Moved third reading 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.

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Today, I want to discuss the main aspects of the bill and how it will create a framework to not only mitigate the negative consequences of net zero to workers and communities but better prepare them to capitalize on the opportunities that it presents.

The framework includes guiding principles, governance structures and reporting requirements. It is a bill based on the principles of dialogue and consensus, representation, engagement, sustainability, transparency and accountability. It creates a straightforward process that gives workers, industry and Indigenous communities a seat at the table to provide input for their future, and it creates accountability and transparency measures through a designated minister and a five-year action plan that must be made public.

Colleagues, this is a very straightforward bill. At its core, it is about putting workers and the communities they live in at the centre of the government policies that affect them the most by committing to a process of social dialogue in determining how we can all succeed in a net-zero future.

Colleagues, I will admit that I am more than a little biased towards this bill because it has been something workers and I, as a labour leader, have been demanding for a long time. I am also a very passionate supporter of this bill because of my participation on the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities, which I co-chaired. I think perhaps that it is one of the best things I have done for my country, and I would like to share a story on that work and how it relates to this bill.

The impetus for the task force can be attributed to the fact that Canada had committed in 2016 to the phasing out of coal generation of electricity by 2030. In the context of doing that, the government created a task force to look at what the effects would be on workers and communities as they transition from their economic dependency on coal. The task force was made up of workers, businesses, environmentalists and communities.

The work of the task force led us to visit 15 affected communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to hear the issues of workers and communities who relied on coal for their very survival. Hearing directly from businesses, workers and community leaders enlightened my understanding of what was needed to truly have a just transition for these workers and communities. It also gave me the recognition of the hopefulness of Canadians in general — Canadian workers and Canadian communities — about the future. It also gave me a better understanding of the policy tools we need to devise to help us get to a place where we can have workers and communities most affected by net-zero policies be able to give direct input on the government policies that will affect them most as the world, including Canada, decarbonizes its economies.

The task force’s final report in 2018 made 10 policy recommendations, and one of them called for legislation that Bill C-50 embodies.

I experienced first-hand after going to communities like Coronach in southern Saskatchewan and Leduc County in Alberta that workers and communities must be heard first and foremost to understand the issues through their eyes. We cannot minimize the real anxieties and suspicions that decarbonization policies are having on communities and workers, including Indigenous communities, who rely on energy development projects — whether it be coal or oil and gas — for their economic sustainability.

One way to address the anxieties of workers and communities is to ensure their perspectives are heard and solutions to help them transition are developed from the bottom up, not from the top down. This bill does exactly that. It gives workers and communities that opportunity through the partnership council and through the required engagement the council must have with affected workers and communities.

Senators, humankind’s history is one of transition. From the Industrial Revolution to the information and computing revolution, workers, communities and societies have had to go through some very difficult transitions. Each transition creates adversity as well as opportunity for workers. The goal for government should be to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive opportunities that transition provides. That is the intent of this legislation.

In Canada over the last 75 years, workers have had to deal with several major transitions, including the effects of automation and trade policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. In his second reading speech, Senator Wells spoke to the effects of a major transition that Atlantic seafood workers and communities went through in the early 1990s when the groundfishery was shut down, causing tens of thousands of workers to lose their jobs. Unfortunately, for most of these transitions, workers and communities who were most impacted never had the benefit of any proactive plan that had their interests at its core because, for most, they were never given a voice.

What I would argue is different about how this government is attempting to handle this transition compared to others in the past is that it is actually trying to be proactive in creating a plan and putting the interests and views of workers and communities at the centre of the policy-making process to deal with the good and bad of this transition.

I would like to return to Senator Wells’ example of the collapse of the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada in the early 1990s. I would agree with him that, for the most part, the federal government’s reaction in terms of its policies and programs were wholly inadequate for the workers and communities hardest hit by the closure of the groundfishery. Where we differ is that I believe those workers and communities would have been better served if legislation like Bill C-50 had been in place before the fishery crisis hit our shores.

Senators, imagine if the government of the day had not buried their head in the sand about the ensuing fishery crisis but instead had been proactive in addressing the economic and social realities workers and communities were about to face. Imagine if the government had a tripartite council similar to the partnership council created by Bill C-50 that would have required the government to get input directly from fishers, plant workers, businesses and communities. Imagine if the government had been required to create a plan that respected the realities these groups were experiencing, not the perceived realities of the bureaucracy in Ottawa — that policies would have been built from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Colleagues, I think we can imagine that reality and would agree that workers, businesses and communities dependent on the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada back then would have been better, not worse off, if a bill like Bill C-50 had been in place.

Colleagues, this bill is quite simple and straightforward in its purpose and design. It aims to create a framework to how the government will manage a just transition to a net-zero future in terms of the processes and principles it must follow. It does not detail what the specific policies and programs will be. That will come in the sustainable jobs action plan that this bill requires the government to develop and make public every five years, starting next year.

Let me take a few moments to explain the bill in more detail. First, the bill would create a sustainable jobs partnership council. As outlined clearly in the legislation and a product of careful study and consultation, the council’s membership employs a tripartite plus approach, ensuring a balance between representatives of Indigenous groups, labour and industry. The council would be required to conduct meaningful and regular engagements with Canadians.

They will combine what they hear with data, research and their own expertise to advise the federal government on the best pathways for further policies and actions.

Second, this legislation would require the government to publish a transparent sustainable jobs action plan by 2025 and then every five years after that, including reporting on progress to date as well as committing to future actions. To ensure further transparency and accountability, progress reports on each action plan will be required 2.5 years after its publication.

Third, the legislation would require that the government identify a lead minister for implementing this act. This minister would be supported by other ministers with specific responsibilities under the legislation. This reflects the reality that this initiative requires involvement from the ministers responsible for both economic development and social policy, working together to foster economic growth and support workers and communities. They will collaborate with other ministers as required to ensure all facets of this issue are considered. This requirement flows from one of the recommendations in the report of the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities, based on the rationale that if you do not have someone who is responsible, you don’t have accountability.

Finally, the act also requires the creation of a sustainable jobs secretariat to support the act’s implementation across federal entities, including providing support for the action plans and the partnership council, engaging with provinces and territories and acting as a source of information for workers and employers with regard to federal programs, funding and services.

Taken together, these fundamental components of Bill C-50 will support workers in having a seat at the table alongside industry, Indigenous voices and sectoral exports.

The transformative changes in the nature of work as a result of not only climate change but AI and other technological advancements will have a profound effect on workers. Having a process that places workers at its centre to develop a plan that first recognizes the challenges workers and communities face and then develops realistic policies to help both mitigate the negative effects and, just as important, capitalize on the opportunities that the new realities of work will bring, is common sense. This is what the sustainable jobs act is really about.

That, colleagues, is a good thing for workers and the communities they live in — and why this bill should be passed.

Colleagues, once you see past the politics of this bill, you understand that the critical stakeholders, from business and labour groups to Indigenous and environmental organizations, support this legislation because it is necessary if workers and industry are to succeed in a net-zero future.

Bea Bruske, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents more than 3 million workers, said:

Workers need action now, we needed it yesterday, and we need to make sure that we get this legislation passed so all parties – labour, business, and government can sit down at a table . . .

Patrick Campbell, Canadian Director of the International Union of Operating Engineers, which has more than 50,000 members, said:

The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy. . . .

In addition to leading national voices, regional organizations have also been quite supportive, including the President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, who asked people to look past the rhetoric of the detractors and read the bill. He said:

What the Conservatives are saying . . . is that this Bill is a blueprint for the phase-out of oil and gas . . . but nothing could be farther from the truth . . . .

He lives in Alberta. He continued, saying:

Bill C-50 is about creating a framework for discussion on diversifying our economy so that we’re prepared for a lower carbon future. That’s good for workers, that’s good for business, that’s good for the country.

This is similar to what the President of the Business Council of Alberta said:

The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals. . . .

Environmental advocates are also on board with this legislation. The Executive Director of the Pembina Institute said that:

By bringing workers, businesses, Indigenous Peoples, and environmental groups together with governments behind coordinated action, we’ll show the world that Canada is ready. Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

Before I close, colleagues, I would like to underline that this bill is not only about mitigating the negative effects of transitioning to a net-zero future, but also seizing the economic opportunities that this future will bring.

To get a project built or keep an industry competitive in a changing world, we must ensure that investment, technology, regulation and, yes, skilled labour are all well coordinated and prepared to act. If any one of these factors is insufficiently available, it will arbitrarily constrain Canada’s ability to grow and become a leader as we move into the middle of the 21st century.

In conclusion, senators, this legislation is rooted in the work of the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities and has been informed by over two years of thorough discussions with workers and industry, extensive cooperation across many government ministries as well as in-depth engagements with industry, provinces and territories, Indigenous organizations, civil society and environmental and labour experts.

Undoubtedly, the decarbonizing policies that governments around the world are enacting to meet the Paris Agreement will have an effect on some resource development workers.

This bill is not about restricting energy development or dictating emissions reduction as some critics may want you to believe. Although this bill is related to net-zero policies that affect emissions, it is not one of them, but instead a consequence of them. In other words, it is the opposite side of the same coin. It is meant to help communities and workers not only mitigate the negative effects of net zero but capitalize on the opportunities it presents.

It is an approach and a bill that I am proud to sponsor today because it fundamentally seeks to help workers gain a seat at the table as we chart our collective future, which requires decarbonizing our economies if we are to survive.

That is why I ask you, colleagues, to support this legislation, Canadian workers, the communities they live in and the next generation in building a more sustainable and prosperous country. Thank you so much.

Will Senator Yussuff take a question?

I will.

Thank you. There has been opposition to the bill, as you mentioned, from people who fear that this bill is designed to phase out oil and gas. From your experience with the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities and the coal industry, do you feel that the jobs that people will transition to will be commensurate with the jobs they currently have? The experience is often shared that people who are laid off must go to jobs that are not commensurate — that they earn much less or are in completely different fields. Do you see a transferability of skills from oil and gas to other areas over time?

Thank you for the question. My experience with regard to the coal transition is that it is still in progress. It’s not yet completed. Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are still in the process of getting there. In certain parts of Alberta that have phased out coal-generated electricity, some workers took retirement because they were eligible for it. Some of those facilities converted from coal to natural gas as a first phase in the process of decarbonizing.

The skills of these workers are, of course, highly valued. If they are transferable, they can move to another industry. Some may need to update their skills as they move from one place to another. I’ll cite the testimony of one of the witnesses who testified on the bill, from Leduc County. They lost a number of coal generation plants and, of course, the coal mine had to close. They lost about 400 or so workers during that period with the coal plants and the mine closing. However, they put their minds together and the three communities came together, created 2,000 jobs and attracted new industries for the men and women who were affected by the transition. They are building an even brighter future and embracing the decarbonization of their communities.

Of course, workers are ambivalent when they have to change their job. I’m a product of that reality. I used to work in the auto industry. At one time, we used to have to physically weld every piece of metal to assemble a car. Today, there are no humans welding the cars anymore; it is all done by robotics. It took away the dirty and more dangerous part of the job because it wasn’t good for your health. But the workers were able to update their skills to do other things in car plants and continue to make cars today. We are enjoying the automobile industry. It is still very vibrant.

Yes, there will be some changes that will affect workers in fundamental ways. If we help workers understand the changes that are coming, prepare them in terms of what they can look forward to in the future and how they might be able to adapt their skills and what jobs will be available, I think we can achieve an objective that will help build an economy and give confidence to the workers in their communities to have a brighter future.

It will not be the same job in all cases. It might be a different job. It might be a better or a higher-paying job. It requires effort to understand what is coming and how we start planning for that.

I think many of the skills within the industry are going to go through a transition. These workers are highly skilled. More importantly, they have a vision of a better future, but they want their employers, their union and the government to be part of that.

Many of these workers want to remain in their own community. They do not want to pack up and leave. They recognize the importance of building that community to ensure the tax base remains there, creating new jobs that can bring new industries to their community. What Leduc County in Alberta is doing is one example. There could be other examples that are similar.

Honourable senators, before I deliver my speech, I want to say that we are on the unceded ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

The transition to a net-zero economy is urgent for the planet, but it is also urgent if we wish to protect the standard of living in our country and reverse the downward trend in our per capita standard of living. Making the shift to net-zero is the path to prosperity.

The purpose of this bill, however, is very comprehensive and commendable. Let me quote clause 3 of the bill, which comes after a long preamble:

The purpose of this Act is to facilitate and promote economic growth, the creation of sustainable jobs and support for workers and communities in Canada in the shift to a net-zero economy through a framework to ensure transparency, accountability, engagement and action by relevant federal entities, including those focused – at the national and regional level – on matters such as skills development, the labour market, rights at work, economic development and emissions reduction.

When I read the first version of this bill in 2022, I thought it was a big sectorial committee, the purpose of which was upskilling and reskilling of oil and gas employees in the Western provinces. Now I have changed my view. I think of it as a more comprehensive, ambitious and multi-sectorial federal initiative to reshape many aspects of the Canadian economy.

I feel that Senator Yussuff rightly pointed out that this is much more than a sectoral committee; it is an initiative to reshape Canada’s economy.

Looking beyond the principles and generous objectives described in the preamble to this bill, here is how I would describe, in concrete terms, the issue or issues that Bill C-50 addresses.

The issue is first and foremost to help all Canadians — whether they are Indigenous, racialized, living with a disability or are part of the 2SLGBTQI+ community — who will have to move to a different job that is consistent with the net-zero objectives that Canada has agreed to internationally, and to do so while upholding a set of principles.

This bill is mainly about helping Canadians transition from a high-carbon-emitting job to a sustainable one. This bill is about upskilling, reskilling and creating sustainable jobs. It is not only about training; it is also about creating jobs. It is much more comprehensive than the main purpose of Employment Insurance, which is to sustain income and reintegrate unemployed participants back into gainful employment.

The Bill C-50 issue goes beyond the professional integration of vulnerable groups and the unemployed. Moreover, while this bill focuses on job transitions linked to climate change, it won’t be able to ignore job transitions caused by technological change, demographic change and international political crises. In my opinion, the federal and provincial governments cannot work on these issues in silos.

Indeed, let me briefly describe the tasks to be undertaken. First, to achieve the purpose of Bill C-50, Canadians must be willing and available for training. Employers must encourage their employees to train, then training providers must be ready to offer proper training on the job, in institutions or elsewhere, and to certify these new skills. Suitable replacement income while training also needs to be offered to maintain the standard of living of those who get the training. Enterprises need to invest in green sectors and create new jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, mining or elsewhere in the service economy. They must get the financing and all the permits and authorizations needed to start greener projects. All of these are done at the local, municipal or provincial level.

On June 5, at a meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, Rick Smith from Leduc County in Alberta, which Senator Yussuff just spoke about, explained how his community proceeded to transition its local economy from coal to agriculture and manufacturing. He explained how this success story relied on collective actions at the local level with the participation of the province, which had to adapt regulations to deliver permits within the proper timing to create new jobs.

In short, the transition to net-zero jobs requires the participation of many local and regional stakeholders, who will have to work together by promoting social dialogue. The witnesses who appeared before the committee made that quite clear.

I will be voting in favour of this bill because it is fundamental and must be done, but we can also raise concerns. Can we really believe that the objectives that the government is trying to achieve will be met in the context of shared federal-provincial responsibilities? What challenges will the sustainable jobs partnership council and the sustainable jobs secretariat have to face? That’s what I’m going to talk about.

In my opinion, there are many challenges associated with Bill C-50. In the next few minutes, I will focus on two major challenges. First, the federal government doesn’t currently have control over the institutional mechanism needed for the effective implementation of a transition plan. Second, the current sources of funding for implementing the plan are insufficient.

Implementing a transition plan is clearly dependent on local and provincial institutions. It is dependent on partnerships that must first be built between the company and its workforce, then with local training institutions and with provincial and federal economic development agencies. The federal government doesn’t have the appropriate local institutional arrangements to achieve its objectives unless it has solid partnerships with the provinces. This is often the challenge with federations.

The transition’s success can’t be based on an action plan developed with granular data produced by federal civil servants — no matter how competent they may be. The action plan can’t come from the top. It must be drawn up by the stakeholders or partners concerned, and they must also be the ones to implement it. This principle is especially important in free and democratic societies.

In a past life, when I was the CEO of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d’œuvre, or SQDM, the Quebec workforce development corporation, we developed regional action plans to get unemployed persons back into the workforce. Quebec’s unemployment rates were very high at the time. These plans targeted the local and regional levels. Employees of local and regional offices and partners on regional tables knew the workforce, the companies in the region and their future plans. Making plans was helpful. Think global, act local, that was our motto and it worked. We had no choice, everything was happening on the ground.

The Quebec Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, or labour market partners commission, set out the broad parameters, but interventions were negotiated locally with companies and service providers. Partnerships were also established with local and regional economic development agencies.

In my opinion, the federal government can’t monitor the transition of people who work in companies in the regions and in the municipalities based on statistical information that is outdated as soon as it is published and can’t take into account the companies’ future intentions and plans. In fact, the Governor of the Bank of Canada made a similar observation, stating that he couldn’t conduct his monetary policy using model-based statistics, as they reflect the past, whereas the future is increasingly uncertain and ever-changing.

It is through labour market agreements with the provinces that the federal government can promote transitions in the labour market regardless of whether they are technology-, climate- or demographics-based. We can hope that the system put in place in the bill is used in establishing renewed labour market agreements. I think that is key and that the partnership council and the secretariat won’t be able to overlook labour market agreements.

That’s why I suggested at second reading stage that the EI commissioners be invited to participate at the very least as observers, because they are the ones who control the labour market agreements. It is truly a responsibility to follow the funding of local agreements with each of the provinces.

I’d now like to talk about the financial challenges. Transitioning the Canadian economy poses a major financial challenge. It is no small thing. One has to wonder, where will the money to fund Bill C-50 come from? A small amount of about $99 million was provided for in the finance minister’s budget, but that certainly won’t cover the cost of the transition. We need to make sure that we have a proper budget for this.

What the government is telling those who ask how it plans to fund the transition is that Bill C-50 will be funded under Part II of the Employment Insurance Act and under the general revenue targeted for vulnerable groups. All of that will be used to make a major transition. The problem, and I will come back to this, is that EI recipients, regardless of whether they are receiving benefits under Part I or Part II of the act, are generally people who paid into the system and who lost their job. They aren’t people who work in sectors with high greenhouse gas emissions and who are at risk of losing their job. Employment insurance helps employed people only in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the maximum replacement income of $668 per week in 2024 — the average is generally half of that — is far less than the wages paid in greenhouse gas-emitting industries. These industries need to transition. There are a lot of issues to address and employment insurance reform is going to become urgent, if we want to transition to a greener economy.

A number of participants at the fifth jobs and skills round table convened by the EI commissioners on June 3, argued for the need to reform employment insurance so that this important program better reflects the challenges of the day associated with professional transitions, be they climatic, technological or demographic crises.

Right now, the training and workforce integration measures used to do all the work is funded under Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, implemented in 1994. The Employment Insurance Act, colleagues, provides that job transition funding can amount to a maximum 0.8% of payroll in the GDP, but this has never been reached. EI funds have increased very little since 1994. They rose slightly in 2017, when the federal government added $625 million under a six-year agreement, again through EI, that it no longer wants to renew. Funding provided for EI currently amounts to $2.3 billion, minus the $625 million that will be pulled out. Other amounts, roughly $600 million, are also available from general revenues. All of that pales in comparison to the challenges we face, as outlined by the OECD.

For example, in 2019 and 2020, my office conducted a survey, carried out by Nanos, in order to see how Canadians perceive their training needs and their future. This survey obtained similar results before and after the pandemic, and these results, which intersect with the OECD results, were published prior to the pandemic for all industrialized countries and for Canada.

In the survey we sent to Canadians in December 2023, 20% of employed respondents thought it was likely or somewhat likely that technological advances and climate change would threaten their jobs. A total of 20% of Canadians thought that climate change, technological advances or other changes pose a threat to their jobs. That represents four million Canadians, and these figures are comparable to the slightly lower OECD figures, which are closer to 17%. Thirty-seven per cent of employed Canadians who responded to the survey think it is likely or somewhat likely that technological and climate change will affect their work tasks and that they will require training. That amounts to eight million Canadians. An even higher percentage of young people gave that same answer, and they’re fresh out of school.

The need for training in Canada is fundamental, and this is especially true for industries that emit a lot of greenhouse gases to help with their transition. A major training effort is needed.

These programs are funded by the labour agreements currently signed between the federal government and the provinces. They are for a fixed term and differ from province to province, but generally involve labour market partners.

In short, EI needs to be reformed to better fund labour market transitions and training for those at risk of losing their jobs. This practice must become the norm, not the exception, as is currently the case.

We need to pass Bill C-50. It is a major target and a big task to achieve, but we need to be cognizant of the fact that this bill doesn’t answer all the questions and that the agreements with the provinces will be essential to getting this right.

Before concluding, I’d like to add a few comments about First Nations. The Social Affairs Committee heard from First Nations chiefs who don’t want their communities to be considered as one of the target groups and vulnerable groups. On that, Chief Freddie Huppé Campbell couldn’t have been any clearer.

Colleagues, let’s not forget that First Nations people have been living on the land since time immemorial and we owe them our respect. The climate crisis is having an impact on the economic and social development created for First Nations, by First Nations. Their presence at the sustainable jobs partnership council is certainly invaluable. However, the federal government should consider concluding friendly agreements with them for the delegation of authority with results-based objectives and targets developed with them in bilateral agreements.

In conclusion, the bill’s intentions are both laudable and necessary if we want the planet and Canada to survive. I believe in those objectives and will be voting in favour of the bill. However, implementing Bill C-50 could cause friction with certain provinces, even if the government plans to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and respect provincial jurisdictions. The problem is that it cannot take a silo approach. If it really wants to make economic prosperity and the well-being of all Canadians a priority, the federal government must, in my opinion, focus on cooperation and social dialogue with the economic players, as proposed in Bill C-50, and it mustn’t forget the provinces. This is in Canada’s best interest.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Bellemare, I think I heard you say in your speech — but it was through translation, so I’m not positive — that your Senate office did a public opinion survey about some aspects of this, about training or something like that?

Could you please give us some more details about that? If it was paid out of your Senate office budget, could you please tell us how much it was?

Thank you for your question, Senator Batters.

This survey was done in December 2023, and it reproduced almost the same questions as the survey we did in December 2019. They were not about this bill. They were not about any bill. They were about the perceptions Canadians had about their jobs, the impact of all the changes and whether they will have an impact on their jobs and whether they fear losing their jobs. That was the main purpose of this survey.

In this survey, we tried to capture if they were willing to train and if they thought they needed training. The results were spectacular — yes. You know, all the people think Canadians don’t want to get training. That’s false because 50% of Canadians feel they need training, and there are much bigger numbers — 66% for numerical skills and occupational skills. These are the things we tried to capture by province, age and sex. We tried to have some details, but some details are not conclusive. In the first survey, we tried to see if Canadians would be willing to participate financially in a program for training, and those results were also interesting.

If you want to know more, it’s on my website, and I could also provide you all the details. But it was not about a specific bill.

I would like to follow up about both the poll from December 2019 — it sounded like you did a poll from your Senate office — and the one from December 2023. What was the cost for both of those polls?

It was approved by the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and I think you asked personally to see the first survey and all the questions. It was done by Nanos, and I think it was around $10,000.

Senator Gignac, do you have a question?

As you know, jurisdictions are a ticklish subject for Quebec. Workforce training clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has one of the smallest carbon footprints. Do you think the federal government should be more open to provisions allowing provinces to opt out with full compensation? The Quebec government seems to be a little annoyed with this bill, given the jurisdictional overlap.

Thank you for your question, Senator Gignac. First, as Senator Yussuff so clearly explained, this bill is currently a framework. It’s not a bill that sets out specific programs. It seeks to establish a social dialogue to try to understand how to make the transition locally.

As part of this bill, partnerships are being established with Statistics Canada and others to get the granular data and validate it at the local level. Then we will see. Action plans will likely be implemented.

Here’s the problem I have with that: The implementation of these action plans could create friction with some of the provinces. This can’t be done in a silo. Service providers fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps there are smaller provinces that the federal government can negotiate with easily, but that will not be the case with all of the provinces. That’s why it will be very important to also engage in social dialogue with the provinces under this bill.

We have to start somewhere. The beauty of it is that canvassing will be done at the local level and there will likely be conversations with the provinces.

However, the transition is a necessary exercise. It’s unavoidable, and it has to start somewhere. Perhaps this will give good results. However, we need to keep an open mind and also recognize that there are provinces.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. And I speak to you tonight as an Albertan. Alberta is home to 97% of all of Canada’s oil stores. Over 20% of our province’s gross domestic product is tied to our oil and gas industry, and our energy sector employs more than 150,000 workers.

It will not be easy, and it will not be painless to transition away from that economic base. But most Albertans know and understand that such a transition will be necessary nonetheless — for environmental, economic and social reasons. And younger Albertans, in particular, know that the energy industry that employed their parents and grandparents is going to look very different by 2050.

Albertans have already made hard and courageous choices to reshape our energy economy, which employs so many and pays them so well. Let me point to the bold, brave and difficult way Alberta has transitioned from coal electricity generation to a cleaner, greener grid.

At the start of this century, a full 80% of electricity in Alberta was produced by burning coal. Alberta coal was cheap and plentiful and had a reputation for being cleaner than other coal, less acidic and less damaging to the environment.

But in 2015, when Rachel Notley became premier, she made a visionary — some said quixotic — choice to accelerate Alberta’s shift to alternate electricity generation. It was not easy. Many people who worked in the coal industry lost their jobs. And, one might argue, the policy was in no small way responsible for Rachel Notley losing her job as premier, too.

No one should minimize the sacrifice made by Alberta working families, nor the political cost to the one-term NDP government. But just look at the results: When 2024 began, just 6% of Alberta’s electricity came from burning coal — down from 80% in 2001. And I am pleased and proud to say that last night, Sunday, at 10:57 Mountain Daylight Time, Alberta’s last coal-generating plant — Genesee 2 — came offline. As of today, there is no electricity generated by coal in Alberta.

Let me put the focus on those last two coal plants, Genesee 1 and 2, in perspective. They are run by Capital Power, and the shift from coal to natural gas will deliver more than 1,350 megawatts of reliable baseload electricity, while at the same time reducing CO2 emissions by 3.4 million tonnes relative to 2019. That represents a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, a 40% increase in installed capacity. As an added bonus, according to Capital Power, the high efficiency of the new units will mean an extra 1 million tonnes of emission reductions. And all that has happened six and a half years ahead of schedule.

So let no one doubt that Alberta and Albertans can make these transitions when we try. We know we have more work to do, especially in renewable power, which now makes up 30% of Alberta’s electrical grid.

According to the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, in 2022, Western Canada accounted for 98% of Canada’s total growth in wind and solar power, with Alberta adding almost 1,400 megawatts of installed capacity in one year. Last year alone, Alberta’s renewable energy sector accounted for more than 92% of Canada’s overall growth in renewable energy and storage capacity. According to the Pembina Institute, that included 118 renewable projects in Alberta, representing $33 billion in investment. That meant there were green energy projects representing, according to the Pembina, 24,000 job-years at some stage of development.

Now, I’ll admit the absurdly draconian restrictions that Danielle Smith’s government has recently imposed on wind and solar investments in Alberta are a problem, but notwithstanding, the capital market is telling us that wind and solar have a huge role to play in Alberta’s and Canada’s energy future, and that means not just sustainable power but sustainable jobs.

But the big new power play in Alberta — I don’t mean the Oilers, although their power play is very good — is hydrogen. And it isn’t a fantasy. There are already projects in Alberta in development to transition diesel buses and trains and heavy equipment to hydrogen, to convert natural gas power plants to hydrogen, to heat new subdivisions with hydrogen, to use hydrogen in all sorts of industrial processes. There is huge economic and employment potential in a serious shift to green and blue hydrogen — and huge environmental gains to be made as well.

Nor are sustainable energy jobs the only kinds of sustainable employment that Alberta has. Alberta and Saskatchewan are perfectly positioned to become powerhouses in agri-food production so that we’re not just exporting our mustard, lentils and durum wheat, but turning them into value-added products; so that we’re creating new domestic and international processed food markets for crops as diverse as haskap berries or lupins.

Then there’s the exciting prospect of repurposing Alberta’s oil sands. Instead of burning that bitumen for fuel, suppose we used it to create strong and lightweight carbon fibre and to use that carbon fibre to build everything from airplanes to auto parts to sports gear to protective clothing. With the right mix of public and private investment, we could be able to turn our bitumen reserves into a manufacturing sector, an entirely new kind of sustainable economic engine.

There are sustainable jobs to be found too in the transportation transition. Alberta is actively exploring plans to create a rail system that links Calgary to Banff and an even more ambitious plan for high-speed rail linking Edmonton to Calgary.

These have been pipe dream projects for years, but as our population grows — and as the social and market pressure to move away from carbon-intensive transportation increases — it may finally be time to start taking steps to make those dreams reality, creating rail construction jobs on a scale we haven’t seen since the Last Spike and creating infrastructure for low-carbon transportation that could radically reduce the number of cars on Alberta highways and the number of planes flying between Edmonton and Calgary.

So a transition to a less carbon-intensive economy with well-paid sustainable jobs for all kinds of workers is far from impossible. It’s certainly no more impossible than an 8-1 victory over the Florida Panthers.

This is the future that Alberta and Canada need to embrace, and I believe Albertans have the courage and drive to make that transition, but it is hard for me to see how Bill C-50 helps.

Bill C-50 doesn’t invest more money in research and development. It doesn’t set aside a penny for job retraining or for post-secondary education. It doesn’t invest in clean tech, agri-food or transportation infrastructure. It doesn’t do anything to encourage investment nor offer capital markets any tangible assurance that we are really serious this time, at long last, about meeting our climate change goals. And it doesn’t do anything to pull Canadians together with common purpose to fight for our future.

Instead, it establishes a framework to strike a council to have a social dialogue to enable a secretariat to create an action plan, all subject to a 10-year review. Will Bill C-50 create jobs? Well, it will certainly create jobs for the 15 members of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, and who knows how many more jobs for the members of the Sustainable Jobs Secretariat.

I fear that this is an example of the most cynicism-inducing kind of government legislation. At a time when we desperately need to fight greenhouse gases, Bill C-50 is little more than hot air. As we might say in Alberta, “Where’s the beef?”

This legislation won’t do anything to reassure Western Canadians who are legitimately worried about their economic future. It won’t do anything to make them feel included, to make them feel that their voices and concerns are being heard or that their hopes and dreams are being supported. Instead, I greatly fear it will be seen as a provocation if not an insult. It will be a gift to those reactionary, soft-separatist voices in my province who are all too pleased to rage farm by turning Albertans against their fellow Canadians.

My friends, it is long past time for frameworks, councils, action plans and 10-year status reports. It is time to be up and doing. If we want an economic transition that doesn’t leave workers behind, we need to invest in R&D now, not a decade from now. Now.

If we want an economic transition that doesn’t leave workers behind, we need to tell capital markets that we are serious, that investing in Canada and Alberta is safe and smart, that we’re not going to pull the rug out from under them by suddenly changing policy and leaving them stranded. We need to invest in our colleges, technical institutes and universities so workers are ready for the jobs of the future. We need to invest in green infrastructure, from hydrogen plants to passenger rail lines. We need tax incentives and tax policies that reward innovation and green entrepreneurship. Most of all, we need federal and provincial governments to work together and not at cross‑purposes for the good of all Canadians.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading as critic 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. The short title is the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act,” but many of our Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee witnesses, in particular from the environmental movement, have referred to the bill as the “Just Transition Act.” In fact, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Yussuff, referred to it four times in his speech just a short while ago. It’s what the bill used to be called until there was public outcry and the government changed the title — not the content, colleagues, just the title. Remember, this bill is not sponsored by the Minister of Labour. It is sponsored by the Minister of Natural Resources.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their study of the bill.

At the Energy Committee two weeks ago, we heard from the Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Minister of Labour. During the minister’s testimony, he tried to avoid talking about what is actually contained in the legislation. More specifically, I asked him about training and the retraining elements contained in Bill C-50. The minister cut me off several times until our colleague Senator McCallum intervened to remind him of the importance of decorum in Senate committees. The chair agreed and instructed the witness accordingly, and I want to thank both Senator McCallum and Senator Verner, who was in the chair, for that reset.

After a few attempts to ask my question regarding training and retraining, which is the essence of the bill, the minister denied that there was any mention of training in the bill. Minister O’Regan said:

I am looking at Bill C-50. There is no mention of training talking about a table where workers can have a say. There’s no mention of training.

Colleagues, the word “training” appears 6 times in the bill and 78 times in the briefing note for the minister written by the department officials at Natural Resources Canada.

No matter what they’ve renamed it, the essence of the bill remains. However, the Minister of Labour representing Newfoundland and Labrador avoided discussing the purpose of the bill, the only reason he was invited to appear at committee.

What the bill actually seeks to do is to set up a program to train and retrain oil and gas workers away from existing sustainable and well-paying jobs. Further, colleagues, he was contradicted by his colleague the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, the Minister of Natural Resources, who appeared at the Social Affairs, Science and Technology committee and openly talked about the purpose of the bill, stating that it is about training and retraining workers in the oil and gas sector during the transition to lower greenhouse gas-emitting energy sectors.

The Natural Resources Canada officials themselves then contradicted Minister O’Regan’s claim that Bill C-50 is not about training, and I quote again:

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. That 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.

The fact we have the Minister of Natural Resources and an official from Natural Resources Canada contradicting the Minister of Labour raises questions and uncertainty for me, but equally confirms the concerns expressed by various witnesses we heard at the committees.

Both the Indigenous Resources Network and Electricity Canada provided other concerning testimony during the Energy Committee’s June 4 meeting. Representing the Indigenous Resources Network, John Desjarlais’ opening statement is clear, and again I quote:

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 suspicion and anxiety from our members. There has been a sense that the federal government is not on the same side as those who work in oil and gas especially. Indigenous oil and gas workers and businesses often feel vilified, even though they’re providing an important service and product that everyone depends on at the end of the day.

Colleagues, there are a lot of takeaways from Mr. Desjarlais’ statement. The fact that any Canadian worker in the country feels anxious and apprehensive of the government’s action is concerning. In fact, it should not happen. No Canadian should wake up to go to work and anxiously wonder whether their job will be there tomorrow, next month or next year, especially if it is an organized and sustained policy of their government to do so. Canadians need to know that all orders of government support their industry, support their work and stop misrepresenting a trade and an industry that literally fuels our economy.

Mr. Desjarlais also touched on the parity, or near parity, of Indigenous workers thanks to partnering with the oil and gas industry. The wage gap has closed due to numerous partnerships, empowering Indigenous communities, businesses and workers. In fact, Indigenous upstream oil and gas workers made 2.2% more in average weekly wages than the average Canadian oil and gas worker in 2021. According to Statistics Canada, the oil and gas sector offers the highest wages in Canada for Indigenous workers — three times more than the average — at $140,000 annually. This is what fuels their communities, growth and — not incidentally — meaningful reconciliation.

But no sooner had that parity been reached than the government set into play plans to take it away, which is a real concern for Indigenous communities, as described by Mr. Desjarlais:

There is a growing fear and a sentiment about being asked to transition after you’re just starting to get wage parity and business participation, where you would have to transition all over again or go through that whole process all over again. In a lot of the businesses that are succeeding in the industry, there is a lot of effort that went into it. A lot of them are asking why they have to do this again to position and pivot their businesses when they’re doing well and providing that livelihood. Our communities are greatly involved in the industry, so there is a lot of head-scratching going on.

Colleagues, these are serious concerns that must be addressed.

Mr. Francis Bradley, President and CEO of Electricity Canada, also touched on a potential consequence of the just transition: the increased cost of electricity.

While trying to put a price tag on Bill C-50 is difficult, Mr. Bradley’s testimony is a reminder of who will pay for the just transition. Colleagues, it’s all of us.

As with the carbon tax, every daily activity of Canadians will be impacted and made more expensive. As Mr. Bradley highlighted in committee, Canada will need to double the size of its electricity grid to keep up with electrification and decarbonization across all sectors. That comes with costs, and with a growing Canadian population, moving to electricity for transportation and comfort will not be cheap.

The Energy Committee also heard concerns about the impact the bill will have on competitiveness. This will have a negative impact on attracting investments to Canada that would in turn create sustainable jobs. I agree with Senator Galvez’s statement at committee that jobs must be created first. For those jobs to be created, we need private sector investment. Unfortunately, Bill C-50 lacks a competitiveness aspect. Shannon Joseph, Chair of Energy for a Secure Future, said in her opening remarks:

To achieve the goals expressed in the bill, companies must first decide to spend their money in Canada upgrading facilities, investing in innovation. They will only do this if they can successfully answer the following questions: Will I be able to make back the money I spent and more? How long will it take me to do this?

This legislation, therefore, needs to prioritize increased investment attraction to Canada, because this is where sustainable jobs come from.

Are our regulations efficient? Is energy affordable in Canada? How will this change over time so that Canada remains home to natural resource development, manufacturing, agriculture and other sectors?

You heard me say the same thing during my second reading speech. The government says it wants to capitalize on job opportunities in the net-zero transition by 2050. However, it is imperative that we know the specific job opportunities we are looking at and where they will be.

We must have available jobs waiting on the other side of the training of workers, at the same time and in the same community. With many of our oil and gas sector workers located outside major urban centres, it could very well signal a migration of Canadians away from our rural communities in Atlantic Canada and Western Canada.

You may remember, colleagues, the accelerated coal phase-out imposed by the government. In November 2016, the federal government announced its intention to accelerate the phase-out of traditional coal-fired electricity in Canada by 2030. It would affect workers and communities in four provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It was — and still is — an attempt to force a just transition for coal workers. It started with a set of recommendations proposed by a task force, in which our colleague and sponsor of Bill C-50, Senator Yussuff, played a role and provided insight.

According to the Auditor General, the government has failed Canadian workers and communities who are to transition away from the coal industry. As the report says on page 4:

Although the government had identified Natural Resources Canada as the lead department to deliver just-transition legislation in 2019, the department took little action until 2021. It did not establish a governance structure that would set out the related federal roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities, and it did not have an implementation plan to address a transition that involves a variety of workers, geographies, and federal and other stakeholders. . . .

The investigation found there was no federal implementation plan, no formal governance structure and no measuring and monitoring system. The report found that the federal programs and benefits fell short of a just transition for coal workers. It was business-as-usual support for coal workers, with Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, using regular programs to support coal workers and supports for communities that were not designed for their just transition. Moreover, not all task force recommendations were addressed, and there was insufficient results measurement, monitoring and reporting.

I’m concerned, colleagues, and you should be too, because the just transition for coal workers could very well be the blueprint for this government’s current bill. We must have a comprehensive discussion to avoid the pitfalls of these past initiatives. We’re not there yet.

Colleagues, I bring these things to your attention because if we take a closer look and deeper dive, we can do better for Canadians than the model used for the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities.

When it comes to natural resource extraction, the oil and gas sector, lowering our GHG emissions, job creation and private sector investments in this country, Canadians deserve a government that is serious in its approach. Again, we’re not there yet — certainly not with this legislation.

Again, Mr. Desjarlais from the Indigenous Resource Network said it best during his appearance at the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources:

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 and copper for electrification or building pipelines for carbon capture or hydrogen.

But we have very good reason to expect that jobs in 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.

I agree with Mr. Desjarlais, and his fears are justified. According to the Auditor General’s report on the just transition for coal, ESDC failed to protect the wages of coal workers by not implementing the Employment Insurance Training Support Benefit as recommended and mandated. Instead, they relied on the outdated EI benefits, which were insufficient. Further, colleagues, the government could not demonstrate how they protected the pensions of affected workers.

Therefore, as long as there is a demand for that product, the government should not impose a transition on those workers if there is a supply and a market, and there is. If it is responsibly regulated — and it is — it should be market-led, not government-led. The government should not be using measures to take away well-paying jobs — the highest paying for Indigenous workers — in an effort to reduce our 1.5% of global CO2 emissions. Of course, you’ve heard me say it numerous times: It will have zero impact on global emissions.

The government should instead support the oil and gas sector, where the industry has invested billions in Indigenous businesses and communities through numerous partnerships. Also, Indigenous communities have invested in themselves, and proudly so. Public dollars will never go as far when it comes to training and retraining workers and supporting communities. Ms. Joseph summed it up perfectly at the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources when she said:

This is why competitiveness is such an important priority for this legislation. It is not emphasized in the skill set for the council or the approach of the plan, but Canada has had experiences with industries shutting down suddenly, like the fisheries in Newfoundland, like coal-mining communities in Alberta when they switched rapidly to natural-gas-fired electricity. If we’re doing this across the whole economy very quickly, we shouldn’t have an exaggerated sense of the government’s own fiscal capacity to just fill gaps all over the place. . . .

Colleagues, there are other and better ways to reduce global emissions while also supplying energy for Canadians and the world. We have liquefied natural gas, or LNG, projects at the ready and partners around the world asking for Canadian LNG. According to the Shell LNG Outlook 2024, global LNG demand is projected to rise by more than 50% by 2040 as China and South Asian countries switch from coal to gas. By exporting LNG to European and Asian markets, Canada is in the position to reduce global CO2 emissions, by helping other countries lower their own emissions — much of it fuelled by coal — while also creating well-paid and sustainable jobs in Canada.

Honourable senators, I opened my second reading speech by quoting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he contrasted himself with the Right Honourable Stephen Harper wanting Canada to be known for its resources by stating he wanted Canada to be known for its resourcefulness. Colleagues, I believe we’ll always be known for our resources.

I want Canada to be smart and strategic with our resource development and to be known to support our allies and friends by supplying them with responsibly produced energy and world‑leading innovation and technology. In doing this, we also support our own citizens.

I will always stand up for our oil and gas sector to continue providing high wages for Canadians and supporting Indigenous workers, businesses and communities. That comes with a caveat: as long as it’s done responsibly for labour, the environment, resource management and safety.

I continue to believe that Canada can offer better. I don’t believe that cancelling sustainable and well-paying employment, collapsing Indigenous opportunity and kneecapping mature and well-regulated industries, all with massive taxpayer-funded cost is the way to go. Colleagues, many of those taxpayers are yet to be born.

The Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee is currently conducting a study on the oil and gas sector. At committee, I asked officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada what the cost of our climate change program was. The answer shocked me, and it should shock you too: It’s $2 trillion, just for Canada. Who pays for this? Canadians pay. What’s the effect on global CO2 emissions? None.

I concluded my second reading speech by challenging the government to show how this ideology makes any sense at any level. With the very little time we’ve had to study this just transition project, nothing in this bill has reassured me; rather, it has strengthened my resolve to see that our country doesn’t go down the path to a lower standard of living for Canadians, less opportunity for Indigenous communities, higher global emissions and taxpayer servitude for generations to come.

I’ve spoken in the past about this disastrous retraining program that followed the collapse of the northern cod stock off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1993. I worked in that fishery, and I saw firsthand the devastation of our people, our communities and our culture. The fact that this is now a $2‑trillion government policy with no effect on global emissions is beyond comprehension.

In closing, I will, of course, be voting against this legislation, not because I’m the critic and not because I’m a member of the official opposition and not because I’m a Conservative. I’m voting against it because it’s not a good plan for our workers, our communities, our businesses or for our allies. It’s not good for Canada on any level. Colleagues, I urge you to join me. Thank you.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do you have an agreement on a bell?

We will defer the vote to the next sitting of the Senate.

A deferred vote is requested and, pursuant to rule 9-10 (2), the vote is deferred to 5:30 on the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.