THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine 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.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators.
[Translation]
My name is Ratna Omidvar, and I am a senator from Ontario.
[English]
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.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
If possible, please ensure that you’re seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Please only use an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times, and when you are not using your earpiece, please put it face down on the sticker placed on the table for that purpose; it is to the right of you.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Today, we’re continuing our study 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.
Before we begin, I would like to ask my colleagues around the table to kindly introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: Good morning. Welcome to our committee. My name is Jane Cordy, and I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning. I am René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Good morning. Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: I am Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Osler: Good morning. Gigi Osler, Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
The Chair: Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome: from Blue Green Canada, Christine Jones, Manager, Industrial Decarbonization; from Climate Action Network Canada, Alex Cool-Fergus, National Policy Manager; and from the Pembina Institute, joining us by video conference, Megan Gordon, Senior Analyst. Thank you for joining us today.
I would now like to ask you to provide your opening remarks. Each of the panellists will have five minutes. Ms. Jones, please go first.
Christine Jones, Manager, Industrial Decarbonization, Blue Green Canada: Thank you.
I would like to thank the senators and the committee as a whole for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-50.
For almost 15 years, Blue Green Canada, or BGC, has been working to ensure that Canadians do not have to choose between good jobs and protecting the environment. We bring together workers and environmental organizations to prioritize preserving jobs, reducing carbon emissions and building a sustainable future. We have forged partnerships with major industrial labour unions — two of our members being the United Steelworkers, or USW, and Unifor — and influential environmental groups including the Pembina Institute, Environmental Defence Canada, Clean Energy Canada, the Broadbent Institute and the Columbia Institute. We are also members of Climate Action Network Canada and also undertake our work in harmony with the goals and actions of the Canadian Labour Congress, or CLC.
The process that brought the Canadian sustainable jobs act to this point happened in good measure because groups like Blue Green Canada worked with labour unions, environmentalists and a huge range of other civil society organizations to ensure that workers’ experience and knowledge are central to this piece of legislation. The adoption of this bill is a step toward a Canada where workers have meaningful participation in government decision making to advocate for worker- and community-centred strategies that reduce emissions, maintain jobs in existing industrial and resource sectors and create sustainable jobs that are good for workers and address climate challenges.
Blue Green Canada supports the passing of Bill C-50 without amendments, and we ask that this happen very quickly, please.
Work and industry change; they will always change. Our technological evolution alone ensures that there will always be industrial change. We all know that it’s not just technology that has brought about industrial evolution and change. We’ve already lived through climate-related incidents that affected workers and their communities and forced us to seek new ways of doing things — and better ways to support each other as we change. Bill C-50 is a legislative beginning toward ensuring that Canada’s workers, our communities and our economy don’t have to choose between building a climate-ready future and having good jobs.
Our economy, climate and communities are not singularities or static. Bill C-50 and the partnership council will mean that workers who have knowledge and lived experience and know how best to do their jobs aren’t just talked about around tables like this, but actually at the core of what should be our national green industrial strategic planning in this country.
Bill C-50 also shows that we have learned from the successes and failures that Canada’s economy and workers have already faced in periods of change. We at Blue Green Canada have considered how having legislation like Bill C-50 and its partnership council would have supported and provided very different outcomes to a variety of significant industrial and economic challenges in Canada.
One of the most obvious mistakes — particularly in the cod fisheries — was the failure to engage in advance and in partnership with the unions, workers and impacted communities. Those on the ground were not listened to. A crisis ensued, which is still felt today.
Also, training was not targeted to jobs that existed, and young people ended up having to leave their communities and homes, travelling west for work.
The most recent federal engagement in an industry transition has been the phase-out of coal-fired power generation. The federal government formed a task force that visited affected coal communities and met with stakeholders. The task force heard that workers wanted to have a say. They wanted job security and to see leadership and a plan from the government.
Specifically, affected workers and communities must be at the heart of decision making during times of transition to a low-carbon economy. Unions and employers have a key role in supporting successful transition. Dedicated and timely government action will support workers staying in the labour market to find new employment opportunities and allow other workers to retire with dignity. This is what we have learned and what Bill C-50 promises.
For these and other examples, the elements of failure were that there was no leadership for active strategic thinking and planning for workers and their needs through industrial transition. Likewise, accountability frameworks were not in place for those whose job it is to make sure that this kind of planning and strategic thinking is undertaken. These issues aren’t limited to the examples above or what will happen in the future. These are issues that we will continually face in a changing climate world.
We believe that Canada has the collective skill, knowledge, curiosity and courage to build a thriving decarbonized future instead of staying static and living in the past. We will do this together through a coordinated, cohesive planning process. The more we’re able to prepare and plan in advance for changes — be they responding to climate disaster involving work and community interruption, looking to build a decarbonized future for existing sectors or investing in a strategic vision for emerging sectors — Bill C-50 will help us to collectively move from mitigating damage to a governance ability through which we can plan a path into the future that’s good for everyone.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Alex Cool-Fergus is next.
[Translation]
Alex Cool-Fergus, Manager, National Policy, Climate Action Network Canada: Honourable senators and Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today, on behalf of Climate Action Network Canada and our over 150 members across the country. Our network brings together environmental groups, unions, First Nations organizations, health and youth organizations, and farmers groups.
[English]
Climate Action Network Canada and our members have been closely following the Canadian sustainable jobs act over the past months and years. Today, we join our voices to those of labour unions, environmental groups, youth and Canadian workers in urging you, senators, to pass the act without further delay.
We’re thrilled to see that the Government of Canada may yet have legislation that supports the workers of today and tomorrow in finding fulfilling, sustainable and fair work.
It hasn’t been an easy journey, and this bill has been contentious at times, but here is the hard truth: Regardless of whether you pass the sustainable jobs act, the cost of renewable energy will continue to drop. The global market for oil and gas will decline and workers from those industries will need support to reskill. There will be new economic development opportunities related to battery storage, solar farms, turbines, geothermal energy and hydropower. Transmission lines will need to be put up across the country, and buildings will need to be better insulated.
Regardless of whether you pass the sustainable jobs act, the gap between emissions and GDP in Canada will continue to widen. It’s already happening. Regardless of whether you pass the sustainable jobs act, wildfires will burn, new businesses will open and beloved businesses will close. Some communities will see explosive growth and others will continue to decline. Some pundits will say it was the right move and others will denounce it as a terrible decision. Regardless of whether you pass the sustainable jobs act, young people will continue to be anxious about what the future holds in store for them.
Regardless of whether you pass the sustainable jobs act, my children’s employment opportunities will be wildly different than my own. Students will continue to register for programs like ecosystem management, environmental remediation and electrical engineering. Capital will continue to flow to new economic opportunities and technologies. Regardless of whether you pass the sustainable jobs act, good jobs will be required for all.
The decision to pass the act in a timely manner is one that you get to make, but the future of Canada’s economy is not. The question here, today, is whether Canada is equipped to prepare for what the future holds. The transition is already happening. The question is whether we’re preparing for it and ensuring that it is fair and that workers are at the decision-making table. Climate Action Network Canada believes that we are best off as a country if we are able to plan for the future and anticipate some of the changes that will be needed to adapt to a changing economy and planet. This is what the sustainable jobs act is all about.
[Translation]
When it comes to cutting our emissions and implementing the mechanisms the energy transition demands, we don’t have the luxury of time. Please act now and pass the sustainable jobs act.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Cool-Fergus.
Megan Gordon, Senior Analyst, Pembina Institute: Good morning, senators. I’m a senior analyst on the Equitable Transition team at the Pembina Institute. Pembina is a clean energy think tank that has spent the last four decades working to reduce the environmental impact of energy production and advance clean energy solutions. A core tenet of our work is equity, and we ensure that a clean energy economy maximizes the social benefits to workers and communities.
At the Pembina Institute, we believe that climate change represents one of the greatest challenges to current generations. Addressing climate change’s effects and impacts requires a holistic approach, but too often, workers are pitted against the environment as though we cannot have good jobs in a decarbonized world. That simply isn’t the case. Decarbonization can result in decent jobs, and we plan to make that happen. That’s why Pembina supports the passage of Bill C-50 without amendments.
I have personally had the privilege of hearing dozens of stories from workers in rural, northern and resource-based communities. I’ve seen the cycles of industry booms and busts erode the social fabric of the places where they live. The experiences of transition, past and present, are still felt viscerally in the memories of workers. Canada no longer has the luxury of taking a reactive approach to changes we can reasonably predict. Global shifts to our energy systems are occurring at an accelerated pace. The demand for oil is expected to decline by the end of this decade, and other trends, such as automation, are changing our domestic industries and employment landscapes. These trends are largely out of our control and will have greater impact on our economy than domestic policy choices. Change is coming whether we like it or not, and it’s the responsibility of the government to help Canada ready itself.
Economic and energy systems modelling shows future scenarios that can help us prepare, and workers must be at those tables to guide the process. A study co-authored by Pembina Institute and the Canadian Labour Congress shows that modest policy interventions in training, skills development, social security and targeted regional economic growth supports lead to more positive outcomes for those most vulnerable to global transition impacts.
It’s now up to the government to prove to Canadians that they will make the necessary policy actions and investments to help workers and communities prepare. The passage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, represents a critical milestone in doing so. The creation of the partnership council will ensure that workers, Indigenous people, industry representatives and other experts are able to provide direct input into the policy-making process. This is critical in ensuring workers have a voice, and it will go a long way in re-establishing trust in our democracy.
The creation of a partnership council will ensure — further to the creation of a five-year action plan that holds the government to account — that there are transparent and coordinated efforts to align climate plans with plans for people in the economy.
Pembina and other environmental groups and labour organizations have worked over the past year with decision makers to make improvements to this legislation, and we’re pleased with its current status. The implementation of key policies and investments starts with Bill C-50 becoming law, and as such, the Pembina Institute urges the Senate to pass this legislation without delay. Not only will the passage of Bill C-50 help us prepare for changes, dedicating effort to respond to the impacts of change can also help us capitalize on opportunities. Modelling undertaken for a report entitled A Sustainable Jobs Blueprint shows there would be 2 million clean energy jobs in 2050 in a net-zero future.
This is also time sensitive, as Canada is competing with other global leaders for capital and talent. We have the potential to grow more jobs and more economic prosperity with the planning and coordination mechanisms that Bill C-50 puts in motion.
With diverse perspectives sought through a sound policy process, engagement with workers, Indigenous people and equity-deserving groups and the right internal planning architecture, we can leverage the clean energy transition to create prosperity for all Canadians.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to responding to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Gordon. Before we go to questions, I want to clarify something: Did you say “32 million new net-zero jobs”?
Ms. Gordon: No, I said “2 million.”
The Chair: Okay. I was wondering about that. We’ll start with questions, colleagues. We’ll go around the table starting with the deputy chair, Senator Cordy. You will have four minutes for your question and answer.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. You’ve all come with really great messages. You’ve spoken about how there’s no need to choose between the environment and jobs — that you can do both — and yet we hear the political arguments about how if we concentrate on the environment, we will lose all these jobs. I jotted down quotes that you all made about Canadian workers not having to choose between the climate and jobs. You all made those kinds of references.
How do you respond to the people who say that if we bring in legislation like this, we’re going to lose jobs? From what we’ve heard, that’s totally incorrect? What should the messaging be for that? Are we doing enough as political people to respond when those comments are made?
Ms. Jones: This room is filled with a number of leaders — people who have led a variety of organizations and movements. We know that leadership takes courage, if you want to see real change. We also know that this courage is really important to creative strategic planning and thinking. We’ve heard it from both of my colleagues: We no longer have the luxury of time. We have to really understand the situation we are currently in. Really, it’s not even the future we’re talking about. We have already started processes of industrial change.
I spoke about the coal transition. This is already happening. We are already going through the transition of decarbonization, so to say that it is impossible is to pretend that the reality of what we are currently going through is simply not happening. It’s that sort of attitude.
We must look at the realities of our communities. We can look at Ingersoll, Ontario, for example, where we had one of the plants become one of the first electric vehicle production plants in Canada. This is a transition that is here and now. These are workers who are actually transitioning from combustion engines to electric vehicles. We know this is possible.
We know this through the right kind of strategic planning and thinking, both in terms of labour market modelling — which we heard about from Megan — but also the realities of our closest friends in the G7, who have been able to figure out how to do these things.
I’m not sure why we have this Canadian exceptionalism where we think we can’t do it, when we know it’s happening around the world with many different economies and many different kinds of democracies. The question that must go back to our political classes and our political leaders is this: What is stopping all of you, regardless of your political stripes, from wanting to see a future where Canada isn’t just existing but has figured out how to thrive and centre our work around an economy that will provide for workers here and now, with — as Alex was saying — an economy that is thoughtful and strategically planned to ensure that we have the education system, training and jobs that her children can go into in our climate environment?
Ms. Cool-Fergus: That’s attributing a lot of weight to one act to say that it would destroy any jobs. It’s hard to take down multi-billion-dollar industries with a single consultative committee, which is essentially what the partnership council would be.
There are different reasons why that is being said. The transitions are messy; they’re really hard. Ask my five-year-old. He doesn’t like to transition between activities. It’s a challenge, but we’ve seen them happen before and they’re happening again now. The reality is that new industries that didn’t exist five years ago exist today. This is something that we, as a country, can either prepare for or catch up to. It’s a question of which position Canada wants to be in.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses who are here today. I have questions for all of you. I’m thinking about the workers of tomorrow. We mentioned geothermal farms, wind, solar — all of those good jobs in the future.
Can you tell us what you see for Canada’s labour market in a future net-zero economy? How many of those jobs would be unionized? How many would be non-unionized? Does Bill C-50, as currently written, align with what you envision for those future net-zero labour market jobs? Perhaps we’ll start with Ms. Gordon because I know she’s on Zoom.
Ms. Gordon: Thank you for the questions. They’re important. It depends on whether we put in place these planning processes that help us capitalize on the available opportunities. Of course, working alongside labour, we know that unionized jobs and pathways to unionization will create better social standards for workers and can help address other issues we’re facing as a nation — the affordability crisis is top of mind.
We’re seeing several different growth industries being made available in Canada. We’re starting to see labour shortages in many of the areas where we want more skilled trades and growth. We know there’ll be a huge demand for electricians in the future. We can use these models that help us predict where the growth will be, but it’s really up to the governments and decision makers of today to put investments in place that will help enable the success of those industries. They must also put in place social security nets for the changes we expect to see when jobs are lost in certain industries. That could be due to global market forces or the impacts of automation. I think of my time in northern British Columbia, where I was living in forestry-dependent communities being impacted by wildfires and pest infestations that were decimating production. We saw mill closures all over.
All these changes are coming; it’s about preparing for them. Bill C-50 puts in place the mechanisms to have workers add their perspectives to align all the different departments that have responsibilities across training and regional development — to have them come together and align climate and jobs planning in the same vein.
Senator Osler: Thank you. Ms. Cool-Fergus.
Ms. Cool-Fergus: I won’t expand too much because Megan is the real expert on the jobs piece of it. However, many of those jobs already exist. With many of those sectors — for example, electricians, people doing home retrofits and people developing and putting into place renewable energy projects — those jobs currently exist. They are seeking workers and actively recruiting, but there aren’t enough people to fill those jobs.
If I can share a personal anecdote, I recently benefitted from the Canada Greener Homes program, which helped to insulate my house, install a heat pump and many other things. However, it took a long time because there were so many people in line ahead of me and so few electricians in my community. These are sectors that already need more workers. Preparing governments, universities, colleges and technical high schools to support children and students heading into these different industries of the future will be necessary; otherwise, we won’t be able to meet our climate targets. In addition, we won’t be able to meet the real needs of people to live in decent houses and in communities with thriving economies. Those are real impacts that need to be taken into account.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My first question is for all three witnesses. Thank you for being here.
We’ve heard a lot about the training workers need in order to adapt and contribute to the decarbonization process, and access sustainable jobs. We know that training levels vary across the country. We also know that people face language challenges depending on their province or territory.
Do you not think it’s important for the bill to specifically lay out the federal government’s official languages obligations, so that they’re reflected in the action plans? Numerous stakeholders are involved, so we want to make sure that the training is available in both official languages all over the country, obviously. Linguistic minorities need access to these sustainable jobs as well.
Who would like to answer?
Ms. Cool-Fergus: I can go first. From our standpoint, passing the bill as soon as possible is what’s urgent. Clearly, action is urgently needed. Next, is the bill perfect? No. Once the bill is passed, it could certainly be amended in relation to the action plan and the partnership council. The most important thing for us is getting the bill passed right away.
It’s absolutely true that the language and regional dimensions are important. Quebec’s needs are not the same as British Columbia’s needs or Alberta’s, for example. Representation will include stakeholders from all regions and sectors, those who provide training, those who support workers, experts and academics. This will ensure that the stakeholders discuss those issues and work together to implement the necessary changes. That applies not only to the programs that result from the legislation, but also to existing government programs, which could also undergo changes.
[English]
Ms. Jones: I agree. This bill must be passed. We then get to the work of the partnership council, whose responsibility is in part to take into consideration the other legislative pieces in Canada they will be bound by, and the Official Languages Act is part of that. It would boggle my mind, frankly, if there were not already this understanding that everything must be produced in both official languages, including the training plans this partnership council will presumably start looking into, and also the resourcing plans.
This council will not exist outside of the regular workings of this government. Logically, it will be held to all of the standards that all of the other councils or extra bodies that the government has to work.
For Blue Green Canada, it is getting this into place and starting the partnership council so it can start documenting and plotting out the significant core pieces of work that it must do. The bigger question that you’re getting at — and we’re really talking about information and data collection as well — is this: How can we, as a country, ensure that we can provide the exact kinds of resources in the regions that we need, also looking at labour mobility, if we’re not asking and empowering our government to collect the kinds of significant pieces of labour market data needed for our future planning?
This is something that you also heard from our colleagues from Canada’s Building Trades Unions, or CBTU, yesterday.
From a number of the other deputations that happened, one of the core pieces we need is a government, legislation and a framework that compel us to make decisions in a strategic, thoughtful and long-term manner. This is based on information and data. This is in part what the partnership council will be looking into. The sooner we do this, the sooner we will be able to develop plans equal to or better than anything we’re seeing from our G7 partners.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your comments. You’re optimistic.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. Obviously, trying to do this in a multi-stakeholder atmosphere is going to be interesting. Employers, workers, environmentalists, First Nations and other voices are going to be at the same table. Recognizing the tensions we’ve had and how we have worked with each other over time, how do you envision this partnership working in a way that can enhance our ability to work together for the greater good of the country?
The second point I would like to make is that transition is happening in many different sectors — such as steel, auto and energy — but those aren’t the only places it’s happening. It’s also happening in food production. It’s happening in other parts of the country in how we build and rebuild our infrastructure.
Recognizing the complexity of all this, how do you think the partnership council can consult to achieve insight into the planning that we need to do to ensure we’re meeting the future of workers and communities across this country? These questions are open to all three of the panellists.
Ms. Gordon: Thank you for your question, senator. I think it’s a good one, and I recall from following your time with the Task Force on Just Transition that these multi-stakeholder groups can work together very effectively.
In the bill are a number of requirements for different levels of expertise, as well as different compositions of representatives from different industries, labour organizations and Indigenous peoples. It’s up to the recruitment processes that Bill C-50 puts in place through the Governor-in-Council, or GIC, selection.
They must select members of the council willing to participate in a productive dialogue about the future, who have the relevant skillsets that the bill sets out, as well as the insights of and relationships among their peers to be able to communicate and act as representatives — not only among their peers on the partnership council, but also within their industries. Having that process to negotiate and provide different perspectives will lead to good working relationships. It doesn’t necessarily need to be consensus-based, but having all of these different insights will only lead to a stronger policy process.
We emphasize the importance of having members on the partnership council who demonstrate they have positive working relationships with Indigenous people, unions and workers — and who, if they are representatives of industry, have credible plans to decarbonize their operations and remain compatible with the net-zero economy.
With all these aspects taken into consideration, we’ll have a stronger policy process.
Ms. Cool-Fergus: Your two questions are intertwined. This partnership council will have multiple representatives from across the board with varying positions and opinions. As Megan was saying, as they all work together and collaborate toward common goals, they will have a diversity of opinions and expertise. This will allow them to dig deeper into some of the questions that are more challenging or some of the gaps in knowledge.
It’s through its diversity that this partnership council will be able to provide rich expertise and recommendations to the government about how to move forward. That is what we are missing right now. We have a political context in which there is nowhere these different parties can gather together and have conversations about and move toward an objective. That leads us to speaking over one another or sometimes yelling into the void. That is the unproductive conversation — and that’s the one we’re having right now.
How can we come together, despite our differences, to try to achieve common objectives that many of us hold about the well-being of our communities, children and planet? Those are very important conversations, but they can only happen if we have somewhere for them to take place.
Ms. Jones: We have experience navigating all of these things. One could argue that the nation of Canada is the best example of navigating often disparate things, people and issues — and figuring out how to bring them together in a space. The promise of the partnership council is extraordinary: It is suggesting that it will bring people from a variety of sectors and experiences together to settle down and do some extraordinarily difficult thinking.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: As you know, Bill C-50 has been making its way through Parliament for nearly a year now. Do you have any information showing that budget measures have already been implemented, measures that would give you hope? I am talking about measures to suggest that, once the bill is passed, you’ll see the process start to move — that the government will walk the talk, as they say?
Ms. Cool-Fergus: That’s a good question. I’ll have to get back to you on that. As far as I know, some funding has already been allocated to set up the basic infrastructure. I think a few public servants have indeed been assigned to the selection process, but I would have to check and get back to you on that. Ms. Gordon or Ms. Jones may have an answer for you.
[English]
Ms. Jones: I’ll answer quickly and then pass it over to Megan, who has a better grasp of its specifics.
To my recollection, there are resources set aside to have the council stood up. As a result of the way that it’s being navigated through existing systems of departments, such as Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, there are already resources being used to start moving forward through this process — on the application process for the partnership council, for example.
The other day, my colleague was at a briefing held by NRCan to talk about the process for the partnership council and how people apply for it. There are already different types of resources being put into moving this forward, and there is already a lot of preparation work happening so that once it gets passed, we can — as they say — hit the ground running. Also, the partnership council will have to seriously look into where we will acquire the resources from. Are these things that we need to be seeking from our current departmental budgets? Where do we get the extra money from? There are many places from which we could obtain that money if this government and successive governments are serious about doing the type of planning that will be necessary.
Megan is probably the one who can give more specifics regarding the budget currently put forward.
Ms. Gordon: Thanks, Christine.
What comes to mind is investments made through the 2022 Fall Economic Statement, which put in place a sustainable jobs training fund, resources for the sustainable jobs secretariat and top-ups to the Union Training and Innovation Program, or UTIP, another training fund for Red Seals. Programs put in place to support training, youth, education and Indigenous folks in participating in a clean economy all work toward what we are referring to as “sustainable jobs policy.”
The interim Sustainable Jobs Plan outlines a number of those actions, but we want to see increased ambition with respect to the budgetary aspects. When we have these five-year incremental action plans that the bill will set in motion, we also expect that there will be regular announcements and continued investment in training Canadians. When it comes to youth and newcomer integration in Canada, which will make up the majority of our future workforce, these are all things that need to be considered and coordinated. The sustainable jobs secretariat will be instrumental in coordinating that aspect.
Research we have undertaken has estimated that we need about three times the subsidies for workers to train — not only training for workers, but also training capacity.
We look forward to the passage of Bill C-50 and will continue to advocate for the investment side and be keenly monitoring the policies outlined in the 2025 action plan to ensure that implementation.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gordon.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to everyone for being here today. I’ve been listening to the comments. They’ve been very helpful. It sounds as if all of our witnesses today have very high expectations for what will come out of the bill in terms of what will be set up. However, even without the bill, we would somehow transition to a different economy. It’s going to happen, with or without the bill.
What does the bill do to make that transition look very different? I’m trying to understand what this transition would like with and without the bill. What does the bill actually add to what the economy looks like? What will it do? What will its impact be? I am just looking for a vision for what that’s going to do.
Ms. Jones: Well, we can either continue to take the approach of throwing things on the ground and seeing if it grows, or take the approach of strategic, thoughtful, long-term planning. Bill C-50 and the partnership council is enabling strategic, thoughtful, long-term planning, as opposed to a project here, a thoughtfulness here and something over here. Maybe workers will be invited to talk and maybe people will listen; maybe communities will be thought — but maybe they won’t. I’ve given examples today, like the cod fisheries, where there is a history of communities and workers not being listened to at significant moments of industrial transition.
This ensures we have a legislative framework that compels the government to ensure that its holistic planning strategy from all departments looks forward to how we have an integrated policy approach to, first, how we’re going to support workers and their communities through times of industrial change. It’s already happening. It will happen more in the future. It will also ensure that all departments within the government, because we will have this partnership secretariat, have the opportunity to think about what their work will be to contribute toward this integrating planning process.
Probably the most important thing that I would add is that, while we’re talking a lot about policy, the reality is that people’s lives are at the heart of this. This isn’t just about policy and legislative things — though it is in part. We are talking about people’s lives, here and now, and the continuity of communities, families, industries and sectors. If we don’t at least start with Bill C-50 and the partnership council, we will remain at the stage of throwing things on the ground and hoping it grows, and kind of pretending that Canada is exceptional while the rest of the world marches on with plans for doing exactly this type of work. These plans have been going on in other countries for years. We are behind on doing this integrated strategic thinking.
Senator Dasko: Will it save the cod fishery?
Ms. Jones: I don’t have a crystal ball with me, but what the bill probably would have provided is a space for coordinated research and thinking — and certainly for strategic planning. Based on what the bill suggests, the people on the ground probably would have been listened to before it was too late. What actually happened was no one listened to the fishers who were saying, “We have a serious problem going on here and need help. We need help financially. We need help that comes together with industry and government.” Nobody listened. The cod stocks essentially died, and then communities died.
Bill C-50 offers us the opportunity to learn from those mistakes and ensure that Canadians are being cared for as they think about their work lives, 100%.
The Chair: I have a few questions. I’d like to first ask Ms. Gordon a question about transitioning to a net-zero economy and whether the retraining required is within the reach of older workers. At my age, I like to say age is just a number, but there is a reality behind it.
Also, if retraining or early retirement are not options, how do we include older workers in this equation?
Ms. Gordon: Thank you for your question. We know that there will be significant attrition when it comes to industries in motion, but the reality is that many workers nearing retirement age are not ready to retire. They have financial obligations that don’t allow for such things. We know mid-career-level workers face additional challenges when it comes to the job market. Investing in a worker who only has 5 or 10 years left in their career is not necessarily in the interest of the bottom line of many corporations, who could get 30 years out of someone else.
Regarding these kinds of considerations, there are important insights that we need to attain through the partnership council engaging with workers of all ages — the future generations who have not yet entered into the workforce, workers who are nearing retirement and those who have already retired. So it’s via mechanisms like engagement through the partnership council, as well as efforts that the Government of Canada needs to undertake in alignment with that, that we can get the nuances and better understand training needs.
Christine made an excellent point earlier about data and labour market projections. That is more information we need to make accessible to employers, unions and the general public so that they can make informed decisions about what’s available to them and we can structure training needs that are accessible to different equity-deserving groups, people of all ages, people who speak different languages and things of that nature.
The Chair: Ms. Jones, you’ve talked a lot about how Canada is behind the eight ball — how other countries have overtaken us and have been doing so for years. Can you make it real for us? Give us an example of a country that has done this and brought women, older people and everyone else along so they benefit from the opportunities of a net-zero economy.
Ms. Jones: Globally, this is a relatively new policy portfolio. National governments only started doing this kind of very serious work in the last 10 years or so. As a policy-maker yourself, you know getting something done in two years — how many years have we been doing this bill now? At least five, and it was a dream in somebody’s head prior to that. The truth is, there is not a nation state where it is fully implemented.
However, if you look at G7 countries and the way they’ve started doing it — and we can look at the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, in the U.S. as an example — they are looking at massive investments and a whole range of new clean industry, but they’ve also put money behind the people in those transitioning industries. You can look at essentially any of the G7 countries; most have built this kind of legislation into their green industrial strategy planning, so it’s not just something sitting on a sticky note off to the side but instead part of the comprehensive planning of their country — which we currently don’t really have in Canada. We don’t have a clear green industrial strategy process in place.
If we were to incorporate this bill — we need to get it passed soon — and actually use it as the heart of our green industrial strategy planning, I guarantee we would start to see the kinds of information and answers you’re looking for.
The Chair: Thank you. That was very helpful.
Senators, we have time for a second round. I will kick it off because I have a question for Ms. Gordon — again about jobs.
We heard yesterday, Ms. Gordon, about the gender gap in the industries we are talking about — agriculture, electrical engineering, et cetera. There is such a huge gap with respect to gender — in 2022, 82% of the jobs were occupied by men.
Do you believe this transition has the potential to close the gender gap in these occupations? If so, how?
Ms. Gordon: When it comes to Bill C-50, I think we start at the partnership council. Again, having women on the partnership council will ensure that we have those voices represented. That will be reflected in the advice that’s provided to the Government of Canada on how they equip workers with the right kind of training programs — training that recruits women, takes an active approach to reaching out to different equity-deserving groups, such as women and Indigenous people, and makes it culturally and socially safe for those people.
Having equity, diversity and inclusion training built into some of these programs that involve giving public dollars is a way we can maximize the social benefits of our training programs. Having women’s voices at the table to provide their insights and experiences of themselves and others makes for stronger policy choices. It is important to have that built into the process — taking active recruitment and other considerations that can be lent by individuals at the partnership council but also through the engagement process.
The Pembina Institute has written a number of reports on the topic of women in the energy sector. I would be pleased to follow up with your office with a number of our key findings from those.
The Chair: Ms. Gordon, on that point, there is a section in the bill that outlines the makeup of this council. I’m gratified to see that there are three members of the Indigenous community. There is no mention of gender.
Is this going to happen accidentally that women’s voices are at the table or do we have to be deliberate about it? I’m wondering about that exclusion, from your point of view.
Ms. Gordon: The bill does a good job of outlining a number of considerations and taking into account levels of expertise. We have women who will be able to fulfill those goals.
The Pembina Institute is hosting a webinar next week, on the topic of sustainable jobs, with an all-female panel. That wasn’t by intention but because we have three strong experts on the topic of training, regional development and labour that happen to be women.
This can happen. The bill can move forward and these things will happen organically. This government has many intentions about having a balance of women in the room. You’ve raised an excellent point, but I have faith that we’ll see this happen.
The Chair: Faith is good, but legislation is better. I hope we all agree.
Senator Cormier: I could have asked the same question you just asked, Madam Chair, except concerning linguistic minorities around the table. Of course, we want to pass this bill soon, but we’re there for minorities and regions. We have to ensure the bill reflects that.
However, that is not my question. My question is for Megan Gordon.
I’ve looked at your website. You’re involved with the construction sector.
[Translation]
The building sector accounts for approximately 13% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone knows Canada is experiencing a housing crisis right now. Does the bill take both into account, the necessity to decarbonize and the urgency of addressing the housing crisis? Once it’s implemented, will Bill C-50 slow things down for housing construction, or do you think the two are entirely aligned?
[English]
Ms. Gordon: That is an excellent question. Bill C-50 provides the opportunity to look at the composition of our current needs as a country, not only with the lens of climate but looking at the broader issues we’re grappling with — whether it’s affordability or job shortages, as you mentioned. We can highlight some of those challenges and put in place potential co-benefits that we can realize through more coordinated planning across different government departments and having the right representatives at the table, who can lend their insights on what Canada must do to equip and ready itself for the future — regardless of what that future looks like.
Having Bill C-50 put these mechanisms in place creates a process whereby we can align our climate goals with a jobs plan. There is a reason why the sustainable jobs action plans come in five-year increments alongside five-year Emissions Reduction Plans put in place by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act: so we can be more purposeful in advancing those two in tandem. Again, addressing what you said, it’s not just looking at what jobs will be created through climate action — which will be plentiful — but also looking at the challenges we’re grappling with and ensuring that a holistic approach is taken.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
The Chair: Please be very quick with your questions. The witnesses may need to get back to us in writing.
Senator Yussuff: This is a general question. Transition is already happening in sectors with unionized workers. In the absence of clear government policy, unions are dealing with this in their negotiations.
Is there an example you can point to that will give us great guidance with regard to what’s already being done, in the absence of this bill, so that at least we know people are thinking about this, working on it and negotiating clauses in their collective agreements to address this issue?
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: The three witnesses we heard from today felt that Bill C-50 needed to be passed in its current form as soon as possible. However, Climate Action Network Canada said in November that the bill had gaps. Are you satisfied with the bill as it is? Has the bill been amended to your satisfaction, since you said that back in November? Do things need to be added? If so, could you get back to us in writing with the additions needed to improve Bill C-50?
[English]
The Chair: These are very good and important questions, Senator Yussuff and Senator Mégie. Perhaps the witnesses could take the trouble to send their responses to the clerk, and then we will distribute them.
Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our first panel. You’ve all been very helpful witnesses. Thank you very much for taking the time to educate us.
Colleagues, all members of our next panel are joining us by video conference. From First Nations Major Projects Coalition, or FNMPC, we welcome Sharleen Gale, Chief, Fort Nelson First Nation and Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition; and Suzanne von der Porten, Vice-President, Clean Energy Strategy. From Indigenous Resource Network, we welcome John Desjarlais, Executive Director. From Indigenous Clean Energy, we welcome Freddie Huppé Campbell, Director, Energy and Climate.
Thank you for responding to our request and appearing before us today. We’ll begin with opening remarks from the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, followed by Mr. John Desjarlais and then Freddie Huppé Campbell. Chief Gale and Ms. von der Porten, you have the floor.
Sharleen Gale, Chief, Fort Nelson First Nation and Chair, First Nations Major Projects Coalition: Thank you. Good morning, honourable senators. It’s nice to be meeting with you again. I’m joining the Senate today from my home, the Fort Nelson First Nation, in unceded Treaty 8 territory. I’m appearing today with FNMPC’s Vice-President of Clean Energy Strategy, Ms. Sue von der Porten.
The timing of this bill on sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy could not be better for my nation. We have just returned home after three weeks of evacuation due to wildfires threatening our lands. The Fort Nelson First Nation, alongside all Indigenous nations across Canada, has been feeling the direct impacts of climate change knocking on our doors for some time. We welcome the transition to a net-zero economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Fort Nelson First Nation owns 100% of the Tu Deh-Kah Geothermal project, a power plant that will bring clean power to our area, which is otherwise dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation. Our nation’s story with respect to this geothermal project is direct proof of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth through a transition to a net-zero economy.
As Canada shifts into a low-carbon economy, we not only need to support jobs training, skills and education, but also to think about how people can continue to live and raise their families without having to move or travel for work. This is very true for First Nations, who are inherently connected to the lands and waters of our traditional territories.
Once built, my First Nation’s geothermal plant will produce firm, clean electricity and direct heat from a depleted gas well we repurposed. It will also support firm, clean jobs for our First Nations members and those who choose to live among us. The Tu Deh-Kah Geothermal project is an example of a net-zero project that also meets the needs of economic viability, job transferability, Indigenous energy sovereignty, Indigenous ownership and energy reliability.
Fort Nelson is not connected to the rest of British Columbia’s transmission grid. The transmission interties that connect our region to Alberta burned down last summer in the largest forest fire that our province has seen in recorded history. It burned down again during the recent emergency wildfire evacuation in May. There are no transmission lines from Site C or the main B.C. grid that reach our northeastern region of the province. That line going down — and being in a blackout situation several times now — has been a reminder that having our own local power source and our own local jobs and economy will be very important in the coming decades as forest fires intensify.
For our First Nation — alongside many others across Canada — building energy sovereignty and local jobs through Indigenous ownership of net-zero projects will be important. The professional skills and tradespeople required to run the oil and gas industry are jobs that are transferrable to the clean energy economy. A huge investment will be required to educate our young people, as many of our workers are retiring.
Tu Deh-Kah Geothermal is proof that we can create clean jobs locally. Both the deployment of oil and gas wells and the redeployment of oil and gas workers from our own First Nation for this geothermal project fit well with my First Nation’s priorities and interests in developing steady revenues, but we’re not the only one in Canada today that need this help. Indigenous nations are already the largest owners of clean energy assets after government and utilities. For Canada to support a net-zero transition that centres Indigenous nations, the government must provide capacity supports by backing federal government programs to support not only Indigenous jobs but also Indigenous ownership in net-zero projects where we’re both decision makers and owners.
Broadly speaking, the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, or FNMPC, supports the proposed elements that underpin Bill C-50.
When you are thinking about meaningful measures to support workers, we suggest that many of these resources be directed to Indigenous nations, where the economic barriers are much higher than in the rest of Canada. Examples of these barriers include on-reserve poverty, isolated communities and lack of access to education and community. We support your proposed legislation’s reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDRIPA, but we recommend that subclause 16(3) be amended to require the Sustainable Jobs Plan to also include express measures to implement UNDRIPA. We support sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to lead in an emerging clean-growth industry world.
In FNMPC’s National Indigenous Electrification Strategy and all of our direct work supporting our First Nation members on commercial negotiations, the FNMPC has proved that Indigenous ownership on major projects provides investor certainty in Canada. We suggest that your sustainable jobs partnership council have many Indigenous members from across Canada and from across different sectors.
Sue and I are here to answer any questions you might have for us. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Gale.
John Desjarlais, Executive Director, Indigenous Resource Network:
Good morning, everyone, and thank you for inviting me to speak to you on Bill C-50.
I am Nehinaw, or Cree-Métis, from Kaministikominahikoskak, which is Cumberland House, northeastern Saskatchewan, Canada. I started my career in 2001 in the natural resources industry and worked in a variety of roles — including environment, radiation protection, safety, maintenance and reliability engineering management — before moving on to executive roles in economic development, construction, management consulting and governance.
I am here today in my capacity as the Executive Director of the Indigenous Resource Network, or IRN. The IRN is an independent, non-partisan organization advocating for Indigenous resource workers and businesses. Our network has primarily focused on oil and gas, mining and forestry. While these sectors have environmental impacts, they have been a very important source of economic development for our nations. As stewards of the lands — in many cases, that is the actual job or task of IRN members — we try to balance strong environmental protection with good livelihoods and healthy communities.
We have been watching the government’s just transition, or sustainable jobs initiatives, since they were first announced. If I’m honest, there has been a little suspicion and anxiety from our members. There has been a sense that the federal government is not on the same side as those that work in the oil and gas sector, especially. Indigenous oil and gas workers and businesses often feel vilified, even though they are providing an important service and product that everyone depends upon at the end of the day.
It has only been in the past decade or so that we have seen real movement in the oil and gas sector to engage with and include Indigenous workers and businesses in their activities. That has led to a lot of mutual benefit and success.
According to Statistics Canada data, oil and gas extraction and pipeline transportation offer the highest wages in Canada for Indigenous people. In fact, Indigenous people in Canada make almost three times more in the oil and gas extraction sector — more than $140,000 a year — than the average income.
The wage gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous workers has largely been closed. Indigenous upstream oil and gas workers actually made 2.2% more in average weekly wages than the average Canadian oil and gas worker in 2021. By comparison, Indigenous federal government workers made 9.3% less than their non-Indigenous peers.
The oil and gas sector is also making efforts to ensure Indigenous women have opportunities for good-paying careers. The top three highest-paying sectors for Indigenous women in Canada are oil-and-gas-related. We know that good wages provide women and families with more options and better outcomes.
Beside direct employment, the oil and gas sector procures billions of dollars a year from Indigenous businesses. Those can be entrepreneur-owned, supporting families; or community-owned, supporting nations with own-source revenues. They have a huge impact. We are now seeing Indigenous nations take equity ownership in the major projects on their territories, including pipelines, liquefied natural gas — or LNG — terminals and gas power plants.
I commend the government for making the announced federal Indigenous loan guarantee program sector agnostic, which means, in practice, that oil and gas projects are eligible for support.
Sometimes when we throw big numbers out like that, we don’t think about what they really mean for people — what it looks like for entrepreneurs and their families when they get a new contract, or for communities that are turning dividends into services and programs that they need for their people.
I can tell you first-hand that good-paying jobs in resource sectors can be transformative for people and communities — to be able to support their families, move out of poverty and have options. Seeing and experiencing that is why I’ve become so passionate about the issue and am doing what I do today with the IRN. But it’s not just economic; it’s about having a sense of pride and accomplishment through your contributions. I want IRN members to be able to feel proud about what they’re doing and not feel ashamed or be told they need to be transitioned out or that their skills are no longer useful or needed when there is clearly a market for them.
I have no problem with legislation that tries to train people for green jobs or create new economic opportunities in our territories. In fact, many of the skills are the same, whether it be mining uranium for nuclear power or copper for electrification, or building pipelines for carbon capture or hydrogen. But we have very good reasons to expect that jobs installing solar panels or windmills will not pay the same as jobs in oil and gas. IRN members do not want to be transitioned out of those jobs so long as there is demand for that product.
So here is my request of this committee and for the intent of this bill: Do not shift Indigenous people away from running successful businesses and earning good livelihoods. Do not shift Indigenous nations from drawing own-source revenues from the incredible wealth of our territories. Instead, support us in being global leaders in producing oil, gas and other products for as long as our societies and allies need them. Help us develop low-emission LNG to displace coal. Help us capture carbon, develop blue hydrogen and mine and refine minerals more cleanly than anyone else in the world. Help us create new green jobs, not replace good resource jobs. Offshoring our high-emitting sectors to developing nations is not good climate policy — and it’s certainly not reconciliation.
Finally, regarding this new sustainable jobs partnership council, I would ask that you have representation from Indigenous people who actually work in the energy and resource sectors so it can include their perspectives and solutions. I’d be happy to recommend some names when the time comes.
Kinanâskomitinâwâw, thank you all. I look forward to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Desjarlais.
Freddie Huppé Campbell, Director, Energy and Climate, Indigenous Clean Energy: [Indigenous language spoken]. Good morning, honourable senators. I’m a Michif person speaking to you today from the Kootenay region, Ktunaxa Kinbasket territories.
Indigenous Clean Energy is a non-profit organization that supports Indigenous communities to build clean energy champions through capacity building, skills development, career training, mentorship and hands-on programming, both nationally and globally.
Despite being disproportionately impacted by climate change and fossil fuel extraction, Indigenous peoples are leading the way in responding to climate change and transforming energy systems, with Indigenous youth being the largest growing youth population in Canada and an integral part of our current and future workforce. Indigenous nations and communities are the second-largest asset owners of renewable energy within Canada, with over 200 medium- to large-scale renewable energy projects and an additional 1,700 small-scale projects with Indigenous ownership, partnership or co-ownership, all of which have directly translated to reliable local skilled labour. For example, in 2022, 183 renewable technology projects supported more than 115,000 jobs across the country.
In order to support continued participation and leadership of Indigenous peoples in the clean energy transition, the federal sustainable jobs programs and investments must be created through partnerships with Indigenous peoples and embed the right to self-determination. Some of the main recommendations from Indigenous Clean Energy are as follows — and I’m happy to elaborate on them more during questions: Support Indigenous definitions of “sustainable jobs” to advance joint governance and shared decision making; enable Indigenous equity for major projects, procurement, employment targets and training; and scale up capacity building.
In summary, Bill C-50 is ambitious in its intentions, which underscores the importance of co-development frameworks and accountability mechanisms to its implementation. To make that a reality, sustainable jobs policies must not be limited to paper commitments; actionable pathways need to be established to enable the successful uptake of these jobs and training needs to meet sustainable jobs targets. Sustainable jobs policy should address the broader systemic marginalization of Indigenous peoples within the Canadian economy and workforce to address that reality of Indigenous people having a higher propensity of shock and risk to job security in a transitioning economy.
The current approach to the clean energy transition is mirroring that of the fossil fuel transition, and that risks widening current labour gaps and insecurities across a multitude of sectors.
Indigenous peoples are clear leaders in the clean energy industry, and that leadership can take Canada far in terms of building a more sustainable economy and being a global role model.
The Canadian sustainable jobs act is a starting point to address shortages and opportunity pathways for Indigenous peoples, but to do this, it should move beyond the characterization of equity seeking to realize respect for distinctive rights. Métis, First Nations and Inuit representation needs to be at the table to point out the unique circumstances that enable job resiliency and sustainability. Through this, implementation elements should be developed through distinctions-based considerations.
The potential impact created by this act will be determined by how it can capture these inefficiencies. In other words, the outcome of the Canadian sustainable jobs act and subsequent plan depends on buy-in from Indigenous industry and employees. For the success and impact of this act, Indigenous peoples need a meaningful way to contribute to the sustainable jobs act partnership council and Sustainable Jobs Plan.
Maarsii poor toon taan. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. We will go to questions. Our time is short; our curiosity is not. Colleagues, three minutes per question. The deputy chair, Senator Cordy, will be first.
Senator Cordy: Chair, I think we should make a booklet of all your sayings when you are introducing the panels. It would be a bestseller.
Thank you so much for being with us today. It’s very helpful to have the perspective from the Indigenous peoples.
Chief Gale, thank you for bringing us up to date on all of the things that are happening in your region. In Atlantic Canada last summer, we had huge fires that in my lifetime we’d not had before in my lifetime, so anybody who denies that the climate is changing is not paying attention.
Chief Gale, you spoke about the jobs for oil and gas that are transferrable to geothermal energy, and we heard that yesterday from witnesses about the importance of transferrable.
Mr. Desjarlais, you also spoke about shifting jobs and job transitions, and your concern is that the transition might go from very high-paying jobs in oil and gas to jobs that would not be paying nearly the amount that you said — I think it was $140,000 a year.
Can both talk to us about the fair transition? Everybody understands that times are changing and we have to change with them. But how can we make this transition as positive as possible for Indigenous peoples?
Mr. Desjarlais: That’s a great question. There are certainly opportunities. There are projects where you can transfer those skills. Drilling a well is drilling a well, as well as some of the maintenance and services that go with it. But the challenge is that for those people are participating in the oil and gas sector, is there the market, an opportunity or an energy project near them? It’s not only whether they can transfer the skills, but whether there is a marketable opportunity for them to use those skills. Then there’s the concern, of course, about what that pays. Is it the same market, the same economy and does it pay the same?
You can transfer those skills, but two big questions for a lot of the people that we talk with are: Is there a market, and is there a project? Is there not just a project but something sustainable where they can move from one livelihood or career in one sector to another, and are they going to be paid the same?
There probably is some assumption that we might not make the same amount — maybe it will be close — but then the other thing is this: Is the job there? Is there a market? Is there an economy? Is there a resource? Is there something where I can put my skills to work and ensure that sustainable livelihood going forward? There’s a lot of uncertainty there.
As I said, some of the skills are transferrable — absolutely — but can we get paid for those skills in the same way, and is there an opportunity to use them? Is there the same market opportunity?
Senator Osler: Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today.
I’m going to ask Chief Gale a question first. The preamble of Bill C-50 states that the Government of Canada is committed to “ … taking the Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous peoples into account when carrying out the purposes of this Act …”
Chief Gale, how would you interpret that?
Ms. Gale: I would interpret it by ensuring that when they implement this bill, the barriers that First Nations face are addressed. We did the Indigenous loan guarantee program where Indigenous people need access to competitively priced capital. I think that is a huge component.
With that plan, we need to have the Indigenous lens, and it needs to be Indigenous led. Also, we need to really address capacity and ensure that First Nations have the ability to be a part of owning these large-scale projects and are enabled to make informed decisions, with their members negotiating terms.
When I think about that, and I think about Bill C-50, I think about how, with the ownership, our people will not only have seats on the board of directors; they can have positions in management. We’re not just looking at the trades component of it, but also ensuring that we have access to the technology and the market education to be able to make these informed decisions.
It also goes with the remoteness of many of the Indigenous communities across Canada, ensuring that they’re actually connected to the power grid — many of our communities are reliant on diesel — and ensuring that they have an internet connection and are able to be a part of this transition meaningfully in so many different ways to address Indigenous First Nation poverty, based on distance of projects.
I also think about our young people having opportunities to be trained in this economy, especially with many of the baby boomers retiring. I think about ensuring that the language of UNDRIPA is incorporated into this bill, and ensuring that FNMPC considerations are also incorporated. I think that’s fundamental.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My first question is for Mr. Desjarlais.
As I understand it, women work in a number of sectors that are very closely related to the oil and gas sector, or even dependent on it. Given the spirit of Bill C-50, should the government subsidize the sustainable job transition? Is it necessary for the government to subsidize oil companies during the transition period? Where do you stand on that?
[English]
Mr. Desjarlais: My apologies. I caught the last half of the question. I just figured out how to use the interpretation.
I’ve heard about subsidizing oil companies with respect to a fair transition, so I’ll speak to that.
To subsidize the organizations, it’s more about what a fair transition looks like for Indigenous workers and business. That’s the scope of what we’re looking at.
Those Indigenous people, that was the market opportunity that they’re participating in, and much more meaningfully in the last 10 years, not just as labourers but more progressively. Sharleen mentioned it’s not just the trades. We have Indigenous people participating throughout organizations more meaningfully. Businesses are also participating much more meaningfully.
What does transition support look like for those businesses, organizations and entities as they move to different economies and sectors? That’s the concern. That’s the gap. It’s not so much for the organization or the larger companies.
I guess it begs the question: What about Indigenous ownership and equity in major projects in oil and gas? A lot of Indigenous communities are now investing. Upwards of 100 nations are investing in oil and gas projects. What does that mean for those that are making large investments in places today? That’s something we haven’t even contemplated in terms of its economic and cascading socio-economic impacts. We’re more interested in those grassroots people on the ground.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: My question is for Ms. Gale.
You talked about an amendment, so I want to be sure I’m clear on what you said. You referred to subclause 16(3) and the contents of the action plans. A number of witnesses told us that the bill urgently needed to be passed. Can you provide more information on how the amendment you’re proposing would affect sustainable jobs in the country’s Indigenous communities?
[English]
Ms. Gale: Thank you. When you look at job support, the government could provide resources for Indigenous comprehensive community planning and fund jobs and training investment far ahead of projects, so that we can be ready when a project is in the construction phase or even when being considered in our territories. It could also support Indigenous nations in positions on utilities, regulators, commissions, advisory committees and corporate boards. The government could also support Indigenous-led projects that incorporate our vision, designs, values, language and consideration of the entire value chain, especially when it comes to procurement.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’d like you to clarify something for me. Three of the seats on the council are for Indigenous communities. Doesn’t that give you some reassurance that the sustainable job action plans will take the issues you’re talking about into account?
[English]
Ms. Gale: Each nation across Canada is very unique and faces different challenges. Everything is different in different provinces. UNDRIPA is interpreted and implemented across this country in different ways. In addition, ensuring that we invest in Indigenous youth is the key ticket here. John talked about starting from the ground up and ensuring that our Indigenous youth have these opportunities going forward.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Thank you to our witnesses today. One of my questions follows up on what Senator Cormier was asking, but I wanted to ask this question to Ms. Campbell because you commented on Indigenous representation on the council. I wanted to understand if you felt that the representation was inadequate. Could you clarify your comments about that? That would be helpful.
Ms. Campbell: Of course. Thank you for the question. From Indigenous Clean Energy’s perspective, the points we’re emphasizing are about what the implementation and the accountability mechanisms of that council look like. If there are three Indigenous spaces on the partnership council, what are the parameters and what is the weight of decision making when it comes to those spaces? That is, looking at joint decision making, protocols around what the council will be doing, what the accountability is, what level of decision making there will be, what the wait will be for different participants and what the diversity representation will be as well. This was mentioned in the last panel, but ensuring that there are spaces for women, 2SLGBTQQIA+ folks, Indigenous folks and migrant, immigrant and other marginalized communities is also essential.
Senator Dasko: My next question is for Mr. Desjarlais. I appreciated your comments about the transition to work in Indigenous communities, but I would like to focus more on your thoughts about the bill itself. I wasn’t quite sure what you think about the bill — whether you think it’s a good bill or perhaps not a good bill. How do you think this bill will help or not help Indigenous communities? Could you drill down a bit and focus on the bill? Thank you.
Mr. Desjarlais: Focusing on the bill and some of my concerns, first, I question whether Indigenous people were involved and if there was a lot of thought and input from the Indigenous community. Was it a diverse Indigenous community?
When I first saw it, one of my concerns was that with Indigenous people in different sectors, especially those that were transitioning, how vulnerable are they and what is the cascading socio-economic impact? There is a job, an economic impact and a salaries part, but what does that mean for people just starting to get their feet under them in terms of a good livelihood and establishing a successful business?
Our communities are pretty vulnerable and are still moving through a lot of challenges — not just in a historical context, but currently, in terms of a lot of the abject poverty issues we see in the community.
My concern is around what the economic and socio-economic supports are as we are transitioning. How do we maintain confidence, productivity and engagement through that? Those are the things that I didn’t see — we didn’t see. Through this transition, are we going to take a few steps back just to take three steps forward? How painful will that be and what kinds of issues will that cause? Those are the things that I thought about. The intent is there and it is good, but how we operationalize that, how that manifests, especially with Indigenous people and communities in those different sectors, is where the concern comes from.
Senator Dasko: Do you think the bill might potentially hurt Indigenous communities?
Mr. Desjarlais: Potentially those participating quite deeply and specifically in the oil and gas sector — the fossil fuel sector. In addition, those communities that are close to those types of resources as we transition have a marketable opportunity. What does that mean in terms of their opportunity to build source revenues and sustainability and things like that? That is combined with what is happening now in terms of global energy, sovereignty, affordability, security — that type of context. It’s a struggle for those communities that are participating. When they see this, they see demand growing. They see issues in security, affordability and an energy crisis in a lot of places in the world, and their energy is getting used. Those are the things that those communities really struggle with.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: My question follows up on Senator Dasko’s question. Were you, your organizations or your communities consulted by the government in the lead-up to this bill?
Mr. Desjarlais: Personally, no. I think this was already well into development before we were engaged on Bill C-50.
Ms. Gale: No. This is one of my first engagements on Bill C-50, but I would like to offer Ms. von der Porten an opportunity to speak on this point.
Suzanne von der Porten, Vice-President, Clean Energy Strategy, First Nations Major Projects Coalition: Thanks, Chief Gale. I thought maybe we could comment a bit on the language in the bill since we are engaged in this today. The bill says:
a sustainable jobs approach should be inclusive and address barriers to employment with an emphasis on encouraging the creation of employment opportunities for groups underrepresented in the labour market, including women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized individuals, 2SLGBTQI+ and other equity-seeking groups …
The FNMPC agrees that all these individuals, groups and minorities should be supported to take jobs in the net-zero transition; however, First Nations are distinct from the groups listed in Bill C-50.
First Nations are from their lands and are distinct, independent nations that predate colonization. This distinction matters for what inclusion looks like as Canada supports the creation of employment opportunities in the net-zero transition.
First Nations and any Indigenous nation with traditional homelands must be treated distinctly, particularly when it comes to building new net-zero projects on Indigenous lands. As Mark Trahant said at FNMPC’s net-zero conference, “The only road to net zero run through Indigenous lands.” That is to say, if Canada is going to reach our net-zero targets, then First Nations would be the hosts and would decide whether they allow, co-own or partner on such projects on their lands and waters. Without Indigenous free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, these net-zero projects resulting in jobs don’t go through.
If there is time, I would also like to comment on the previous senator’s comment around Indigenous knowledge.
The Chair: We do have a couple of minutes.
Ms. von der Porten: Okay. The language in your bill also states:
… the Government of Canada is committed to strengthening its collaboration with Indigenous peoples with respect to a net-zero economy and the creation of sustainable jobs and to taking the Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous peoples into account when carrying out the purposes of this Act …
The language here is not strong enough to capture the nation-to-nation relationship that Indigenous nations have with Canada. Indigenous nations are not simply collaborators, as the wording there says. Indigenous nations are leaders and asset owners in the net-zero transition and are nations with the rights to make decisions about their lands and water.
As quoted earlier, Bill C-50 states that it will be “ … taking the Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous peoples into account …” This wording makes it sounds as if Canada may or may not take into account Indigenous knowledges that were formed in the very lands and waters where net-zero projects are proposed to occur. A take-it-or-leave-it approach is not in the spirit of UNDRIP and FPIC. Indigenous nations decide what projects get built, where they get built and who owns them, so that fundamental language in this bill must reflect Indigenous nations’ positions as rights holders and include the tenets of UNDRIP and FPIC. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This brings us to the end of our second panel. I’d like to thank all of you very much for sharing your perspectives and expertise with us.
Colleagues, we will resume for 15 minutes before we break. It’s an unusual arrangement, but we believe Mr. Rick Smith from Leduc County will be able to enlighten us considerably.
Mr. Smith is a city councillor, Division One, Leduc County, joining us by video conference. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. You will have five minutes to help us understand what’s happening in your community and how it bears on this bill, and then we’ll open it up for brief questions, because we must adjourn at 11 a.m. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Rick Smith, City Councillor, Division One, Leduc County: Thank you. I’m a Leduc County councillor in Alberta. Our municipality had 5 of the last 18 functioning coal-fired power plants in Canada. I was a member of the Just Transition Task Force on phasing out coal, where we really focused on communities, workers and tax bases, allowing the communities in our area to continue to provide educational programs, emergency services — such as fire — as well as keeping people in those communities so they weren’t abandoned and their whole way of life wasn’t changed.
In Leduc County, we have more or less been a case study of the transition to low carbon. Again, one of the biggest reductions of carbon occurred when Leduc County and Parkland County phased out their joint coal-fired plants. It was a historic day for Canada. Never has that much carbon been removed.
This caused a lot of challenges for our municipality, a loss in tax base, of potentially 450 jobs directly for people who worked at the plant as well as the ability of our municipality to continue to supply services to these communities — fire services, emergency medical services, library services and recreation. It could have been a catastrophe for these small communities as well, with the abandonment of our teachers, children, coaches and sports teams in the schools. So we had no alternative but to look at a case study to move through the just transition recommendations.
We refocused our economic development department to move away from the higher-carbon industries, including oil and gas — which was already starting to fade at our business park in Nisku, just outside of Edmonton.
So we refocused our economic development and looked at our next-largest receipts, which is agriculture and food security. We went to value-added agriculture, which has been hugely successful and created a lot of jobs.
We also looked at land use and repurposed our land from old oil and gas facilities, which had potential for excellent manufacturing to return to Canada. That is occurring.
We also did logistics and cargo, because the airport is right there. Also, we’ve looked at warehousing, logistics and moving cargo through the airport.
Over that period of time, we focused our economic development department and opened up lands, which has resulted in $145 million more in assessment in the area that we focused on, with the new economic development in the low-carbon economy, which has been a lot of jobs. Not only have we done that, but we’ve also opened up 400 lots for housing, which are extremely close to the business park we recreated and repurposed, for workers to be able to work within a kilometre of these new areas. That was a reduction.
Through that, we’ve created thousands of jobs. We are growing at a rate of assessment of 7%-plus over the last three years, so measurable successes are there. We are a case study in what Canada may be facing going forward, and we will continue to move forward with that.
A word of caution: We enjoyed funding through the just transition over three years, but it doesn’t stop with a small infusion of support. It will have to be ongoing. We still have work to do and more areas we need to focus on to continue to create these jobs. The markets are there. We are prepared to continue to do that through land use — focusing on value-added agriculture and food security and land use.
What we’ve accomplished by shutting down 5 out of 18 coal-generated electric plants in Leduc County has been phenomenal. It was a historic day for the removal of carbon when that occurred.
In a nutshell, those are the successes that Leduc County has had in embracing the reality of the new low-carbon economy toward which we’re moving.
Also, in our business park, we’re looking at many renewable energy projects. The airport will be adding a massive solar farm on land that’s currently not really used. We’ve embraced what people are trying to move into. We are already five years into it and have been successful, though it has not been without challenges. Thank you.
The Chair: Many congratulations, Mr. Smith, on the success you have had in transitioning. A quick question from me — I didn’t want to ask a question, I am consumed by curiosity.
You said you closed 5 out of 18 plants in your community. What happened to the workers?
Mr. Smith: Again, they were the generators. Basically, 450 direct jobs were there and some of them have been laid off. There were moves to offer two years of post-secondary education. The communities are extremely close — Warburg and Thorsby — so we tried to create jobs 30 minutes away or less, in the area around Leduc, the airport and Nisku, which is the second-largest energy business park in North America. We’re trying to create high-paying, mortgage-paying jobs for people who may have to commute, and we’re trying to connect transit to get them in. We knew they would be losing their jobs, and we are creating jobs they can move into within 30 kilometres of their home.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: It is good to see you by video conference. Thank you for your leadership. You’re from Alberta, so when you think of transition, some people will say it’s a challenge. However, you’ve demonstrated in real time what can be done with a plan for how we can re-envision our society, but also how we can create meaningful work for workers.
Given the experience that you’ve had, and recognizing that this legislation was not then in place, what are the positive elements of this legislation that, if it were to become law in the next little while, could help you going forward?
Mr. Smith: I’ll just go back to the subject of our communities, which are extremely important. I believe it will enhance these communities and enable them to continue to grow, which means we are looking at emergency services, volunteer firefighters, teachers, coaches and children who are attending school. The businesses there will continue to thrive because there will be support. Also, it’s important the workers are not displaced without a plan. Again, we focused on our workers, and we believe that the continuation of employment availability for these workers within their historical area — where their families have probably been for generations — is extremely important.
I see that continuing in our case study. The small communities we’ve talked about are still struggling — as are many communities in Canada — but there is a plan. We don’t need to pack and move hundreds of miles away. Instead, we can keep our families there, and we can keep our husbands and wives working in emergency services. It’s an enhancement for workers, it’s a safety net and it’s also the ability for communities to remain viable.
Senator Yussuff: If I may, I have one last question. Given your experience on the Just Transition Task Force — and given that you were able to travel the country, not just through Alberta, but also to Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the process of that incredibly important work — what are some of the positive things that were learned?
Mr. Smith: Not only focusing on Alberta, but looking at Saskatchewan and the Maritimes, one important thing to consider going forward is to embrace the reality of change. That is the first important thing we need to do. We need to make sure these changes are occurring, and as leaders in our community, we need to move forward. With some of the projects announced in the Maritimes, I had the chance to be at those plants, to inspect them and to go through those communities. I found them to be very important in transitioning workers away from that work into other areas, such as shipping, in the Maritimes. In Saskatchewan, it’s a challenge because of the distance from everything, but there is a recognition that things need to be done.
On the just transition, the conditions that were written in really focused on workers, communities and the viability of communities continuing to thrive. There is going to be upset in moving to a low-carbon economy, but it is occurring. As leaders, we need to get in front, put in conditions that allow it to thrive and not stand in its way.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you.
The Chair: If I may ask a quick final question: From your point of view, does Bill C-50 reflect the kinds of experiences you have had at a macro level? Will it help communities move?
Mr. Smith: I believe that everything eventually needs to find its way into legislation so it can continue on. I see this as a natural progression from the terms of the just transition. I see this as enshrining in law what we need to do to make sure that as leaders, we’re leading what needs to occur — because it’s occurring. The job of politicians, leaders and communities is to ensure we’re at the forefront in setting the conditions in which people, workers and communities can thrive. I see that occurring here.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith, for sharing your remarkable experiences with us. It’s good to hear about things happening on the ground as opposed to at an abstract level like legislation.
Senator Cormier: I want to commend you, sir, for your leadership. Since we’re speaking about federal legislation, which implies all levels of government, can you tell us how you imagine working with your provincial government on this? Because you seem to have succeeded by yourselves, I want to understand how this will change your relationship or the way you work with your provincial government.
Mr. Smith: Well, of course, as municipalities, we always want to stay within our jurisdiction and move forward. We had no choice. Working with the province, we’ve asked them for support to continue to transition into the new economies and the energy projects that we have under way at the airport. We have a huge solar farm, and that requires land use. The province is allowing us to have land use so we can get workers closer to their jobs. The province is encouraging us to do land use for our industrial and transitional work and value-add, and they’re adding dollars to that. They see that value-added agriculture is extremely important. We make raw products, and shipping it away made no sense. It is now creating jobs.
I would like to share a success story with you. The province cut the ribbon. We have something called “The Little Potato Company” in Alberta, and they have just built a massive plant there. Their annual potato sales are $300 million per year. This is an example of a value-add project that we went after when we did this. The province gave them grants to move forward. It’s a natural progression.
It’s a good idea for all politicians — federal, provincial and municipal — to lead on what’s already occurring.
The Chair: Mr. Smith, thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)