Moved second 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, today I rise to speak to Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. It is a piece of legislation that I am passionate about.

Why? It’s because this bill is fundamentally about workers, protecting their rights and interests, supporting their families and enabling their communities to grow.

Colleagues, we can no longer deny or avoid the environmental, societal and economic threats of climate change. We see it all around us, from increased temperatures, floods, fires and droughts. No part of our country is immune, and no part of our society or our economy can avoid being impacted. Climate change is causing economic change; that is undeniable. It is happening in every country — large or small, capitalist or communist, authoritarian regime or democratic society — around the world.

Change can be good, or it can be devastating. In large part, it depends on how well you recognize the change that is coming, and how well we can prepare for it.

The question, colleagues, that you are essentially being asked in supporting this bill is whether you want to recognize the change. If you do, it’s whether you want to prepare our economy and our workers for it.

Dr. Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, said:

The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it’s unstoppable. It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’ . . . .

Senators, Bill C-50 lays the framework for how we can help workers and their communities deal with the effects that climate change will have on an economy and labour market that will inevitably be impacted.

Nearly every country in the world has committed to the Paris Agreement and the target to fight climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That includes sectors like energy, transportation, buildings, manufacturing and beyond.

In Canada and around the world, that progress is being made because companies are ramping up energy efficiency and adopting low-carbon alternatives, while delivering the same goods that people rely on day in and day out.

The global commitment made nine years ago in Paris is not simply a political declaration. It has sent a signal to capital markets and, yes, to labour markets around the world.

The International Energy Agency’s recent report made it clear that trillions of dollars of investment globally are shifting away from assets that are incompatible with a sustainable, net-zero future — like unabated coal power — to those that are.

The Royal Bank of Canada recently forecasted that Canada can add 400,000 clean energy jobs on the path to net zero by the end of this decade.

In Canada, we are already seeing this first-hand. Consider the auto industry, where we have seen multi-billion dollar investments in the electric vehicle and battery supply chain, from companies like Ford, Volkswagen, Umicore, Michelin, Northvolt, Stellantis and just recently Honda in Alliston, Ontario. This is creating jobs for construction and auto workers from Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, to Bécancour, Quebec, from St. Thomas to Windsor to Alliston, Ontario, and beyond.

Consider the hydrogen industry. Hydrogen is a zero-carbon fuel source that is incredibly energy-dense, and can be made in a variety of ways to reduce diesel and other heavy-emitting fuels.

Companies like Air Products, EverWind Fuels and World Energy are creating new plants and stations across the supply chain, from production and transportation to the end use of hydrogen. This means good jobs for workers in Stephenville, in Cape Breton, in the Niagara Region and in Edmonton, just to name a few.

Consider the building sector. As we see a boom in housing construction, we are also seeing a rise in innovation from modular housing in the use of low-carbon Canadian building materials like mass timber or steel made using electric arc furnaces.

All of this innovation means good jobs in Canada’s building trades sectors — for electricians — and other trades in every region of this country.

Innovations in agriculture and biofuels, in the nuclear industry, in electricity transmission and in renewables have also created the same high demand for one of our country’s most important resources: Canadian skilled labour.

For Canada to reach its full potential in becoming a global leader in many of these industries, we must ensure that we are able to meet this demand for Canadian workers, while also effectively equipping those same workers to succeed.

That is precisely what the Canadian sustainable jobs act is meant to lay the groundwork for.

Colleagues, I would like to now go through the main aspects of the bill in how it can help workers, and talk about some improvements to the bill that happened in the other place.

Senators, the Canadian sustainable jobs act is the result of years of extensive consultations and work across multiple government departments.

It has been shaped, in part, through the work of the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities, which I co-chaired in 2018. It is supported by Canadian labour unions, industry, environmental leaders and experts in sectors including workforce training.

I now want to briefly go over the five key aspects of the bill and what they aim to achieve, and then I will highlight some of the improvements that were made to the bill as it went through the legislative process in the other place.

There are five key elements to this legislation as it intends to create a framework to support workers as they move to more sustainable jobs.

The bill includes guiding principles, a governance structure and transparency and accountability requirements.

First, the bill establishes guiding principles, including social dialogue, decent work, inclusive approaches and fostering strengthened global efforts.

Second, with the passage of this bill, the government will establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of representatives from labour, industry, Indigenous communities, environmental organizations and other experts. The council will have meaningful and frequent public consultations with Canadians, using the input they receive, combined with their expertise, to advise the government on strategies and measures to encourage the creation of more sustainable jobs while growing a net-zero economy.

Third, the bill will designate ministers responsible for implementing the act and the five-year action plans that are required.

Fourth, the bill will create a sustainable jobs secretariat to assist and coordinate federal actions.

Finally, the fifth element requires the development of updated action plans every five years.

These plans will report on the progress the government has made on prior commitments and will be designed to benefit communities and workers so they can seize the opportunities associated with the move to clean energy.

These are the core elements of this legislation that are critical to ensuring that workers have a seat at the table and that workforce policy is consistent with Canada’s climate policy.

Now, I would like to speak to the substance of the amendment process that occurred in the House of Commons. In close collaboration with workers, labour leaders, environmental organizations and other parties in the other place, the government further strengthened the legislation and added additional amendments that increased accountability, transparency and certainty.

For instance, the partnership council, reflecting the tripartite approach outlined in the Sustainable Jobs Plan, is now balanced between representatives of Indigenous voices, labour and industry, while reflecting the diverse perspectives of other stakeholders. This is important to deliver on the important principle of social dialogue while ensuring workers have a seat at the table so they can discuss their own future.

This legislation is also now linked to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which will mandate that the sustainable jobs action plans detail and take into consideration the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. This further ensures workers’ voices are included in efforts to fight climate change, grow Canada’s low-carbon economy and ensure communities in every region of the country can benefit.

The legislation would also recognize the important roles that the provinces, territories and other levels of government play in the advancement of sustainable job opportunities.

While this legislation only affects areas of federal jurisdiction, the duties of the partnership council and the development of action plans every five years must include engagement with the provinces, territories and other levels of government.

Government-wide and cross-jurisdictional collaboration is an important factor in gathering analysis, input and growing new economic opportunities for workers.

This is also an important aspect of the sustainable jobs secretariat. With the goal of creating a coherent set of policies that reflect a whole-of-government approach to sustainable jobs, the secretariat will collaborate with each department in its respective area of expertise to support and help coordinate the design of the action plan measures across different governmental departments. The secretariat also now plays a role in external engagement, serving as a point of contact for employers and workers.

Senators, the sustainable jobs act has been thoroughly considered and strengthened over almost one year it has been in the other place to produce a bill that is supported by industry, workers, environmental leaders, labour organizations and beyond.

Ultimately, it is the need to support workers and the broad consensus across Canadian society in support of the sustainable jobs act that drove me to sponsor this piece of legislation. As many of you know, creating sustainable jobs and helping communities and workers in every region of the country during a time of global change is an issue I am very familiar with and am personally very passionate about.

In 2018, I co-chaired the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities. The task force was mandated to engage with workers and communities in the provinces and territories directly impacted by the phase-out of unabated coal-fired electricity. We met directly with coal workers, coal communities and public officials in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This engagement informed advice to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on how to support workers and their communities. The task force’s final report was unanimously supported by all those who participated in this work.

Much of this advice is reflected in the sustainable jobs act, such as embedding principles in planning and legislative processes to ensure ongoing action by government is taken to support workers.

Co-chairing the task force was a very memorable experience of serving my country. At the time, I was also President of the Canadian Labour Congress, working to represent the voices of over 3 million workers.

When we agreed to support, of course, the phasing out of coal‑powered electricity generation, not one of the unions that represent workers in those sectors dissented with that decision, because they recognized fundamentally what it would do for the environment, what it would do for climate change and what it would do for human health. But they also recognized that some of these jobs are the best-paying jobs that workers could possibly have. In many cases, they paid anywhere between $60,000 and $100,000 per year.

Despite that reality, the union supported the phasing out of coal-fired electricity generation in this country because they recognized that if they want their families and children to have a future, it is about recognizing the damage we are doing to the environment and to the climate and how we are destroying human health in our communities at the same time. Was it easy? No. Was it hard? It definitely was. But the conversations and the efforts to ensure we can achieve this as a country working together were more important than anything else we could do. We recognized that we cannot bury our heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the reality and the changes occurring around us.

It is notable that Canada is among other countries, such as Germany, South Africa, Poland and many others, which also created task forces that went out to talk directly to workers and their community leaders about how they can phase out coal. Much of what we have done they are learning from.

These conversations enabled us to meaningfully talk about ways we can help individuals leverage their skill sets and to determine the steps the government needs to take to meet the needs of the workforce and build sustainable communities.

I know from experience there’s no substitute for these kinds of discussions, because creating good public policy requires that the government engage authentically with the workers whose lives are going to be affected by the decisions.

It is no exaggeration to say that those town halls were some of the most meaningful experiences I have had in my life, whether we were in Alberta to talk to coal communities and workers who were going to lose their jobs and what would replace that, or going to Estevan in Saskatchewan to a town hall to engage workers in their community about what these changes would mean to them and what we could do to help them, or going to Nova Scotia. I travelled across that great province listening to workers. We went to Cape Breton, in the coal community, to understand first-hand what will happen in those communities. It was not easy, but we recognized fundamentally that we have a role and a responsibility to talk to Canadians about the future we want to build together.

I knew that if we did not show up in person, if we failed to take the time to listen, we were not going to learn how we can do things better and truly support Canadian workers and their communities, because good policy starts with listening.

I am pleased to see that in the development of the sustainable jobs act and the interim plan, the government regularly engaged with Canadians throughout the entire process. The government was provided with input from Canada’s provinces and territories, as well as opinions and advice from workers and union representatives, historically marginalized groups, Indigenous peoples, advocates for civil society, industry experts and environmental organizations.

Over the course of the consultation process, many in-person discussions were held by officials, in addition to further engagement through other avenues. Their goal was to learn what people thought about certain elements that would be included in the legislation, as well as their opinions about the possible actions the government detailed in the discussion paper on a people-centred approach.

Also, the government took into consideration more than 75 comprehensive submissions from dozens of Canadian organizations on this legislation and sustainable jobs in general. They reviewed some 30,000 emails from across Canada to inform both this legislation and the interim Sustainable Jobs Plan that was made public in February of 2023, which I encourage honourable senators to review.

Also, I am aware that as this legislation passed through the other place, there was extensive engagement with members of the government and the caucuses of other parties in the House of Commons.

As I mentioned, there are many who have come out in support of this bill. The International Union of Operating Engineers 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. . . .

By the way, these are the same workers who just built a pipeline, completed with their skills and labour, that now gives Alberta a second way to get their energy to market in the Pacific region.

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. . . .

The President of the Canadian Labour Congress 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 . . .

A youth-led organization called re•generation said they support the plan and bill because it:

. . . will help ensure that green jobs are available for anyone who wants one. It will establish a partnership council to directly involve workers and communities in the transition, and allocate critical funding to green skills development and training.

The President of the Alberta Federation of Labour said:

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.

The Vice-President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers International said, “Through this legislation, the Government of Canada has demonstrated its commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs. . . .”

The Executive Director of the Pembina Institute said:

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.

Meanwhile, the head of Canada’s Building Trades Unions said they welcome Bill C-50, which is:

. . . aimed at addressing Canada’s transition to a net-zero economy, which brings forth key aspects including the creation of a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to provide meaningful consultation during the transition.

There are many more voices I could cite here, colleagues, who have been clear in their support for this vital and strengthened piece of legislation.

Honourable colleagues, let me end by saying this: The Canadian sustainable jobs act provides the government with a critical opportunity to support the creation of a fundamental anchor for a sustainable jobs policy. It shows Canadians that we are in it together for the long haul, however long that may take.

If passed, the Canadian sustainable jobs act will ensure that Canadian workers will continue to be at the centre of this deeply important work, and that the workers will have a seat at the table.

I urge you to reflect on the many important points contained in the legislation and the many amendments that were successfully made by the government and other members of Parliament in close consultation with stakeholders who care deeply about ensuring Canadian workers win at the end of the day.

Colleagues, this bill gives workers a seat and voice at the table that can impact the decisions that will affect their work, families and communities.

Now it is time for us to study and pass Bill C-50. It is my sincere hope that every member of the Senate will support this piece of legislation so we can ensure that Canadian workers win. I look forward to working with you on the passage of this bill. Thank you so much.

I will take any questions.

Senator Yussuff, thank you for your involvement and the informative briefing you organized with government officials. We appreciate it very much.

Make no mistake, I think almost all of us recognize the impact of climate change and the necessity to accelerate toward a greener economy.

Having said that, I have a concern about the lack of collaboration or cooperation from provinces such as Alberta and Quebec, which have mentioned they have no interest in collaborating. Provinces are closer to employers’ and employees’ needs than the federal government.

You mentioned that this bill received the support of workers, industry, labour leaders and environmental organizations, but no commitment from provinces.

My question is this: In the absence of provincial commitment, could you reassure me that it will not be another example of red tape from the federal government with the creation of a new secretariat or council?

First, let me thank my colleague for his question. I appreciate his participating in the briefing that was provided.

As you know, the provinces have their own jurisdictions and guard them intensely. I don’t need to give you any examples of that. I can assure you that for the success of the Canadian sustainable jobs act, provinces will have to be engaged in the process. The workers who work in their provinces will be impacted by it as a result of the shift to a low-carbon economy and, more importantly, measures that will be required will have to be collaborative.

Right now, as you know, the federal government transfers large sums of money to the provinces for training on an ongoing basis. Part of that ongoing effort will be around how provinces can support workers to get retraining and update their skills as they move from certain jobs to the new jobs that will be created within those provinces.

At the end of the day, all of that will require the provinces impacted by a shift to a low-carbon economy and the federal government to talk with each other to ensure they are not duplicating their efforts, but instead equally ensuring the resources allocated will go to support the workers, communities and an industry that wants to transform itself to ensure they are sustainable for the near future.

Would the honourable senator take a question?

Yes.

We talk about resource regions and we say that most First Peoples are still in the regions. When I read your bill, it spoke of Indigenous peoples, but can you assure me that the matter was discussed with Indigenous rights holders?

Too much fraud is going on in Canada. A person can self‑declare themselves a member of a First Nation, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s fraud. I would be very careful to ensure that Indigenous peoples are consulted. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that, with reference to governing bodies.

Every time something is created in Canada, it is usually done in English. Some First Nations communities in Quebec speak French as a second language. Can you assure us that the greater francophone community and Indigenous peoples who speak French as a second language will have a seat on the council you mention in the bill?

Thank you for the question; it is a very important one.

When I was the co-chair of the task force on the phasing out of coal-generated electricity, we travelled across the country. We met not only with workers but also First Nations leaders, who came to the consultations to talk about how they were being impacted, especially in coal communities, whether it be mining or supplying some of the coal-generation facilities. They certainly gave us their thoughts. I think that continued with the government as they were developing this piece of legislation.

As I outlined early in my remarks today, it is embedded in the bill that First Nation communities will have seats at the table. They will be a part of this legislation. They have been allocated a number of seats to ensure there is a circular conversation, not individual conversations among the players.

If we are going to build a sustainable community, we believe it should include all of the country, including First Nation communities.

I accept the point you are making about how we ensure that we include the voices of francophone communities in this process. I’m hoping that, as we debate this bill, we make that loud and clear. I’m sure the government will become attuned, as they look at the appointments process, and will ensure they have individuals who bring that language diversity to the table as they set up the secretariat to ultimately guide this legislation going forward.

Will the honourable senator take a question?

Yes.

This is second reading debate, so I hope the bill goes to committee.

There was great fanfare about the lithium experiment we will have here in Canada. Many experts say that we are going from bad to worse with lithium: that it wastes tons of water, that it is environmentally dirty and that the reduction of the impact of lithium mining is essential or we will just go in circles.

We have brought that up not only as a cash cow in the last few months, but as an example of the environmentally correct posture that Canada needs to adopt. Many scientists say that’s not true at all. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Thank you for this very important question. I’m not an expert on the environmental waste or the challenges we will face with the development of our lithium capacity in this country, but I can say — without a doubt — that a large part of the world is betting on lithium as a way for us to fuel our desire to remain in our vehicles at the end of the day.

As somebody who worked in the auto industry I’ve watched it go through many changes, and I think it’s inevitable that it will go through another change. We have the capacity to do this in a way that can preserve the environment as we transition from a combustible to an electric car industry of the future. I agree with you that we’ll have to ensure we’re not doing more damage to the environment as we develop this new industry to meet the challenges of the future.

I hope that we — as well as the many countries around the world that are now engaged in the development of a new car industry — will learn much, and that we can share what we learn and ensure that we don’t create harm for the future of the planet, and, at the same time, that we don’t harm the environment going forward.

I’d like to start by congratulating you on how active you have been here in the Senate because I think you’re one of the most active senators in our cohort that was sworn in on November 22 and I have lost track of how many bills you’ve sponsored in this chamber. Congratulations. My question has to do with businesses that are taking some action or that have clean work methods. Are there specific incentives for those businesses that invest a lot, mainly at the industrial level, to make their machinery less polluting?

Thank you. That is a very important question. I’m not sure I’m the most active senator here. Perception and reality are not one and the same. I know one thing: I’m not sleeping on the job.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the broader discussion regarding legislation. I’m very passionate. I spent a lifetime defending workers, so for anything to do with workers I’ll stand up and be counted. I’m honoured to do that. I think it’s fair to say that the Canadian industry in general has been going through transformative changes. I’ll talk about two with which I’m familiar.

The steel industry in this country has been very productive, generating many good jobs, and it continues to be an important part of the economy. As I speak to you, our steel industry is going through an incredible change. They used to use coal as an important part of making steel. Many of them are now switching to our way of making steel, and I think that’s a good thing. We’ll still need steel in this country, but they will require some help to get there.

As you know, during the period of the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA — now called the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA — our American friends levelled tariffs on our country, some of which have been used to transform the steel industry. The government has used some of that money here. Equally, I think many industries will go through similar changes as they are required to reduce their emissions while ensuring that they’re sustainable and profitable going forward. I think the federal government is working with industry — as are the provinces and territories — to ensure they can meet the challenges of the future.

I know one thing: If workers do not have the ability to renew and improve their skills, we will not have the successful country we’ve had in the past. I know this for a fact. The coal industry in this country made us rich. It’s no accident. Let’s remember how this country was developed. Workers mined that coal, transported it to communities and used it to heat their houses. In some areas in Cape Breton Island, they’re still using it to heat their homes. As we change and learn from the environmental challenges we face, those workers will no longer be needed for mining coal. What can we have them do? They have incredible skills. How can we transition them to a future that gives them the opportunity to have a good job, raise a family and build strong communities?

I don’t have all the answers to that, but I think this bill is one part of that going forward.

Thank you, Senator Yussuff. Will you take another question?

Yes.

My question is about the cost of this program, which I’ll ask you about, and the costs of the just transition, which I’ll also ask about. You’ll recall that when he was the Associate Minister of Finance, Randy Boissonnault said that the just transition from the petroleum sector to things other than petroleum would cost $125 billion a year. When I was on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, we had environment and climate change officials testify, and I asked the same question: How much will this project of cancelling the petroleum industry and giving support to alternative sources cost? His response was $4 trillion.

He gave us great comfort by revising that some days later to only $2 trillion. With the programs that the Liberal government is setting up under Bill C-50 — this legislation — the councils and all the other things that will be for the long term, what will the further cost of those federal programs be?

Thank you for the question. Let me start with the assumptions that have been made about the bill. This bill is not about getting rid of the oil and gas sector. It’s about recognizing the reality that the oil and gas sector produces a lot of carbon, some of which needs to be captured, and those companies are working to reduce their footprint. We will have the use of oil and gas for some time into the future, but, similarly, workers have been impacted and thousands of workers have already lost their jobs in that sector. The reality is: What can we do to help those workers? There is a cost. The workers, their families and their communities have paid that cost.

Earlier, I said that when I went to those communities to talk about the phase-out of the coal industry, there was a lot of fear and ambivalence among workers about what will happen to them in the future. The bill recognizes that we need to take that into consideration.

I will give you one example. In Leduc County in Alberta, they lost a thousand jobs as a result of phasing out coal use for electricity generation. It was a huge challenge for them. They decided they could either do something about that or simply complain about the future. In Leduc County, as a result of their efforts, they have created 2,000 new jobs since the phase-out of coal mining and coal generation in their community. They recognized that they can build a different future.

There is a cost, Senator Wells. I don’t have the cost of that. The government hasn’t cost out what it will be to set up Bill C-50, but we already have existing programs that are there to assist workers in retraining and to equip them with new skills and realities.

What this bill hopes to do is to ensure the current resources being used by the federal government and the provinces will continue to be extended to workers who will be impacted by job losses. Of course, changes will happen in their sector, and, hopefully, at the end of the day, we can do that in a way that maintains sustainability and at the same time gives those workers hope that they are part of the future rather than simply saying, “Well, if you lose your job, too bad; there’s nothing we can do about it.”

The intent is not to get rid of the oil and gas sector by simply shutting it down, but it is to recognize it is changing. As you and I discuss this right now in this chamber, changes are happening in those sectors. They are reducing their emissions. They continue to make changes, and those changes are also having impacts on workers who live in our communities.

I do have another question. I hope you will take it.

I represent Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s a significant income producer for our province, our families and, therefore, our communities. You may know that the carbon footprint from Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas is among the lowest in the world. You don’t have to remove the oil from the sand. It comes up in a form that doesn’t always need to be refined. It goes straight to market. None of that processing that you see in other parts of the world has to occur.

Of course, it’s low cost as well. It’s almost the same cost as Saudi Arabian-produced oil as opposed to Alberta-produced oil and Saskatchewan-produced oil, which is $65 to $70 a barrel. In Newfoundland and Labrador, it costs $15 a barrel to produce because that separation is not required.

When you talk about retraining of workers and that sort of thing, that’s a real trigger for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that went through that by the thousands during the shutdown of the once prolific groundfish industry in Newfoundland and Labrador in the early 1990s. Thousands of people — both harvesters and plant workers — were immediately put out of work with the moratorium, and they were given retraining to be all sorts of things that had no bearing and no relevance whatsoever in Newfoundland’s rural areas.

Certainly, this will be a trigger for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when they hear about a thriving industry — the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador — now being phased out, not because of natural causes but because of man-made causes or government-made causes.

As a representative of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, what would you suggest I say to them when I tell them that the government is coming up with a program to phase-out a responsible, mature, well-run and well-regulated industry, and the government will set up retraining programs based on Bill C-50 — based on the legislation that you’re going to be promoting and I’m going to be the official critic of? What do I say to those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about that?

You could say to them what I would say to those workers because I used to represent those same workers that you’re talking about. I continue to have dialogue with them.

The government is not proposing to somehow phase-out — as a matter of fact, not even a year ago, Bay du Nord is a new oil field that was approved by the federal government because there’s a recognition about how significant that project is in terms of carbon emissions. It was approved based on the fact that it had such a low carbon footprint to begin with.

The government is not proposing to phase-out that industry. But over time, as the world continues to shift away from the development of petroleum products, we also have to figure out how to build vibrant communities that create meaningful jobs for the men and women who work in this country.

Do we wait until it happens and then tell them nothing is going to happen or do we assure them that, yes, we will go through a process, but the world is changing? It’s moving in a different direction. We will be part of that.

Equally, we don’t have to scare people. We have to say, “When that moment comes at least there’s thinking ahead as to how we can assure workers that they will have a brighter future as we create new industries.” Those new industries will bring some challenges with them, but ultimately, as leaders in this Senate and as elected officials in the other place, I hope we can speak to workers rather than have fear. We can speak about the opportunity to work together as a country to build an even brighter future, one where all workers can have a meaningful job, who can have a decent living and still be able to remain in their communities.

I’m not naive nor do I live in a world of fantasy. I’ve seen first-hand the devastation that workers go through when their communities are yanked, when the jobs disappear and there’s no plan to help those workers deal with the future that will come. I know first-hand that workers want to be retrained. I know they want to be given new skills. They also want to see investment happening in their communities, so they can have comfort that they don’t have to pack up and move someplace else.

Senator Wells, I hope you will join me in recognizing Newfoundland and Labrador as an important part of this country. It is part of the petroleum industry right now, but it can also be part of the new industries that will evolve and develop.

The German government just came to your province to talk about how they can develop hydrogen. It’s a whole new industry that was not there. It’s part of the future. I hope when those jobs are created, there will be people saying, “This is something good, and this is good for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador as it’s good for our country and for the rest of the world.”

Will Senator Yussuff take a question?

Yes.

It is very short.

I read the bill carefully because I have my own speech to make. Since you might have all the answers, the bill says that the council consists of 13 members who are to be appointed by the Governor-in-Council to hold office at pleasure, but on a part-time basis.

Did I understand correctly that the 13 members of the council will be paid? What will be the scope of remuneration?

The government has not yet published what the scope of remuneration will be, but a number of these people will be coming from their full-time employment. A good number of them are going to, hopefully, be in jobs where they represent workers, industry or other sectors of the economy. I hope, when they are participating on the council, that they will be compensated for the time they are putting into the council or associating with the council. They’re not going to be full-time, but at some point, yes, the government will have to compensate them.

As you know, within the legislation, they have been envisioned to travel the country to listen to Canadians and engage Canadians at the same time. I hope there will be some recognition of the costs involved in that, and hopefully, whatever the costs are, it will be transparent because the department will have to publish and share what the action plan is and how that action plan is being funded going forward.

There’s very little time left, and I have one more senator who wants to ask a question. Are you asking for more time, Senator Yussuff?

I would kindly ask the chamber to consider another five minutes.

Is leave granted?

I hear a “no.” Sorry.

Colleagues, I am delivering this speech from the unceded traditional territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Today I’ll be speaking in favour of Bill C-50 at second reading. The bill’s short title is the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.

I have no objection to the principles of this bill. I feel that it’s a major bill and that we have to facilitate a labour market transition. However, I do have questions about some of the details. As they say, the devil is in the details. I hear that a lot.

Basically, Bill C-50 calls for the adoption of a sustainable jobs action plan. It also provides for the establishment of a sustainable jobs partnership council and a sustainable jobs secretariat to support the implementation of the act.

If the bill is passed, the sustainable jobs partnership council will be made up of 13 members. Its role will be to advise the minister responsible for implementing the act and other specified ministers. The bill does not specify the portfolios of these ministers, which ministers or their total number. The government will designate them later. The minister responsible must draw up an action plan by December 31, 2025, at the latest and must present a new plan at least every five years. These plans will be tabled in both houses of Parliament.

Bill C-50 provides very specific details about the content of the sustainable jobs action plan. It’s a green transition plan that focuses on a labour market response to climate change.

It goes without saying that I share the opinion of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Labour Congress, who support the adoption of a labour market transition plan. That is a principle no one can object to.

This is more about determining whether Bill C-50 will allow such a plan to be developed and implemented within a reasonable time frame with noticeable results in terms of sustainable jobs.

Let us also remember — because I will come back to this — that the EI system remains, in Canada and in every jurisdiction, the primary source of funding for public interventions in the labour market. It is essential to take into account the framework of governance of the action plan for sustainable jobs. That is essentially what my speech will focus on: the connection between Bill C-50 and Employment Insurance.

First, what is an action plan for ensuring a green transition in the labour market? An action plan for a green transition in the labour market stems above all from a plan to fight climate change, which depends directly on targets and strategies identified in that plan. We must take into account deadlines and targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the means identified for achieving them.

In Canada, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, passed in 2020, provides the framework for setting targets and establishing methods, and the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, released in 2022, provides the roadmap for updating them. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change is the one who reports to Parliament on emissions reduction.

The main components of this plan include carbon pricing, a cap on the oil and gas sector, a clean electricity standard, a clean fuel standard and reducing emissions associated with land use.

This ambitious plan is a society-wide plan that involves all provincial and territorial stakeholders. Implementing all these efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will inevitably impact the job market, hence the sustainable jobs bill, which aims to ease the job market transition for those affected.

Studies on the impact of the green transition on the labour market show that the success of these plans depends heavily on the workforce’s ability to carry them out. Labour organizations, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, and the businesses that make up the Canadian Chamber of Commerce are excited about the objectives of Bill C-50. They’re also aware that the success of the operation depends on the availability of a workforce with the proper skills.

A recent report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce entitled Building Canada’s Net-Zero Workforce states the following, and I quote:

A recent study scanning 48 countries found that only one in eight workers has the skills relevant to a net-zero economy. This research also concluded that there is a growing demand for workers with net-zero skills, but this demand is not being met by today’s labour force.

The Chamber of Commerce goes on to say the following about meeting the challenges associated with the fact that the workforce doesn’t have the proper skills, and this is important. It said, and I quote:

Leveraging the government’s existing relationships with trade unions and industry leaders in both the energy and resource sectors will be key to reskilling and training the workforce in these industries. This is particularly important given these sectors are likely to experience more acute labour challenges given they will need to modernize operations to meet low-carbon requirements — and as new industries emerge within a net-zero economy.

While trade unions have an important role in representing the interests of workers and advocating for decent jobs, they also have a unique role in building capacity through accessible training and upskilling. Efforts are already underway within trade unions to evaluate the scope and delivery of training programs for a variety of apprenticeships, and to incorporate net-zero skills and knowledge into career pathways.

We may owe you thanks, Senator Yussuff, since you may be the one who launched these union initiatives.

The green transition will create new jobs, but it will also transform existing jobs. This reality must not be ignored. A lot of occupations will experience a growing need for green skills, as highlighted by Céreq, the European centre for studies and research on qualifications. Céreq talks about a progressive greening of occupations, in other words, the inclusion of environmental concerns in all work-related activities, in all sectors.

The challenges posed by climate change compound the challenges inherent in technological advances, such as artificial intelligence, and demographic factors, such as an aging population and immigrant integration.

All of these changes will mean that some jobs will disappear while others will emerge, with a major impact on tasks.

Without question, gains in living standards among Canadians will be proportional to the success of the green transition and adaptation efforts.

This multi-faceted transition will require significant investments in workforce adaptation, skill upgrading and retraining, and income support for workers in the labour market. That’s where Natural Resources Canada’s Sustainable Jobs Plan comes in. Initiated primarily to deal with the natural resources sector, the Sustainable Jobs Plan will develop means and initiatives that will undoubtedly benefit other sectors of the economy, because the entire Canadian economy is affected by the accelerating changes in climate, technology and demographics.

As an aside, despite all these changes, the good news is that Canadians are acutely aware of the challenges ahead and want to improve their skills. Skills upgrading is the key to a successful transition. I’ve already mentioned a survey of 1,069 Canadians conducted by Nanos in December 2023, which I commissioned in my office. This survey was similar to the one I conducted prior to the pandemic, and provides an overview of Canadian perceptions of the anticipated impacts of climate and technological change on the job market, as well as the training needs that will be required to deal with them.

What does this survey tell us? It tells us that 20% of respondents who have jobs — in other words, 20% of employed Canadians — feel it is likely or somewhat likely that these changes will threaten their jobs. An even higher proportion, 37%, believe climate change and technology will affect their job tasks and require additional training. These are astronomical numbers. That last one, 37%, represents about eight million Canadians.

Canadians’ perceptions are consistent with the results of studies carried out by international organizations such as the OECD. Young Canadians are keenly aware of the challenges. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, 42% believe technological and climate change will affect their work tasks.

In response to that, Canadians, 9.6 million of them, are ready to get training. They want to upgrade their IT and professional skills in particular.

That being said, Employment Insurance — I’m coming back to the subject of EI and Bill C-50 — will continue to play a vital role in meeting the challenge of workforce development for Canada and the provinces. We all know that EI is funded exclusively by employer and employee contributions to the plan. This plan provides income support during the transition in the event of job loss, but it is also the main source of funding for training when workers transition to another job under agreements with the provinces.

EI funds industry committees and all sorts of partnership initiatives. In short, the EI system is the backbone of public intervention in the Canadian labour market.

In the documents that I consulted on funding for all the measures proposed under the action plan for sustainable jobs, EI is identified as one of the main funding sources.

EI does not fall within the reporting environment of Natural Resources Canada or Environment and Climate Change Canada. We have a serious issue with the way that this council and partnership operate.

The Sustainable Jobs Plan relies heavily on EI. However, in keeping with the principle of “no taxation without representation,” business and labour representatives must be associated with the Sustainable Jobs Plan, and they will be.

What concerns me, however, is obviously involving labour market players directly in decision-making through representatives of the most important workers’ and employers’ associations. These people need to be appointed in that capacity, not on an individual or personal basis. The bill doesn’t make this distinction. Simply being unionized is enough to get appointed to the council.

I want to reiterate that members of the sustainable jobs partnership council must be appointed based on the most representative workers’ and employers’ associations, and not on an individual or personal basis. That is missing in the bill. In addition, since the action plan will rely on EI, the commissioners of EI workers and employers must also sit on the council, given the importance of the plan in financing labour market transitions.

Canada’s major labour and employer associations have affirmed their commitment to meeting the labour and skills development challenges posed by climate, technological and demographic transitions. They reaffirmed this at the recent employment and skills forum that was held. Senator Yussuff and Senator Ross were there. That statement was very clear.

To sum up, an action plan for climate transition is essential, particularly with regard to the labour market. To this end, it is vital that labour and employer representatives from the major associations, as well as EI commissioners, be involved.

I hope the committee studying this bill will raise questions on these issues and on how this plan will be implemented as soon as possible. At the end of the day, climate change is already happening, and we can’t wait too long before making the necessary transitions.

I invite you to adopt this bill quickly at second reading so that it can be referred to committee. Thank you.

There are two senators who want to ask questions. Would you like to have more time since your time is up?

Yes.

Is leave granted?

Would the honourable senator take a question?

Absolutely.

We know that change puts certain pressures on the workforce. With the invention of fences, many shepherds found themselves out of work. With the development of marine technology and navigational aids, lighthouse keepers had trouble finding jobs as well.

I was impressed that Senator Yussuff and the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities came to my Cape Breton community. Senator MacDonald and Senator Cordy can speak to this, but at one time in Cape Breton, coal was king. We had 6,000 coal miners at that time. I know they would have appreciated a program such as this.

Specifically, I know that your background is in labour. I believe that a tripartite approach to policy and program development is essential. Is the senator confident that we see that throughout the development of this legislation and, going forward, that a tripartite approach has been respected?

Thank you for the important question, senator. I will reserve my answer until after the committee’s study. From what I know of tripartite best practices, this one differs a bit, especially in one respect — and this is the one that I underline — namely, that the employers and the workers do not necessarily come from associations that are the most representative. With tripartitism in society, you need to have the largest associations that are the most representative. You cannot have individual nominations. It is important that institutions are participating. This bill does not respect that characteristic.

Absolutely.

I have to say that, when the workforce is organized in such a manner, there is an indirect way for provinces to take part and that is through employer associations and labour organizations. It is through that channel that we would hear from them. It is through the most representative associations, whether they be the chambers of commerce in connection with the Quebec and Alberta chambers of commerce, or the Canadian Labour Congress in connection with the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and with the Ontario and Alberta labour federations, that ties and connections are forged.

I’m not sure how to bring in the provinces at this point. However, the studies that I have conducted regarding EI made it very clear to me that the council must be mainly made up of representatives of labour market players who can communicate with the provinces. I will repeat that employer associations and labour organizations are niches and connections. Fortunately, the associations in these sectors don’t necessarily change positions all the time. The way the labour market works for unions and businesses intersects and doesn’t change with different government ideologies, because the goal is to create good jobs. That is why it’s a channel and a very good link to the provinces.