Canadian Sustainable Jobs Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today at second 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.

After reading that wordy title, it is worth noting that it includes the words “transparency” and “accountability” prominently, because the bill is nothing of the sort. This bill’s design is the tail end of the government’s mission to drive another nail into the coffin of Canada’s oil and gas industry and communities in our country, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural areas across Canada, where alternate opportunities are limited.

Honourable senators, fortunately, Bill C-50 has a shorter title, which is the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.” It puts in place the following three structures, which Senator Yussuff, the sponsor, described recently.

First, tabling a sustainable jobs action plan every five years, with the first one no later than December 31, 2025, a few months after the election.

Second, establishing a sustainable jobs partnership council.

Third, establishing a sustainable jobs secretariat to support the implementation of the bill and the council’s work.

This is all part of what we know as the Just Transition.

On July 20, 2021, then-Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan — who, incidentally, is the regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador — launched an engagement process asking Canadians how the Government of Canada can ensure a just and equitable transition to a low-carbon future for workers and their communities. There would be a Just Transition advisory board, but then it changed. The term “Just Transition” wasn’t well received, so the government — as it did with the carbon tax — rebranded it, and the Canadian sustainable jobs act was born.

The name change is window dressing, of course. The objectives remain the same — transitioning away from sustainable jobs in one proven industry to uncertainty in some other. In fact, on Tuesday, Senator Coyle told us that the primary delivery instrument for this new sustainable jobs act is the Employment Insurance program.

Colleagues, this does not make sense. The targeted Canadians are currently working in a well-regulated industry for which there is abundant raw material, a clear market demand and a long-term market horizon. It is one we should support. And remember, our biggest resource competitors are warmongers, dictators and despots. They are the principal beneficiaries of this government’s anti-petroleum policy.

Not considered is responsible resource development in a well-paying and necessary industry that employs thousands of Canadians and keeps alive hundreds of communities — and, as I said, in regions where alternate employment is not readily available.

To better understand how we got here, we need to put Bill C-50 into context. A few months after the 2015 election, Prime Minister Trudeau addressed the Davos World Economic Forum, and toward the end of his remarks, he declared, “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.”

While it was among the first of many clichés that Canadians would become accustomed to, it indicated the beginning of a clear shift for Canada’s energy sector, specifically for the oil and gas sector. A period of more uncertainty and red tape led to a decline in confidence and investment in the energy sector, and that was the objective. The government ensured energy projects, even ones that benefited Canadians, would either fail or be mired in the negativity that the Prime Minister and his cabinet constantly spoke about and continue to speak about.

You’ll recall Energy East, which was to bring Western gas to the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, the Prime Minister gleefully saying that it had nothing to do with the government but was a business decision by the company. Again, just last year, when Prime Minister of Germany Olaf Scholz came to Canada — in fact, to Newfoundland and Labrador — to sign contracts for natural gas to supplant their Russian gas dependence, Prime Minister Trudeau sang the same tune and said there was no business case for natural gas.

Of course, he was wrong. And, of course, he angered Canadian energy workers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and my home province, as there could never be a better business case for natural gas: a massive known supply, a proven process, private investment, a ready workforce, professionally regulated industry and a pleading market. The Japanese Prime Minister came to British Columbia only months later with the same request and, of course, received the same answer. Canada was open for business — just not that business.

In fact, in the Newfoundland Offshore Area, there are capped reservoirs of natural gas. We know how much is there, no pipelines or rail are needed and it’s as close to the European market as you could possibly get from the North American supply. In fact, colleagues, when oil is produced offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador, the oil is pumped up. It actually comes up by pressure, so there is not a lot of pumping, but it comes up with the gas with it. The gas and the oil are separated. The gas is then reinjected back into the reservoir through the wellhead and then it is capped. We know exactly where it is and exactly how much is there, and the wellheads are in place.

There has never been a better business case. Natural gas powers Europe and will for generations to come. Within months, Prime Minister Scholz signed a long-term, multi-billion-dollar deal for natural gas with Qatar. Colleagues, what fools we are.

Since 2015, the value of Canada’s inventory of major projects under construction or planned has shrunk from $711 billion to $572 billion, with the oil and gas sector suffering the greatest decline, from $546 billion in 2015 to $319 billion in 2023, a 43% drop. Although the Prime Minister said in 2017 that no country would find 173 billion barrels in the ground and leave it there, the Prime Minister is intent on doing just that.

Colleagues, the Trudeau government has been intent on killing the oil and gas sector from its first day in government. Allow me to list some of the initiatives from this government to shut it down: Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act; Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act; the moratorium on offshore Arctic oil and gas licensing; the carbon tax; the rejection of the Northern Gateway pipeline; and the cancellation of the Energy East pipeline caused by deliberate uncertainty and framed by the government as a business decision by the company.

It is no wonder that investors’ confidence in Canada’s energy sector is at its lowest. According to the Fraser Institute, which surveyed oil and gas investors on the attractiveness of 17 energy jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, 68% of respondents were deterred by the uncertainty concerning environmental regulations in Canada, compared to 41% in the United States. Also, 100% of the respondents regarding Newfoundland and Labrador, 93% regarding British Columbia and 50% regarding Alberta indicated uncertainty concerning environmental regulations — 100% regarding my province. All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, especially the representatives in this chamber, should take that personally.

Bill C-50 is no more nor less than the continuation of this government’s heavy-handed approach to the energy sector in Canada. Instead of an invisible hand steering the economy, the government is engineering the changes it wants to see. That heavy-handedness has led to families across the country scrambling to make ends meet. It has led to the decimation of communities when people leave because work for which they are trained and skilled, in an industry they chose, has ceased. And it has led to private investment leaving and avoiding our country. Bill C-50, by design, will continue this effort.

Bill C-50 is the final step in the government’s plan to kill the oil and gas sector. It is a top-down approach centralized in Ottawa. It will dictate to sectors of the economy and provinces how workers will be retrained for a net-zero economy. For industries and provinces that have already invested significant resources in greening their economy and greening the oil and gas sector, Bill C-50 will discourage them from further investing in the green-tech industry in Canada.

Let’s be clear: Since 2015, the Liberal government has been putting all obstacles possible in the path of creating jobs in the oil and gas sector. The reality is that Canadians still heavily rely on it. It remains the biggest private sector investor and the top exporter. It provides over $26 billion a year in taxes to all levels of government and directly employs over 188,000 Canadians, with salaries double the national average. And now the Liberal government is coming up with a plan to kill this and have Canadians pay for it.

Those 188,000 Canadians employed in the energy sector — as of December 2022 — are down from a high of 241,000 in 2014 under Prime Minister Harper. For every job created in the oil and gas sector, two indirect jobs and three induced jobs are created.

In Atlantic Canada, we are talking about almost 8,000 jobs and thousands more who rely on the sector, not to mention their families. It is crucial to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It makes up 25% of our GDP and accounts for over 41% of our exports over the past 20 years.

Prior to my appointment to the Senate, I was deputy CEO of the offshore petroleum regulator, and that included all environmental aspects of the offshore. The royalties from the offshore petroleum sector made up 35% of the revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is at the centre of the economy in my province. It is what pays for the roads, schools and hospitals. Make no mistake, colleagues; these workers won’t stick around hoping for the retraining funds proposed by this legislation. They will leave, just as thousands left in the early 1990s when the groundfish fishery collapsed.

What will Bill C-50 and the just transition cost? As the Associate Finance Minister at the time, the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, said, the just transition would cost $120 billion to $125 billion a year, at least until 2050. That is over $3.25 trillion. Governments don’t have their own money. They have our money.

When Canada emits 1.5% of global emissions, how does this expenditure make any sense? That’s the question I asked Minister Seamus O’Regan in February 2023 here in this chamber. As regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, Minister O’Regan talked about the progress made in Alberta instead of our home province, the lowest-emitting petroleum extracting jurisdiction in the world.

As a Newfoundlander, I find it disappointing that Minister O’Regan did not defend our clean oil and gas industry, our low-cost extraction sector and our massive reserves of natural gas fields, but instead followed the ideology of the government to eliminate oil and gas jobs here in Canada.

Minister O’Regan needs to be reminded of the low-carbon footprint of Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas sector. It is amongst the lowest in the world, given you don’t have to remove the oil from the sand. It is also done at a low cost of approximately $15 a barrel, only slightly higher than the cost of extracting oil in Saudi Arabia and less than 25% of what it costs in the oil sands.

The government says it is doing this in partnership with the provinces through round tables. However, not all provinces are part of these round tables. How can the federal government be serious in its just transition when neither Alberta nor Saskatchewan, Quebec or Nunavut are participating? Again, colleagues, it is symptomatic of a government that puts ideology before practicality or economy.

What’s the result? Apparently, it will be programs or action plans to retrain workers for the next phase of the energy sector or some other sector in Canada. Well, honourable senators, Newfoundland and Labrador has experience with governmental retraining programs — none of it good.

Following the 1992 moratorium in the groundfish industry in my province, about 30,000 fish harvesters and plant workers were put out of work. The government announced an aid package known as the Northern Cod Adjustment and Rehabilitation Program, or NCARP, as it was called locally. It provided a weekly cash payment to out-of-work fish harvesters and plant workers while requiring their enrolment in training programs for work in other areas or accepting early retirement packages.

NCARP was then replaced by The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, known as TAGS, which tried to have fewer people reliant on the fishing industry.

Both programs remain etched in the memories of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and not in a good way. The retraining programs were inadequate, and many were demeaning. Some fish harvesters and plant workers did not have the classroom skills required to operate and benefit from this retraining. The training on offer often had no relevance to any work available in rural Newfoundland or Labrador or to the ages or relevant skill sets or interests. Any plan to offer training to a 50-year-old fisherman or a fish packer to be a software developer in a burgeoning IT sector or a hairdresser in rural Newfoundland or on the coast of Labrador isn’t worth a serious conversation.

And there were hundreds of people, in some cases thousands, who worked at individual fish plants throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. These were highly skilled people who were dedicated to their craft. Now they were being forced to retrain so they would qualify for a government handout. NCARP and TAGS — these are triggering words in Newfoundland and Labrador.

And now we are here again. Only this time, the decline of the targeted industry is due to government policy, not ecological or biomass-related effects. For too many of those who finished these programs, there were no practical uses for the retraining. The reason is simple: Even if the government invests in all the retraining in the world, if the jobs are not available to absorb the workforce, it is the worker and the community who pay the price.

Those communities that benefit from the well-paying jobs will also lose because people will not stick around for the next IT or hairdresser job. They will leave and go to where the work is. It has been like that for hundreds of years.

With Bill C-50, the government is embarking the whole country down the same path. We don’t know how many jobs will be available in a post-fossil-fuel economy. We don’t know when they will be available. We don’t know where they will be located. Colleagues, we are talking about people’s livelihoods here and the vitality of our communities. We don’t stay when there is nothing to do.

The failure to properly retrain workers following the cod moratorium of 1992 should serve as a warning to Canadians and a lesson for the federal government, a lesson the government is ignoring.

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

Just as important are the Indigenous communities who want to play a role in resource development. We have been told loudly and clearly that this is a critical part of true reconciliation, and I agree.

With well-paid jobs near Indigenous communities, the industry employs close to 14,000 Indigenous people directly in Canada’s oil and gas industry. This is in addition to ownership in the oil and gas service and supply sector, particularly in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. According to the 2021 census, the extractive resources sector and the oil and natural gas sector specifically provided the highest-paying average wages for Indigenous workers in Canada. Bill C-50 proposes to establish structures via the Employment Insurance program to remove these hard-fought and well-deserved gains. The petroleum industry has invested $1.4 billion in Indigenous construction businesses, $992 million for equipment services and maintenance and millions more in training that actually leads to the well-paying jobs that the sustainable jobs act wishes to eliminate.

Just two years ago, colleagues, 23 First Nations and Métis communities invested $1.1 billion to become part owners of seven Enbridge oil sands pipelines. It is the largest energy-related Indigenous partnership transaction in North America, with the potential to bring major changes to these communities. The words of Frog Lake First Nation Chief Greg Desjarlais described it clearly:

It’s going to allow us to send our kids to school. It’s going to allow us to send our people to treatment. It’s going to allow us to deal with the mental [health] crisis that we have in our communities, the anxiety of the young people. It’s going to allow us to improve the quality of life.

A year later, the new partnership is already bearing fruit. It gave the communities the freedom to invest how they see fit. According to Justin Bourque, President of Athabasca Indigenous Investments, some have used the funds to pay for more teachers and build social infrastructure in their communities. But more importantly, he sees it as a model for bringing Indigenous communities in as investment partners as the new standard across the country.

Well, guess what? Bill C-50 wants to stop that effort in its tracks. Like I have said publicly before, the Trudeau government needs to say yes to First Nations when they say they want to be a part of resource development. In fact, I wrote an article, published last week, on just that. Partnerships with the oil and gas sector have allowed Indigenous communities like Frog Lake First Nation and many others to improve their community while being stewards of the land. They have shown how a balance can be struck in protecting the land and giving back to their community and culture.

Bill C-50 threatens these newly formed partnerships and blocks future investment. Public dollars to retrain workers do not go as far as private dollars invested in our economy. They don’t even scratch the surface. The federal government needs to show the same level of respect to Indigenous communities who want to participate in resource development as to those who don’t. With Bill C-50, the scale gets tipped once again — and intentionally — on the side of those who don’t.

Colleagues, I recognize the threat and the reality of climate change. It’s not the first time you’ve heard me say that. The challenge is generational and global. All levels of government in our society will need to work together to meet these challenges for the betterment of Canada and for our long-term prosperity. In my quest to find an answer about the cost of the just transition to a net-zero economy, Minister Guilbeault’s officials told me in the Energy and Environment Committee — during another study we were doing — that it would cost $4 trillion. They later corrected this to $2 trillion but, really, any number in that stratosphere is the same.

Using this estimate, we would need to quadruple our current spending to cut emissions by 75% from current levels. A bill like Bill C-50 is designed to have the effect of scaring off private sector investments crucial to our emission reduction efforts. This is the track record of this government.

It’s also important to note that these projections only achieve 75% of the government’s goal to cut emissions to net zero. The author of the $2-trillion estimate study, RBC, says new technologies can bridge the gap. Who would invest in these new technologies? It would be predominantly the private sector, as it already does and will continue to do in the right economic environment.

Bill C-50 has the potential to deter these investments that we need for jobs but also the investments we need to move toward a net-zero economy.

Colleagues, the industry is committed to investing to protect the environment and to reduce GHGs. Canada is a leader in this field — not Russia, not Venezuela, not Nigeria and not Iran. Exactly the same can be said for workers’ rights and environmental mitigation and protection: Canada is the world leader.

To summarize, colleagues, I do not support Bill C-50 and the just transition ideology. The top-down approach and central planning of Bill C-50 will ultimately fail Canadians, as they did for Newfoundland and Labrador after the cod moratorium. It won’t be simply a moment of failure; it will be felt for generations in Canada while not having one iota of effect on global emissions.

Colleagues, this bill does nothing for the environment, nothing for workers, nothing for Canada’s communities and nothing for our friends and allies who desperately want and need our energy resources today. Let’s send this bill to the appropriate committees for further study, and let’s hear from the executive branch on how this ideology and path backward make any sense at any cost. Thank you, colleagues.