the amendments tabled by the Conservatives seek to defend provincial jurisdictions?
    This is a new card that the Conservatives are playing. We have been hearing about it since yesterday. I am curious to hear more about it today.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great question because he is exactly right. The development of natural resources is the sole purview of the provinces. We have a government, propped up by the NDP, that wants to infringe upon provincial jurisdiction yet again. It likes to do it all the time and then it likes to blame the provinces when it does not go the way it thought it was going to go.
    I absolutely agree with my Bloc colleague on time allocation. When it came to tabling this bill, there was one day of debate, and the second day started with time allocation on the bill to make sure there was limited debate. This is a pretty substantive piece in the Liberal government's cog of shutting down the western economy and it wants to limit debate as much as possible. When it came time to have witnesses at committee, we also had a very limited amount of time to get witnesses from our communities to come to speak. If we want to hear from the provinces on this, we need to make sure people from the provinces can come to committee and speak.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Speaker, I hear that the member and his party are opposed to the legislation, but there is a climate emergency happening. There is a climate crisis and it is impacting Canadians across the country. We need to invest in sustainable jobs.
    Putting the legislation aside, I am wondering if he can at least agree to those principles.
    Mr. Speaker, one of the big crises right now, along with the energy crisis, is the food crisis. We have people lining up at food banks by the millions just trying to get a meal. That is the crisis our country is facing right now that needs to be addressed immediately.
    Let us also look at some of the data that exists. We know that the energy sector at large has reduced emissions intensity by over 30%, while increasing production. The province of Saskatchewan has reduced methane emissions by 60% without a government mandate, because industry has figured out a way to do it on its own and it knows it was the right thing to do.

Official Report

    Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
    That, on Divisions Nos. 683 and 684, the votes of the members for York—Simcoe and Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies in favour of the motion be struck from the record.
    All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. I hear none.

[Translation]

     The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

    (Motion agreed to)

[English]

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

    The House resumed consideration of Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
    Mr. Speaker, the father of 20th-century modern management, Peter F. Drucker, once said, “There is...nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all.” That quote depicts the foundation of the just transition act that we have before us today.
    There is nothing just about forcing a transition on an industry or on a community that has made it its life journey to produce the cleanest energy products the world has ever seen, especially knowing that through global turmoil, food insecurity and increased energy demands, the world's hydrocarbons will continue to be needed as a solution to humanity's woes and not, as ideologists would have us believe, as the cause of those woes.
    To ensure that, should the world decide that its energy demands will be satisfied by strong environmental hydrocarbon-producing countries, we as Canadians will continue to be there to answer the call, but we will not be there if Canada’s major economic driver is brought to its knees by the twisted ideology of the government and its anti-energy partners.
    The Conservative leader has said that we will unleash the growth within our economy, that with our most powerful resources, produced in the most environmentally positive way, there will be benefits to our people and to the environment at the same time. We will not follow the Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP masters, to push production out of Canada and, thus, toward other countries that pollute more, burn more coal and put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with no remorse.
    The Prime Minister would sooner drive production away from Canadians, who already have the cleanest electricity grid on planet Earth, toward other nations that, frankly, are incapable of change or just do not care.
    By using the wealth generated by our essential hydrocarbon resources, we can protect the environment and prevent the loss of billions of dollars of stranded assets owned by provinces and first nations, and use our innovative skills to move the global needle of greenhouse gases to a level that would satisfy all but the most radical eco-activists.
    At the natural resources committee, we have had much debate on the future of Canada’s hydrocarbon industries. I find it unbelievable that the natural resources minister, along with his cohorts in cabinet, would actively pursue a framework to handcuff one of Canada’s greatest assets. Of course, all of this discussion has been created because of the planned attack on resource development in Canada. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource development law, never happened and if tens of billions of investment plans not been shelved, then the government would not have had to produce legislation to prop up the ghost towns that it is actively creating.
    The Liberal just transition action plan is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill off 170,000 Canadian jobs and to put at risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadian workers. This is a plan that creates subsidized jobs, not sustainable jobs. Conservatives do not believe in a central-planning “Ottawa knows best” approach that tells private sector energy companies how to run their operations. The government cannot even track emissions properly.
    As a member of the natural resources committee, I have asked multiple times for an analysis of the full life-cycle impact of all the projects we have, from the first shovel in the ground to the last shovel used to cover up those projects. The government has no clue, yet we are to trust it to dictate to industries how to best run their operations. I think not.

  (1215)  

    Oil and gas are still Canada’s largest export sector, and it is so important in the development of renewable and alternative fuels of the future to have it strong and to keep it strong.
     The Liberals and their NDP cohorts are ignoring cost, technology and infrastructure demands. Reports vary on how the federal government has underfunded its climate plans. RBC had a report that stated that the government needed to spend $2 trillion to make it to net zero. It published a supplementary report saying Canada could capitalize on the global increase for oil and gas and still meet its net-zero targets with investments from the profits, but the government turned its back on our allies while peddling technology and alternative fuel sources that cannot be produced at a commercial rate.
    A Conservative government would unleash the energy sector while fostering technology and innovation to protect our environment, so that more Canadian energy would get to the world to displace dictator energy and create jobs and powerful paycheques for Canadians.
     Let us be clear. There is noting just about this transition and tax plan the Liberals have. Chief Dale Swampy said, “There is nothing fair or equitable about what is happening today.”
    After eight years of anti-energy messages, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, an outright veto of an approved export pipeline and the imposition of project-killing Bill C-69, despite universal provincial opposition, the Liberals have made no secret their intention to accelerate the phase-out of the oil and gas sector in Canada.
     It is sad. First nations communities are begging the government to get out of the way and let them produce the resources on their land so that their communities can thrive. Our global allies are begging for our help to get off Putin’s oil, so they can have a stable and ethical energy source. All the while, the government believes that if it cannot be produced, it cannot be shipped and, therefore, its ideological push will win.
     The reality is that everyone loses, but the government is too self-absorbed to see that. Canada should be the world’s go-to energy producer and supplier of choice, and be energy secure and self-sufficient as well. Instead, the Liberals put ideology and partisanship above reality and the economy.
     Politicians should be honest about the outcomes of their policies. Too often with these Liberals we see them fall back on wordsmithing and absolve themselves of any negative socio-economic consequences of the so-called just transition concept for Canada. This needs to stop.
    Many times we hear about how the world is changing and how important it is for us to keep up with our European partners. Perhaps the government should be paying attention to what is happening in Europe. The mood has changed. Governments in Europe are starting to recognize the consequences of this blind action. They are listening to their people.
     That is the problem: We do not have a government that is prepared to vary, in any way, from the path that it has set forward. It is not listening to the people. Here, it is understandable that they do not listen to opposition parties, but it had best be listening to the people in their ridings. The mood has changed, and it is important that all parliamentarians recognize that. If we do not, we will be left behind by a world that is looking for Canadian energy.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party is taking such an objection to having more workers and communities at the table. This legislation would create opportunities for connections and for providing annual advice to the ministers, ultimately leading to five-year plans.
    I actually believe the Conservatives used AI in order to generate 20,000-plus amendments.
    That is false.
    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that is false.
     Maybe the member could tell me if the Conservative Party actually used AI to develop the 20,000-plus amendments that it introduced at the committee stage. Could we get a simple yes or no? Did Conservatives actually use AI?
    Mr. Speaker, I have just gone through all of the amendments, and I agree with every one, especially the ones I put my name to that talk about making sure that we pay attention to indigenous groups and to our communities. Every one of those that I have put my name to has been researched and dealt with. That is the first part.
    The second part is about our five-year plans and new deals. We are all banned from Russia right now, but I was there back in the eighties playing hockey. When I did that, and when we were there, we happened to be there during the two weeks the Soviet party in congress was coming together to talk about what the next five years were going to be. Do members think they were listening to their people or to themselves?

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and, especially, for the tone of his speech.
    We may not agree on the content, but I appreciated the thoughtful way he presented his arguments, which is in stark contrast to what happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in December, when the heckling actually prevented informed voting by some members and was a health hazard for the interpreters.
    Does he agree with me that this was undeniably the wrong approach to take in committee? On behalf of his colleagues, does he regret that this happened? Should his colleagues have instead followed his example and presented their arguments thoughtfully and calmly, like he did today?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the compliment. I appreciate it.
    There are times when people are provoked, and I think this is the part that one should be aware of. Not everybody hears all of the things that are said, and that can be a reason behind tempers getting hot. I prefer to make sure that we keep the temperature cooler, but I also think it is important that we speak to the strengths we have as a nation.
    I have always stood up for Quebeckers, for their energy sources and for that type of thing. I get frustrated when people say, “That is fine, but we are just going to shut someone down”. That is a bit of a problem I have; nevertheless, I think we have all of these strengths in every province. That is what we should be concentrating on.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Speaker, in response to my question to the member's colleague, the colleague really said that we need to let industry regulate itself. When it comes to oil and gas CEOs, they are raking in record profits. The CEO of Suncor, Rich Kruger, said that he is no longer going to focus on emissions reduction and that he is just going to focus on profits. Suncor is already making record profits, and these companies are gouging Canadians at the pump while Canadians are struggling with the cost of living.
    I am curious whether the member agrees with his colleagues that we need to let big polluters pollute for free and not be regulated, or whether he would stand up to say that these rich CEOs need to stop gouging Canadians and bring down their emissions.
    Mr. Speaker, Suncor is an energy company. Many of the items it is dealing with, and what it is doing, are renewable energy projects, so there is a mix. There is money being made throughout it. Perhaps there is money being made in the investments they have in solar and wind, but some of that is perhaps coming from government and the policies we have. I think that is important, but it is also important that we recognize what that does for our communities and what it does to make sure we have a health care system and a solid structure throughout our communities.
    Madam Speaker, it is a privilege today to rise to speak to Bill C-50. I have spoken to it before. As well, I sit on the natural resources committee, and this is a bill that we studied. We heard a lot of testimony from different folks with all aspects of concern for and support of the bill. I plan to use my time this afternoon to make my case as to why this legislation is bad for Canadians and show the correlation between this bill and the carbon tax.
    I will address the legislation directly, but I will take a bit of a roundabout way to get there, so I ask for the Chair's indulgence to do that.
    Only the Liberal government would have the audacity to put forward this piece of legislation and call it a “sustainable jobs” plan. Bill C-50 is simply a rebranding of the Liberals’ so-called “just transition”, a plan that would shut down Canada’s energy sector and move to what they claim will be a more green, sustainable and just economy.
    The Liberals could not sell it under that name. Nobody was buying it. Now, just like a shifty used car salesman, they have slipped on a new coat of paint and jacked up the price. It seems that the Liberals’ new approach to legislation is to title their bills to say the exact opposite of what they are actually going to do because, to date, the government has failed spectacularly at meeting one single environmental target.
    The Liberals love to talk about the environment, but their first act in office was to authorize the City of Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. I think most Canadians would call that making pollution free again. Their promise to plant two billion trees never materialized. The said it would be two billion tree over 10 years. They have now had eight years. The time is nearly up, yet how many have they managed to plant? What percentage of those trees are in the ground after eight years? It is 0.05 of 1%, which is not even 1%.
    They keep talking about net zero, and it is all over this bill, but the government has yet to meet a single emissions reduction target. It keeps upping what it says it will achieve, when it has not met a single target of it should have achieved.
    Again, the government talks a big game, but it does not execute. Across the board, whether it is the economy, immigration, getting a passport or something as simple as sticking a sapling in the ground, it just cannot get the job done.
    If we are going to talk about the environment failures, we need look no further than the carbon tax. The Liberal, NDP, and now the Bloc, carbon tax continues to drive inflation and drive up the cost of living for struggling Canadians because the carbon tax is a tax on everything.
    The only thing, it seems, that remains unaffected by the Prime Minister’s beloved carbon tax is the environment. That the carbon tax has made little to no difference to the environment should not surprise us. The whole thing is a scam. It is another smoke-and-mirrors sales job, just like its “just transition” to cover up the government’s actual goal, which is its real agenda, the one thing that it has so far been successful at achieving, which is the redistribution of wealth.
    That is what the carbon tax is all about. It is what a significant portion of its COVID policies were all about, and that is what this legislation is about. It is a classical Marxist redistribution of wealth.
    Members can remember that day a while back when the Minister of the Environment got up in the House to proudly proclaim that he was a socialist, and all the Liberals around him applauded.
    It was shocking, not just because of the dark and bloody history associated with such regimes, but also because a Liberal minister actually got up and told the truth about what they were doing. That is what this legislation is about. It is about the government picking winners and losers based on a warped ideology and redistributing wealth and opportunity to those it deems worthy. As retired General Rick Hillier put it just this week, “Ideology masking as leadership killed the Canadian dream.”
    Before they start to claim that this is some far right MAGA conspiracy, I would point my colleagues to an excellent article written by Dr. Vijay Kolinjivadi. He is a post-doctoral fellow at the Institute of Development Policy at the University of Antwerp, an expert in the social and economic ramifications of climate change. Dr. Kolinjivadi is a firm believer that climate change is an existential threat. He says that we western governments are “'greening' ourselves to extinction”.

  (1230)  

    What Dr. Kolinjivadi means by that, and he makes a very convincing case for it, is that the so-called green policies of this and other western governments, or what he calls “fake” solutions, not only do nothing to stop climate change but are in fact a smoke-and-mirrors job to help governments and wealthy investors get even richer off the backs of the middle class and the poorest, most vulnerable, people on our planet. That is what he meant when he said that we are “'greening' ourselves to extinction.”
    He is not alone. There is a growing recognition across the political spectrum that what these governments are doing, what our government is doing with these policies, is about wealth redistribution and not the environment. How do they do it? They do it by destroying the middle class. How did they do that? Members can look no further than the effect its COVID and environmental policies have had on our economy in just the last three years.
    Can Canadians, particularly those would be the most affected by this legislation, Bill C-50, trust the Liberal government to transition them in a just and sustainable way? I think not, but I like to judge a person by what they do and not what they say. That brings me back to the carbon tax.
    Let us look at the three main government talking points about the carbon tax. The first is that the carbon tax is putting a price on pollution. This is false. Eight billion litres of raw sewage went into the St. Lawrence River, and there was no price on pollution there. The carbon tax has made no demonstrable change to emissions, and no targets have been met, nor will they be, at least not from the carbon tax.
    Those on the political left say that the tax is too low to force people to modify their behaviour. They complain that it leaves exemptions for large emitters, which it does. Those on the right are equally correct that taxing carbon in Canada is virtue signalling at best as Canada accounts for a mere 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that, if we were to shut down every single carbon-producing thing here in Canada, shut our whole economy down, we would make a whopping difference of 1.5% globally. In questioning the sanity of ignoring actual pollution while taxing a life-enhancing element of the very air we breathe, now, with Bill C-50, Liberals want to spend billions more of taxpayers' dollars to shut down not only the largest private sector driver of our economy but also the largest private sector driver of green and renewable technology as well.
    The second talking point is that eight out of 10 Canadian families will receive more money back in rebates than they paid into it. That is false. Rex Murphy pointed out, in his excellent piece in the National Post:
    Name a tax that makes the taxpayer richer. What a strange incentive that would be. Half of Canada would be upping the thermostat, putting the air conditioner on in winter, and driving day and night to burn up oil and gas so that they could get more back than they put in.
    As the PBO has made clear, one is not getting more money back, and hardly anyone is. In fact, by the time the tax is fully implemented in 2030, eight out of 10 households will pay exponentially more, which is a fact even our proud socialist environment minister has admitted to. No tax makes the taxpayer richer. It only makes the government richer, which leads to the third claim.
    The third talking point the Liberals have about the carbon tax is that it is revenue-neutral. This is false. Even if we were to believe the principle that the taxes collected all go toward rebates, which makes no sense, the Liberals are charging GST on top of the carbon tax, and that goes directly into the government’s coffers. We have learned recently that it is holding back billions of dollars collected by the GST on the carbon tax.
    All three talking points are demonstrably false. By the way, the Liberals love to repeat their talking points, but one we have not heard in a while is that they are supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it. I guess that has changed.
    However, what is true is that this tax, like so many others, is costing Canadians more money at a time when most cannot afford it, and despite its obvious failures, the Liberals continue to double down on this failed policy. Why is that? It is because it is successful in one metric, and one metric only, which is the redistribution of wealth.
    It is to the destruction of the middle class to make more money for billionaires and Liberal insiders and to force more everyday Canadians into total reliance on government. This bill, Bill C-50, would do the exact same thing. It is just the next step in the plan. The Liberals’ so-called sustainable jobs plan would actually kill 170,000 Canadian middle-class jobs, displace 450,000 middle-class workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians.
    In short, the Liberal government's just transition is anything but just, and its sustainable jobs plan is anything but sustainable. When those jobs have gone, as they were during COVID, when everyone but the giant billionaire chains were shut down, where else will people turn to but the government?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Speaker, really, the most difficult output of fossil fuels is when they are burned for fuel. However, other things could be done with the things that we dig up out of the ground.
    Could the hon. member talk about the innovation in the petrochemical industry? Has he heard from the industry about the sort of things that could be done that would certainly make for a very bright future for the petrochemical industry when we, at least, rely a lot less on burning it for energy?
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else we would do with fossil fuel energy other than burn it. I suppose plastics and rubber could be made out of it. That would be certainly useful and seems to be working. However, there is a ban on plastics.
    I have said before, here and at committee, that when I go to McDonald's or Burger King, and try to slurp up their super thick strawberry milkshakes, their paper straws collapse. That frustrates me to no end, it is true.
    The member raised a good point as it allows me to, again, indicate that Canada's oil and gas industry is the biggest contributor, the biggest researcher and developer of renewable energy. That has been proven. The industry has shown that. The industry is looking to green things up as much as it can as well and to be environmentally responsible.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, there is one thing my colleague did not really focus on and did not say much about. That is, of course, economic growth in a so-called net-zero economy. That is part of the bill. It is an essential part of the bill.
    How can this become a reality under a Conservative government, given the Conservatives' love of oil? Is it possible, conceivable and realistic to talk about a net-zero economy?

  (1240)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, similar to how I answered the previous member's question, the oil and gas industry is doing lots of research and development into transitioning to other energy sources that contribute less CO. When we allow something to naturally transform, and when the economies actually make sense in terms of producing energy in an alternative method, it will happen. It should not require government influence.
    This bill would require billions of federal taxpayer dollars to be successful, and we will have to subsidize those sustainable jobs. It really is what the government called it initially: At best, it is a transition bill.
     Uqaqtittiji, a Calgary economic development study estimated that Alberta could see $61 billion pumped into its economy through clean technology investments.
    Does the member agree that transitioning to sustainable energy is the way to go, so provinces such as Alberta could continue to see their economies grow?
    Mr. Speaker, if the member is concerned about job growth and the economy growing in Calgary, the oil and gas industry in Alberta has proven that it has excellent corporate citizens. It has been the best thing that ever happened to the Alberta economy.
    If the government were to wilfully shut that industry down, displace 450,000 workers and put 2.7 million people at risk, that would not be very prudent at all.
    Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I agree with my friend from Provencher on one point. This bill should have been called the just transition act. The government and governments around the world, largely because of the work of Canadian trade unions, which were in Paris at COP21. They worked hard to ensure that climate action would not compromise the jobs of workers in the fossil fuel sector and that they would receive help and support.
    As a Maritimer, I lived through what was called the “TAGS program” or the “groundfish strategy”. They told workers who had just lost all their work from the cod fishery to trade the fish net for the Internet; these were ridiculous notions.
    We need to support the workers and communities that are going to be impacted by the climate crisis and by actions to address it. This bill is the result of the Liberals trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths, while accomplishing nothing.
    Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said: This bill would accomplish absolutely nothing, and the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
    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’”.

[Translation]

    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.

  (1245)  

[English]

    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.

[Translation]

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

[English]

    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.

[Translation]

    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.

[English]

    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.

[Translation]

    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.

[English]

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

[Translation]

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

[English]

    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.

  (1250)  

[Translation]

    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.

[English]

    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.
    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?
    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.

  (1255)  

[Translation]

    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?
    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.

[English]

    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?
    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.

Privilege

Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures  

[Privilege]
    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.

  (1300)  

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Government Orders]
    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.

  (1305)  

    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.
    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?

  (1310)  

    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.
    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.
    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.

[Translation]

    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?

  (1315)  

    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.
    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.
    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.

  (1320)  

     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.

  (1325)  

    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?
    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.
    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?
    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.

[English]

    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.
    It is a good clarification.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, that is confirmation that the Conservatives did use AI on those 20,000-plus amendments, I see.
    The debate is between AI and AC.
    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
    Mr. Speaker, as members who are elected to represent our constituents, we know this needs to be at the core of all of our decisions and discussions, to ensure that we have sound climate action that matches the emergency we are facing with a real jobs plan.
    My colleague prior mentioned the Youth Climate Corps and the importance of this being implemented. It is a motion that has been put forward by my NDP colleague, the member for Victoria, to ensure that young people are part of the solutions, that they are trained, employed and part of the work in lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
    Could the member share whether he is in support of this motion as well as share his thoughts on how this important work aligns with what we are talking about today?

  (1330)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, obviously, I will always be in favour of proposals that seek to improve conditions for young people, particularly proposals that take into account education, the possibility of getting better jobs that will bring them into harmony with the planet. Above all, I support the idea that young people should be able to enrol in regional educational institutions close to where they live and where we are witnessing the development of our energy sources and the extraction of minerals such as strategic critical minerals.
    Yes, I do think we have to support this. There are some excellent initiatives under way, particularly at the Abitibi-Témiscamingue CEGEP and the Université du Québec, to reflect on issues such as social licence, the need to better harmonize these projects with our communities, greener mining, innovation and improved mineral processing.
    I would like to quickly say that I saw a small box at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières that shows the consequences of soil degradation on a site over 50 years. This is made possible by research and employment. It is done through knowledge. We need to encourage this, and the federal government has a responsibility in this respect.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, today is an important day and a proud day. It is a day that we fulfill the promise to workers who came to us and said that they needed to have their voices heard in dealing with the biggest economic and environmental crisis of the last 300 years.
    I think back seven years ago, in Edmonton, when I met with the incredible workers at Local 424 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. They had asked me to go to their plant and meet with them. They wanted to show me the incredible training they were doing for a clean-tech future. They said that the world was changing and they were not going to be left behind, that they had the skills to take on whatever. They also said, which I knew then and believe, that there was no place in the world that could move to a clean-energy economy quicker than Alberta, and these workers were at the front of the line in the training.
    They asked me where the government was on this. They saw the future coming. That question has stayed with me ever since. In the seven years since, the climate crisis has become much more pronounced. We no longer talk about the summer, we talk about the fire season. Our national fire chiefs have talked about a ferocious fire season after last year, when 200,000 Canadians were forced from their homes because of the ongoing climate disaster due to increased burning of fossil fuels.
    However, we also see how fast the transition is happening around the world. It is not a myth. It is not a lie. It is not, as the Conservatives claim, some kind of globalist woke conspiracy. It is a fact. When the market changes and we do not have a plan, it is heartbreaking.
    I live in mining country. I remember when the market changed in iron ore prices. Kirkland Lake and my community of Cobalt were never the same again. I remember being on one of the last shifts underground at Stanleigh Mine in Elliot Lake when the uranium market fell. It did not matter how much one believed in disinformation or claimed there was a conspiracy, once it was gone, those jobs were gone forever.
    We have lost 45,000 jobs in the oil sector, and those jobs are not coming back. We lost 1,500 jobs just this year. Richie Rich Kruger from Suncor told investors in his company, which was part of the group that made $78 billion in profits, that he was going to target work as a way to be more efficient. The billions of dollars they are making they are putting into automation. They are not putting it into communities or jobs. We are seeing a reality where there will be a drop in oil and gas jobs, we figure from 171,000 down to 100,000 by 2030. Therefore, we have to be prepared.
    When we lost our mining economies in the north, there was no plan. There was no place where people could go, and it was devastating. We talk about a just transition. I always say it is a transition where I come from when we see U-Hauls on the lawns of our neighbours, who are leaving with no future.
    The IBEW, the operating engineers, Unifor, the Canadian Labour Congress came to us and said that there had to be a plan in place, otherwise we would miss the boat. The transition is happening. China put $890 billion into clean tech last year, more than the rest of the world combined. The result was that it pumped $1.6 trillion into its economy and brought it up 30% in a single year. It is moving ahead.
    South of the border, Joe Biden's IRA has created 170,000 jobs and over half a trillion dollars in new investments. What we hear from the Conservatives now is that this is some kind of George Soros woke conspiracy that is being planned, a planned Soviet economy to destroy jobs. It was the workers themselves who came to us and said that we needed plan in place, that they did not want all those jobs going stateside.
    Where are we in Canada? Danielle Smith blew $30 billion in clean-tech investments out of Alberta and said that they were not welcome. Why? It was just out of ideology. This is a province that was Canada's energy superpower and she cannot even keep the lights on in April. It is becoming Canada's banana republic for energy at a time when the climate crisis in Alberta is burning the fields. We are in fire season already and it does not have the water. We have never heard a single Alberta Conservative ever talk about the drought that is hitting due to the climate crisis. We need to take action.
     It is a reasonable step that we are talking about. We need to ensure this transition happens, and, for my Liberal colleagues, that plan is not moving fast enough. We have to keep up and we have to be competitive, but we need to have workers at the table. They have a right to be at the table, because decisions will be made. It could be pork barrel, misspending or it could be a plan that ensures we build on the strengths of the workers we have and our incredible resources.

  (1335)  

     It is amazing. The other day the leader of the Conservative Party was asked about his opinion on the industrial carbon tax, and of course after having belittled the member for Victoria, which is very much in keeping with his style, he claimed there was no industrial carbon tax. It is a falsehood.
    We have this funny tradition in Parliament. One can come into the House and lie all day long, but one can never be accused of being a liar because one is supposed to be an honourable member. The fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is making disinformation about the industrial price of carbon is a concern. Maybe he just does not know his file, but I do not think that is the case.
    The Conservatives this morning, with some of the numbers they were talking about, were trying to claim that Bill C-50 is some kind of plot. They were saying that there were 1.4 million jobs, 170,000 jobs and 200-some thousand jobs that would immediately disappear if this happened. One can only make ridiculous claims like that if one deliberately shuts down the voices of the people who came to testify.
    What happens when legislation is brought forward, and it can be good or bad and can be amended, is that we hear from the witnesses. Who were the witnesses who were not allowed to speak? The Conservatives did not allow the IBEW to speak. They did not let the carpenters union speak. They shut them down. It was the New Democrats who brought the people who have gone through the coal transition, and the Conservatives did not give a darn about those workers in the coal transition. They did not want to hear them. They did not want to hear anyone from Unifor. Those are the people who are working in the EV technologies. They shut them down and would not let them speak. They did not want the Alberta Federation of Labour to speak.
    They did not want that, because if they let people speak who actually speak the truth, then disinformation falls by the side of the road. They cannot then walk around with claims of conspiracy and idiocy if there are people who say something is simply not true.
    When one says to Conservatives something is simply not true, they really lose their minds. Look at the Conservative leader and his support from Alex Jones. Alex Jones is an absolute hate-monger. This is a man who taunted the families of 20 children who were murdered by an evil conspiracy hater. Alex Jones was on the John Birch Society podcast, which is another hate site, bragging about the member who lives in Stornoway. Does anyone think he was going to challenge that? Not a chance.
    However, I challenged Alex Jones, and within an hour, photos of my daughters were online with their addresses. We know how the hate machine works. It is the politics of intimidation. When I take on the member for Carleton for not even bothering to show up for the election he is threatening to call, boy oh boy, within an hour their hate memes are going through my riding to call me and threaten me.
    What Conservatives wanted to do was shut down Bill C-50. When they brought forward the amendments, most of which had to be generated by AI because I do not think the Conservatives were smart enough to actually bring them forward, we had to sit through hours with them screaming. They screamed for eight hours of intimidation. It was like gong-show Brownshirts. In all my career, I have never seen such deplorable and disgraceful behaviour.

  (1340)  

    We have a point of order from the hon. member for Lakeland.
    Mr. Speaker, that member just likened duly elected members of Parliament on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to Brownshirts.
    Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, everybody knows what the term “Brownshirts” refers to. It refers to Nazi Germany. This member is effectively calling Conservative members on that committee Nazis. He needs to immediately apologize. It is a disgraceful remark.
    The hon. member should retract that.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing, because I think if you looked into the—
    Mr. Speaker, for that exact member to be characterizing the actions of my duly elected colleagues, who are Conservative members on the natural resources committee, in the way that he has actually lines up perfectly given that he told me to “eff off” in the committee meeting—
    That is descending into debate.
    Let us go back to the issue of being judicious with the words we are using.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.
    Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the politics of intimidation. I was talking about how my daughter's photos were being posted online. I was talking about—
    We have another point of order.
    The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
    Mr. Speaker, I have neither heard a retraction nor an apology. You asked for it. It needs to be explicit. We need to hear it in this chamber, not just a running over of it like it did not happen.
    The member should retract and apologize.
    The usage of that term is not correct. Could the hon. member retract it and then move on?
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Mr. Speaker, I was pretty sure that I used it as a simile, that these were the tactics they were using—
    Retract.
    Mr. Speaker, I retract it, but I do know that they have met with neo-Nazis from Germany. That is a separate issue.
    Mr. Speaker, the member has been here a long time and will hopefully not be here much longer, but he has been here long enough to know that one cannot say indirectly what one cannot say directly.
    He knows that. He should know better. He needs to apologize or leave the chamber.
    Would the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay please retract and apologize for the usage of that term?
    Mr. Speaker, yes, certainly, I retract it, but I will now go back to the point—
     Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    I cannot hear anything, so I would not know.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Mr. Speaker, it is very telling because we did have to listen to eight hours of screaming, shouting and intimidation—
    The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.
    Mr. Speaker, you have asked for an apology and you have yet to receive it from the member. It is on his watch to deliver that apology and for you to enforce it or to eject the individual.
    Still on the same point of order, I see the hon. House leader for the NDP.
    Mr. Speaker, the member retracted. I would ask members of the Conservative Party to actually listen to his speech and allow him to continue.
    Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, I would draw your attention to the Debates from February 12, 1997, at page 8014, 8016 and 8017, in which the Speaker found that the unwillingness of the then member for Fraser Valley East to fully retract and apologize without conditions constituted a breach of the authority of the Chair and subsequently named the hon. member, pursuant to Standing Order 11.
    I suggest that this is a similar case to that.
    Let us try once again to retract it and apologize so that we can move on.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, go ahead so that I can hear it.
    Mr. Speaker, you did hear it before, so you will hear it again: I retract and I apologize.
    I certainly apologize, as well, for anybody who had to watch the behaviour of the Conservatives who shut down our committee with screaming, shouting and intimidation for eight straight hours. The reason they did that was so the public would not hear these facts, which is why we have to deal with these constant interruptions. When we talk about facts with Conservatives, they are threatened by them.
    I think I made a very clear—
    We are saying not to have conditions to the apology and the retraction.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Mr. Speaker, I will say this for the third time: I retract it. I apologize.
    Can I continue?

  (1345)  

    You may continue.
    Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that we had to witness the abuse at that committee—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Mr. Charlie Angus: Mr. Speaker, that is within my purview—
    This will be number three.
    The hon. member for Lakeland.
    Mr. Speaker, the member is fully displaying his contempt for democracy and for the duly elected members of Parliament who represent our constituents in this place who may have different views and opinions from him. He actually did not apologize. He retracted and defended himself. The end of his comments were actually to further reinforce the truth of the assertion that he made.
    This entire thing is such a charade. I do not know why we have rules in this place, at committees or in this chamber, if they are not going to be applied equally and fairly all the time.
    We are getting into debate a bit.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    Mr. Speaker, when you rise in the chair, I hope Conservatives will respect that and sit down. When you rise, that is a signal for Conservatives to sit down.
    I very clearly heard the member for Timmins—James Bay. He retracted and apologized—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Members should stop yelling. Do that first so that I can hear what is happening on the floor. I cannot hear a darn thing because everyone is yelling.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
    Mr. Speaker, if you, with order in the House, allow the member for Timmins—James Bay to continue, he has information. It is true that Conservatives disagree, but they are just going to have to listen respectfully, in the same way that we listened to their speeches respectfully a few hours ago.
    When I ask someone to retract, they are to retract or apologize but not to provide any other comments. Let us just move on to the next thing. There will be no “buts”, no “ands” or anything like that. Let us just have a straight-out apology.
    Let us try it, for the fourth time, without the “but”.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Mr. Speaker, I do not want to challenge you, but I think it will be the fifth time I have retracted and apologized.
    I can do it a sixth time: I retract and apologize.
    Can I continue?
    You may continue.
    Mr. Speaker, we dealt with 20,000 bogus amendments from a party that did not want any worker representation at the table. There were 20,000 bogus amendments and we were shouted at when we tried to talk about how none of these were actually generated by real people. That is the nature of democracy in our House. Then the Conservatives said they were going to make us vote all weekend.
    In my final moments, I will say that we have the Conservative leader, who has refused to apologize for his connections with Alex Jones and has refused to distance himself. We are now dealing with the politics of disinformation. I certainly hope I see the Conservative leader today; it is an important issue.
    If Conservatives are going to make us vote all weekend long, I will be here. I made a promise to workers in Alberta, I made a promise to miners and I made a promise to people working in the auto sector that we were going to make sure that they had a voice at the table, no matter what the Conservatives did to try to interrupt us.
    Mr. Speaker, we just saw a demonstration from the member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay of why he will not run for re-election. He does not represent any of the views of his constituents.
    The reason he said he will be here all weekend is that—
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, those were absolutely inappropriate, disingenuous comments.
    This is questions and comments on the bill, not personal attacks. The member should know better, and he should retract and apologize.
    Not that I am supposed to comment on the debate that is happening, but it is coming from all sides at the moment.
    The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
    Mr. Speaker, I will take no lessons in honour from the NDP House leader, who has no lessons to give.
    I would ask the member for Timmins—James Bay if he could put it on the record today and talk about some of the oil workers he has talked to in his riding and share their comments on the unjust transition bill. Has the member had conversations with some of the people who work hard? He talked about the Alberta Federation of Labour. I am sure the members of the natural resources committee talked to them as well.
    I believe our natural resources committee members on the Conservative side have canvassed far and wide to hear how people feel about the unjust transition act. Has the member? If he is so confident, maybe he should decide to re-offer and run again in Timmins—James Bay.
    Mr. Speaker, who have I spoken to? I have spoken with the carpenters union. I met with them in Edmonton. I have spoken with operating engineers. I visited the IBEW in western Canada multiple times. I have worked with Unifor in western Canada. I have worked with the Canadian Labour Congress. I have worked with United Steelworkers District 6, who represent the mining communities, and United Steelworkers District 3.
    Does the member know what they all said to me? They all asked why the Conservatives were running this relentless gong show to try to stop their members from being heard on issues related to their futures and their jobs. That is who I hear from. I do not hear from Alex Jones. I do not hear from the far-right extremists. I hear from people who work and who have a right to be heard and who are being denied their right by the constant interference and undermining of basic legislation by the Conservatives.

  (1350)  

    Mr. Speaker, the majority of members inside this chamber recognize the importance of Bill C-50 to Canadians as a whole.
    What we have witnessed, once again, is the obstructive, destructive behaviour coming from the official opposition. We can highlight what took place in committee, where AI was used to generate 20,000-plus amendments. I am wondering if my colleague could share with me what he thinks about AI being used to generate a filibuster for the official opposition.
    Mr. Speaker, that is a very unfair question because if the member asks me what I think of having to bring in artificial intelligence to deal with the Conservatives, they might light their hair on fire even more.
    The fact is that the Conservatives can only get away with the kind of junk talk that they get away with if they shut down people who actually have facts. That is why they intimidate, shout, have the hate machine, and get up and scream every time I speak. That is why they tried to shut down all the proper witnesses at committee, and then screamed and shouted in the most deplorable, ignorant manner I had ever seen during votes. While the democratic work of Parliament was attempting to go ahead, they were trying to stop Parliament from doing its job.
     They are trying to stop it today. I will be here until midnight. I hope the member who lives in Stornoway will be here to represent his people.
    Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from the member for Timmins—James Bay. He speaks the real truth, and this is something I know Conservative members object to because facts are something they oppose. However, the reality is that the sustainable jobs act would lead to thousands and thousands of jobs, including new jobs in the energy sector. Coming from the energy sector, as a former refinery worker, I can say how important that is for Canadians.
    The member for Timmins—James Bay has been a champion for sustainable jobs. He has met with a wide variety of workers right across the energy sector. At any point in all those meetings, did my colleague ever see a single Conservative MP actually consulting energy workers or actually speaking with energy workers? I know the Conservatives love to hobnob with oil and gas CEO's, but were they ever there with the workers?
    Mr. Speaker, that is a really interesting question because certainly every time people who were workers from the energy sector came to speak, the Conservatives shut them down and refused to speak. When we went out to Alberta to meet with and to learn from the coal workers who had been damaged in the transition, the Conservatives were not there, and the Conservatives did not let them speak at our committee.
     The Conservatives also do not want people speaking to the facts that clean energy jobs are taking place and that we have 209,000 clean energy jobs now in Canada, and we are looking at another 190,000. In fact, Alberta alone would have been the world centre for new jobs if it had not been for Danielle Smith and the disinformation team, like the Tucker Carlsons, who believe in the globalist agenda; the Alex Joneses, who believe in the globalist agenda; and the member for Lakeland, who believes that standing up for workers is somehow part of a globalist conspiracy. That is false. That needs to be called out as false. That is disinformation. It is conspiracy, and Canadian workers deserve a lot better than that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a common-sense piece of legislation, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. This is legislation that will enable Canadian workers to succeed. That is what it is all about.

  (1355)  

[English]

    I will be honest, and I think I am just going to riff a bit here. Honestly, I could not stay in the House for very long. I needed to find a wall to bang my head against while I heard what I heard from the other side of the House, or what little we could hear with their heads in the sand.
    Let me be very clear about the context in which we are discussing this proposed legislation. Green energy is happening. Renewables are happening. Biofuels are happening. Hydrogen is happening. Lowering emissions in the oil and gas industry in Alberta, in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan and in Newfoundland and Labrador is happening.
    One thing I learned as minister of natural resources is that workers want to know, want to understand and want to have a say in what is happening. If members were to blame anybody for the shenanigans of what we have heard over these past few months, I guess they will have to blame me because I am the one who thought maybe it was a good idea to set up a committee that would involve workers so that we could take their advice on the big issues facing the fourth biggest producer of oil and gas in the world, which is Canada. We are very good at doing what we do, but all these things that I am talking about and all the investments, prosperity and the jobs that come with those things are happening, and we have to make the most of them.
    When we came up with this legislation, we did get a reaction from workers. We got a reaction from the International Union of Operating Engineers who said that the act “puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.” We heard from the president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who said that this act shows the government's “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.” Canada's Building Trades Unions welcomed the bill, saying that the consultation built into this process would “ensure workers are front and centre during this transition”.
    Just to be clear for the Leader of the Opposition, these are the workers who actually wear steel-toed boots every day.
    I could go on, but I know that the party opposite does not put much stock in what workers want. Why would they, when their leader has spent his entire career trying to bust unions and the workers who were in them? If they will not listen to workers, maybe they will listen to industry.
    The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs”. He also said that the act would help “equip [Canada] with the skills for the jobs of our future economy”.
    From Clean Energy Canada: “deliverables and measurements for success while coordinating across the many federal departments...[a] commitment to centring indigenous voices”.
    I could quote more leaders from industry, but then the Leader of the Opposition also has no respect for the people spearheading our resource industries after he said, “I meet with resource companies when they come to Ottawa, and all they do is suck up to the [Liberal] government. They have no backbone and no courage”.
    I could list a slew of support that this legislation has from leaders in the climate and environmental sector, but I think I will go out on a limb and say that the party opposite probably does not hold much for them either, which begs the questions then: Who are they listening to? If it is not unions, if it is not workers, if it is not industry, if it is not business, Lord knows it is not science, and it is not environmentalists, then who are they listening to?
    I will commend their efforts though. When the opposition decides to fight for something for no good reason, they will do it with so much conviction and creativity that we might think they have an actual cause.
    After question period, I look forward to getting into the 14 pages of this piece of legislation, which, in effect, says that workers should be heard. What are the opposition members afraid of? Workers in the oil and gas sector in my riding, in my province, have told me time and time again that they will no longer be left out. They will not longer be marginalized. They will no longer be rage farms. On my watch, they will be included.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

  (1400)  

[English]

George Garrett

    Mr. Speaker, metro Vancouver has lost yet another media legend, George Garrett. Known far and wide as the intrepid reporter, George passed away on March 18 at the age of 89.
    George was legendary for many reasons, not the least of which was his incredible Rolodex of contacts with personal phone numbers for police, prosecutors and politicians, including mine.
    He was legendary for his disarmingly friendly and gentlemanly demeanour. George could charm his way into gathering new scoops that kept CKNW, his radio home for 43 years, way out in front of the pack of press and broadcast reporters. He had a unique balance. He was tough, but as I experienced personally, one could always trust that one would get a fair shake from George, which is why people would answer when he called.
    George received many awards, but I think the biggest one was the respect and admiration of his peers and of his community leaders alike. Now, when news reporting is more important than ever, we should all hope to see more like him.

Cost of Living

    Mr. Speaker, last weekend, I was out door knocking in my riding of Niagara West, and next door, in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was our Conservative candidate Ned Kuruc.
     The topic that came up most was the cost of living. Folks at the doors said that the basics are getting too expensive and that things are getting worse. Many cannot pay their monthly bills. They are getting further and further behind. It is difficult to pay the mortgage. It is difficult to pay the rent. Grocery prices are through the roof. Gas prices continue to go up. Utility bills for home heating are getting ridiculous. When all is said and done, paycheques do not cover the bills at the end of the month.
    Most people said that the policies of the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have put them in the financial position they are in. Higher carbon taxes, inflation caused by reckless spending and high interest rates all create the perfect storm to drain the family budget. However, if we were to ask those guys across the aisle, they would deny causing any of it. It is mind-boggling. They have been in government for more than eight years, and they are responsible for all of it.
    For my constituents of Niagara West, the Liberals are just not worth the cost.

Oral Health Month

    Mr. Speaker, last week, for Oral Health Month, I went to the Gleam Smile Centre in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. I met with owner Julie DiNardo and her daughter Victoria, who operate the clinic as independent dental hygienists.
    Treatments at Gleam help patients manage mouth bacteria and avoid trips to the dentist for expensive fillings, replacement crowns, implants and gum surgery. Less harmful bacteria in the mouth means better outcomes and lower health care costs.
    Perhaps, even more importantly, healthy mouths improve general health. Good dental hygiene means lower risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes, unstable diabetes, Alzheimer's, cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, just to name a few. Our Canada dental care plan is making it easier for people of Hamilton Mountain and people across the country to get access to this life-changing care.
    I send a huge shout-out, massive props and effusive thanks to all oral health professionals across the country.

[Translation]

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Mr. Speaker, this year, Canada will be chairing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP.
     Among the goals it has set for its mandate is the development of a path forward on accession that involves considering whether applicant economies meet the standards set out in the agreement, comply with their trade commitments and have the consensus of all signatory nations.
     Taiwan, which applied in September 2021, clearly meets the criteria for becoming a member of the CPTPP. Taiwan is a reliable trade partner with which Canada has signed an investment promotion and protection arrangement, and it is a robust democracy that shares many of our values.
     In our opinion, Taiwan deserves a place in the CPTPP as well as in other international organizations, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Health Organization, and adding it as a member would benefit these organizations and the world in general.
     Canada must insist that accession to the CPTPP be approved based on the established criteria, not on pressure exerted by some applicant economies, such as the People's Republic of China, on certain member nations.

[English]

Organ and Tissue Donation

    Mr. Speaker, April is Be a Donor Month. Communities and advocates across Ontario are encouraging people to register for organ and tissue donation.
    There are more than four million people across the province who have already registered, starting in my riding of Nickel Belt. One organ donor can save eight lives, enhancing the lives of up to 75 people through tissue donation. Currently, about 1,300 people in Ontario are waiting for a life-saving organ transplant.

  (1405)  

[Translation]

     On April 7, we marked Green Shirt Day in order to pay tribute to Logan Boulet, who became an organ donor following the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus accident in 2018.
     I would like to thank Logan and all those who have given the gift of life. I would also like to thank the volunteers and staff at the Trillium Gift of Life Network for their work, as well as Canadian Blood Services of Greater Sudbury for its ongoing awareness activities.

[English]

Sikh Heritage Month

    Mr. Speaker, on behalf of common-sense Conservatives, we wish all Sikhs across Canada a happy Sikh Heritage Month and a very happy Vaisakhi.
    To be a Sikh is to always courageously stand up for justice and humbly serve society's most vulnerable. It is to be a beacon of hope and to be uplifting, like a lighthouse, to help others to safety. It is to selflessly serve others above all else by the grace of God. Canada hosts the largest Sikh diaspora in the world, and we recognize the immense contributions of Sikhs to Canada through their seva.
    Organizations such as the Dashmesh Culture Centre in Calgary, the Guru Nanak Food Bank in Surrey and Khalsa Aid truly embody the teachings of the Khalsa. For generations, Sikhs have added the wealth of their history and traditions to our communities, strengthening the bonds of freedom and prosperity that have made Canada so great. Conservatives share the deep-rooted values of faith, family and freedom with the Sikh community.
    I wish all members a happy Sikh Heritage Month.
    Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh vadhaiyan.

Jay Williams

    Mr. Speaker, recently, Scarborough faced the loss of a beloved educator and community leader. The news of Jay Williams' death at the age of 40 is a tragic loss for the community.
    Jay Williams was an educator with the Toronto District School Board, most recently working with the TDSB's Centre of Excellence for Black Student Achievement to develop strategies to dismantle anti-Black racism in schools. He grew up in the Malvern area and will be remembered as a beloved teacher at several middle schools across Scarborough. As a teacher, he focused on making the classroom experience more culturally relevant to Black students. He started clubs, coached sports and served as a role model to thousands of teenagers in Scarborough.
     My condolences go out to Jay's family, including his mother, Senator Paulette Senior, and his father, Ron Williams. He will truly be missed.

World Parkinson's Day

     Mr. Speaker, today marks World Parkinson's Day. In Canada alone, more than 100,000 people live with the disease, and there are hundreds of thousands more Canadians who are friends, family and caregivers of those living with Parkinson's. They are deeply impacted, too.
    Recently, my own family suffered a great loss with the passing of my uncle Robert, my dad's brother, following a 20-year courageous battle with Parkinson's.
    Last week, my colleague, the member for Milton, and I joined his dad Joe, my cousin David, Tim Hague of U-Turn Parkinson's, Kyle Connor of the Winnipeg Jets and others to raise awareness as the Jets played in front of a sold-out home crowd. Thanks in large part to the leadership of Kevin Donnelly and Mark Chipman from the Jets' organization, nearly $100,000 was raised at that game to help U-Turn Parkinson's deliver services with a focus on physical activity to support those impacted.
     I am proud that U-Turn Parkinson's operates in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre. I am incredibly grateful to the Winnipeg Jets, and people such as the member for Milton's dad, Joe, and my uncle Robert, for their courage and commitment to ensuring more Canadians learn about this debilitating disease.

Malcolm Montgomery

    Mr. Speaker, as members of the House, we are all given the remarkable gift of having our words etched in time. I believe the highest honour we can bestow upon someone is to say their name in the House.
    I rise today to speak of my dear friend and longest-serving staff member Malcolm Montgomery, who passed away in November after 31 years of service to Parliament. He was my first campaign chair and a big reason a riding held by Liberals for over 80 years fell to the upstart of the Canadian Alliance.
    Malcolm put in long hours and put up with a demanding boss because he was filled with passion. He was passionate about politics, policy and Parliament. He was passionate about Canada, Canadians and our history. He was passionate about his community, his friends and above all his family: his wife Debbie and his children, Gord, Cameron and Neil.
    To meet Malcolm was to experience the full force of his enthusiasm for life. While Malcolm is no longer with us, the House will remember him eternally.

  (1410)  

World Parkinson's Day

     Mr. Speaker, ever since my dad Joe's Parkinson's diagnosis, he has made it his personal mission to improve the lives of Canadians living with Parkinson's disease.
    When he moved to Winnipeg, he met the legendary Tim Hague from U-Turn Parkinson's. It uses physical activity programs to improve the daily lives of people living with Parkinson's disease. My dad is also a huge Winnipeg Jets fan, and it turns out that the Jets' top scorer, Kyle Connor, also has a family connection to Parkinson's disease.
    Through the leadership of Kyle, Kevin Donnelly, Mark Chipman and everyone at True North Sports and Entertainment, the Winnipeg Jets supported U-Turn Parkinson's with its fifty-fifty raffle draw last week. I was able to join with my colleague, the MP for Winnipeg South Centre, to watch the Jets clinch their playoff spot. My buddy even leant me his favourite Teemu Selanne jersey, and we participated in the cheque presentation of almost $100,000 to U-Turn Parkinson's.
    Today, I am wishing everybody in the PD community a productive and happy World Parkinson's Day, and I hope the advocacy continues throughout April. I thank Tim Hague and U-Turn Parkinson's for everything they do for people living with Parkinson's, and I thank the Jets for being awesome corporate sport citizens. I wish them luck in the playoffs.

[Translation]

Carbon Tax

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition is not worth the cost. This coalition continues to display contempt for farmers by radically increasing the carbon tax and voting to amend our common-sense Bill C-234.
     From the outset, this government has shown Canadians that it simply does not see farming as a priority. In my opinion, it is simple: no farmers, no food.
     Farmers are being ignored in favour of a higher and higher carbon tax on heating their buildings, drying their grain and feeding our cities. I am talking about government regulations and taxes. As the Journal de Montréal reported this morning, carbon pricing in Quebec is adding to the cost burden faced by farmers. Unfortunately, the carbon tax is not the only thing that is crushing our farmers. The government's failure to enhance support programs for farmers is also taking a toll.
     The Conservatives will continue to fight and support farmers, starting with passing Bill C-234 in its original form in order to lower the cost of food and help our farmers stay afloat.

[English]

Carbon Tax

    Mr. Speaker, the government just slapped Canadians with a 23% carbon tax increase on April 1. It did this while food banks are servicing a record number of hungry Canadians and farmers are struggling to keep up with crippling taxes. The government needs to pass Bill C-234 in its original form to remove the carbon tax on farmers and help bring down the cost of food for all Canadians.
    Conservatives have sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. Common-sense Conservatives will not agree to support the budget unless Liberals axe the tax, build homes and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar of savings for every dollar of spending.
    The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Labrador

    Mr. Speaker, as members know, I am a proud Labradorian and Canadian. This year marks a significant milestone as we pay tribute to the Labrador flag and its 50-year legacy, a testament to our shared identity and resilience as Labradorians.
    It is with deep appreciation that we commend Michael and Patricia Martin of Cartwright, Labrador, who, 50 years ago, had the innovation and foresight to create the enduring symbol of Labrador pride. Since its inception, the Labrador flag has transcended boundaries, embodying unity, remembrance and celebration of Labradorians across the globe. Its iconic design and vibrant colours serve as a constant reminder of our collective heritage and the unwavering spirit of Labradorians.
    Today, we rejoice in 50 years of the Labrador flag. Labradorians join me in thanking Pat and Mike Martin for this wonderful gift and to say: fly the Labrador flag with pride.

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, the nightmare in Gaza continues.
    Over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed, including over 14,500 children. Families have gathered for Eid. They have gathered in the rubble, hungry, and mourning their loved ones who have been killed.
    Just last week, we were horrified by Israel's killing of seven workers with World Central Kitchen, including one Canadian. More than 200 aid workers have been killed by Israel. It is clear that the Netanyahu far right government will continue the killing, in large part because of the complicity and the empty words of countries like ours.
    We are witnessing a dystopian nightmare that is all too real, with AI drones and cold-blooded calculations of how many innocent civilians it is okay to kill at one time. We now hear that former prime minister Stephen Harper heads up one of the AI firms used by Israel.
    We are also hearing about Canadian tax-deductible charities that are fuelling the war on Gaza. Canada must end its complicity on all fronts. It starts with recognizing Palestine as a state, including full membership at the UN, bringing in a real two-way arms embargo. It means taking a stand against genocide and standing up for peace and justice.

  (1415)  

[Translation]

Taiwan

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec cares about its relations with Taiwan.
     We announced last December the opening of an office in Montreal, which will undoubtedly facilitate exchanges between this fascinating, technologically advanced nation—particularly in the field of semiconductors—and our city, which a great sovereignist premier, Bernard Landry, once saw as a leader in this same field.
     The Bloc Québécois unreservedly supports Taiwan's entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While we had and continue to have reservations about the substance of this massive trade deal, any nation wishing to take part in such a pact should be able to do so as long as it meets the admission criteria.
     Another of Quebec's great sovereignist premiers, Jacques Parizeau, was fond of saying that a country's size mattered little as long as the country belonged to a large marketplace. This small island will prove an invaluable asset in the global supply chain, and the entire world will be the better for it.

[English]

Finance

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister has shamelessly delivered record high deficits, driving up inflation and causing sky-high interest rates. His government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. Food banks received a record 2 million visits in a single month last year, and a million more are expected to use food banks this year. He has added more to the national debt than all previous prime ministers combined.
    While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the PM is spending more than ever. Now, a leading economist says that rate cuts may be delayed because of high government spending. We saw that this week, when the Bank of Canada held its rate in efforts to maintain its policy of quantitative tightening.
    Canadians are seeing that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister cap his spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule and bring down interest rates and inflation, or will he continue to make Canadians pay for his failures?

[Translation]

Two Lebanese Philanthropists

    Mr. Speaker, Bishop Ibrahim Ibrahim and Abou Fayssal, a Lebanese businessman who helms an association industrialists from Zahlé and the Beqaa, are leading humanitarians in their country. These men care about the environment. They have planted 128,000 trees for the sole purpose of protecting the environment, and they will continue to do so.
     Philanthropists dedicated to providing humanitarian assistance, Bishop Ibrahim Ibrahim and Mr. Fayssal offer support to widows and orphans. They pay hospital bills for the poor and offer medical equipment to their regional hospital that treats people in need free of charge. They are recognized for their creativity.

[English]

    As I am a chair for the Canada-Lebanon Friendship Group, I thank both of them.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

[English]

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, we already know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, and after eight years, the Prime Minister is no longer even listening to Canadians. There is a 23% carbon tax hike when Canadians cannot afford to eat. Yesterday, the House passed a Conservative common-sense motion calling on the Prime Minister to convene an emergency televised carbon tax meeting with all 14 premiers. The Prime Minister is hiding, but maybe someone over there can tell us this: What day will the televised carbon tax meeting be?
    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.

  (1420)  

    Mr. Speaker, this is false, and that was not an answer.
    Canadians need relief, not more Liberal taxes. Seventy per cent of Canadians are now saying so. One in 10 people in Toronto is now relying on a food bank, and more than half of Canadians are $200 away from missing their bills. If the Liberals are not going to listen to Canadians and if they are not going to give us a date, can the member tell us what channel the carbon tax meeting will be on?
    Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the channel is that they should be plugged into, but it is the reality channel. Back here in the real world, there are real jobs at stake; there are real opportunities at stake, and there is affordability at stake. These members of the robo-caucus with its robo-amendments are in the way of opportunity and the way of progress and clean technology in this country. They need to get out of the way, stop the gatekeeping and let Canadians create the wealth that we need to succeed.
    Mr. Speaker, once again, the member did not answer the question. I am not really sure what that was. He will not listen to Canadians; the Liberals will not listen to their NDP caucus. The Prime Minister will not listen to his successor, Mark Carney, who also wants him to meet with premiers. They will not give us a date, they will not give us a time, and they will not tell us what channel to watch. The Prime Minister will not even show up here in answer to this motion. The Prime Minister is being defiant when Canadians are lining up at food banks in record numbers. What are they covering for?
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said he is all ears and, if there is a better plan, to put it on the table. Premier Moe himself said that this is the most cost-effective plan, and that is why our government will keep going with it while maintaining our AAA credit rating, while maintaining the lowest deb-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and while maintaining historically low unemployment. On this side of the House, we will always vote with Canadians and support them along the way.

[Translation]

Intergovernmental Relations

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, we have a passport crisis on our hands, violent crime is on the rise, the cost of housing has doubled, millions of people are using food banks, and criminals are cozy at home. What a fabulous record. Quebeckers are suffering because of his mismanagement. What is more, he is interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
    Will he listen to the Premier of Quebec, who is asking him to mind his own business?
    Mr. Speaker, during his entire tenure, six affordable housing units were built for the entire country when the opposition leader was the minister responsible for housing.
    With the collaboration of the Government of Quebec and the leadership of Quebec's municipalities, 8,000 affordable housing units will be built over the next few months. I would like to invite my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, to join me for a visit to the Boisé des Fillion project being carried out by Lévis' municipal housing office. This project alone involves 23 affordable housing units, three times more than were built when her leader was the minister responsible for housing.
    Mr. Speaker, to the already overly long list of this Liberal government's failures, we can add extravagant use of public funds and squandering of Quebeckers' dollars. This government spends Canadians' money like water. For the past eight years, it has had no budgetary discipline, causing the debt to double. It has not balanced a single budget, yet it wants to handle provincial issues. Quebec Premier François Legault has made it clear that this government needs to mind its own business.
    Will it listen, yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker, let us talk about a former premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, with whom this member served and voted in favour of a price on pollution.
    I think the hypocrisy coming from the other side of the House is quite striking, especially in a context where, today, we are talking about the 400,000 jobs that could be created in Canada thanks to green technologies and the new economy. This member is against these opportunities in battery plants in Quebec.
    Be that as it may, on our side of the House, we support opportunities for Quebeckers.

  (1425)  

Housing

    Mr. Speaker, the housing issue proves that we must prevent the federal government from meddling in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. When the federal level decides where the money goes, Quebeckers get ripped off, and the numbers from CMHC prove that without a doubt. Since the national housing strategy was created in 2019, what share of the funding has Quebec received when the federal government is choosing the projects? Do members know? The answer is 6.7%. That is not even a third of our fair share.
    Will the government stop shortchanging Quebeckers and transfer housing money to Quebec, no strings attached?
    Mr. Speaker, we have already talked about the Conservative leader's six housing units. Now I want to talk about the 8,000 housing units that will be built with the leadership and partnership of the Quebec government and Quebec municipalities.
    The member for Salaberry—Suroît is surely already familiar with the Maison Péladeau project in her riding, with 48 affordable, accessible housing units that are also adapted to climate change. Those units will greatly improve the lives of dozens of people in her riding.
    I would love to go visit this housing project with her and highlight how important our collaboration with the Quebec government is for these people in her riding.
    Mr. Speaker, although Quebeckers make up 22% of the population, we received 6.7% of federal housing investments when the projects were chosen by Ottawa. It does not take a math genius to realize that we are getting ripped off.
     Since 2019, the money has gone mostly to funding projects outside Quebec. We are in the midst of a full-on housing crisis and our tax dollars are being spent to house Ontarians, when we can no longer even pay rent here at home.
     Is it clear now why we need to keep Ottawa as far away as possible from our exclusive jurisdiction over housing?
    Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois may not like the idea of co-operating with the Quebec government. However, a scant few weeks ago we signed an agreement to build 8,000 affordable housing units, which represents the largest investment in affordable housing ever seen in the history of Quebec.
     That is because the Quebec and federal governments are working together to invest two times $900 million to give Quebeckers and all other Canadians the affordable housing they need.
    Mr. Speaker, Montreal has experienced its largest rent increase in 30 years. This is a true crisis, and it is making it difficult for Montrealers to put a roof over their heads. What is the Liberal government’s solution? It is to set aside a mere 35% of the Wellington Basin project’s units for affordable public housing, meaning that two-thirds of the housing units built will be unaffordable.
     Here is a simple question: Why use public land to build housing units that Quebeckers cannot afford?
    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague’s question, which once again shows the contrast between this government and the previous one.
     In 2017, we put in place the first national housing strategy in this country’s history, which stands in stark contrast with what the Conservative leader did when he was housing minister. During his entire mandate, he built six affordable housing units for the entire country.

[English]

Veterans Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces have faced a military housing shortage for decades. Under both the Liberals and Conservatives, military housing has not been built; existing units are falling into disrepair. Now the Liberals want our armed forces to wait another two years before they even start building homes. This delay is unacceptable.
    Why is the minister delaying building urgently needed homes for the men and women who serve our country?
    Mr. Speaker, making sure that we provide adequate supports, particularly for housing and child care, is absolutely essential for us to support the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
    That is why, in our recently released defence policy, we have included a substantial investment of over $300 million to build housing. That work has begun and will continue apace.
    I look forward to working with all members of the defence committee as we bring forward important new initiatives to support the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

  (1430)  

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. Now his carbon tax scheme is completely falling apart.
    First, his own budget watchdog proved conclusively that most Canadians are worse off, even with the rebate. Then he was humiliated into granting a partial carve-out, because his Liberal MPs were sick of the backlash they were getting from their voters. Now a majority of premiers are demanding an emergency carbon tax conference to put forward better ideas than his punishing tax.
    If the Prime Minister is so sure that his carbon tax is good, then why does he not just sit down and listen to the premiers?
    Mr. Speaker, later today we will be voting to advance the sustainable jobs bill. It is a critically important bill in the context of growing an economy that will thrive in a low-carbon future. It will ensure that workers and environmental organizations have a seat at the table when we are discussing Canada's green economic plan.
    The Conservatives have obstructed at every turn, including by introducing 20,000 robo-amendments. We are building a strong economy for the future. The Conservatives, by contrast, are engaging in legislative vandalism.
    Mr. Speaker, none of that is true.
    What is true is that yesterday, in a historic vote, a majority of MPs demanded that the Prime Minister sit down and just listen to the premiers. It baffles understanding that he is so afraid of meeting with them. It is not as though they are going to ask him to put together Ikea furniture or help them move. They just want to put forward better ideas than hiking prices on everything.
    What is he so afraid of? Is it Doug? Is it Blaine? I know Scott Moe. He is a really nice guy. Why does the Prime Minister not just meet with him?
    Mr. Speaker, Scott Moe said that he sat down and pored over the data and could not possibly find a more effective way to combat GHG emissions than our Liberal government's policy on pricing pollution.
    Right now, today, in the House, we are discussing untold employment and economic opportunity for Canadians, including the people of Regina—Qu'Appelle. If the member will not stand up for the workers of Regina—Qu'Appelle, we will.
    Mr. Speaker, I invite the government House leader to come out to Regina. Scott Moe and I could have a beer with him, and we could figure out what Scott really said about the carbon tax.
    Just last week, the Prime Minister raised the carbon tax by 23%. That increased the price of gas, groceries and home heating for all Canadians. I am unsure of why the Prime Minister is so scared to meet with all the premiers. Six, seven, eight premiers want to meet with the Prime Minister to see what he has to say about his flagship carbon tax policy.
    Why will he not listen? Does he just not care?
    Mr. Speaker, let us talk about caring, young people and affordability, if we may.
    Young people said they needed a break on interest and student loans. We did that. Kids getting out of school can save towards their first home with the home savings account, which 500,000 young people now have. Now rent payments will build credit history, because when people pay rent, it should count.
    Young people have asked, and we have answered. What do you have to say? What are you going to cut? Are you going to cut these measures?
    I will remind members that all questions should come through the Chair and not go directly to other members.
    The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
    Mr. Speaker, one of the first things we are going to cut is about 70 or 80 Liberal MPs in the next election.
    Second, nine out of 10 young Canadians believe they will never own a home under the Liberal government. It is embarrassing. Canadians used to be able to pay off a home in 25 years, and now it takes 25 years to save for a down payment.
    The Prime Minister refuses to listen to our premiers. If he is so proud of his carbon tax, will the Coward of the County come out of his house and actually meet with premiers?

  (1435)  

    I would like to remind all members, as the Speaker has made this point before, that it is important not to call into question any member's courage.
    The hon. Minister of Labour and Seniors.
    Mr. Speaker, on this issue, it is very important to listen to constituents.
     I would like to quote Danielle from Foothills. She said, “I do my family's taxes, so I know we got $808.50. We get an extra little bump for me and my husband because we live in a rural environment. When I go back and look at what I spent last year in carbon taxes, because I was working from home, I wasn't commuting, my gas bills were way down, and even the amount of tax that I paid on my home heating [bills]... we're principally natural gas where I live, I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer.”
    We should listen to constituents, like Danielle of Foothills, Alberta.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has spent the last two weeks reminding Canadians of the disasters he has caused over the past eight years, including passports, immigration, EI backlogs, inflation, interest rates, doubling of rents and more.
     Yesterday, his Liberal MPs voted unanimously against the common-sense Conservative motion that the House adopted, calling on him to convene a first ministers meeting. The last meeting was all the way back in 2016.
     Will he organize this meeting, or would he rather continue interfering in every domain without meeting with the provinces? What is he afraid of?
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are tuning in, and we here on this side of the House, hear the voice of inaction.
     What the people at home understand is that inaction does not a strategy make. Inaction is not a plan, nor is it an option.
     On this side of the House, we have proposed a plan for Canadians: invest in more housing, invest in day care, invest in jobs, invest in growth.
     We will let the Conservatives keep sloganeering. On our side of the House, we are focused on the issues that matter to Canadians.
    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this government, let us examine its record.
     Housing costs have doubled. Immigration wait times are interminable. Over 800,000 Quebeckers are using food banks every month. Our streets are less and less safe. Violent crime is on the rise.
     The kicker is that the Prime Minister now wants to impose his incompetence on the provinces. That is like handing our front-door key to the crooks who just burgled our home.
     Will the Prime Minister admit that he is not even competent enough to manage his own government and that he should just mind his own business?
    Mr. Speaker, if my colleague wants to talk about crooks, how about we talk about the climate crooks on the other side of the House?
     If the Conservative member wants to know the benefits of putting a price on carbon, he can easily find out. All he has to do is turn around and talk to the member behind him. She was part of the first government in North America to put a price on pollution, because that is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for the economy. It is the right thing for fighting climate change. It is the right thing for Canadians.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, immigration minister Christine Fréchette reiterated the Quebec government's modest demands.
    There is nothing spectacular or over-the-top about them. The minister is not asking for full powers over immigration; she is asking for the bare minimum. What she is asking for is a fair distribution of asylum seekers among the provinces, reimbursement of the costs associated with taking in asylum seekers, and adequate funding for French integration classes. I do not think that is too much to ask for.
    Is the government going to agree to Quebec's requests, or are we about to end up with another of the squabbles the Liberals are so fond of?
    Mr. Speaker, what I agreed on with Minister Fréchette, when I met with her two weeks ago, was that we would exercise our full powers in our respective areas of jurisdiction under the Canada-Quebec agreement, in a reasonable and reasoned manner. This is what I intend to do with her in the months to come.
    Canadians and Quebeckers will be well served as a result.
    Mr. Speaker, their discussions are going so well that the Government of Quebec is thinking of holding a referendum on immigration.
    The truth is that Quebec is so fed up with having the government laugh in its face that it is thinking of reaching out to the people. Considering the federal government's incompetence when it comes to managing its responsibilities, we all know that things would work a lot better if Quebec had full powers.
    Is the minister going to respond to Minister Fréchette's highly reasonable requests, or would he rather wait for Quebec's entire population to vote on the federal government's immigration incompetence?

  (1440)  

    Mr. Speaker, obviously, no country in the world would hand over all its powers to someone else. I agreed with Minister Fréchette that we would exercise our respective responsibilities in our areas of jurisdiction in order to serve Quebeckers effectively. That is what I intend to do. That is what the minister intends to do as well.

Justice

    Mr. Speaker, the French prime minister is visiting Canada and Quebec. We all know the special ties Quebec has with that great country, the cradle of human rights and secularism. While monarchists here proudly sing God Save the King and the tragic history of the Acadians is trampled underfoot, I believe there is an opportunity to remind France that we still share some of the same democratic values.
    Will the government pledge not to contribute in any way, directly or indirectly, to the challenge to Bill 21 on Quebec state secularism?
    Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned on several occasions, and as the Prime Minister himself has already mentioned, when Bill 21 goes to the Supreme Court, if it goes there, we will be there to intervene to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to defend rights like freedom of expression, the right to equality and freedom of religion.

[English]

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but do not take my word for it.
     Heather from Newbury writes, “People need the cost of living brought under control now.” Carol from Strathroy says, “One more tax will take us down. We're already struggling.” To the average Canadian, the cost of the carbon tax on gas, groceries, home heating, farmers and families is punishing, not progress.
    Will the Prime Minister axe the tax on farmers and help make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?
    Mr. Speaker, I would allow Danielle from Foothills to continue with her comments. She also added, “I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer.” She also said, “[so] I think a lot of people would be of the view that if you are going to implement some kind of revenue-neutral carbon pricing, that's probably not a bad way of doing it.” These are the words of Danielle from Foothills.
    I am happy to inform Danielle that two and a half years later since she made that comment, it is now up to $1,800 for a family of four in Alberta.
    Mr. Speaker, even the NDP-Liberal environment chair admitted that the carbon tax has no impact on climate change, yet just last week, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23%, driving up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. If farmers cannot afford to grow food, the government has failed. Let me remind everyone that if there are no farms, there is no food.
    Will the Prime Minister help bring the cost of food down for Canadians, axe the tax on farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?
    Mr. Speaker, instead of opposing battery plants, instead of standing up against sustainable jobs, that member and her caucus should remember that the vast majority of the fuels farmers use are tax exempt under the pollution pricing strategy. Farmers in the country are supported big time by adjustment policies, because they know, more than anyone, that climate change is a reality.
    With respect to Bill C-234, that member should walk down to the front bench and tell her opposition House leader that he should call Bill C-234 and we will resolve it.
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government is just not worth the cost.
     Last week, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23%, driving up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. However, on Tuesday, the Liberal environment chair revealed that there was no proof that the carbon tax reduced emissions, saying “there is no data specifically stating that the price on carbon resulted in an x amount of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”
    Now that the carbon tax scam has been exposed by a Liberal, will the Prime Minister finally axe the tax?

  (1445)  

    Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are focused on making life more affordable for Canadians, but also on fighting climate change. The PBO and 200 economists across the country have been very clear that eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back. It works disproportionate to income.
    Even the Conservatives actually used to know this before they got collective amnesia. Every one of the members on that side of the House ran in 2021 on a promise to put in place a price on carbon pollution. The hypocrisy that comes from that side of the House is unbelievable.

Infrastructure

    Uqaqtittiji, first nations and Inuit have been neglected by successive Liberal and Conservative governments for years. They have underfunded infrastructure for first nations by $350 billion. For Inuit, the gap is $75 billion.
     The Liberals committed to closing this gap by 2030, but they are nowhere near their target. This means more mouldy homes, more crumbling schools and more contaminated water.
    When will the Liberals fulfill their obligations to first nations and Inuit by closing this infrastructure gap?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her advocacy in the House.
    We thank the Assembly of First Nations for its partnership. We actually worked together with it on this report, and we welcome the important recommendations it brought forward.
    We know decades of underinvestment and discrimination have led to this infrastructure deficit, which is indeed a crisis for indigenous peoples across this country.
    Our government has put a stop to this, with record investments, by dramatically increasing up to 1,100% since 2016. We are taking action to close the infrastructure gap and we will not stop until it is done.

Indigenous Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, there are many residential school survivors and family members of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in British Columbia who are non-status. This week, they are learning that their access to counselling is being cut-off because the Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, are underfunding first nations' health. These are community members who have experienced serious trauma and for whom counselling is a key part of their healing journey.
    Why is the government denying survivors access to critical counselling?
    Mr. Speaker, violence against indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people must be put to an end. After the previous government dragged its feet for years, we called a national inquiry. We have an action plan that was co-developed with indigenous partners. We made progress.
     For example, we built 12 new cell towers along the Highway of Tears in British Columbia and new shelters for indigenous women. We are supporting frontline indigenous victims services and 36 indigenous-led policing services. We will continue to do more.

Innovation, Science and Industry

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians know better than to trust the Conservatives' failed policies. On this side of the House, our government is focused on creating more good jobs, including in innovation and technology.
     Last week, in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler, I was pleased to be with our government when we announced new measures from the upcoming budget 2024 to secure Canada's AI advantage.
    Could the President of the Treasury Board please update the House on our government's announcement on AI?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her hard work.
     Last week, our government announced $2.4 billion to support artificial intelligence across the country. That means more infrastructure for AI researchers, that means more innovative AI solutions for small and medium-sized businesses, that means the creation of an AI institute and that means the responsible use of AI across the country.
     Unlike the Conservatives who deny science, we will always support an innovative economy.

[Translation]

Intergovernmental Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, life is more expensive and Quebeckers are paying the price. The cost of housing has doubled. The lineups at food banks are longer than ever.
    While Quebeckers struggle to put food on the table because of his incompetence, the Prime Minister insists on interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Clearly this government is not worth the cost.
    Will this Prime Minister steer clear of provincial jurisdictions and allow Quebec to repair the damage?

  (1450)  

    Mr. Speaker, we have no lessons to learn from the Conservatives.
    We have a plan to create more housing in the country. We have a plan to create more jobs in the country. We have a plan to create prosperity in the country. What they have across the way are slogans. People at home know that slogans do not create housing. Slogans do not create jobs. Slogans do not create prosperity.
    On this side of the House, we are going to focus on issues that matter to Canadians and we will leave the Conservatives to come up with more slogans. Canadians know which side we are on. We are with them.
    Mr. Speaker, eight years of this Liberal government have yielded a broken immigration system, an unsustainable cost of living, extremely high crime rates and millions of suffering Canadians. Not only is this Prime Minister causing problems in every aspect of Canadians' lives, he is increasingly encroaching on provincial jurisdictions too. Quebeckers understand that this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
     Can the Prime Minister please stop spreading his incompetence around and just mind his own business?
    Mr. Speaker, minding our own business means investing in child care, investing in housing, investing in high-speed Internet. It also means investing to make sure that children in my colleague's riding go to school on a full stomach.
     That is why, last week, we announced an investment that will help 400,000 children, including several hundred in my colleague's riding, go to school on a full stomach so that they can learn and reach their full potential.
     Unfortunately, the Conservatives will vote against that when it comes time to vote on the budget.
    Mr. Speaker, after eight long years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Food banks can no longer keep up with demand. The cost of rent and mortgages has doubled. The dream of buying a first home is almost unattainable for young Canadians. After eight years of federal encroachment on provincial jurisdictions, Quebeckers' quality of life has declined.
     Can the Prime Minister please stop imposing his incompetence on the provinces and mind his own business?
    Mr. Speaker, I would like the member and all Quebec Conservative members to talk to their leader, because their leader is standing in the way of the 400,000 jobs that could be created across Canada thanks to green technologies. For example, the battery industry will create tens of thousands of jobs in Quebec.
     The member knows very well that Quebec will prosper in a green economy. He should tell his leader to stop standing in the way of progress.
    Mr. Speaker, we have only to think of ArriveCAN, the borders, passports, EI, the deficit. The list is a long one. Everything is broken. After eight years, the Prime Minister has failed on every level. Everything the Prime Minister touches fails, and now he is adding insult to injury by encroaching on Quebec's jurisdictions.
     Can the Prime Minister please mind his own business and let Quebec make its own decisions?
    Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague must have had amnesia for a while. It was our government that arranged the largest private investment in the history of Quebec. Let us not forget Northvolt, an investment that will support economic development for this and future generations.
    While we are doing that, we are also investing in child care. We are investing in housing. We are investing in mental health. We are investing in prosperity. We are investing in Canada. We are investing in Canadians, and we will continue to invest in Canadians.

Housing

    Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not helping solve the housing crisis; it is simply stretching it out over time.
    Ottawa could just transfer the housing money to Quebec. That would be simple enough. Instead, the Liberals have chosen to attach conditions to the infrastructure program, supposedly to force the provinces to build housing faster. As a result, not only is housing construction slowing down, Ottawa is paralyzing the construction of infrastructure such as water systems. It wants to see doorknobs first, running water later.
    Does the minister realize that his plan is putting the cart before the horse?

  (1455)  

    Mr. Speaker, the member is correct to raise the importance of investing in drinking water infrastructure, waste water treatment and many other things. That is why, just a few days ago, we announced an investment of an additional $6 billion to support municipalities in building the infrastructure that will help us in Quebec, for one, to build the 8,000 housing units that we have already planned with the Quebec government. Its partnership and leadership are absolutely essential.
    This is obviously a contrast to the six housing units the Conservative leader created when he was minister responsible for housing.
    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a lot of nerve. Instead of being helpful, they decided to be contemptuous and blackmail us with our own money, just like the Conservatives proposed.
    Quebec's housing minister was clear this week. She said it was out of the question for Quebec to agree to any conditions to get its fair share of a community funding envelope. Quebec cities do not fall under Ottawa's jurisdiction.
    Will the minister commit to guaranteeing Quebec its right to opt out with full compensation?
    Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right to refer to the Conservative leader as an insulting leader. It is true that he insulted all Quebec municipalities, including the people of Quebec City.
    It is also true that just a few weeks ago, with the leadership of Quebec City, we announced the construction of 324 affordable housing units. That number of 324 units is 54 times more than all the affordable housing created by the Conservative leader when he was housing minister.

[English]

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet due to the Liberal-NDP's crippling carbon taxes. They are all economic pain and no environmental gain. Just last week, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23%, further driving up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating.
    The least the Liberals could do is take the carbon tax off the farmers who feed us, which would in turn lower the cost of food.
    Will the Prime Minister axe the tax on farmers and make food cheaper for Canadians by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?
    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234 was here, then it went to the Senate. Conservative senators threatened a bunch of other senators who wanted to debate the bill. The bill is now back in this House, and it is completely up to the leader—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order.
    The hon. government House leader.
    Mr. Speaker, it is rather impolite to interrupt the people answering questions, as the members across the way know.
    Bill C-234, put very simply, can be brought to the floor of the House on the simple whim of the Leader of the Opposition. The member should actually talk to him.

Democratic Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are well versed in its corruption.
    Sadly, it is worse: bombshell testimony on Beijing's interference in Canadian elections. A senior Liberal disclosed top secret information to the then-Liberal MP for Don Valley North, that he was being watched by CSIS. This was a despicable breach of national security for Liberal partisan gain, and only very high-ranking Liberals would have access to this information, a cabinet minister or a senior Liberal.
    Who is the person? They must give us the Liberal name.
    Mr. Speaker, we worked collaboratively with all of the opposition parties last summer to set up an independent judicial inquiry into foreign interference. There have been a number of weeks of public testimony, including this week.
    We did not think that, in the terms of reference, we had to put a line that would say that we should have basic respect for the integrity and independence of the commission process, not to comment on every day's appearances but to let the justice do her work. We look forward to her report on this important issue.
    Mr. Speaker, there is no decency or respect, when a senior Liberal, either a cabinet minister or a senior Liberal staffer, disclosed top secret CSIS information for Liberal gain. It is despicable. It gets worse. It compromised CSIS work and put Liberal partisan gain over national security, and the Prime Minister must have known.
    When did the Prime Minister find out, and when did he call in the RCMP to investigate, or were the briefing documents just a bit too long so he did not read them?

  (1500)  

    Mr. Speaker, again, my colleague can repeat a series of allegations. We do not think that this is particularly constructive, when a senior court of appeal justice is seized with this very matter. She is hearing evidence from witnesses, interviewing in camera all of the relevant officials, and receiving all of the most classified documents.
    Why does my hon. friend not allow her to do the work and not continually repeat and interfere in the middle of her hearings?

[Translation]

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, Canada has been standing by Ukraine since the start of Putin's illegal invasion. We have provided military support and aid to Ukraine. We are working with our allies and our partners around the world, but we must not forget that this is not the first time Russia has been the aggressor against Ukraine.
<