THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met with videoconference this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter 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; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda.
Senator Josée Verner (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: My name is Josée Verner, and I’m a senator from Quebec and the deputy chair of the committee.
[English]
Today we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
[Translation]
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times.
When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
[English]
I ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Today, the committee continues its examination of the subject matter 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.
[Translation]
For our first panel, we welcome, by video conference, Aliénor Rougeot, Program Manager, Climate and Energy, Environmental Defence Canada; and Shannon Joseph, Chair, Energy for a Secure Future.
We also welcome, by video conference, Laura Cameron, Policy Adviser, International Institute for Sustainable Development and Dr. Christopher Keefer, President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy. Welcome, and thank you for being with us. You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours Ms. Rougeot.
Aliénor Rougeot, Program Manager, Climate and Energy, Environmental Defence Canada: Good morning senators. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
[English]
I’m here to express our support for Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, and to recommend its swift passage without further amendments.
Understanding the importance of Bill C-50 requires understanding how the world of work will change as a result of the global energy transition.
Clean energy technologies are experiencing phenomenal growth and are reshaping the energy system. By 2030, the International Energy Agency, or IEA, projects that there will be ten times more electric cars on the road than today, that solar photovoltaics, or PV, alone will generate more electricity than the entire current U.S. power system and that renewables will approach 50% of the global electricity mix.
The same International Energy Agency, or IEA, also predicts that global demand for coal, oil and gas will peak within this decade. Whether we like it or not, change is coming. For Canada, which has a highly skilled workforce, the wealth of natural resources, access to world markets on all sides and a diversity of regional assets, this change is a massive opportunity. Yet, we are not ready for it. We are at risk of being left behind.
The Office of the Auditor General as well as numerous think tanks, banks, civil society organizations and academics have pointed out that, without a concerted national effort, there is a significant risk that Canadian workers and communities who depend on high-carbon industries could face job losses, income disruptions and challenges re-entering the workforce — as we have, unfortunately, seen in past unmanaged economic transitions.
This is where Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, comes into play. This legislation creates a governance and accountability structure to ensure that the federal government supports workers and communities in this shift. While it is true that direct support to workers like retraining programs or early retirement programs could happen without the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, only this type of legislation provides the three elements that would ensure that this is a success: clarity, coherence and accountability.
First, the Canadian sustainable jobs act provides clarity to stakeholders. As you can imagine, preparing for the transition involves many ministries and many more agencies, and through tools like a dedicated minister, one-stop-shop secretariat and publicly available action plans, the act allows us to be clear about who in government is responsible for what.
Second, the Canadian sustainable jobs act provides coherence in the government’s approach to a net-zero economy. Importantly, it does so by linking the federal government’s climate efforts with its workforce and economic planning efforts. Also it does so by laying out principles that all relevant government bodies must apply when developing programs and policies related to the transition.
Finally — and most importantly to us — the Canadian sustainable jobs act is a key tool for accountability. It gives impacted parties access to decision makers. As Bea Bruske from the Canadian Labour Congress put it:
Workers have the expertise to help decarbonize our economy, and this bill will guarantee unions and workers seats at the table on the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council.
The act also requires the minister to publicly respond to the advice of the council. It requires updated action plans every five years and progress reports at the halfway point of every plan so that stakeholders like us can force the government to course correct before it is too late. Better, each action plan has to include specific sections on data collection, progress to date, programs underway and more to give stakeholders a comprehensive view of what is happening and what isn’t.
Senators, the version of the act that you have before you is a much-improved version. Many of the strengths that I just named were hard fought for by opposition parties and stakeholders. Of course, more can and should be done to prepare Canada for the energy transition, yet our immediate focus has to be passing and implementing Bill C-50.
The Canadian Climate Institute recently stated that moving too slowly on the transition to net zero now poses a greater risk to Canada’s competitiveness than moving too quickly. The best time to pass this legislation was actually years ago when it was first promised, but the second-best time is now.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to our discussion.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Laura Cameron, Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development: Hello senators, chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today on Bill C-50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. My name is Laura Cameron, and I’m a policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, or IISD.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development has extensive experience researching and working to promote sustainable development, climate policy and just transitions both in Canada and abroad. Last year, we co-published a report titled Proposals for the Canadian Just Transition Act, which made recommendations for Canada’s legislation on sustainable jobs based on best practices, internationally.
The global energy transition is underway and presents incredible opportunities for green industrial growth and job creation in Canada. Recent research by the Canadian Labour Congress and Pembina Institute estimates that 1.6 million jobs will be created in renewable energy and other low-carbon industries between 2020 and 2050, far outpacing jobs reduced in high-emitting industries. Clean Energy Canada has similarly anticipated a 7% annual growth in clean energy jobs in the transition to net zero in sectors ranging from electric vehicles, or EVs, manufacturing to retrofitting to industrial decarbonization.
At the same time, global markets are shifting away from fossil fuels, and Canada’s export-oriented oil and gas markets will be impacted by this decline. The most recent world energy outlook from the International Energy Agency shows that oil and gas demand will peak in the near term and begin to decline in the coming decades even without additional climate policy.
To prepare for industrial transition and take advantage of these opportunities, we need to enable and expand the workforce. Ushering in the clean energy economy must be done in partnership with workers and communities to make it as smooth as possible and to ensure decent, long-term jobs for Canadians that support livelihoods and broader communities. Proactive planning is essential, as we have learned from past industrial transitions.
The Canadian sustainable jobs act puts in place the necessary building blocks to pave the way forward in collaboration with workers, Indigenous peoples and affected communities. This bill would create governance mechanisms to support workers entering or upskilling into new, low-carbon industries that are best suited to their communities and regions.
Key elements of the act include the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, the Sustainable Jobs Secretariat and the Sustainable Jobs Action Plans. The partnership council will ensure that the government’s work is guided by labour, Indigenous peoples, industry and civil society as well as ensure wide-reaching public engagement across the country.
These governance structures mirror successful practices in other jurisdictions, such as Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and the EU. With this legislation and subsequent actions, Canada can join this group of peers as an international leader in supporting workers and communities through the transition.
Bill C-50 was informed by a previous study by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, involving 64 witnesses. It was improved through amendments made in the House of Commons. The International Institute for Sustainable Development engaged in both of these processes to provide recommendations for how the legislation could be strengthened, alongside civil society and labour partners.
I would like to highlight just a few of those key amendments to the bill.
First, the links between sustainable jobs and climate policy were strengthened, ensuring that workforce planning was in concert with policies under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and that the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council and the Net-Zero Advisory Body are well coordinated.
Additionally, the guiding principles were improved and referenced within the body of the act. Each action plan must now specify how the government is upholding these guiding principles as well as specific measures and milestones to achieve the goals that have been set out.
Finally, the processes laid out in the act were made more inclusive, such as adding reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adding a seat for an environmental organization and other stakeholders on the partnership council and adding requirements for more coordination with provinces and territories.
In light of these improvements, we support the passage of this legislation in its current form and without delay. This would allow the governance bodies to stand up and carry out their work in time for the 2025 action plan to be delivered.
To conclude, the bottom line is that workers need to know that there are good, well-paying jobs for them in their communities and that they will be part of the process of identifying what those jobs will be. Indigenous communities must play a central role if we’re going to be successful in transitioning to an equitable net-zero economy. This legislation as it is currently drafted is a strong indication of moving in the right direction and should be passed without delay.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Now, we will listen to Dr. Keefer.
[Translation]
Dr. Christopher Keefer, President, Canadians for Nuclear Energy: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts on Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act.
[English]
My name is Chris Keefer. I am an ER doctor and the president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. Our organization led the long shot — but ultimately successful — campaign to refurbish the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, which will save over 3,000 high-quality unionized jobs in the green energy sector and keep the plant producing 15% of Ontario’s electricity carbon-free into the 2070s. Pickering, alongside its sister nuclear stations Darlington and Bruce, provided 90% of the energy required to permanently phase out coal in Ontario. This accomplishment has been called North America’s greatest greenhouse gas reduction. It also provided a truly just transition for well-paid coal workers into even better jobs in nuclear.
Bill C-50 defines a sustainable job as one that is unionized and can support a worker and their family over time and includes fair income and job security.
This is a textbook definition of the kind of job opportunities available in nuclear. Dignified wages and an unparalleled 84% unionization rate flow naturally from the high-skilled intergenerational jobs offered by a nuclear plant and its supporting industries over its 70- to 100-year lifespan.
“The Simpsons” got a lot of things wrong about nuclear energy, but the portrayal of a single-income plant worker being able to provide a comfortable middle-class life to his family is spot-on. Unfortunately, not all clean energy jobs are created equal, and there is justifiable concern among fossil fuel workers for their future employment and ability to provide for their families. In the words of the New York Times labour reporter Noam Scheiber:
… the green economy is shaping up to look less like the industrial workplace that lifted workers into the middle class in the 20th century than something more akin to an Amazon warehouse or a fleet of Uber drivers: grueling work schedules, few unions, middling wages and limited benefits.
A University of Massachusetts study estimates that average salaries and benefits within the renewable energy sector are 36% lower than the fossil fuel industry. What explains these differences?
Jim Harrison, the director of renewable energy for the Utility Workers Union of America said, “It’s a lot of transient work, work that is marginal, precarious, and very difficult to organize.” Two thirds of jobs are low-skilled and most are non-union. There are, after all, few permanent jobs and no parking lots outside of wind and solar farms. This puts a major damper on workers’ abilities to negotiate and maintain the sustainable jobs described in the definition of Bill C-50.
Another challenge is the lack of domestic jobs in the wind and solar supply chain. According to data from the International Energy Agency, China controls every major stage of the wind and solar supply chain. For example, 97% of solar wafers and 79% of the world’s polysilicon is produced in China, much of it using forced Uighur labour in Xinjiang province, where the Canadian Parliament voted 266-0 that the genocide of the Uighur people is taking place.
Canada, however, has an under-appreciated ace up our sleeve. Our CANDU nuclear technology is a national treasure developed and owned by the people of Canada. Canadian engineers punched far above our weight class, creating a Generation III+ reactor which has achieved world-class operational experience, rivalling the U.S. origin designs of industrial titans such as General Electric and Westinghouse.
Of great relevance to today’s discussion regarding sustainable jobs, CANDU was tailor-made to ensure total energy security and maximize Canadian economic benefit from our nuclear investment. A locally manufactured modular reactor core avoids the need for heavy forging, an industrial process that Canada does not possess.
The use of heavy water in CANDU reactors avoids the need to enrich uranium and retains the value add of fuel bundle manufacturing jobs within Canada. As a result, CANDU nuclear technology creates the hyper-localized 96% made in Canada supply chain employing 76,000 people. This generates an unprecedented economic multiplier effect.
Studies by the Conference Board of Canada estimate a $1.40 return in local economic activity for every dollar invested in CANDU nuclear. This multiplier is driven by tens of thousands of well-paid workers spending their wages within their thriving local communities, providing the ultimate economic stimulus.
I would like to close by encouraging that the proposed sustainable jobs secretariat uses a technology-agnostic lens but one that is informed by an in-depth and sober analysis of the characteristics of the options on the table. This is necessary to chart a path toward optimally securing the sustainable jobs sought after by this bill. Nuclear energy and Ontario’s coal phaseout provide a gold standard for the creation of such jobs.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to the discussion of this committee.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Keefer.
Ms. Shannon Joseph, welcome. The floor is yours.
Shannon Joseph, Chair, Energy for a Secure Future: Thank you.
Energy for a Secure Future is an initiative focused on building a new conversation about the future of energy in Canada and our potential global role in supporting international allies with energy security and sustainable development. Our national network includes labour, Indigenous, municipal and industry leaders who share a vision for this role for Canada.
The preservation, growth, and creation of high-paying, long-term jobs in Canada is fundamental to a secure future, and we welcome the opportunity to speak to this legislation.
To achieve the goals expressed in the bill, companies must first decide to spend their money in Canada upgrading facilities, investing in innovation. They will only do this if they can successfully answer the following questions: Will I be able to make back the money I spent and more? How long will it take me to do this?
This legislation, therefore, needs to prioritize increased investment attraction to Canada, because this is where sustainable jobs come from.
Are our regulations efficient? Is energy affordable in Canada? How will this change over time so that Canada remains home to natural resource development, manufacturing, agriculture and other sectors?
I want to also highlight the specific importance of Canadian liquefied natural gas as an important vehicle for global emissions reduction and because of its role in creating sustainable jobs. The purpose of Canada’s climate policy is to meet the domestic emission reduction targets the government has committed to under the Paris Agreement. Managing greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions is a global challenge, and so Canada should think about how it can contribute best to reducing global emissions.
As a country with significant energy resources, Canada is uniquely positioned to help our international allies meet their energy needs in a way that reduces global emissions. The export of Canadian liquefied natural gas, or LNG, among the lowest emission LNG in the world, is the best way to do this. It is also something that our friends in Europe and Asia have asked us for.
2022 and 2023 saw the highest consumption of coal in the history of the world, and 2024 is on track for another record. This consumption is driven by electricity and heat production demands, particularly in countries trying to raise standards of living for their citizens. According to multiple studies — including those by the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the National Bank of Canada — the export of LNG from Canada, to displace higher emitting fuels in Asia, could reduce global emissions by more than all of Canada’s domestic emissions production annually. This remains the most significant contribution Canada can make to reducing global emissions, and yet, this global emissions lens is not reflected at all in the legislation.
This also matters because of the sustainable jobs at stake. There are currently six LNG projects under development on Canada’s West Coast. If the majority of these projects were to proceed, the economic benefits would include $10.2 billion in annual GDP, $3.6 billion in government revenues, and 77,600 jobs across the country on an annual basis. These jobs include opportunities in the construction trades, steel manufacturing, rail transport and a host of other services.
It is worth noting as well that these projects all involve significant Indigenous engagement, partnerships and often ownership in all aspects of the value chain: upstream, midstream and downstream. In the case of Woodfibre LNG, the Squamish First Nation conducted the environmental assessment. Blueberry River First Nations is leading environmental stewardship strategies in the upstream. Seventeen of 20 nations along the Coastal GasLink pipeline have an ownership option in the project, and the Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG will be the first majority-Indigenous-owned LNG project in Canada’s history. These projects are therefore all delivering important social, economic and reconciliation benefits for our country alongside important environmental benefits.
In closing, we recommend this legislation reflects the global emissions reduction opportunity of Canadian resource development. Canada should work with its potential customers to be credited for the environmental benefits of our LNG displacing higher emitting energy sources in global markets. We also recommend this legislation consider a range of outcomes associated with delivering a secure energy future for Canada and the world, including affordability, reliability, security and resilience.
Finally, we recommend that a strong focus on how we can best attract investment as a growing economy is a prerequisite for Canada achieving its goals.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will now begin the question period with Senator Miville-Dechêne.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you to everyone for your very informative remarks. I have some specific questions. We can obviously see who the stakeholders are in relation to the bill. It’s pretty clear.
I’m wondering about two things. Is there a risk of deadlock, given that the stakeholders do not necessarily have the same outlook on a variety of issues? If so, I’m wondering why academic experts aren’t being brought to the table. Since they’re outside the sparring going on right now, they could help us better understand the way the job market is transforming. It would be an interesting opportunity.
I’m not sure you can answer my question, but as you know, in our wonderful federation, the provinces are usually responsible for the workforce. Then why isn’t the Council of the Federation at the table, so that we could conduct a broad consultation that would provide concrete results?
Who has something to say about my question?
Ms. Rougeot: I’ll step up. Thank you for your question and your attention to the bill, senator.
In your first question, you correctly identified the potential risk of a deadlock if those appointed to the council have an interest in maintaining the status quo. They might prioritize the fossil fuel-based economy of the past instead of the economy of the future. We have worked closely with the government to ensure that the language and criteria relating to the members of the partnership council clearly address the industries that will be part of the economy of the future. The language was modified at the request of a number of stakeholders.
In reply to your second question, I think it is very important to have groups whose interests are not perfectly aligned. What matters most is having them all at the same table. Social dialogue works, as we see in other jurisdictions. It is pretty much the only way to defuse tension, and there will be tension within the council. We feel that it should be resolved there rather than in the public realm, where it will never get resolved.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: What about having more quote-unquote neutral experts, such as academics, who could help with the more complex matters?
Ms. Joseph: I think it’s important to have as many perspectives as possible when it comes to transforming the economy. However, there is no lack of expertise when we have people who work in the sector, representing industries that create jobs now and have an idea of how to transform investments for the jobs of the future. Keep in mind that the economy of the future will be built on something that already exists. How can we transform the economy while maintaining affordability, jobs, a reasonable cost of living and the competitiveness of Canadian markets? Academics aren’t the only ones who can answer that. Thank you.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses. This is directed to Ms. Rougeot, Ms. Cameron and Ms. Joseph, if possible. It’s about communities, and I want to give this context.
In Saskatchewan, we had the experience of a city called Uranium City, created in 1960, on the north shore of Lake Athabasca. In 1981, it was a very vibrant community of 2,500 people. In 1982, the Eldorado mine was shut down without notice and a depopulation creating 500-plus houses are left behind in a ghost city. Business collapsed. In a contemporary context, in Coronach, Saskatchewan, they face the same fate in the sense that there are 2,500 people and schools, theatres, hospitals, et cetera, but their economy is based on coal‑fired electricity. In that context, I want to focus on communities.
How do you suggest Bill C-50 address the needs of remote and rural communities, particularly First Nations communities and communities in rural Canada, in small-population provinces like Saskatchewan and others?
Ms. Cameron: That’s a great question. Addressing the needs of communities, especially those that would be first and worst affected are essential. That’s where the partnership council needs to start. That is the kind of urgency that we see in moving this bill forward and allowing that partnership council to be created and for them to set out to do the work that they plan to do, which includes regional engagement with communities, regularly visiting affected communities across the country, hearing from community members and workers about exactly what is happening and supporting the creation of programs and investments that will work for those communities.
Those are things we supported in this legislation and that we hope to see in the Sustainable Jobs Plan as well — specific mechanisms to support regional planning to make sure that communities and regions can have leadership roles in planning their future economic development and that the supports from the federal government are met with a bottom-up approach to allow those communities and workers to be at the table from the very beginning.
This endeavour in proactive planning is an opportunity to correct and to improve upon some of the transitions of the past that you mentioned where maybe, there wasn’t as much proactive planning and it was left to market forces and workers were left out in the cold at points. That’s the opportunity. I’ll let others join in here.
Ms. Joseph: Thanks. This is why competitiveness is such an important priority for this legislation. It is not emphasized in the skill set for the council or the approach of the plan, but Canada has had experiences with industries shutting down suddenly, like the fisheries in Newfoundland, like coal-mining communities in Alberta when they switched rapidly to natural-gas-fired electricity. If we’re doing this across the whole economy very quickly, we shouldn’t have an exaggerated sense of the government’s own fiscal capacity to just fill gaps all over the place. We really need to continue to attract investment, to have companies see their ability to transform the energy systems for their facilities, to have net-zero coal manufacturing. But those jobs need to be created before we try phasing things out because there may not be anything to fill that gap. That is critically important. I do think that is a gap in the legislation.
Ms. Rougeot: As a final note, one of the strengths we see in this bill is the section on data collection. We know that Statistics Canada has really robust data collection and very poor outward data communication. Most of the time, stakeholders are not informed about information that the government actually has, especially where we can now anticipate a lot of the economic disruptions. Those are global trends, as several of us have described.
I’m really looking forward to seeing how the first action plan will have this explicit transparency on data collection so that communities, including union leadership, including local councils as well, are able to see the data and predict ahead of time the investments that need to be made, as opposed to being caught off guard as we might have seen in the past.
Senator Galvez: My question is for Environmental Defence Canada and Energy for a Secure Future and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. But, first, I want to say that I agree with Ms. Joseph that we need to invest. We need first to create the jobs, and the industries in order to create those sustainable jobs.
The initial version of this act was created in isolation, and it was not connected to our net-zero 2050 act. It was standing there alone and, at the other place, they saw this and they connected it with the net-zero act because we needed to have goals and targets and a timeline.
Here I want to give you the opportunity to comment on who will create those jobs? What are the goals in terms of the numbers, and where? What sectors will create these new sustainable jobs?
Ms. Joseph: I will start because I did comment quite a bit on LNG, which I continue to emphasize is really important for the many countries that continue to rely on higher emitting fuels to grow their economies.
If we just start with that sector, increased activity in that sector will create a lot of jobs. It will also create a lot of wealth. The development will also lead to more confidence internationally that Canada can get things done.
I have spent a lot of time working with members of our network, including in the Indigenous space, meeting with diplomats and talking to them about Canada’s ability to provide things like hydrogen. The question is: Can you build it? Can you get it done?
Ms. Rougeot: Thank you, senator, for your question. I have two points. The first one is about attracting investments, because I also agree that competitiveness is key. This is where being ready as a nation is paramount. You cannot be investment ready without a skilled, trained workforce that has the skills to match the industries of the future. That’s one aspect that the bill addresses head-on.
The other point, on the sectors of the future, we tend to imagine that only renewables would be in direct transition from a fossil fuel economy when, in fact, there is also energy efficiency, manufacturing, construction, built-infrastructure jobs, as well as the transportation industry. There is a plurality of sectors there that I would point to.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses. I have two questions. The first is for Ms. Cameron and Ms. Rougeot. With Canada’s emissions at 1.5% of global emissions of CO2 and a recent report by RBC suggesting that Canada’s financial commitment to carbon reduction is $2 trillion, what is your expectation, or what is your research, with respect to how low Canada’s emissions will go after the institution of Bill C-50 and other projects that Canada is undertaking?
Ms. Cameron: Thanks for the question. Yes, I think it is paramount that Canada — we do have very high per capita emissions is one piece, but we also need to take responsibility for our —
Senator Wells: I’m sorry, I didn’t ask about per capita emissions, I asked about total emissions.
Ms. Cameron: Yes. I’m just adding information.
We need to take advantage of the downstream impacts of the exported oil and gas that we produce. When we look at total emissions, that is a piece of the puzzle that isn’t often accounted for, but it is something that we need to take responsibility for. As a leading oil and gas producer globally, we do have a leadership role to play in the transition, and other countries are looking to Canada to lead in this area.
Bill C-50 is one piece of the puzzle. It is not in and of itself going to make the transition happen but, thinking back to Senator Galvez’s question, we need a green industrial strategy in concert with this bill, which is about creating jobs and upscaling the workforce to make sure that we have the workers in place to fill those jobs and those industrial opportunities. Bill C-50 in itself is not going to be the one piece that reduces our emissions, but it needs to be part of the broader suite of climate policies that we see.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Ms. Rougeot: There is another thought here on my end, which is that we have always seen this as a sister bill to all the work done on the Emissions Reduction Plan and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. In many ways, we wish those two had happened side-by-side, because we always want the human side of things to match the industrial and environmental side of things. This is more the insurance policy, the way we ensure that we leave no one behind, but the real emissions reductions will come from those other ones.
On the industrial side, we’re seeing a lot of investment tax credits or other ways of incentivizing, and we often wonder about the people. We have had many union leaders tell us that they’re hearing their employer is getting the tax credits and they are not seeing any of that money. This is the bill that ensures that people are not left behind.
I will also echo that Canada is the second-highest GHG per capita and eleventh highest in the world, so what we do here really significantly matters for the rest of the world.
Senator Wells: I would like to say that I asked about the reduction of Canada’s emissions, not per capita emissions.
Ms. Joseph, thank you for mentioning Newfoundland and Labrador and what we went through in the early 1990s. I spent 30 years in the fisheries, and it included that time. There were two programs, The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy and the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program, where billions were spent on retraining people when there was a sudden closing of the fisheries. Tens of thousands of people were put out of work. We’re feeling that now, not because people were retrained for jobs that didn’t exist, as Senator Galvez’s question referenced, but because people left rural Newfoundland where other opportunities were scarce.
What would be your comment on the current proposal for Bill C-50, recognizing your positive comments about the transition fuels of natural gas? What would you see for rural areas of the country, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, but other areas, in particular, Indigenous areas of Western Canada?
Ms. Joseph: Thank you so much. I want to make a quick comment about per capita emissions because other witnesses commented. Sixty-seven per cent of Canada’s end-use energy is industrial. We have high per capita emissions because we have a small population but use a lot of energy to have a big economy. If we want to shrink that, we need to make sure that we don’t shrink our economy at the same time. I just wanted to make that comment.
In terms of rural Canada, I think it is important to recognize that there are different kinds of jobs that are going to be in different places. Canada has a strong background in resource development of all kinds, from mining to manufacturing, et cetera. A lot of that happens in rural Canada. Rural Canada needs upgrades in electricity infrastructure, it needs better road and transport infrastructure. There are all kinds of fundamentals that will make it more likely that those communities have and can attract jobs, businesses, et cetera, to their regions. That is important, including for Indigenous communities, because they don’t want to leave those places. Those places are important to them.
As Canada pursues this, it is very important to have those people at the table, the workers from those regions and the provinces, to very strongly look at the economic opportunities here, not theoretically, and the other tradeoffs that we are willing to accept. There will always be tradeoffs. Data is not enough. In the end, a choice has to be made, and I think it is very important that those choices are driven by the people most affected.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Thank you. Thanks to all the witnesses today. In the community’s stream of Senator Arnot, Senator Galvez and Senator Wells, I am wondering, Ms. Cameron, in your testimony, you said that proactive planning is essential as we have learned from other industrial sectors. Can you expand on that? We have heard of some examples where communities were left as ghost towns. Senator Wells mentioned the investment that went into communities in Newfoundland and Labrador for cod fisheries closing down. Through the international lens, can you give some examples of a positive transition in communities or industries?
Ms. Cameron: Yes. Thank you for the question. The examples that have been listed in Canada are what we need to be learning from. We definitely recognize that transitions have been bumpy at times for communities, to say the least. That is why this is an opportunity to look ahead that differs from some past economic transitions.
One example I would cite is in Germany and the transition away from coal there, which is a major export for the country. It has been really interesting, and I know there is an ongoing discussion between the governments of Germany and Canada to share lessons learned in the coal transitions and fossil fuel transitions more generally. In Germany, there was a similarly large task force set up with representation from the different regions that paved a timeline over the next 20 years for their coal production phaseout. Along with that timeline, there is a comprehensive plan and national investments that are directed to the most affected regions based on their economic planning to incentivize, grow and draw capital into those regions to create new jobs ahead of or in concert with the transition to ensure that those communities aren’t left behind. That’s one good example that I would point to. I don’t think it’s a perfect example, but it’s really important that Canada is learning lessons from other jurisdictions on this.
Mr. Keefer: In terms of a good example, I outlined that in my testimony — Ontario’s transition from coal to nuclear is really, I think, a gold standard. We have to remember that the jobs in the fossil fuel industry tend to be high-quality jobs that support families and are sustainable.
Obviously, there is a move to transition. Unfortunately, the example my co-witness presented in Germany is not accurate. They still rely on coal as the number one source of power generation in that country. Part of the reason for that is because they phased out nuclear, which used to provide 25% of their electricity.
We don’t have to look far. We have a compelling example here. We have incredible hydroelectric infrastructure across the country, but it’s tapped out — we have used all the best sites. There’s not much left for us to use. Nuclear provides an evidence-based pathway. We haven’t seen similar ultra-low carbon grids created by wind and solar, for instance.
What’s important is that the committees and secretariats that are created by this bill really examine the evidence in a dispassionate way and remain evidence based. I think, again, we have an excellent example to learn from here in Ontario. It’s applicable to other provinces in the country that are as hydroelectrically constrained as Ontario is.
Ms. Cameron: If I may correct, I didn’t say that Germany has phased out coal. At this point in time, I’m just saying they have a road map to do so.
Senator McBean: Thank you for weighing in, Dr. Keefer. Ms. Cameron, where in the 20-year plan is Germany?
Ms. Cameron: I believe their timeline goes out to 2038, so this plan was just made in the last couple of years. It’s very comprehensive. I would be happy to follow up with more information. My international colleagues within IISD based in Geneva and elsewhere in Europe are closely following this process, so I would be happy to share more information. I know it is something that the Sustainable Jobs Secretariat is also closely looking at.
Senator McBean: We would be happy to receive that information. Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you to the witnesses for your presentations.
We must remember that in the present, today, many communities are still living in toxic environments from extractive resource businesses. There has always been a creation of wealth, but there is still a lot of poverty, despite the fact that Canada has had a lot of opportunities to eradicate it. I know that inclusion and poverty are one of the guiding principles of the presentations that were made.
All presenters have spoken about the importance of including First Nations, Métis, Inuit and non-status in this fair transition. First Nations have always experienced disruption in securing sustainable jobs because they are under three bodies, including federal and provincial governments and corporations, which have kept them behind because of interjurisdictional issues. We are told that an effective government approach should include reactive elements to address historical and immediate impacts that are already underway with this transition, as well as proactive elements that will allow planning and getting ahead of anticipated economic changes.
How will impacts caused by external factors, such as the upholding of treaties where it includes territories and First Nations, not be moving from their territories, government policy, and most of all, a lack of corporate accountability — for example, polluter pays and reforming bankruptcy laws? How are they handled in this bill? Those have a lot of impact on the situations today in First Nations communities.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We already have another panel of witnesses waiting. Perhaps the witnesses could answer Senator McCallum’s and Senator Arnot’s questions in writing. I think that would be a good way to wrap this up and have you share your views with the two senators who are awaiting answers. Do we all agree?
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Dr. Keefer, what specific investments do you believe are necessary in the nuclear sector to support the transition outlined in Bill C-50? I would like this answer in writing.
Here’s the context. Saskatchewan has a corporation, SaskPower, which is a small electrical generating corporation with a small customer base of 1.2 million people. We need, in their estimation, four small modular reactors at $5 billion each, for a total of $20 billion.
Where is the access to funds to convert from fossil fuel to nuclear coming from? Add on the additional doubling of electrical infrastructure in the next five years for new electricity generation. Can you put that in writing, please, sir? I would like to use your answer, if possible, in an observation on this bill.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to the witnesses for appearing this morning.
[English]
For our second panel we welcome the Hon. Seamus O’Regan, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour and Seniors, Employment and Social Development Canada by video conference.
[Translation]
The minister is accompanied by Eva Lazar, Executive Director, Special Projects, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada, as well as Christina Paradiso, Director General, Energy Policy Branch, and Cori Anderson, Director, Sustainable Jobs, Natural Resources Canada.
[English]
Thank you for being with us, minister. Ten minutes is reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, minister.
[Translation]
Hon. Seamus O’Regan, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour and Seniors: Thank you. Bill C-50 is about seizing the opportunities of the future, and it’s a bright one for Canadian workers. The world is looking for clean, renewable energy in the form of biofuels, hydrogen and solar power.
We can sit on our hands and let those industries be built in other countries, or we can make sure it’s workers here who get those jobs — workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan and all across Canada. They are the ones who will build this industry and sell renewable energy to the world.
This bill recognizes the reality: The world wants renewable energy. Sustainable jobs are good jobs. Think of the Air Products hydrogen facility in Edmonton, which will employ over 2,500 workers. These are sustainable jobs. Think of the Northvolt EV battery factory in Saint-Basile-le-Grand, where 3,000 workers will build the batteries that will power our cars. These are sustainable jobs.
I invite the senators to visit Come By Chance, Newfoundland, where 800 workers have converted a traditional oil refinery into a renewable fuel refinery. These are sustainable jobs. I’m a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador. We’re an oil-producing province that depends on oil revenues for 50% of our provincial budget. Therefore, it’s really important to me and people where I’m from that we get this right. We’ve got skin in the game. The provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador was the only jurisdiction in North America to unanimously vote for net zero. Unanimously.
I’m proud of my province’s association with the oil and gas industry and prouder to tell you that the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association has been rebranded to become Energy NL. These people are talking seriously about hydrogen, renewables and energy portfolios. Some of the most creative and practical solutions are coming from workers and unions. They want a seat at the table. That’s what C-50 does: It would make sure workers have a seat at the table. Nothing more, nothing less. Workers who feel left out tend to get anxious or angry. I want their ideas, especially in a time of a labour shortage, particularly in the trades. We need their ideas.
Thank you. I’m looking forward to answering your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, minister.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, minister for your presentation. We still don’t know how much Bill C-50 will cost. That will be one of my questions.
I want to reference what happened in the cod fishery in the 1990s, which you will be well familiar with, when TAGS and NCARP — two retraining programs, which is essentially what Bill C-50 will be — retrained people for —
Mr. O’Regan: No, not necessarily.
Senator Wells: Thanks. Wait for my question and then I will wait for your answer.
Mr. O’Regan: Which page are you referencing on training in the bill?
Senator Wells: Mr. O’Regan, we are trying to collect information and evidence for our study. You’ll know that. You’ll have a chance to respond.
Mr. O’Regan: I am looking at Bill C-50. There is no mention of training talking about a table where workers can have a say. There’s no mention of training.
Senator Wells: Thank you. Bill C-50 — it used to be the Just Transition Act and is now the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act — purports to remove people — I will talk about Newfoundland and Labrador but really it can be assumed right across the country where oil and gas is an important part of the economy — from already sustainable jobs that pay in excess sometimes —
Mr. O’Regan: No, it does not.
Senator Wells: — of three times —
Mr. O’Regan: No, it does not.
Senator Wells: — what the average Canadian makes —
Mr. O’Regan: No, it doesn’t.
Senator Wells: — and bring them into another industry as yet unknown.
Mr. O’Regan: No, it doesn’t.
Senator Wells: Would you tell me what it purports to do?
Mr. O’Regan: Let’s see. Look at the verbs under the council’s responsibilities, clause 7: advise, advise, advise, advise, advise, engage, addressing. There is no “remove.” There is no “eliminate.” “Advise.” That is what this is about. I want to be very clear. We’re debating Bill C-50. The verbs here used are advise, advise, advise, advise; (d.1) is advise, (e) engage, (f) addressing.
Senator Wells: This will be, minister, just that? There will be no effort to move people from the petroleum sector into other jobs, green jobs, which you have talked about before?
Mr. O’Regan: Some of them are moving because the money is better or they have jobs. I’m here at Energy NL. Senator, I know that you are familiar with the conference. They have a record number of people attending the conference this year, absolute record number, and fully half of the participants are renewables. People here are embracing it. They are going to where the jobs are, where the money is. We want to ensure that we can provide training and they can have some input on what the training might be, but I will not even presuppose it is training. They are here to advise the minister on certain things and to give some independent advice. Workers have been asking to have a say in what is going on.
My gosh, this place is booming. I have attended — I know you have too — Energy NL, and before that NOIA, conferences for, I don’t know, seven, eight, nine years. This, by far, is off the charts. It is happening, you know? The energy transition is happening. It is happening here.
Senator Wells: Minister, thank you.
Mr. O’Regan: The opportunities are unbelievable.
Senator Wells: Thanks, minister. We’re trying to gather evidence here.
Mr. O’Regan: Come on the ground here. This is exciting stuff. This is the kind of evidence you want for your study, trust me.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to make a comment. Would it be possible not to have people interject as we are trying to put in our evidence and ask questions? It’s very disruptive. I didn’t even get his question because there was so much —
The Deputy Chair: I agree with you.
[Translation]
Excuse me, everyone. The minister will be here until eleven o’clock. The senators have questions to ask him and we would like to hear not only the answer, but also the question. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator McCallum, for putting that forward for the minister.
Minister, this bill is being sponsored by Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Why is the bill not sponsored by you, the Minister of Labour?
Mr. O’Regan: In Labour, I chiefly do those matters of industries and workers that are within federal jurisdiction. I will say that I began this work as Minister of Natural Resources myself. I planted the seeds for it. Minister Wilkinson, at that time, was Minister of Environment; we started working on it then. He became Minister of Natural Resources; he took it over. But this is something that workers in my province, Trades NL included, have wanted for quite some time, so I am looking after their interests and making sure that I am heavily involved.
Senator Wells: Thank you. Minister, we had testimony on Tuesday that the wage gap with Indigenous workers in the oil and gas industry has largely closed. In fact, we heard testimony that the Indigenous oil and gas workers upstream actually make more than the average Canadian oil and gas worker. By comparison, Indigenous federal government workers make 9.3% less than their peers in the oil and gas industry.
What would you say to Indigenous workers who are taking advantage of the great opportunities in the oil and gas sector, which partnerships exist not just in employment but in ownership of major projects on their territories, including pipelines, LNG terminals and gas plants?
Mr. O’Regan: I can answer that question partially in another role that I hold as chair of the Ministerial Working Group on Regulatory Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects. One of our highest priorities is making sure that we have Indigenous participation. Their work should be held not only on equal par, but we’re looking at all sorts of opportunities where they can take equity stakes. I don’t think it’s a secret that those discussions, in some corners, have already begun on the Trans Mountain Expansion, known as TMX. I’m happy to say that the project is now built and is now producing.
As you will note in the formation of the table that we are setting up with the minister, they also have representation at that table so they can give independent advice directly to the minister on what we can do to ensure we address these problems. We need Indigenous workers. Many of them are in the North and live near sites where the work is taking place in this country, whether it be mines, hydroelectricity or oil and gas or small modular reactors known as SMRs. They will be near those places. They are ready and able to work. That allows them to live at home, which is something as Newfoundlanders we can both relate to, something that is a good thing in and of itself. We are utterly committed to it.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, minister. I appreciate how difficult it is to set up a committee of representatives on such a sensitive issue. I must say I’m surprised to see that all three worker representatives are union representatives, whereas 70% of the Canadian workforce is non-unionized. Why can’t they be at the table? I think both are important.
I’m from Quebec, where we are very aware of and sensitive to matters of jurisdiction. This is a labour issue. Would it have been possible to bring the Council of the Federation into the initiative? That way, there wouldn’t be any pushback when it comes time to apply everything the committee has discussed.
[English]
Mr. O’Regan: On the first question on formation, yes, we are concentrating on unionized workers. A lot of our investment tax credit efforts have been on promoting union work, on making sure that in those areas where that may not be possible that they still pay a prevailing union wage.
There is some flexibility in a formation where there is a stakeholder at the minister’s discretion who could fill the gap. I would leave it to the minister that, perhaps, that could be a role that is filled with non-unionized workers.
But union representatives with whom I have met and discussed this, whether it’s operating engineers or electrical workers or the building trades, represented by Canada’s Building Trades Unions, CBTU, also have an eye on workers in general. They are not there just to represent their own membership. They are also there to represent workers’ sum total.
Can I ask you, senator, if you would not mind indulging me, I wanted to make sure that I had a good answer for you on the first one, but I did not hear you as clearly on the second question? Could you briefly repeat it for me?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, it was about provincial representation. Obviously, manpower questions are also falling in the provincial jurisdiction. Why isn’t the Council of the Federation, which aims at representing provinces, not represented on this council? Have you thought about it? Maybe you can’t do that because they are provincial. Why aren’t they at the table instead of being outside? Maybe this will provoke a backlash once it is time to implement.
Mr. O’Regan: In my experience as Minister of Natural Resources, senator, I can tell you that if provinces or territories want to talk to us about the energy sector, they deal with us directly. They do not go through a council. They know how to get either the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment or Prime Minister directly, as they should, to be honest. I worked for five years in the provincial government here. It’s really important. I would be the first to say that if you look at the Impact Assessment Act, which we are revamping now as a result of a court decision, it is very important that you respect jurisdiction.
In my time, as Minister of Natural Resources, dealing with energy ministers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I began every meeting with, “I know my lane.” They tend to deal directly. However, we have made certain amendments to this bill to make sure it specifically mentions the importance of provincial governments and territories, particularly on issues of energy and natural resource extraction. They have clear jurisdiction in a whole host of areas there.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Have you been consulting with provinces, and are they onboard with this initiative?
Mr. O’Regan: I will leave that to Ms. Anderson on the formal consultation. I will say, again, that this is really important. This is an advisory table for the minister. The minister would then take that advice with him to meetings with his provincial counterparts. This is advice that solely goes to this minister which he then takes with him when he is dealing with his provincial counterparts, as he should.
Ms. Anderson, would you like to add something there, maybe on the formal process of consultation?
Cori Anderson, Director, Sustainable Jobs, Natural Resources Canada: I’m happy to. On the consultation, we did undertake extensive consultations from 2021-22. That included multiple attempts to seek input from provinces and territories. We did receive some input from some provinces and territories.
We didn’t receive formal input from Quebec. We have received communications from a number of important social dialogue organizations in Quebec.
I want to point you to two areas in the bill. Paragraph 7(e) reflects that the partnership council should engage relevant partners and stakeholders including those at the provincial and territorial level. That really was with the social dialogue organizations in Quebec in mind because we know they are already set up and operating and doing good work. We wanted to make sure that that was in the bill, that the partnership council will engage with organizations like that.
Paragraph 7(d) says the partnership council is also empowered to advise the minister on potential areas of cooperation with the governments of the provinces and territories.
The bill is focused on areas of federal jurisdiction, but we wanted the partnership council to feel free to suggest areas where we could potentially cooperate with provinces and territories and for the minister to receive that advice.
Senator White: Good morning, minister. Thank you for presenting. It is a pleasure to see you, albeit virtually.
I am looking to get a better understanding of the timelines, especially given the need to move quickly here. The bill requires the tabling of the sustainable jobs action plan in each Parliament no later than 2026. Is there a possibility that this could be done sooner or are there other initiatives and programs being implemented simultaneously that would support this transition?
Mr. O’Regan: Ms. Anderson, do you want to give a specific answer on timelines?
Ms. Anderson: Yes. Just on timelines with regard to the action plan, the bill requires the action plan to be tabled before December 31, 2025. There is nothing in the bill that precludes it from being tabled earlier. That would be at the discretion of the government.
In terms of other things going on, yes, there are many things going on in the government to support low-carbon economic development, to support workforce development. The government has earmarked $160 billion since 2016 toward the low-carbon transition and workforce development.
We’re not waiting for the action plan to be doing this work. Many things are already happening. The action plan will provide an opportunity to be a bit more focused about where gaps might still exist, and it will also be an opportunity to lay out for Canadians the story of everything that we’re doing and how it supports the objective of supporting the workforce as we move to this low-carbon economy.
Senator Galvez: Welcome, Minister O’Regan. I agree with you that we are in the transition, and it is here to stay and that we are maybe lagging behind our peers in the G7, in Europe, and so we have to move.
I’m happy to see the amendments in your place with respect to linking this bill with other bills that we have, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act that set a target of net zero by 2050. My question is, though: Who is going to create these jobs? What is the role of the finance sector in creating these jobs?
I know in the bill there are no targets, neither in the number of jobs nor in the reduction of emissions, which appear in the preamble. I am questioning about how it is going to work.
Mr. O’Regan: I don’t know, but I can tell you it is working. I’m a bit energized, senator. The reason I couldn’t appear in person is every year, I come to Energy NL’s conference, as I said in my opening remarks. This is a group that used to be called the Newfoundland Offshore Industries Association. It dealt solely with oil and gas, and now they have embraced everything. Half the membership there with booths are renewables.
It is happening, and what we want to be able to do is just ensure, particularly for workers, that they have a seat at the table as decisions are being made from a government’s point of view, but that is just one. We look after one, but it is companies, employers and proponents that are taking leadership here. They are going for it.
Yesterday, Pattern Energy, which is based out of Argentia, Newfoundland, but it’s based in an American company, just tabled a $1.5 billion project on green hydrogen and wind, and they just signed a deal in Germany.
It is happening. The biggest [Technical difficulties] is happening in Argentia. It’s happening. We have other jurisdictions that are happening. It’s happening.
Senator Galvez: We agree. Minister, you included a definition of what a sustainable job is. Shouldn’t it be linked to a taxonomy so it is clear which sector should be — I don’t know. We put more effort in a sector because we need to reduce the emissions by 2050. We want net zero. Can you link your bill with other initiatives that we are doing and that is going to ensure that this time we attain our emissions target by 2050?
Mr. O’Regan: Senator, it is compatible with Canada’s pathway of achieving net-zero emissions. Any job that is compatible. That means jobs in the oil and gas sector that are reducing emissions. Cenovus is already reducing its methane year over year by some 21%. That is hugely important to meeting our targets.
I don’t think we need to be specific to any one industry. All we have to say is jobs that are compatible with helping us meet our targets. We have to have that flexibility. There are a lot of people within the oil and gas sector, a lot of workers, who are doing very good work. As I said, Cenovus and Suncor are two companies whose ambitions are tied directly to net zero. The part of the six majors out in the oil sands that are part of the Pathways Alliance are working together on carbon capture, and they are taking it seriously.
May I just add that one of the big items of news that came out of the Energy NL conference just two days ago was that a company in France had done major geological work offshore of one of our geological formations. Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the best opportunities for carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, that they have seen anywhere in the world. They think it is enough for all of Canada’s carbon to be captured for 60 years. Sixty years of our national carbon can be stored offshore and onshore in Newfoundland.
That was the buzz a couple of days ago. For people like me who have been working on this for quite some time, this is like winning the lottery. This is incredible, and it is incredible for jobs and for revenue potential in our province and country. This is a game changer. There is a lot happening right now.
Senator Arnot: Minister, this transition, of course, is required. I am going to focus on two core concerns, and I have two questions. The first is about communities.
Minister, how do you suggest Bill C-50 addresses the needs of First Nations, remote and rural communities? I am asking that in this context: I gave an example in the last panel. Uranium City, in 1981, in Saskatchewan was a thriving community. By 1982, it was depopulated — 500 houses. It was a ghost town. Coronach, Saskatchewan, is a community that has the same fate facing it because its economy is all based on coal-fired electricity.
What do we do about ensuring that communities that face these kinds of problems are going to be dealt with in Bill C-50?
My second question is on nuclear energy. What specific investments do you believe are necessary in the nuclear sector to support the transition outlined in Bill C-50?
Here is the context: Saskatchewan is a small population province of 1.2 million people. We need four nuclear reactors at the very least, at $5 billion each: $20 billion. Where will the access to funds going to come from to convert from fossil fuels to nuclear energy?
In addition, we heard yesterday that we have to double the electrical infrastructure to meet the demand in five years. There is a huge cost, and I can say a small province like Saskatchewan probably doesn’t have the wherewithal to access the kinds of funds required in short order.
Mr. O’Regan: Senator, I will do my best to address two of those questions. First, let me just point out that this bill is not intended to answer either of those questions. This bill is intended to set up a table so that there are people around that table who can come up with answers to those questions, answers that come in the form of advice to the minister. That’s what it is. It is setting up a table.
Senator Arnot: Ensuring that these two concerns are addressed at the table. Can you give me any assurance that those kinds of concerns will be addressed in a meaningful way? Those are the core concerns that face communities in Canada, small provinces, rural and remote.
Mr. O’Regan: Let me address them as best as I can. First, no, I can’t give you that assurance because that would presuppose the independence of this group.
I can’t think there is any way, particularly if you look at the formation of this group. You have three members who are going to be represented from Indigenous peoples. There is no way that you can’t talk about that. I can tell you, as somebody who has studied Indigenous energy issues for 30 years, you have to deal with this.
We won’t presuppose what this table will come up with, but there is no getting around natural resources. I did my studies in this. There is no getting around it. You must deal in a fair and real way with First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities in order to make any of this happen.
Let me also address nuclear. I am incredibly proud of what we are doing with nuclear, and I’m particularly proud out in Saskatchewan that Cameco and Westinghouse are now together and continues to be based out of Saskatoon. I’m proud that the CEO of Cameco was down in the White House with the Energy Secretary. I was texting with him back and forth to talk about what a major player Canada is in nuclear now with two companies. We’re not just dealing with CANDU reactors, we now have an incredible opportunity where the purveyors of some of the richest uranium in the world — and I have visited that mine in Saskatchewan — are now with one of the biggest makers of nuclear reactors in the world, Westinghouse, which is based out of Pennsylvania.
This is an incredible opportunity for us, and one that is recognized by the White House. Canada is a tier one nation. I never thought that regulatory regimes would be a competitive edge, but it is our competitive edge. Canada is hugely trusted around the world as a nuclear player, and there is no getting around it. We need nuclear. It is a strength for us. We need it to meet our net-zero targets, we need to develop small modular reactors, or SMR, capacity, particularly in the North. First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities are going to have a heavy say in that, to ensure that they are both safe and practical, and that they are able to get them off diesel in the North, where I grew up.
There are exciting things happening. These questions, I honestly believe, have to be answered at this table. I don’t want to say they will be, because, again, this is an independent group, but they have to be. Canada has to deal with both of these issues, but the good news is that we have huge opportunities. This isn’t a requirement; this is an opportunity in both of those sectors.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister, for being here and being part of this discussion and, of course, for your work in this field over many years. I have one suggestion and one question.
The suggestion is about the council. I think the size of it and the composition is fine and great, but I think you are going to find that there are a lot of other people — when you name the 13 — who feel they are left out. It’s everybody, from various sectors to provinces to equity-seeking groups and so forth. I would like to suggest that — and it doesn’t have to be in the act — there be a process where the council consults with a larger group of people, either through a more informal reference group or an annual conference or some mechanism. It is important not just for the image of this council, but so that people have confidence in what the council can do. That’s my suggestion.
My question is about the way people look at this bill. On the one hand, there are people who like the bill and feel that it gives them a road map to the future. We heard that very clearly from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bea Bruske, yesterday at another committee. On the other hand, you people are concerned that this bill is intended to speed up the phaseout of oil and gas without the green economy jobs being ready for them when they get phased out. What is your message to people who have those concerns?
Mr. O’Regan: You could listen to my speech yesterday when I addressed the Energy NL conference in St. John’s. If you look at our traditional oil and gas place here in this province, Bay du Nord is new and is drilling again this summer. Terra Nova is back in production with a lifespan expected to go to 2031. SeaRose in Ireland country is getting a refit so that they will be ready for the White Rose project, which is going all the way to 2038. ExxonMobil is investing $1.5 billion in Hibernia and Hebron. We’re very proud that ExxonMobil said that the environmental assessment process in drilling an exploratory well, which they are in the process of doing near some of the development sands near Hebron, was the fastest anywhere in the world because we were able to do good work under the Regional Assessments provision of the Impact Assessment Act.
What you see here in this province is that this transition is not a flip of a switch. We are a proud and oil and gas-producing province that is now exploring, readily, enthusiastically and with big money attached, other areas of energy. Hibernia produces some of the lowest emissions in the world. Bay du Nord beats that. We are going to need oil and gas for some time, and provinces like mine will continue to rely on the revenues derived from that, but is happening. This is happening. That is what I am particularly proud of.
There is nothing in here that says anything about eliminating anything. All the words you see are about creating, creating and creating. My biggest issue, as I have told this committee with my other hats on, is making sure that we have enough labour and that we have people who are built up in the trades. As you point out, the unions that are associated with this want this bill to pass, and they want it to pass because they have been asking for a seat at the table. This creates a table with three of them sitting at it. This was something that they have asked for. Building trades wants this passed, operating engineers, electrical workers — all through the energy sector of this country. This means a lot to them because they want to feel that they are a part of what is happening, and they want to be able to prepare for the creation of new jobs on top of the jobs that already exist in our energy sector.
Senator Cardozo: Do you have the same optimism about the green economy in Saskatchewan and Alberta, where I think there is some opposition, perhaps more from the governments than the workers?
Mr. O’Regan: I’m a big believer in the marketplace. I’m a big believer in governments sometimes steering things to make sure that the marketplace is fair for everybody and that we’re able to realize opportunities more aggressively where we see it is in the public interest. But the market is moving. The money is going. Follow the money. Get out of the way.
It is evident around me in this city right now. I always take the time to walk the floors, a lot of people in this industry now are friends of mine, and some have gone over to other opportunities where they were in oil and gas and now they are in renewables and vice versa. It is interchangeable for them.
For the workers, when I have talked to crane operators in Alberta, they have said to me that whether they’re lifting an oil pipeline or a wind turbine, work is work. Just let people do the work. Let’s follow the money and the jobs. This is happening, and it is very exciting.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator McBean: Hello, Minister O’Regan. Thank you for your time and attention to our questions today. It is nice to hear you talk about there being enough labour, because the idea of a sustainable transition is more than just sustainable jobs. If we look at the workers currently in natural resources, Statistics Canada says that 82% of them are male and 18% of them are female.
I am wondering, with all these great jobs that are going to come, whether it is in nuclear requiring engineers, skilled trades, people skilled in electricity, what is the government doing in advance of the job availability to encourage and support underrepresented persons, like women, Indigenous people and non-white folks, with training and education so that when these jobs come up, they have an opportunity to transition into this workforce?
Mr. O’Regan: That’s an excellent question. Thank you, senator. If you look at this bill in particular — and again, this bill only deals with the formation of a mechanism that gives advice to the minister — he or she will take into account the importance of that diversity, regional diversity in particular, but also making sure that there is representation, as you had mentioned. There aren’t nearly enough women, for instance, in the energy sector.
That is recognized by the unions. We have been working with the unions in supporting their training programs. They have been aggressively trying to encourage women to enter the trades, particularly to enter the energy industry. I say this all the time: If you don’t include everybody, you don’t get the best. You just don’t get the best people. These are very, very technical jobs now. Some of it is quite back-breaking labour, but the vast majority of it is very technical. Of the women who have entered into the industry, some have found extraordinarily satisfying work. In other places, they have also found barriers, walls and some discrimination. We have to get better. Unions recognize that. Companies recognize that.
We’re going through the biggest labour shortage that the country has ever seen, so we are constantly trying to think of ways to do it. I prefer going through unions whenever I can, because they are the closest to the ground. I don’t believe in coming up with new government programs if something is working on the ground. We have spent an awful lot of time supporting union training, union training halls and upping the budget for those, and they have been very aggressive in trying to diversify their workforces.
Senator McBean: Thank you. What I hear is that you agree that the jobs are important and that they are technical, but you are waiting for the next minister to develop this. It takes time for this training, education and recruitment. Is there any thought to programs like scholarships?
As much as you are working with the unions, we’re also trying to draw in more people because the workforce has to grow quickly. Has there been any thought to where this workforce is going to come from? As you said in your remarks, there will be, I think, thousands of jobs in Edmonton for the people who will work, but who are these people who are going to be stepping into those jobs?
Mr. O’Regan: It is in the union’s best interest to increase their membership, and they have been very aggressive on the ground to do that. I don’t want you to think that I am waiting at all. During my time as Minister of Labour, I have been aggressively working with the Minister of Natural Resources and with the Minister of Employment and Social Development to make sure we take advantage of this Union Training and Innovation Program, or UTIP. We started doubling its budgets about three years ago with this purpose in mind, particularly in the energy sector. That is what we heard from operating engineers, electricians, and the building trades — Canada’s Building Trades Unions, or CBTU. We have been working with all of them. We have been working with larger unions like the Labourers’ International Union of North America, or LiUNA, for instance. They are the ones who are closest to the ground and to the industry. They deal directly with the employers, and they know what is needed on the ground and at the job site. They do the training. We’ll work with them on helping to diversify, because that is in their best interests as well as in ours — and in the best interest of anybody interested in the prosperity of this country.
What I am saying is that the work is happening now.
These groups will continue to give advice directly to the minister at this table. That’s what Bill C-50 does. It will help smooth out that process and formalize it somewhat.
Senator McBean: Thank you, minister.
Senator McCallum: Thank you, Minister O’Regan, for your presentation.
While every region may benefit from the transition to a net‑zero economy, some effects will be negative. Certain industries and jobs are more vulnerable to low-carbon economic transitions than others. Some regions may face more positive, and where would those be? Some regions will have more negative effects than others, and where would those be? How does Bill C-50 address potential conflicts or disparities in environmental and economic policies between different provincial and territorial governments, especially those with significant high-carbon industries versus those investing heavily in low-carbon ones?
Mr. O’Regan: Senator, as I said before, I don’t think Bill C-50 substitutes the direct relationships that the federal government has with its provincial and territorial counterparts on issues of natural resources, energy and the workers involved. Those are bilateral negotiations and relationships that happen — and should happen — at that level. What this does is give the minister some very clear-headed advice from some affected groups — namely, those workers who would be most directly affected on the ground — about what they are seeing and how things can improve so we can just smooth things out and therefore prepare people to ensure that they can take advantage of new opportunities.
I’m here in St. John’s, attending our biggest energy conference that happens every year — Energy NL’s AGM — the biggest they have ever had. Oil and gas in this province continues to produce, and those jobs are very much there and growing. Right next to them is a community that I’m very fond of, Argentia, Newfoundland. They have a gravity base structure being built for the West White Rose Project happening right next to a huge pile of monopiles. These are the trunks of wind turbines, and they are the biggest monopile marshalling port on the Eastern Seaboard. This is where they come in from other countries. They store them there, and then they go off and build them up and down the Eastern Seaboard. I’m very happy to say that more of those projects are going to stay in Newfoundland.
Those opportunities are to be realized. What they have in common — in my province and in Alberta and Saskatchewan — is that the exact same workers are needed. Most of them will tell you — looking at some of the proponents of hydrogen in my province — that it looks exactly as you would expect from an oil refinery or any way that oil or gas are processed out west. It looks the same. I’ll point specifically to a refinery in Come By Chance, Newfoundland, that began as an oil refinery, and with an $84 million investment from us, they are taking things like used cooking oil and making sustainable aviation fuel — renewable diesel. This is happening. The same workers are doing both.
However, we just want to make sure they have a seat at the table. This is what they asked for from me when I was Minister of Natural Resources during COVID and there was an oil price war — and before. They want a seat at the table. This creates a table and gives them a seat. They get to say to the minister, “This is what is happening, and we think this is what we need to do.” The minister takes that into consideration as he goes about his efforts and as he goes about his relationships with the provinces and territories.
Senator McCallum: Could you comment on the regions that face more positive effects and the regions that are going to face more negative effects? That will give us an idea of what we are looking for and what we need to consider and understand. Because it is not going to be fair all across the country. There are local, specific contexts. I just wanted to know where, across Canada, those are and what they are. What are the effects?
Mr. O’Regan: Maybe my judgment is slightly clouded by the sheer optimism that I have witnessed in this province — after a lot of turbulence during COVID and an oil price war — about the sustainability of our oil and gas industry, which constitutes about 50% of the provincial GDP. There is an incredible optimism here about the opportunities.
To answer your question specifically, if you look at the three oil-and-gas producing provinces in this country, they are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. Those are the ones that, in my time, I have always kept a very close eye on. But this is managing opportunity. This is making sure that, as jobs continue in the oil and gas industry, we lower emissions wherever and whenever we can, particularly methane. There is a lot of work to do there. We’re committed to doing that, and workers are the ones who are going to know where to tighten the bolts in the pipeline to make sure that methane gas does not leak. I think that is an opportunity.
Again, there is nothing in this bill that is talking about eliminating anything. There is talk of addressing and advising, but there is nothing about elimination. The oil and gas sector in Alberta has never produced more than it does right now, and the Trans Mountain Expansion, or TMX, has been built.
We all recognize that we need to lower emissions in this industry. I just reject the premise that this could be extremely difficult. When you talk about communities and the fact that some may be hurt more than others, again, I look at the opportunity here. For instance, in Newfoundland, oil and gas happens offshore. A lot of those workers come back and live in various communities, but there are communities on this island of Newfoundland that have been left out. Suddenly, you have got Exploits Valley Renewable Energy Corporation, or EVREC, in the Botwood area. This is an area that has struggled with a lot of hardship. It’s a very rural area in the northern part of the island, and they are looking at a huge green hydrogen wind facility. Down in Burin, you are looking at EverWind. In the west, near the Port au Port Peninsula, you’re looking at World Energy GH2. These are all projects that are happening now. Pattern is happening in the Argentia area. These are very rural parts, far away from St. John’s, the Avalon Peninsula and the more urban part of our island. Suddenly, areas that weren’t benefiting as much from the energy industry in our province are going to be. Therefore, I continue to see glass half full — very much.
The Deputy Chair: We have a few minutes for second round.
Senator Wells: Thank you, minister.
The briefing note to the minister on Bill C-50 mentioned specifically that Newfoundland and Labrador will be disproportionately affected by the transition to a greener economy. What would you say to the petroleum workers of Newfoundland and Labrador — many of whom work in Alberta, and you and I fly with them every week, but, of course, the vast majority are in Newfoundland and Labrador — with respect to that particular aspect of Newfoundland and Labrador being disproportionately affected by this just transition plan?
Mr. O’Regan: There is no just transition plan. What I would say to those workers is that we have a seat at the table for you now. We’re building a table. This is something that your leadership has been asking for years — to be heard directly by the minister about what we should be doing, to ensure that we realize opportunity and that we minimize risk. We’re all in. This is a bill that finally delivers on that — nothing more, nothing less. Here is your table and here is your seat at it.
Senator Wells: Thank you, minister. Your regular speech is about how it’s happening, it’s happening. With about 80% of the workforce being non-union, do non-union workers have a seat at the table? You mentioned earlier that you tend to favour unionized workers, and they do a great job — I know that. But is there a seat at the table? This references Senator Miville‑Dechêne’s question earlier. Is there a seat at the table for non‑unionized workers — the vast majorities of them?
Mr. O’Regan: Look, we deal most directly with union workers because they’re more organized. Certainly, if you look at the formation, unions have three seats at the table with the minister.
They would be the first to tell you, whether it’s the CBTU, operating engineers, electricians, crane operators, any of them, when they sit at this table, they are representing not just their unions — they are representing all workers. They are representing all of the brothers and sisters they work with in the oil sands or in the offshore, and they will bring all of their concerns to bear.
Regardless, this is a table that is built for workers, and again, this is what they’ve been asking for a long time.
Senator Wells: Are you in favour of continued exploration for oil and gas off of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. O’Regan: I am very happy to say that we are two weeks into drilling on the Persephone well in the west Orphan Basin. I was very happy on the floor of Energy NL last night because we reduced the wait time on an environmental assessment from 900 days to 90 days. They’ve never seen a jurisdiction work so fast to make sure they were able to do what they needed to. ExxonMobil right now is just off of Hebron in the development sense. They were through the licensing —
Senator Wells: Minister, I understand the current situation. Are you in favour of continued exploration in Newfoundland’s offshore?
Mr. O’Regan: Not only am I in favour of it, but I took the previous government’s debacle of 900 days when it was 300 days and lowered it to 90. That’s on me. Gladly.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.
[English]
We will now move in camera to consider a draft report.
(The committee continued in camera.)