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 11:30 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth and a net zero economy; and in camera, to study other issues.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Ratna Omidvar. I am a senator from Ontario.
[English]
I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. If possible, please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Please only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Please keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table in front of you. Thank you so much for your cooperation.
Today, colleagues, we continue 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 do a round table and have my colleagues introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Cordy: Good morning. I’m Jane Cordy. I’m a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Good morning. Senator Sharon Burey from Ontario.
Senator Bernard: Good morning. Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Yussuff: Hello, Hassan Yussuff, senator from Ontario.
Senator McBean: Senator Marnie McBean from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Osler: Good morning. Senator Gigi Osler from Manitoba.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, who is joining us by video conference. Thank you, minister.
Minister Wilkinson is joined in person by the following officials from Natural Resources Canada: Christina Paradiso, Director General, Energy Policy Branch; Cori Anderson, Director, Sustainable Jobs; and Barbara Winters, Legal Counsel. And from Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, Eva Lazar, Executive Director, Special Projects, Skills and Employment Branch, who is joining us in person.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
Minister Wilkinson, you’re in Vancouver. Lucky you. I would now like to invite you to make your opening remarks in five minutes, please.
[Translation]
Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Energy and Natural Resources: Hon. senators, I appreciate the invitation to join you today.
[English]
I want to start by acknowledging that I am in Vancouver, and so I am sitting in the traditional and unceded territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam First Nations.
My apologies very much for not being there in person. We had the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers meeting in Cranbrook, British Columbia, in the interior yesterday and the day before. Physically, it was impossible to get back to Ottawa in time, but I am nonetheless happy to be here.
We talk a lot about climate change these days, for obvious reasons. Beyond its increasingly severe impacts on our environment, it is also rapidly transforming the global economy and global finance in ways that are creating enormous economic opportunities for those who are thoughtful and those who are strategic.
Dr. Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, or IEA, recently noted:
. . . The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it is unstoppable. It’s not a question of ’if’, it’s just a matter of ’how soon’ . . . .
The IEA underlined a full range of trends that are happening around the world in terms of the deployment of renewable energy, in terms of the deployment of zero-emission vehicles. It also noted the world’s demand for oil, gas and coal will peak this decade and begin to decline over time.
[Translation]
The energy transition makes it possible for countries to strategically seize low-carbon economic opportunities before us. Not since the industrial revolution has there been such a huge shift of this kind.
[English]
Make no mistake, we find ourselves in this global race where countries, industries and markets all jockeying to win and seize the associated economic benefits. We saw that with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which is causing a massive expansion in green industrial investment. We see market-transforming actions under way in the European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea and perhaps most notably in China.
This global transformation represents a significant competitive pressure as countries in sectors that will be central to future economic growth look to seize the leadership.
In order to seize the opportunities, we must be strategic and we must build on comparative advantages. We must unlock the skills, training and resources we need to seize the opportunities of the future.
For Canada, Canadian workers and Canadian industry to succeed in this race, we need the Sustainable Jobs Plan and Canadian Sustainable Jobs Bill, a critical part of this legislation before you today, which outlines a framework for accountability, transparency and engagement.
[Translation]
For those of you who remember the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, this legislation plays a similar role in ensuring that this government and future governments make decisions in line with the best available evidence.
[English]
The bill is the product of 18 months of consultation. As I said, the focus is transparency, accountability and inclusiveness as we move forward.
[Translation]
The act introduces a number of foundational, guiding principles that will ensure a collaborative and inclusive approach to our efforts. It creates a sustainable jobs partnership council, which will be responsible for providing independent and informed advice on how to develop a low-carbon economy and support Canadian workers.
[English]
It outlines a requirement for government to publish an action plan every five years outlining concrete policy measures as to how it will facilitate and promote net-zero economic growth, job creation and support for workers and communities. Each plan will take into account the voices of stakeholders and partners across Canada, through a variety of mechanisms, very much including the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council.
[Translation]
This legislation will help to ensure that we have every region of Canada and Canadian workers and businesses at the centre of our policy-making and decisions with respect to sustainable jobs.
[English]
This builds on the progress the government has made over the past number of years, enabling significant growth in Canada’s low-carbon industries. It includes strategic regulatory decisions like a price on pollution, setting an electric vehicle, or EV, availability standard, regulating methane emissions in addition to strategic public investments that are yielding strong returns for our economy.
The results across the country are clear. We see hydrogen investments in Atlantic and Western Canada, nuclear and auto plants in Ontario and battery factories and critical minerals mines in Quebec.
Certainly, the need for an abundance of skilled labour is difficult to overstate. This is precisely why this legislation is needed: to ensure the associated generational opportunities are delivered for all Canadians, in every region, from coast to coast to coast.
We have an opportunity with this legislation to provide Canadian workers precisely what they have been demanding, which is a seat at the table alongside industry, Indigenous voices and other experts where they can help us to determine how we can best build this country’s future prosperity.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions and comments.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Wilkinson. We will do a round of questions. My colleagues know the drill. Four minutes per question. That includes an answer.
Minister Wilkinson, perhaps I can ask you the first question.
The bill creates a council of 13 members. While there is clear articulation of where these members will be derived from, there is no mention of gender, there is no mention of racialized communities and we know that women and racialized communities are overrepresented in the supportive sectors that feed into the resource industry. There will be a knock-on effect on them as well.
In previous testimony, we heard that witnesses had faith this would happen. Should we rely on faith or on legislation?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. As the legislation makes clear, these go through a Governor-in-Council appointment process and certainly that process looks at a whole range of different things in terms of the reflection of diversity, regional diversity, gender, underrepresented groups. Certainly, the appointments to this council will have that lens. It will also, obviously, have lens of looking for appropriate expertise.
The Chair: Thank you. Not completely similar but parallel legislation from Quebec has the language of gender parity built into it. I point that out as something this committee is going to be concerned about.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, minister, for being here from far away but nonetheless with us. Technology is great.
We heard from a previous panel this morning about the transitioning and the need to transition to green jobs, if I could call them that. It was an Indigenous panel and they understood the necessity and the why of the transition.
One of the concerns we heard was some will be transitioning from very high-paying oil and gas jobs to jobs that would perhaps be not minimum wage but not really high wages, and that was a concern that he expressed for the people in his community. How do we address that legitimate concern?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thanks, senator, and I agree. I think it is a legitimate concern. We need to ensure that we are focused on creating good jobs. Good jobs include well-paying jobs. That is reflected in this legislation. It’s certainly one of the reasons why the labour movement in Canada has been so strongly supportive of this legislation, which is to have a seat at the table in terms of the economic strategies we’re pursuing as a government, as a country.
Many of the jobs that we are seeing and will see coming forward are the kinds of jobs that will maintain the standard of living people in the oil and gas sector have been able to have in the last number of decades. If you think about, for example, the production of hydrogen from natural gas, which is something that can be done consistently with fighting climate change, it is essentially similar to the skills that you need in an oil refinery. The same thing is true with the production of biofuels. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the conversion of the Come By Chance refinery to renewable diesel resulted in the maintenance and increase in the number of jobs, and those are all good-paying jobs. We need to continue to focus on that.
Even in a net-zero world we will still need some level of oil and gas. We need to eliminate the combustion of oil and gas. Hydrogen is a path forward for natural gas. There are certainly many non-combustion applications for oil that will continue to be needed — lubricants, solvents, waxes, petrochemicals and a range of other things. We need to ensure Canada is providing the products that are the lowest carbon products in the world because that will be a source of comparative advantage in a market for oil in particular that will be a smaller one.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, minister. That was a very fulsome answer.
My question now has to do with clauses 14 and 15 in the bill, and that’s the non-requirement to make public the reports that the council must provide at the request of the minister. Clause 14 states that the minister may choose to make the report public but doesn’t require it. I’m curious as to why it’s optional and not mandatory to have the reports coming from the council be made public at the discretion of the minister.
Mr. Wilkinson: It’s a very good question, senator. I would say, just as a default, my view is that all of these things, unless there are issues around confidentiality for particular commercial enterprises, should be in the public domain. It may well be — and I may turn here to my officials perhaps to provide a bit more of a response — that there are some of those types of concerns that we actually need to ensure are addressed. From a default perspective, I do believe, personally, that these things should be public. Maybe I can ask the officials to comment specifically on that.
The Chair: As we have more time with the officials later in the meeting, Senator Cordy, perhaps you could pose that question to them.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, minister, for being with us today, even if it’s only virtually.
Part of the proposed Sustainable Jobs Plan that will be tabled every five years beginning in 2025 requires that each plan include a summary of relevant available data with amendments made at the Natural Resources Committee also requires a reporting on data gaps and plans to address them.
The Auditor General’s finding in 2022 around the just transition for the coal phase-out found that federal departments and agencies did not establish a framework to measure, monitor and report on actions to support the just transition. There was total lack of a system to track the results.
I’m wondering, given that and given the demands in Bill C-50, how are we better placed to be able to provide the data that this bill promises?
Mr. Wilkinson: Again, a very good question. Certainly we took to heart the recommendations that you noted. As you will know, we released last year an interim action plan which will become a fulsome action plan in 2025. One of the 10 key action areas in there was to improve labour market data collection, tracking and analysis. We will need to report on the progress there, and there are a number of departments and agencies that are working on ensuring that there is an appropriate framework. But we will need to report on that at the time that we put out the first formal action plan in 2025. I think that’s an important point. If you don’t measure it, you don’t know where you’re going and you don’t know how you will get there.
Senator Seidman: You partnered with Employment and Social Development Canada, if I understand correctly. One of the criticisms, as we all know in many different processes in this country, is that the different departments function and collect data in not exactly coherent ways. How will that be dealt with based on the need for cooperation?
Mr. Wilkinson: Again, you are absolutely right. One of the challenging things at times in the federal system is that departments can operate in silos and often have different methodologies, which makes it much more difficult to figure out where you’re going.
The whole point of the work that’s being done through the action plan is to require the departments to work together to ensure that the methodologies that we are putting into place with respect to data will be the same. That will be helped by the fact that we’re creating a secretariat under this that will bring all of those departments together. The legislation will also designate a lead minister, but it will also designate two other responsible ministers. Certainly, my expectation is one of those will be ESDC, so they will have a formal political requirement to work together.
Senator Seidman: Terrific. Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister, for appearing today. Despite strengthening Bill C-50’s preamble section on Indigenous peoples, this committee has heard concerns that the language is not strong enough to recognize the nation-to-nation engagement; may or may not take Indigenous knowledge into account; must include Indigenous consent, governance, options for ownership; and that the only road to net zero runs through Indigenous lands.
For example, the committee heard that clause 16(3) should include language that references the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, Act.
Minister, how do you respond to these ongoing concerns?
Mr. Wilkinson: First of all, I would say the whole discussion with Indigenous peoples around reconciliation — and that is not just services and governance, that is also economic reconciliation — is critically important for this government. As you know, we have accepted and work within the framework of UNDRIP, and that is, again, a very important part that guides our efforts across the board.
UNDRIP is mentioned in the bill itself. It was referenced as being important to legislation in the interim action plan. As I say, UNDRIP essentially provides a guide for all the different things we do. I would be a bit cautious about being overly prescriptive within the bill when the bill references that UNDRIP does effectively guide what we are doing. But I hear your point. I think the bill does address that through the fact that it actually does deal with UNDRIP, and UNDRIP is the guide in terms of how the government needs to behave.
Senator Osler: Do you think the language in the bill is strong enough to counter the concerns that this committee heard from Indigenous stakeholders?
Mr. Wilkinson: I do. Of course, I respect the views of the stakeholders that have come before you. But I do. There is a requirement that future action plans take into account measures across the government which speaks to the importance of UNDRIP as a framework because it actually influences all of the different departments that will feed into these action plans.
Senator Osler: Thanks, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Welcome, Mr. Minister. According to the Bank of Canada, our country is facing an urgent need to improve productivity and its economy in order to ensure our economic prosperity and fight inflation.
Bill C-50 aims to support the creation of sustainable jobs; there is mention of well-paying, quality jobs, but the bill makes no direct reference to the issue of productivity. That surprises me, as it’s one of your government’s objectives. How can Bill C-50 help stimulate investment in the clean technologies and infrastructure needed to increase productivity?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you. The bill is important because it establishes a framework to guide our efforts, but the action plan contains specific actions. Of course, investment in clean sectors will be very important. The whole world is moving faster and faster towards a low-carbon future, and sectors like hydrogen, critical minerals, batteries and electric vehicles will be very important. We need a plan to attract investment and ensure that we have a prosperous future. It’s not just the bill that aims for transparency, but also the action plans. It’s useful, as are the roundtables with the provinces and territories.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. I’m not sure if that answered my question about productivity. Could you clarify the specific importance of this bill in the overall package of measures and initiatives deployed by the government to ensure this transition to a low-carbon economy? How does this bill complement or reinforce other existing initiatives? I’m still thinking about this productivity issue.
Mr. Wilkinson: This bill is above all an instrument for creating transparency. The regulations of future governments must include an action plan to build a prosperous future that can ensure a prosperous life for Canadians.
[English]
It’s one part of an economic plan for the future. I agree with you, senator, that productivity is extremely important. However, productivity doesn’t just fit with respect to a green future. It’s about artificial intelligence, or AI, biotechnology, digital technology and a range of other things. Canada does have challenges on the productivity side that it needs to solve. We need to see more capital investment in this country that is in machinery and technology. I’d be happy to have a longer conversation with you about some of the thoughts there.
This particular bill is about creating a framework for transparency and accountability. The tools under it lie in the action plan, which is what are the specific things you’re going to do to create an economy that will be able to compete in some of these new industries that will be drivers of growth going forward? You will see that in the action plan and in every action plan that comes forward. That’s about how does Canada be a leader in battery technology, EVs, hydrogen, biofuels, nuclear technology and a range of things. It’s a piece. The broader issue of productivity, I agree with you, is an important one, but this is only part of that broader conversation.
Senator McBean: Thank you, minister, for being here and for your time and attention to our questions. I just came from a committee where we heard from Minister O’Regan. You are united in your passion and your excitement about the number and volume of new good jobs that are coming up. I heard you say that we need to be strategic and unlock skills and resources. You also said there will be a need for an abundance of skilled labour.
Statistics Canada says that 82% of workers in natural resources are male; 18% of them are female. As we transition, it won’t necessarily be fair from one community to another. There will certainly be some remote and Indigenous communities that will be first and worst hit with how these programs come along.
A sustainable transition means more than a lot of jobs. Can you tell me what the government is doing in advance of this job creation and the job availability to encourage and support underrepresented persons such as women, Indigenous, non‑White people with training, apprenticeship programs and education? Some of these good jobs will be engineering positions or skilled electrical positions. If we don’t provide advance training for them, when the jobs become available it will just be the same people flowing into the same jobs. Or, with massive expansion, we’ll need to say, “Well, we don’t have enough skilled workers for these jobs,” and then we’ll have to look internationally instead of supporting these communities that remotely can be left with too many changes to sustain their presence in their communities.
Can you tell me what the government has planned or what you can include in this bill to support the training for Canadians to be taking these jobs?
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, senator. That’s a very good question. To be honest, that is one of the key reasons why this bill exists, not only how to be part of the conversation about the economy of the future but also how to ensure we are supporting workers and communities to be part of this conversation. That includes communities in the North and communities that may be dependent, for example, on coal. Also, how do you address some of the impacts?
First, there are huge opportunities for some of the rural and northern communities in the context of this conversation. When you’re thinking about natural resources, that’s where most of them exist. Different from, perhaps, biotech, AI or those kinds of things that tend to be concentrated in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, these are actually opportunities for well-paying jobs in those communities. But you have to be in a position where you are able to ensure that the people who live in those areas can participate in the benefits that flow from them.
That’s important from the perspective of social justice, but it’s also important in the context of the real challenge we will have going forward with the demographics in this country. That is, more people are retiring than are entering the labour force. That’s especially true in areas like the trades. We need to ensure that underrepresented groups, particularly Indigenous peoples and Indigenous youth, are part of this. Part of the conversation and part of the work that the partnership council will be doing is to help us figure out what we need to do to provide the supports to enable those kinds of groups and people to be active participants.
There are some good success stories in this country. In northern Saskatchewan, more than half of Chemco’s labour force is Indigenous for the uranium mines in the North. There are examples of organizations that have spent the time to do the training to get the results, but that’s not true across the board. We need to ensure that’s increasingly true across the board.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, minister, for being here.
I have two questions, and then you can elaborate more. Obviously, the size of the council has been raised, namely, whether it’s adequate given the breadth of experience that needs to be brought in terms of how we deal with transition in the country. Some argue it’s the right size; some argue it’s not the right size. We can argue that the entire Senate should be on this committee given the complexity of the issue we’re dealing with, but it’s not. Maybe you can address that for me in the context of the composition of the council, recognizing that you want to get broad voices.
The second part with regard to that is maybe you can speak directly as to how the council would consult with Canadians given the country’s diversity in terms of resources and the challenges we face. How do we get the proper consultation across the country to ensure the recommendations they provide to government are a reflection of the challenges we need to address in the country?
Mr. Wilkinson: Great question. Thank you, senator and thank you for all of the work that you have done to advance the work on this bill over the course of the past number of years.
The issue of how big the council should be will always be the subject of debate. You want a council that’s large enough that you have appropriate and thoughtful perspectives that are being brought to the table that reflect geographic diversity, gender, sector, a whole range of different things. You also want a council that is not so big that it becomes dysfunctional. With a large one, it becomes very difficult to do the hard work and to get people together to do the hard work. When you have people who miss multiple meetings, then you have to find ways to catch everybody up, and it becomes complicated. I used to run a board that had 40 people. It was completely unworkable.
I think the size is appropriate. As you know, it is 13, and it has representation from a number of different groups. This is a debate that you were probably going to have. If it were 15, you would have the same debate. If it were 11, you would have the same debate. Thirteen is where we landed in our discussions with stakeholders, and I think that’s appropriate.
In terms of consultations, the council itself will be able to plan its activities in terms of the consultation it plans to do with provinces, stakeholders and average Canadians. It’s not the only consultative tool that the government has, but it will certainly be able to map out what it believes it needs to do in order to provide the kinds of recommendations that are going to help the government.
Senator Burey: Minister, thank you for being here. I am going to follow up on some of the questions from my colleagues. It is really about the big picture in terms of the strategies. You mentioned in your opening statement being thoughtful and strategic. What strategies do you have now that could ensure that Canadians across the country, from coast to coast, across the lifespan — and I’m thinking particularly about kids, youth, education and training — that will ensure this future that we have this vision of? How you will sell this to them?
Mr. Wilkinson: As you will know, senator, we have a number of different sectoral strategies that feed into this — a critical mineral strategy, a strategy with respect to hydrogen and we are coming forward with a nuclear strategy. There are a whole range of strategies around energy and natural resources that are a part of this conversation.
One of the things that I endeavour to do, which is kind of to your point about selling or marketing this to folks — my view is that climate change is an extension crisis that is facing the human race. It should not be a partisan issue or a political issue; it is a science issue. In order to ensure that Canadians come with us on this journey of fighting climate change, we need to ensure it will be affordable and that they actually believe that the future is a prosperous one, that there will be jobs for them and their children. It is incumbent on the government to map out and show people how that will take place.
That is my job. I go from coast to coast to coast talking to communities, pretty much each and every day, about the fact that Canada has enormous opportunities. We can be environmentally sustainable and economically prosperous at the same time. We do that every day and so do many of my colleagues, including Minister O’Regan, from whom you heard earlier today.
Senator Burey: Thank you, minister.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for being here today to answer our questions. I want to talk about the impact of the bill.
As I think everybody knows, the economy is going to transition whether we like it or not and whether we have this bill or not. We will transition. As you said, a lot of the jobs — or some of the jobs, certainly — as you mentioned, there is a lot of job training going on now. There is a transition happening now in the economy, and there are many good jobs coming out of this. In fact, we had labour representatives here the other day telling us how much training they are already doing of either the unionized labour force or non-union workers. They told us this just yesterday.
When you talk about the bill, you use words like transparency and consultation, which is all very good, but what I’m trying to understand is what you actually think will come out of the bill that will be different? I hate to use the word “deliverables,” because it is not exactly that, but are you expecting or planning there to be, for example, more jobs, better jobs, more training or any of these coming out of the bill? I just want to try to understand that a little bit better because it is about councils, transparency, consultation and so on. I am looking for the bottom line, so to speak.
Mr. Wilkinson: That is an excellent question. Let me try to respond to that.
This is actually not dissimilar to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act that was put forward a couple of years ago when I was Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. It essentially provides a framework and requires the government to have a plan to address climate change. It requires it to be public and updated. It requires you to report on it. It provides the accountability and transparency framework and a framework for engagement through a body not dissimilar to the council here.
This does exactly the same thing. It requires that there are action plans. It requires that the government think about these issues in terms of how to actually move it forward. The specific tool that enables the strategy, both with respect to economics and support for workers and communities, are the action plans. We have an interim action plan that we released last year, and there will be a formal one in 2025. Those are the actual specific steps that we are taking to create the economy going forward, which will create the jobs and economic opportunity. That includes things like the Regional Energy and Resources Tables, which we have established with almost every province and territory in this country that works on a province-by-province and territory-by-territory basis in terms of the economic opportunities for them. For Nova Scotia, it is wind and hydrogen from the onshore and offshore. It is different for Alberta, which is net-zero petrochemicals and those kinds of things.
This is a really important framework because it says that the government has the obligation to hear from Canadians, to put in place these kinds of action plans, to be transparent with Canadians and that the action plans themselves are the strategy.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for being with us, Mr. Minister.
My question concerns the structure and building of this bill. In your opening remarks, you spoke of an inclusive approach. The preamble to the bill also mentions inclusion and diversity. More specifically, it refers to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. When we go to the section dealing with the sustainable jobs partnership council and council training, the bill also talks about the importance of reflecting diversity, particularly regional diversity, and under-represented groups.
However, when we get to the section on the action plan for sustainable jobs, there is no reference to inclusion or diversity and it’s not very explicit about their place in it. I must admit that my question is this: Why isn’t this section specific about how important that could be? We’re talking about data and measurements. Is there a reason for that? I understand that it may be implied, but personally, I’d have liked to see it mentioned more explicitly in the action plan section.
Mr. Wilkinson: That’s an important issue, and I think it’s a good suggestion for the action plans we’ll be putting in place next year.
We can have more conversations about the issues you raised, and particularly in relation to the articles where we discuss ways to ensure that all Canadians can participate in the opportunities of the future.
I’m very pleased to be having these conversations with public servants.
[English]
Senator Petitclerc: I guess my point is that this action plan in this section is not explicit. We are talking about data, but we are not specifically talking about how we will address and make sure that everything that comes into the action plan will take into consideration diversity and inclusion.
I’m just hoping that the preamble and the council, where it is a little more explicit, will make sure that it transfers into the action plan. I was hoping for more certainty, I suppose.
The Chair: Minister, I want to follow up on Senator Petitclerc’s question and your response. You said you are open to having more discussions. What does that mean?
Mr. Wilkinson: It means that the action plan we released last year was an interim action plan for the sole purpose of actually ensuring that, as the bill went through, we heard whether there were things we needed to reflect on as we actually develop the first real formal action plan in 2025.
I think the preamble addresses some of the concerns the senator has, but we need to ensure it actually does end up informing the action plan that we are in the process of developing now. Therefore, I think it is a very appropriate comment.
The Chair: Would you be willing to consider an amendment to the bill that says explicitly that minority communities mentioned in your preamble are actually also mentioned in the bill?
Mr. Wilkinson: The Senate is the master of its own house in terms of amendments. However, I would say that the fact that the preamble articulates it does mean we have to ensure it’s reflected in the formal action plan. The action plan derives from the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister. My question is about ensuring that no worker gets left behind as Canada transitions to a net-zero economy. In an economic and social report from Statistics Canada, the percentage of employees who were union members in their main job fell by 9% — from 38% in 1981 to 29% in 2022. As I look at the composition of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, I ask the question: How will non‑unionized workers be represented and their voices heard in Canada’s future net-zero economy?
Mr. Wilkinson: The bill is obviously intended to ensure that we are thinking about workers generally across the country. That is really the whole point of the bill. But a lot of the elements of the bill relate not only to economic development but to skills training and skills development. I would say that the bulk of the skills training centres and the work that is done in skills training are actually run through the unions. In that context, the union movement brings a particular set of expertise in terms of that. I would also say that this is about creating good jobs. I think the labour movement in this country is really focused on ensuring that we are thinking about raising the level for all workers as we actually move through this transition to a low-carbon future. In that context, I think it is very important that the perspective of labour is actually reflected at the table.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister. I agree with you about the good work that unions are doing in training and retraining, but I’m also thinking about future jobs in a net-zero economy that might not be unionized and may be burgeoning right now.
How will their voices and concerns be heard if they are not represented on the council?
Mr. Wilkinson: I’m not sure that the union movement in this country is only focused on the importance of the work being done for its members. By and large, if you speak to labour leaders — and I’m sure you have — they are focused on ensuring we are actually thinking about this in a manner that’s going to benefit people across the country, whether they are union members or not.
Unions are the one place in which you can really find leaders who are focused on a lot of these kinds of issues. If you are saying that you will go out to the non-union sector to have representation, who do you choose for non-unionized? They don’t have leadership.
From my perspective, the labour movement is a thoughtful group that actually helps us think about issues that are important for workers — not just for their member, but for workers.
Senator Seidman: Minister, you alluded to the fact — and you heard many of my colleagues around the table allude to the fact — that there are disproportionate impacts in this country as a result of the just transition, whether they be in particular sectors or regions of the country. I’m thinking particularly of the older workers in this country, workers who are at the latter part of their jobs. What kind of protections will we have for them? Maybe they can be found in particular communities, like rural communities. It is that disproportionality that will ultimately exist. How will we build in some kind of protection for older workers who might end up being phased out altogether?
Mr. Wilkinson: It is an important conversation. I would say a couple of things.
First, I think we should be careful about assuming there will be significant impacts on people because their skills won’t be utilizable in the future. By and large, in my view, many of the opportunities we are actually looking to seize will use the same kinds of skill sets. They may be slightly different in terms of orientation, but they will be the same kinds of skill sets.
It is also true to say that there may be impacts on particular groups of workers or on particular communities that we need to be thoughtful about. If, in some cases, retraining is not the answer or communities need a plan with respect to economic development, we need to be there in a thoughtful way to ensure we are providing those supports.
That’s exactly what this bill is about. The action plan and the work of the partnership council are to actually look at some of those things to identify what kinds of things we need to put into place to ensure we are addressing exactly what you are talking about.
Senator Seidman: So this is all to be further discussed as a result of the various consultation programs.
Mr. Wilkinson: It is, although I would say there has certainly been a fair bit of thinking and investment already through things like the Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program, the Community Workforce Development Program and a number of those things. As we move forward, we do need to ensure that we are thinking very clearly about that.
You are right, it will be different in different regions of the country. We need to be thoughtful about that. That’s partly what these Regional Energy and Resource Tables are about as well — to hear from the provinces about their particular concerns and aspirations.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Minister, I must say that what’s very positive about the bill is that you are integrating under-represented groups and taking those realities into account. Witnesses we have heard from have told us of their major concerns on the issue of training, in a context where they don’t want to leave anyone out of this huge net-zero initiative.
The federal government has a responsibility when it comes to official languages. It must introduce positive measures to ensure the vitality of communities. It must ensure that it assesses the negative impact of its decisions on official language communities.
Once again, I’m astonished, Mr. Minister. Why weren’t official language communities listed among the under-represented groups, when it’s recognized that these communities are under-represented in many sectors in many parts of the country?
Why was this not included in the bill? I’d like an explanation.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you for your question. Of course, anglophone or francophone minorities are very important right across Canada, as is the Official Languages Act.
It’s hard to compile a list of everything we need to consider. It’s important to consider diversity, and it’s an issue to consider in the action plan.
Senator Cormier: You’re talking about certain groups. I don’t understand why the federal government, which claims to be an ardent defender of minority language communities, doesn’t include the importance of taking minority communities into account in key bills like this one.
I don’t understand why this wasn’t automatically included when the bill was drafted, since you included other under-represented groups — and we applaud that initiative. The idea is not to make a rough list. If we want everyone to be included, we need to include everyone, and these communities deserve to be included in your strategies.
How will this translate into action plan training programs? How will this be taken into account? How will their needs be considered? We know what’s at stake for communities.
I’m surprised, and I’m not sure I’m convinced by your answer. What more can you tell me about this?
Mr. Wilkinson: When we’ve finished, perhaps my officials can give you more answers. That’s a good point. It’s sometimes difficult to have a completely inclusive list, but it’s something we can discuss during the process.
Senator Cormier: Thank you for your openness, Mr. Minister.
[English]
The Chair: Minister, it’s difficult to have a list, but there are recognized equity-seeking groups and official languages. There is a law regarding that.
Senator Yussuff: Minister, if I could come back, I think my colleague Senator Dasko made a point on a very important question. In absence of this legislation becoming law, right now, we’re seeing right across the country in almost all sectors that transitions are already happening. In the auto sector, for example, and it’s not going to disappear. Workers will continue at a good pace, but instead of making combustion vehicles, they will be making electric vehicles. We are also seeing that in the steel sector. Instead of using coal for steelmaking, we are moving to arc coal furnaces across the country. I could go on. In the context of understanding your role and responsibility and what has already been happening with regard to transition, how is the government informed with respect to investments that need to be made?
The point I’m trying to get at is that in small places like Coronach, Saskatchewan, which I visited, they are unique to the diversity of this country. Those communities want to remain a vibrant part of Canada. Are we thinking about whether the federal government is partnering with the provinces to make sure those communities will remain vibrant, but also able to generate jobs so that people don’t have to pack up and move as we’ve seen too often in the history of our country?
Mr. Wilkinson: That’s an excellent question. I would say, first and foremost, there are the higher levels of investment that the federal government has made to enable the development of economic opportunities in different provinces and territories. One of the tools is investment tax credits where we pay significant amounts of capital for some of these newer opportunities, including things like the $12 billion investment by Dow in the world’s first net-zero petrochemical facility in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the hydrogen work that’s happening in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia.
Certainly, we are seeing that kind of growth and activity in every province and territory across the country. We have to be sensitive to some of these things in towns like Coronach. Coronach — as you know very well — is a town based on a coal-fired power plant and a coal mine that exist there. Of course, if we are to fight climate change effectively, we have to move away from the combustion of thermal coal.
The government put in place measures to engage conversations with those communities and put aside money to help with respect to economic development. We are continuing to look at what more needs to be done.
Again, it is very regional. In Alberta, they have fully transitioned off coal as of this year. Those issues have largely been addressed over the course of the last little while. We are moving on that with Nova Scotia. Certainly, we will need to work on that further with Saskatchewan. But those coal-fired power plants will continue to operate until 2030. We need to be thoughtful about it as we move through the next five years.
People are not being displaced right now, but certainly we need to be thinking about the economic opportunities that can enable people to remain in Coronach and other coal-dependent communities moving forward.
Senator Yussuff: Throughout our history in this country — and I reflect because of my past life — we’ve had a lot of transition without any plan. Workers were left to fend for themselves to a large extent. For the first time in the history of our country, we are actually putting forward a plan to deal with the challenges we need to meet and how we can respond to them.
Recognizing that reality and the importance of this bill in terms of shepherding us to a brighter future, how do we ensure this is not lost should the government change when the next election is called? How do we ensure that workers have confidence in the future and are not left to drift in the wind because of economic upheaval because the next government may decide that this plan is not worth their consideration?
Mr. Wilkinson: That’s a difficult question, senator. Political uncertainty is not helpful. It is not helpful for workers as they think about what their future will look like. It is not helpful for business investment that will actually drive jobs and economic opportunity.
In many parts of the world — certainly in Europe — you have changes of government that don’t have enormous changes in terms of policy, especially those that relate to climate change and the economic side of climate change. The unfortunate reality in this country right now is that — without being overly partisan — is that we have a leader at the federal level — I don’t know if he doesn’t believe in climate change or doesn’t think it is important — who doesn’t have a plan to move this forward. I speak with Conservative premiers all the time about weighing in with federal Conservative Party to ensure they are being thoughtful about these issues.
We are putting these measures into place. Future parliaments can make decisions to roll them back. I certainly hope that as we show progress — and we are seeing progress across the country — that any future government that is a different government will be thoughtful and reflect on the fact that this is working and is creating opportunity. As Canadians, we will all benefit from creating a future that is a prosperous future.
The Chair: Thank you, minister, for your time. We will hear now from the officials. Our appreciation, minister, for being with us.
Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Colleagues, this is the last panel on our study of Bill C-50. Just a heads-up that at 1:20, we will have a brief in camera session.
We’ve already introduced the witnesses on the panel so we will go straight into questions unless our witnesses have a prepared statement.
Cori Anderson, Director, Sustainable Jobs, Natural Resources Canada: We haven’t got prepared statements. However, we took note of some issues that came up in the previous session that we would be happy to address. We can do that through questions or we can take those at the beginning.
The Chair: Ms. Anderson, I would like you to address the specific question of a seat at the table and the inclusion of voices, which have been noted in the preamble but absent from the actual makeup of the council. Perhaps you could help us out here.
Ms. Anderson: Yes, I’m happy to speak to that. I just wanted to point out in the preamble of the bill that part of the preamble includes our sustainable jobs principles. You will note principle (c), which states that:
(c) 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 . . . .
We make it clear it’s not an exhaustive list, but we do list some. I wanted to go to proposed section 16 of the bill, which talks about what the action plan needs to include. If you go to 16(3)(a.1), it says that the action plan needs to, “describe how the federal government is upholding the guiding principles set out in the preamble.”
Every action plan will have to address principle (c), including all the other principles, but specifically principle (c). What we are doing to provide employment opportunities to underrepresented groups.
You’re correct that it’s not explicitly mentioned, but there is that link where every action plan will need to speak specifically to how those principles are being incorporated. That was done in consultation with stakeholders who wanted to see the principles expressed more specifically in the body of the bill. One of the ways we did that was to make it a requirement of the action plan.
On official language minority communities, you’re correct. It doesn’t appear specifically, but in that principle (c), we say “including” and then list some. It’s definitely there, but it’s not explicit.
We are developing a term of reference for the partnership council. That’s something that’s required in the bill. That’s an area where we can provide more detailed guidance to the partnership council and specifically direct the partnership council around particular stakeholder groups that we want them to engage with. Official languages and minority communities would be one of those.
That is one mechanism we can provide more formal direction to the partnership council to engage specifically.
The Chair: In principle (c), we shall trust, you’re telling us?
Ms. Anderson: In principle (c) we shall trust as reflected in clause 16(3)(a). That is an absolute requirement of the action plan.
The Chair: Colleagues, we’ll be a bit more organic and take questions as they arise.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Thank you for that clarification. You will understand that since it’s not mentioned, it’s not mentioned. I was checking the definitions of under-represented groups, and there’s no clear definition on this issue. What would have been the negative impact of specifically including the federal government’s obligations under the Official Languages Act by naming official language minority communities? How would that have impacted this bill?
[English]
Ms. Anderson: I don’t think there was a decision to deliberately not include them. As the minister said, whenever you make a list, there’s always the challenge of having it be comprehensive. That’s why we were clear in principle (c) that it was not an exhaustive list. I don’t see any particular negative impact of including them or not including them. I think it was perhaps not one that we heard more prominently during our consultations, but they’re clearly included in equity-seeking groups.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Once again, the federal government has quasi-constitutional obligations when it comes to official language minority communities. I can accept the fact that you don’t name any groups, but if you name groups and exclude official language minority communities, the federal government is not respecting the law or its obligations under the law. It’s not a question of interest groups, but constitutional obligations. I hope there will be some reflection on this, and I don’t know what the result of all this will be with the bill in the end, but back home in Acadia, it sounds like the government is “getting itself into trouble” by not including official language minority communities in this important bill. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you to the officials for being here.
My question is on the jobs needed in Canada’s future net-zero economy. The committee heard from Electricity Human Resources Canada that their supply demand analysis projects a future job shortage. It looked out to 2035 and 2050 and predicts there will be close to 150,000 job openings for the sector on that pathway to net zero and that we need Grade 9 youth selecting the right courses now so that they can enter the workforce in 2030.
Other than the action plans, does the government have a plan to promote careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, to Canada’s youth? We have to go far upstream, in particular, to equity-deserving groups who are underrepresented in these fields right now.
Ms. Anderson: This is something we think about quite a bit. The testimony of the Electricity Human Resources Canada is not in any way unique. We hear across many sectors that we have serious concerns about labour shortages and also about attracting young people to careers in the low-carbon economy. It is very much on our minds. You said I couldn’t talk about the action plan, but that will be a very important thing that we’re considering for the action plan.
In terms of what else we’re doing at Natural Resources Canada, we have a number of sector-focused programs around encouraging youth to consider careers. Mining, for example, has done quite a bit of work to try to help people understand that mining is not what our grandparents did, it’s actually a very high-tech industry and it’s very important to the low-carbon economy because of critical minerals and their role in the battery supply chain. There are efforts under way, certainly. One of the advantages of the action plan is it can help to elevate some of these issues to get more attention. This is always the issue: How do you get Canadians’ attention?
We know that the number one source of career information for youth today are their parents. They might not be that well versed in what these new cutting-edge jobs are. We need to reach youth, and we also need to reach their parents. We need to reach the career counsellor community. All of that is under consideration for the action plan.
I’ll also mention that we’re looking at sources of labour for our economy, and there aren’t that many. There are youth, there are new Canadians and there are underrepresented groups. This is why those three communities are so important because that’s how we increase the total number of workers in the economy.
I’ll also mention that at Natural Resources Canada we have a science and technology internship program. It works with youths 18 to 30 to provide wage subsidies to employers to create green jobs. Currently, about 60% of the youth who participate in this program are from employment equity groups. We’re quite proud of the efforts we’ve made to bring underrepresented youth into the energy and natural resources space. That’s one success story that we will try to build on as we look at what more we can do.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: I’d like to pursue this. It wasn’t the question I had jotted down earlier, but I’d like to pursue this. How do we ensure that the retraining or the new training is, indeed, looking forward? Wayne Gretzky said something like, “Don’t look at where the puck is now, look at where it’s going to be.”
I remember a number of years ago — I’ll speak about Nova Scotia — that there were some small fishing communities that were losing jobs at a great rate and they did retraining. In one tiny community, they gave retraining to about eight women for hairdressing. There was no room within the community for eight hairstylists, so it was not good for the people taking it with the anticipation they would have a job, and it was basically a waste of time and money for everybody.
I understand that education is a provincial responsibility, so there is that part of it, too. But if we’re going to have retraining, how do you ensure that we are looking to the future and retraining people so that they are ready when the economy — I was going to say has changed — it’s continuously changing in this day and age?
Ms. Anderson: The starting point of that is good labour market information. The minister mentioned that is one of the commitments under the interim plan, improving labour market information. The secretariat that will be created through this bill — for which we’ve already started doing some of this preparatory work — one of their functions will be to bring different departments together. For example, we’ve recently created a data group. It has representation from Natural Resources Canada, ESDC, Statistics Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Finance Canada and Infrastructure Canada. They’re working on what was mentioned earlier — there are lots of sources of data, but they’re apples and oranges. You can’t really compare them against each other.
The other thing we find is that it’s great if you’re a statistician, but if you’re an ordinary Canadian trying to find out what jobs will be in demand in the future, it’s currently very difficult to find that information. One of the things the action plan will do is bring all of that data together and produce it in a format that an average Canadian can read and understand.
Through this data group, we can start to understand which occupations will be most in demand, where we have the biggest gaps and then we can apply that to our training efforts. Like you said, we don’t want to train for things that will not be in demand or things that we already have. Perhaps there are areas where we don’t have gaps, so we don’t need to spend our money there.
Senator Cordy: I have a follow-up on the question I asked the minister earlier. He suggested that you might be able to answer it. It’s related to section 14, and that the council must research and report in any particular manner specified by the minister and the minister may make public the report. But in section 15, the progress report and the council must provide the minister with a progress report. That doesn’t say whether that report should be made public. Is there anywhere else that I missed out on it in the bill?
Ms. Anderson: No, I think those are the two.
The council will provide an annual report to the minister, which includes both a summary of its activities over the year and its advice for the year. I think the thinking behind sections 14 and 15 is that the information would be included in the annual report.
Section 14, I think, is for the minister to ask a very specific question. There may not be general interest in that answer, but it’s certainly something that the council can report on in their annual report. There’s nothing that prevents the minister from sharing it, we just didn’t want to make that a requirement because some of these may be very specific issues.
Senator Seidman: Thanks for being with us. I’m going to drill down a bit on a couple of the issues we identified with the minister.
First, I will refer to the task force that Senator Yussuff referred to yesterday, which he was part of. They had a recommendation to create a comprehensive funding program for workers staying in the labour market to address their needs across stages of securing a new job, including income support, education, skills building, re-employment and mobility.
Employment and Social Development Canada is mandated to implement the Employment Insurance training support benefit, and they did deliver a benefit, but it was insufficient. They did not deliver the Employment Insurance training support benefit.
I’d like to know how we could be assured that these kinds of issues that will clearly come up in training and retraining workers will be addressed appropriately this time around.
Eva Lazar, Executive Director, Special Projects, Skills and Employment Branch, Employment and Social Development Canada: In terms of the specific benefit that you’re referring to, there is not a huge crossover with Bill C-50.
ESDC has committed, through the Fall Economic Statement in 2022, a number of programs that I think the minister referred to in terms of training and employment development for the net-zero economy. The action plan, again, is an area that will be engaging ESDC programming and the goals of net zero. These are all programs that will be part of the development of the action plan.
Senator Seidman: Will there actually be delivery of Employment Insurance training support benefits? We can talk about how nice it would be to have these jobs and to make these transitions, but if we can’t support workers through the transition and be assured that there will be appropriate benefits, how will we do that? How are we assured of that?
Ms. Lazar: ESDC does actually provide a wide range of training programs not specifically related to your benefits question.
There is the Youth Employment and Skills Strategy, the trades and apprenticeship program, Indigenous Skills and Employment Training Program. There are a wide range of programs that consider net-zero priorities.
I’m not sure specifically in terms of the benefits question that you have, but there is a very wide range of programming related to skills and workforce development within ESDC.
Senator Seidman: Thanks, but I’m not talking about the programs themselves. I’m talking about a comprehensive funding program for workers. We can have lots of programs, but what about the funding program for workers to help them securing a new job and having the kind of income support to rebuild their skills that are necessary? This is task force recommendation 7. It was a failure in the past, and I think we’d like to be assured given the importance of this transition right across all sectors that there will be that kind of funding available.
Ms. Lazar: In terms of a more comprehensive answer to your question, I’d like to take that back to the department. But I can say that in the programs there are funding opportunities that are available and that EI Part II also provides funding opportunities through these programs, so they don’t just deliver activities but funding. In terms of a more comprehensive answer to your question, I’ll be happy to take that back to the department.
Senator Seidman: I appreciate that. The other task force recommendation around funding was to create a pension-bridging programs for workers who will retire earlier than planned because of this program of transitioning. I addressed that with the minister because that is also critically important.
In the past, again, the government couldn’t demonstrate how it had met its commitment to exploring how it would protect the pensions of affected workers. I’d like to be sure we’re addressing both sides of the spectrum here, the new workers transitioning, the new workers coming in and then the retiring workers who are forced out as a result, even though we don’t want that to happen, but we need to know they will have some kind of pension fund available.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Seidman. We’ll have to get that answer back from you, Ms. Lazar.
Senator Yussuff: Let me be very direct because our colleagues were not at the briefing, so I’ll put it back in context. The secretariat is currently up and functioning and funded right now from the government, so there are resources going to make sure the secretariat is operating. You’re waiting for the legislation to pass so you can accelerate the work that is required under Bill C-50.
Ms. Anderson: We’re currently funded under departmental funds. Once the legislation passes, we will receive funding. Yes, we are up and operating.
Senator Yussuff: My colleague had a number of questions specifically about diversity, language requirement. This is not a tongue-in-cheek response, but the Constitution is not written in the law, but you’re going to abide by the laws of the country. Diversity is one of them in terms of obligations around reaching out to diverse communities, but equally linguistic requirements of the country are embedded in our law. My point is that in the operation of the secretariat, there will be a recognition that we have to ensure that these principles are met with regard to how the Governor-in-Council process would function and how we appoint people.
Ms. Anderson: Yes, that’s correct. I understand in another panel section 35 rights were brought up, and that’s a similar situation where that is a constitutional obligation, a quasi‑constitutional obligation. It doesn’t have to be put in every bill. We are always obligated to abide by those requirements.
Senator Yussuff: I want to follow up to a question my colleague just asked with regard to what the Auditor General said in her report regarding the coal task force recommendation. There’s much to be learned from that because that was direct experience and that transition is yet to be completed. We know three provinces are still in the process of that.
Recognizing we don’t want to reinvent the wheel, my point is that would the secretariat take from those recommendations in trying to figure out so the council will be informed of previous recommendations and they’re not starting from a new — because if somebody was not involved in the task force, they would say there was a recommendation that came previously, there’s the Auditor General’s report. How do we learn from that in terms of taking our work forward? Because the work forward is: How do we ensure the workers will ultimately benefit from the things we want them to benefit from in terms of transition writ large in different sectors across the country?
Ms. Anderson: A few thoughts on that. With respect to the Just Transition Task Force and those recommendations, I think in several government responses to studies we have outlined how we’ve implemented the recommendations. In general, I would say we may not have implemented every recommendation exactly how the panel asked for it to be done. One of the things we found is more general programs that can meet the needs of a variety of different sectors give us more flexibility than very boutique programs that only serve one sector. In some cases, we do feel like we’ve met those recommendations, but perhaps in different ways than were called for by the panel.
We have talked about that in a government response to the Public Accounts Committee and in other government responses.
On coal more generally, it is some early activity that we’ve undertaken in this space that we’re learning a lot of lessons from. It’s definitely informing the work we’re looking at now. The government allocated $185 million to coal communities; that has largely been spent at this point. The infrastructure program is wrapping up next year and we’re in the process now of doing a program evaluation of how that money was spent and what was more successful and less successful.
That’s very much on our minds in terms of how we design programs going forward that we’re learning those lessons and building on what worked and maybe leaving behind things that didn’t.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being here.
I wanted to go back to Senator Cormier’s point about official language. We know it’s in the Constitution, but people need to be recognized in the legislation. We did it in Bill C-35. The importance of buy-in from all the communities is very important.
How do you respond to the need to buy-in from all the communities? Now people need to be named. We know it’s in the Constitution, but do you think this would have an unintended consequence of getting a lot of people who are not in favour of this bill?
Ms. Anderson: I do recognize the importance of people being able to see themselves in the things that the government is doing. I would echo the minister that the Senate has the ability to propose amendments to the bill. That might be one that would be considered.
Senator Burey: My next question, which follows on, which I asked the minister about strategies. Senator Osler and a number of senators spoke about the need and you talked about the action plan, the council and the secretariat. But as a vision going in, we often have things that we don’t know that we don’t know. I would say as a pediatrician coming to this, for my patient population, a lot of boys, mental health. They’re tuned out of school. We have to have a plan. I know you have the provincial-territorial education ministers, but is there a strategy or plan to do that engagement upfront now? You have to do many things at once.
Ms. Anderson: I agree. I think this raises an important point. When you look at the transition, there are issues that are provincial jurisdiction, there are issues under federal jurisdiction. The only way we’ll be successful in helping Canadians manage this transition is if we work collaboratively between the federal government and the provinces.
That’s mentioned specifically in the bill. It’s mentioned under the secretariat, I think 20(2)(c), that the secretariat will engage with provinces and territories. That’s definitely something on our minds.
The partnership council as well has the opportunity to engage with provinces and territories. We tried to make it clear in the bill that they have a very important role to play in this issue, and so we don’t want to suggest that the federal government working alone can address all of the issues associated with transitions, which are, by their nature, challenging.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question is specifically for Ms. Lazar, but other witnesses can answer it as well.
The fall economic statement 2022 proposed to provide Employment and Social Development Canada with $50 million over five years to help workers prosper, starting in 2023-24.
Of the 20,000 apprentices and businesses in the new sustainable jobs training and union innovation stream, how many were able to benefit from these funds?
[English]
Ms. Lazar: I think you are talking about the 2022 commitment to sustainable jobs — the two commitments? They are actually in the middle of being implemented. The first one is the new sustainable jobs stream for the Union Training and Innovation Program. As you mentioned, this is a new strain under the Canadian Apprenticeship Strategy. It supports unions in leading development of skills training and aims to benefit 20,000 workers. I think that’s the initiative you are referring to. The call for proposals ended in May, so they are in the middle of implementing this particular proposal.
The second one is new funding to create sustainable jobs training. At the time it said “centre.” Now it is called a “fund.” It supports projects to develop skills in three areas: low-carbon energy and carbon management, green buildings and EV support. It will aim to help 15,000 workers. The call for proposals will likely be this summer. They are in the midst of being implemented at this time.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: You will only know how many actually stand to benefit after the request for proposals process?
[English]
Ms. Lazar: One is 15,000 and the other will be 20,000, so 35,000.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for being here and for your responses so far. I’ve been doing some deep listening today, and I will tell that I am struggling with finding critical hope from the responses we’ve heard, particularly with regard to the questions that my colleagues have asked about diversity and inclusion.
When we are talking about people who are dealing with multi-generational exclusion, to be included, you have to be very intentional. Following up on some of the responses we’ve already heard, one question I have is: Which equity-deserving groups were part of your consultations? I think that matters and it will matter in terms of what happens on the other end of things.
That’s my first question.
Ms. Anderson: On the consultations, I will have to get back to you specifically, but I will just say generally, we did receive 30,000 email submissions to our consultation portal from individual Canadians. It may not be possible for me to tell you which ones were from equity-deserving individuals unless they self-identified. But we also undertook 17 round tables with stakeholder groups, and I don’t have that breakdown with me, but I can commit to take that away and provide an answer in writing as to how many of those were from organizations that represent equity-deserving groups.
Again, it may not be possible to specify each participant and their particular self-identification, but we can certainly provide information about which organizations participated.
We also received 80 submissions from organizations, so we can take a look at that and respond. But just to reflect, there were 30,000 individual submissions, which I think is quite high for a public consultation. Clearly, many people are interested and engaged in this work.
Senator Bernard: It would be really important to have a disaggregated analysis of the responses and the organizations that were consulted. Yes, it sounds wonderful to say that 30,000 people participated in the consultation, but I would like to know who they were, which communities they come from, which groups they are representing, which voices are represented and which voices are not there.
One of the things we heard from the panel yesterday was the need to do recruitment very early, as early as elementary school. Ms. Anderson, today you said that a lot of that is outside of the school system, but involving parents. Parents have to do that engaging. So if you are talking about parents who have been totally outside of these sectors, how on earth are they going to be expected to encourage their children to engage in STEM programs and also where they may be excluded from those programs in schools as well?
How do you bridge the gaps? How might this action plan be intentional around addressing those specific gaps?
Ms. Anderson: I just want to highlight that one of the biggest challenges in government is getting people to pay attention to what we have to tell them. There are many sources of information, and we may not be the most exciting one out there. But we are looking to have a sustainable jobs website.
There are amazing resources out there. On YouTube there are day-in-the-life videos about low carbon jobs that I don’t think people know about. One of the advantages of having a secretariat is that we will bring all this information together so that we can create a one-stop shop so that people who are interested can easily find all these wonderful resources, and they won’t have to go looking on 10 or 15 websites to find this information.
We are also thinking about how we reach very young people — even in elementary and middle school — and that’s definitely on our mind. It is something we are looking at for inclusion in the action plan. What can the government do to help people understand the opportunities available in the low-carbon economy? What other jobs are there than a doctor or a fireman? My kids want to be YouTubers. How do we get people to see all the opportunities out there that they are not aware of? That’s very much on our mind and something the secretariat will be working on.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is about barriers and opportunities for workers with disabilities and the potential impact this bill will have on them.
What we heard yesterday in committee was that we’re quite effective in a number of sectors at offering remedial training to people who become disabled following an accident or because of a life situation. We’re quite good at it.
Overall, we know that people with disabilities are really under-represented on the job market. That rate is not increasing, even if the greener jobs, that is to say the jobs of the future, are in theory more accessible for a number of reasons. We’re seeing fewer and fewer physical jobs, and more technology-related jobs. However, for a number of reasons, that is not translating into results.
Can we really expect better results from this bill?
[English]
Ms. Anderson: I hope so. Ms. Lazar may want to speak on this because ESDC is responsible for accessibility, and there is Accessibility Standards Canada’s Centre of Expertise. As you mentioned, there are real barriers experienced by this community. One of the pieces of sustainable jobs is looking at the barriers people face. The disabled community, Indigenous people and racialized communities experience very real barriers. That’s why they are underrepresented. It is not just that people don’t want to work. It is that they have real challenges that they have to overcome.
This is really what this framework is meant to do, namely, help the government get a better sense of the barriers, and figure out where we can intervene and where we have mechanisms and levers that can help.
This also gives more profile to the low-carbon economy. We need to work closely with the people at ESDC who are looking at disabilities across the labour market. This allows us to raise the profile of low-carbon jobs, where as you say, there may be better compared to other sectors. The creation of the secretariat gives us more tools to have the people who are working in accessibility think about the low-carbon sector as an opportunity area.
Ms. Lazar: I agree with everything that Ms. Anderson said. When I started on this file, it was under Minister Qualtrough at the beginning of the drafting of this bill. She was emphatic about ensuring that UN conventions and attention to accessibility and disability be integral to the bill. That was always her key lens. So we do have that integrated in there. That does not, of course, guarantee outcomes, as you mentioned. However, we now have the legislation within the department that is being implemented, the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities, which has a specific green angle and a green lens to it.
It is an absolute priority across all of the workforce development programming, including as it links to sustainable jobs. There was a strong championship at the front end of this bill for that perspective.
Senator McBean: You can probably guess where I’m going because you heard me tell both ministers that it’s one thing to create jobs but who will be able to take these jobs when they come? My colleague Senator Osler raised the idea of the pipeline; Senator Seidman also raised training and the funding for this training. I heard Minister O’Regan almost emphatically say that there is no mention of training in the bill. That’s what I am getting at here because I then hear you say, “We think about this quite a bit and try to figure out who will be filling these spots.” I also hear you, Ms. Lazar, listing all the different programs, but they are not linked to Bill C-50.
When it was being created, was there any thought to including training? Was it intentionally not considered? Is there some way that the programs that are available can be specifically linked to it so that Bill C-50 doesn’t exist as this thing by itself but to all the different programs that have been created?
Ms. Anderson: I hate to contradict a minister, but there is mention of training in this bill. I will take you to the purpose statement of the bill. The purpose is threefold. It’s to promote low carbon economic development, to promote development of workers and to support communities and workers who are affected by the transition.
It then says:
. . . to ensure . . . and action by relevant federal entities, including those focused . . . on matters such as skills development, the labour market, rights at work, economic development and emissions reduction.
So it is central to the bill. Training, of course, is one of the most important ways that we will support workers through the transition — not the only one, but a key one. The action plan also notes that we will specifically mention the training measures that are undertaken as part of the contents of the action plan.
We try not to emphasize training too much because sometimes there is the assumption that this is just about training workers. It is so much more than that, but training is an important part. Not all workers will need training. Many workers already have the skills that they need. They will move into new industries or new opportunities, but some workers will need retraining, upskilling or who need to augment some of the experience that they already have. That’s very clear to us.
Since 2016, the government has earmarked $1.5 billion for training, including for sustainable jobs. It is a key investment area for the government.
Senator McBean: It would be nice to see those linked in here specifically, right, all the different programs? Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Ms. Anderson, at the beginning of your comments, you said you had some responses to questions that came up. I would like to give you my time to allow you to make any comments that we might have missed because it is such a rich discussion. You may have had other things to say. I would like to give you an opportunity to go through your notes.
Ms. Anderson: I really want to speak to which is this issue of how do non-unionized workers have a voice? I think the minister answered that very well in saying that it’s hard to find representatives of non-unionized workers because, by definition, they are not organized and they don’t have representatives.
In addition to what the minister said — with which I wholeheartedly concur, namely, that unions are really thinking about workers beyond just their own membership — the partnership council will have a robust engagement mandate. This is not that we want 13 people to go in a room and, with their brains, figure out all the problems of the transition. We are picking them because they have relevant experience, but they are resourced and they will be directed to undertake engagement with Canadians. They will be travelling the country, meeting with remote and rural communities, with Indigenous communities and with non-unionized workers. I don’t want to underplay that. That will be an important part of the work that they’ll do. That’s the opportunity that many different communities and stakeholder groups will have to influence the partnership council’s advice. Through that, we will hear from non-unionized workers.
There is also one seat on the council that is not earmarked for a specific organization, and that is potentially an opportunity for a non-unionized worker to put their name forward. We are doing stakeholder engagement to try to make people aware of that opportunity so that we do get some qualified candidates who apply for that process.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our officials for answering all our questions. Colleagues, we will now proceed in camera. I request all members of the public and our witnesses to kindly leave the room so that we can quickly do our in camera session. Thank you, colleagues.
(The committee continued in camera.)