Bill C-50 (Historical)

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy

This enactment establishes an accountability, transparency and engagement framework to facilitate and promote economic growth, the creation of sustainable jobs and support for workers and communities in Canada in the shift to a net-zero economy. Accordingly, the enactment
(a) provides that the Governor in Council may designate a Minister for the purposes of the Act as well as specified Ministers;
(b) establishes a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to provide the Minister and the specified Ministers, through a process of social dialogue, with independent advice with respect to measures to foster the creation of sustainable jobs, measures to support workers, communities and regions in the shift to a net-zero economy and matters referred to it by the Minister;
(c) requires the tabling of a Sustainable Jobs Action Plan in each House of Parliament no later than 2026 and by the end of each subsequent period of five years;
(d) provides for the establishment of a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat to support the implementation of the Act; and
(e) provides for a review of the Act within ten years of its coming into force and by the end of each subsequent period of ten years.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to rise on behalf of the residents of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and raise their voices here in this chamber. In the last number of months, I have had many people reach out, sharing their concerns regarding the cost of living. They are sharing that they are in crisis or nearly in crisis as they see ever-rising costs of gas, groceries, home heating and everything.

We see so many who are struggling, and all they see is their costs going up under the punishing carbon tax regime and the tax and spend from the NDP-Liberal government. What they have also come to clearly understand is that this is a tax plan that has been sold to Canadians as an environmental plan. However, Canadians can now see it for what it truly is; they have come to understand that it means they pay more, but there is no environmental gain.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal coalition is simply not worth the cost.

A few weeks ago, I had a group of bright young students come for a visit from Ardmore School. Members might not know where Ardmore is. It is in northeastern Alberta, between the communities of Bonnyville and Cold Lake along Highway 28. This is a relatively rural community that has two major economic drivers: the energy industry and agriculture.

The students from Ardmore School saw the wonder of Parliament Hill. It was inspiring to me, and it reminded me of how lucky we are, each and every one of us, to be able to sit here and work hard for the constituents in our ridings. One boy shared that the whole experience of coming to Parliament Hill was the highlight of his life.

These students were able to see the inner workings of Ottawa when they came here. They got to watch question period from up in the gallery and had a wave from the leader of the official opposition. They got to meet many members of Parliament in the hallways of this magnificent building and watch the debate on Bill C-50, the unjust transition bill, a bill that is, simply put, an attack on Canada's energy sector.

These students questioned very succinctly why so many politicians in the chamber constantly attack the energy industry. These students see first-hand, day in and day out, the positive impacts the energy industry has in their community. They understand how hard these people work and how the members of the energy industry are there when it is -50° so we can stay in our homes and stay warm.

One student shared her concerns regarding the increasing cost of living, what it would mean for her future and, specifically, what it would mean for her ability to attend post-secondary education. This is really important to highlight: These were students in junior high, and they could see very clearly that the cost of living, which has been made a crisis under the NDP-Liberal government, is having real impacts on someone that has not even gone to high school yet.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit with a group of grade 7, 8 and 9 students from Frank Spragins High School in Fort McMurray, along with their principal, my friend Dan Tulk. They shared their thoughts and fears about what the cost of living crisis would mean for their future. Again, they highlighted their concerns about the cost of groceries and the cost of gas and what these costs would mean for their ability to attend post-secondary education, buy a house and have a family.

One particular student, in very unparliamentary terms, shared his thoughts about our Prime Minister's leadership. When we started to tease through the fact that name-calling was not okay, he said that people cannot afford to live right now. This student, Ryder, had many really intelligent comments about what he saw. He spoke very succinctly, and it was really frustrating to me when this student said that he did not understand why so many politicians hate the oil sands and the energy industry. It was a tough question for me, because I too struggle with it.

I am proud of the work done by our hard-working oil and gas, and, like Ryder, I do not understand why politicians in this chamber fail to understand the opportunity that exists in Canada's world-class energy sector.

We constantly see attacks on our energy sector at every possible opportunity. There are eco-radical politicians who do this at the direct cost of our hard-working energy workers, the future of communities right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Canada, and Canada's economy.

At a time when we desperately need economic growth, eco-radicals guide Canadian policy. They have an intense hate for our world-class energy industry. They sit at the cabinet table and hold the pen on the costly coalition that keeps the government in power, pushing for ever more blows to this industry.

They have made no attempt to hide their distaste for the oil and gas industry. However, in this budget, I think it is kind of interesting that we see the Minister of Finance use a rather rosy benchmark for West Texas Intermediate, the crude oil price of $78 U.S.

It is worth noting that this is a rosier outlook than my home province of Alberta's forecast, which was $74 U.S. At some point, I would be very curious to see the modelling that was used to get to this number. While they attack the industry, they have no issue whatsoever benefiting from the profits.

The anti-energy agenda from the government has been consistent and punishing over the last nine years. Anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, and an outright veto of approved export pipelines have all hurt this industry.

Despite asks to export Canadian liquefied natural gas from Germany, Japan and, most recently, Poland, among others, time and time again, the answer from the Prime Minister has been that there is no business case. At a time when the world is calling, Canada's NDP-Liberal government refuses to answer. It seems more interested in supporting dirty dictator oil and fuelling Putin's war machine than in supporting Canada's world-class energy industry. That is absolutely shameful.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal budget is just more of the same that got us into this mess. The Prime Minister did not do anything to stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop putting our social programs, jobs and economy at risk by adding more debt. Simply put, he is not worth the cost for any generation, despite what he says. He is responsible for record deficits, which are driving up record inflation rates. Both have very real impacts on the budgets of hard-working Canadians.

We see story after story about record-breaking visits to food banks right across the country. Last year, food banks received a record two million visits in a single month. They are anticipating that an additional million people will visit food banks this year, an extra million people having to access food banks.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include over $61 billion in new inflationary spending, costing the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Most families do not have that lying around.

Students from communities right across my riding see the insanity. They understand that, when governments spend more of their money, costs go up. The hard-working energy workers who see the industry they work in under constant attack understand the hypocrisy.

World leaders who are looking for energy solutions understand the potential in Canada's world-class energy industry. Can one imagine a world in which our Prime Minister believed in our economy as much as these world leaders do? Sadly, what else can we expect from a Prime Minister who would rather wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians?

Hope is on the horizon. It is not all doom and gloom. Canada's common-sense Conservatives will support Canada's world-class energy industry. We are ready to stand up and govern. As has been shared by many of my colleagues, it is time to get Canada back on track.

We will axe the carbon tax, reducing the costs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We will invest in technology, not taxes, to deliver environmental gains. This is common sense.

I would invite all members of the House to vote non-confidence in the Prime Minister, who, after nine years, is simply not worth the cost. We can vote against this budget and deliver common sense for the common people.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a bad habit of dodging serious questions, as we just saw. We will see whether that happens again with mine. At the very least, I am glad to have the opportunity to raise an important issue for indigenous communities.

The reality is that indigenous people are overlooked by the NDP-Liberal government. Regardless of all of the rhetoric and ideology behind the Liberals' so-called just transition that threatens to get rid of thousands of jobs for indigenous workers, that is what indigenous leaders are calling out. President Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs believes that the so-called just transition picks winners and losers while driving away billions of dollars of potential investment in indigenous communities.

As indigenous communities have invested more and more into the oil sands region, rising by $9 million between 2017 and 2019, the government is doing its best to shut it all down. It is something important to keep in mind whenever the Liberal government brings forward policies against the energy sector. At the end of the day, we are talking about good-paying jobs and the benefit they bring to the workers and their communities, including indigenous communities.

The Liberals have talked a lot about Bill C-50, for example, but would their appointed counsels and useless secretariats really represent the voice of energy workers? They probably would not. Considering the track record of the government across the aisle, they would be filled with more of the same overpaid and underworked bureaucrats who do not understand the way of life outside their big city. In this case, they might even think that they know what is best for all indigenous people, even if there are indigenous groups that are telling a different story.

I want to take a moment to read what Dale Swampy told the natural resources committee when we were studying the so-called just transition:

I want to end by pointing out the high costs of a poorly planned energy transition and the crisis we now face in first nations. Many of our communities rely on diesel generation. People have to drive for hours to get to doctors appointments or a grocery store. A lot of people aren't on the grid, and even those who are don't have the electricity capacity to add charging stations in garages they don't have. You won't find any electric cars on the rez.

Most people in Canada do not have the luxury of living in a downtown condo, with a Tesla charging in their heated underground parking garage. However, that might be the lifestyle of someone working on one of these panels who wants to make decisions and enforce a just transition on an indigenous community that does not want it. The disproportionate impact that the Liberal government's unjust transition would have on indigenous communities would be devastating.

Indigenous people deserve more control of their resources, not less. Decisions are best made when those who will be most impacted by them have the greatest say. Consulting at the local level is the key to sustainability across all sectors, especially oil and gas. Otherwise, having high-and-mighty bureaucrats and politicians imposing their one-size-fits-all agenda on a country as large and diverse as Canada is sure to leave people behind. Time and time again, indigenous voices ask the government for a greater say and greater investment in the resource sector, but it falls on deaf ears in the current PMO.

I can say that Conservatives want to take a better approach. We supported an initiative like the first nations resource charge, which is an optional policy that would give more control over resource dollars for indigenous communities. It would offer them more input and would help to avoid the slow and painful process of negotiating with the federal government. As I said, we support it. Will the Liberal government ever support economic reconciliation for indigenous people?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that.

I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today.

There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional.

It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point.

The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem.

When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada.

Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada.

That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them.

I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee.

I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated:

To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding.

This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued.

I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated:

The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry.

I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added:

Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process. We are talking about Bill C-49, substantial legislation that would enable the potential development in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in things such as wind energy. I was quoting two premiers who want the House of Commons to pass the legislation, and talking about the frustration members no doubt have because the Conservative Party, instead of listening to the premiers of the provinces, has chosen to listen to far right-wing organizations, extremists, and not allow the legislation to pass.

To demonstrate that, let us talk about what Conservative Party has done. The legislation has been on hold in committee. Bill C-50 was just ahead of it, and the Conservatives used AI to come up with 20,000-plus amendments on Bill C-50, which delayed the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49. When we finally got it through the committee stage, they attempted to bring in amendments at report stage, which were accurately ruled by the Speaker as being out of order. Then the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that would kill the legislation, while at the same time—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear, common-sense Conservatives stand with the fishing industry and with the offshore petroleum industry, as well as with those workers and those families, and those industries that rely on the spinoffs from those powerful Atlantic Canada industries.

Stakeholders like the FFAW, Brazil Rock Lobster Association, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, just to name a few who presented at the natural resources committee a few weeks ago.

We heard from Katie Power with the FFAW, which represents 14,000 people who make their living from the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. She shared a critical perspective with the rest of the fishing industry stakeholders who appeared, who submitted briefs and who were from Atlantic Canada, which is that offshore wind energy expansion will have direct impacts on fish harvesters, who will be faced with having to compete with the offshore wind energy sector for ocean space. Space for fishers who have to harvest their catch is not unlimited space; it is a finite space.

When Dan Fleck of Nova Scotia's Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association was asked how many lobster traps could fit in a proposed 4,000 square kilometre wind farm, just east of Cape Breton, he told us thousands and thousands. Chances are there would be 50 to 60 independent owner-operators displaced, and the crews who depend on them for their livelihood, and all their families, would be impacted, as well as the local coastal communities that rely on the spinoffs. Dan simply echoed the concerns of Katie.

Very little consultation was had with the fishing industry. We heard the testimony. However, there was a bit of a difference of opinion among NDP and Liberal members on the committee. They felt that they had consulted heavily with the fishing industry, but that was shot down solidly when we had those stakeholders appear.

We took the testimony of the fishing industry stakeholders, and we set out to make amendments to try to ensure that the development of offshore wind does not destroy livelihoods in the fishery. In fact, we consulted directly with them, coming up with those nine amendments, which we tried to get votes on here today, and a number of other amendments that were shot down in by members of the natural resource committee, including NDP members who voted against amendments that were written for us by Unifor. Again, across the way, they tout their wonderful relationship that they have with organized labour.

Unifor, one of the biggest unions in Canada, provided common-sense Conservatives with amendments to support the FFAW to protect the livelihoods of those members of the FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador who feel threatened because they are not a part of the process. They have not been a part of the process. If someone wants to get up here and challenge me on that, they can go back and look at Hansard and all those committee meetings where those fishing industry stakeholders came to committee and pleaded with the costly NDP-Liberal coalition to bring in amendments to support them and to give them peace of mind so that they would not feel that their livelihoods were threatened.

I am very saddened that the NDP and the Bloc did not support the stakeholders in these existing industries. The bird in the hand is worth two in the field. The bird in the hand is the petroleum industry offshore, and it is our fishing industry. They are proven. The fishing industry is over 400 years old in Atlantic Canada.

I am very saddened, but what saddens me the most are the six Liberal MPs across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador and the eight from Nova Scotia who did not support the amendments put forward by people in their own ridings who earn their living from the sea. They did not support amendments that would recognize and mitigate the harmful effects that wind energy can have if we do not have the right consultations with the fishing industry. These industries can coexist. Conservatives are not against wind energy. The only copper mine in Atlantic Canada is in my riding. Every wind turbine uses 1.5 tonnes of copper for every megawatt produced. My goodness, what is the world coming to?

Conservatives tried to get amendments through to support the stakeholders who pleaded with us, and the costly coalition shut it all down. Our amendments to Bill C-49 would have ensured that conflicts between the offshore wind energy and the fishing industry would be kept at a minimum. This would have increased investor confidence in the development of offshore wind and would have given the fishing industry assurance that it would have a viable seat at the table throughout the development of this future renewable resource.

Bill C-49 was void of details on compensation for fishers who could be displaced from their fishing grounds, and displacement will be inevitable without proper consultation. Our amendments aimed to address this. Common-sense Conservatives worked hard on behalf of the fishing industry and the offshore petroleum industry to amend Bill C-49 so we could support it. We do not want to have to vote against something that could be good, but if it is going to kill two industries for another one, it does not make sense. The NDP-Liberals slapped the FFAW-Unifor and its 14,000 members in Newfoundland and Labrador right in the face and did not consider the amendments they wanted.

There was great testimony from the fishing industry, but, in addition to that, there was expert witness testimony from the offshore petroleum industry. One such witness was Mr. Max Ruelokke, with a career of nearly 50 years in the offshore oil and gas industry. Mr. Ruelokke obtained a vast amount of knowledge from working in the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas industry and through his interactions worldwide. It cannot be denied that he is a pre-eminent expert in the offshore petroleum industry. Most pertinent to his experience is the fact that he served as the chair and CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for six years.

In his submission to the committee, he made some pretty strong statements. I will read Mr. Ruelokke's testimony into the record today in this place. It is entitled “An Informed Opinion on Certain Aspects of Bill C-49”, and it states:

I have studied Bill C-49 from the perspective of my 40+ years engagement in the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, offshore Brazil and offshore India. Details of my engagement are contained in my CV, which accompanies this document.

The offshore oil and gas industry is a very competitive business on a world-wide basis. Operators such as the major oil and gas companies decide where and when to invest in exploration and production activities based on a variety of factors. One obvious factor is the potential existence of sufficient resource to allow for production. Another is the viability of production on an economic basis. The resources offshore Newfoundland and Labrador have been proven time and time again to meet both of those tests.

Another significant factor is the existence and certainty of an appropriate regulatory regime. Up until now, we have met that test as well. However, with the potential passage of Bill C-49, this situation will change drastically. Specifically, Section 56 of this Bill puts any and all offshore areas at risk of being rendered unusable for resource development, even though such activities may already be underway, and with appropriate regulatory approval.

Corporations have to risk assess any and all potential investments to ensure that such investments made can deliver appropriate returns. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industry, these investments range into billions of dollars.

This is where it gets interesting. He says:

If Bill C-49 is enacted, it will ring the death knell for any potential future offshore oil and gas developments in Atlantic Canada.

That is pretty powerful, “the death knell”. I will talk a little bit more about what a “death knell” means for Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore petroleum industry. He says:

This will be the case since no corporation will risk investing in an area where their exploration or production activities can retroactively be banned simply because Governments believe that the area in which they are occurring may, at some point in time, require environmental protection. This is a terrible piece of legislation!

These are the very words of Mr. Max Ruelokke. He goes on to say:

If we do not continue to explore for, find and produce the relatively environmentally friendly oil under our seabed, we will have to rely on oil and gas from other, much less stable and more environmentally risky areas. The International Energy Agency's 2022 Report estimated that, in 2050, the world will still need approximately 24 million barrels of oil per day. Those of us in Atlantic Canada deserve the opportunity to provide our fair share of those 24 M BBI/day. Please remove Section 56 from Bill C-49 to make this possible!!

Respectfully submitted.

Max Ruelokke

What does a “death knell” mean for Newfoundland's offshore petroleum industry? Let us take a look at it. The offshore petroleum industry in Newfoundland and Labrador contributes 25% to 30% of our GDP every year, depending on the price of oil as it fluctuates. It is an industry that supports nearly 25,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, nearly $2 billion of labour income, $1.4 billion of consumer spending and $1.4 billion of tax and royalty revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am quoting 2017 figures, when oil was only about $30 a barrel. Today, it is $90, so one can imagine what that does to these figures.

It certainly is an industry that we cannot risk destroying by the amendments that Bill C-49 would make to the original Atlantic Accord.

Many in the industry feel that we are seeing the effects of this legislation already. Bill C-49 was tabled last spring and, at the time, there were about 10 companies that were looking at putting together bids to explore in our offshore. However, whatever happened, last year, with a record number of offerings, we received zero bids. Historically, there have been bids up to or even exceeding $1 billion per year to purchase land leases for exploration.

This strikes me as a little peculiar, but not for Mr. Ruelokke. He says this is because of proposed section 56 creating so much uncertainty, basically stating that if an area may be deemed as a future environmentally sensitive area, the government can pull past, current and future exploration and development permits. With the amount of uncertainty created by Bill C-49, especially with proposed section 56, it is a disaster. It is absurd.

While we received no bids in our offshore for parcels for exploration, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico had its largest auction since 2015. I will put it in Canadian dollars: $523 million of bids were taken.

We tried to get that horrible proposed section 56 out of the bill, and we were shot down completely. The uncertainty is brewing with Bill C-49, together with Bill C-50, Bill C-55 and the unconstitutional Bill C-69, for which the government has had six or seven months now to come forward with something. The bill that we are going to be voting on mentions Bill C-69 over 70 times. How can this bill be valid? How can this bill be deemed constitutional?

I challenge the members opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador and from Nova Scotia to vote with us and the Bloc—

Justice and Human Rights

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues said, it is really and truly not an emergency from the Conservatives' perspective, but rather it is a distraction. It is to take us away from the debate on the amendment that the Conservatives put forward on government legislation. Remember that this is the same bill, Bill C-50, that we voted on for hours and hours last week. It is the same bill for which the critic who is responsible for it utilized artificial intelligence to generate over 20,000 amendments. Let the games continue. That is what we are witnessing from across the way.

Why do I get so exercised about it? It is because I, unlike Conservatives, who choose to make games of serious issues of this nature, believe that it is an important issue. I only wish Conservative Party members would be more genuine in their comments on the issue. What do I mean by that? Why did they not bring in an emergency debate if they really felt that it was such an emergency? How many questions did they ask on the issue? By my count, it was one or two.

Allow me to provide this quote, if I may, of the minister's response to a Conservative member in question period. Here is what the minister indicated earlier today: “We have said many times in the House that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has repeated that.”

That is a pretty strong statement. I believe that if we were to canvass the House, the entire House would agree with that particular statement. He continued, “We have taken a series of severe measures to restrict members of the regime, including the revolutionary guard corps, from coming to Canada. With respect to listing a terrorist entity, it is national security agencies”, and I am going to pause there. Imagine a national government that wants to allow the professionals, the people who have their feet on the ground, to do what it is they are charged to do and to bring back recommendations and thoughts on the process to the government.

When they say six years, I say balderdash. They know nothing about what they are actually talking about. They want to out-trump Trump, quite frankly. Shame on them for the poor attitude that they display, day in and day out, on very important issues.

The minister responded that it is the national security agencies that do these reviews, not the Conservative Party of Canada; amen to that. From time to time, they provide advice to the government. Obviously all options are on the table. I have asked the national security community to provide the government with that advice quickly.

The Conservative Party, as I have said, is all agitated. I would suggest that a lot of that comes out of drama school. At the end of the day, the Conservatives are agitated and ask why the government has not taken action. When did the European Union come to the table on the issue? I believe it was just last year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked a very good question about why I am so exercised on this particular issue. Earlier today, the member posed that question to me while introducing her remarks on Bill C-50. Some members of the House, including the member who posed that question to me just now, came to the House believing that this was what we were going to be talking about today. All one needs to do is listen to her speech a couple of hours back.

Members of the House knew full well what we were going to be debating today. That is why I talked about this being a charade and about the games being played by Conservative Party members. What they have really done is prevent, once again, debate on government legislation, the very same piece of legislation that the member opposite, who is heckling me, made an amendment to. Why? It is because they want to filibuster the legislation. That is the real motivation behind the motion today.

Members have stood up to say it is such an important issue. If it is so important, why did they not want to introduce an emergency debate on the issue?

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservatives, particularly this member, using a concurrence motion to prevent debate on Bill C-50, and I will expand on that in due course.

The issue that the member wants to talk about today could have been dealt with on an opposition day. Yet again, the members of the Conservative Party feel that their days are not to be used for the purposes he is talking about with his concurrence motion on the report. Instead, they are using concurrence on reports for the sole purpose of disrupting government legislation. Can he explain to Canadians why the Conservative Party wants to use these types of motions to prevent substantial pieces of legislation from being debated?

Sitting Resumed

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

Order.

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

The question is on Motion No. 79.

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

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.

The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.

On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

I thank all members for their co-operation.

Carbon Pricing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act. The Royal Bank of Canada says there are 400,000 jobs that would come to Canadians if we were just to unlock the kind of prosperity envisaged in this very progressive piece of legislation. Instead, the Conservatives put forward 20,000 amendments generated by artificial intelligence. The robo-caucus needs to stop its robo-work with its robo-amendments and stop gatekeeping the opportunities that are coming to Canadians.

Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking the kind of thoughtful questions that should be asked in this place.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives never seem to ask a question that has any depth at all. In the case of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, he does extraordinary work in the agriculture committee, and he has done work in a wide variety of areas that help to really advance public policy in Canada.

The member is absolutely right, that what the Conservatives are endeavouring to do is to basically stop Parliament and stop getting legislation through that would actually help people. They want to block everything. Bill C-50 would actually provide for energy workers good well-paying jobs in the energy industry. I come out of the energy industry, having worked in an oil refinery, the Shelburn oil refinery, sadly now closed, in Burnaby, B.C. I know for a fact that it is important for energy workers to have access to good, unionized, well-paying jobs.

What was the Conservative response? A little like Danielle Smith in Alberta, who wants to shut down clean energy and ensure that those jobs do not come to Albertans, Conservatives want to block legislation and make sure that those good, clean energy jobs are not available.

That is why it is important to get it right. That is why it is important to have the health breaks when the Conservatives provide for obstruction. The members of the NDP, as the adults in the room, are going to make sure that we get the job done, and we do it in a way that does not harm the health and safety of the many employees who keep this place running.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to lower the temperature.

I really want to put today's motion in the context of Bill C-50 because I think that bill in particular illustrates the reasoning behind the motion. When Bill C-50 was at committee, the Conservatives, I highly suspect, used ChatGPT's AI technology to generate 20,000 amendments. Their plan failed, and those amendments were actually cleared in about an hour's time because they did not do their homework. The Conservatives are now trying the same thing at the report stage with 200 amendments.

I think some people watching this debate may get the incorrect idea that we are doing away with votes. I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be clear that we are still going to have those votes, but the motion would allow members to have those health breaks and would allow the important staff who support this place to have those health breaks as well, so we are not putting anyone's health at risk while still conducting the democratic needs of the nation in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very wary in doing this. I do not think I have ever made a point of order while interrupting a colleague's speech, whose speech is very important, but it is important to raise my concern. This is about a motion instructing the House to be able to get legislation finished, particularly Bill C-50, which has seen a lot of obstruction.

In the previous exchange between the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Liberal member, the Liberal member accused him of getting his children's private school funding covered by the Conservative Party, which I do not think is part of the motion, but I—

Oil and Gas Industry

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are on a theme of Liberal promises that keep being broken.

Here is a question. We have Bill C-50, which is the sustainable jobs act, which kicked down the road coming up with a sustainable jobs plan until December 31, 2025. It then went to committee, where all the Liberal MPs present and all the NDP MPs present voted to extend that deadline to December 31, 2040.

Could the hon. minister tell us how this is going to be fixed? Can it be repaired? It so reminds me of Bismarck: Laws are like sausages, better not to watch.