Bill C-50

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy

This enactment establishes an accountability, transparency and engagement framework 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. Accordingly, the enactment
(a) provides that the Governor in Council may designate a Minister for the purposes of the Act as well as specified Ministers;
(b) establishes a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to provide the Minister and the specified Ministers, through a process of social dialogue, with independent advice with respect to measures to foster the creation of sustainable jobs, measures to support workers, communities and regions in the shift to a net-zero economy and matters referred to it by the Minister;
(c) requires the tabling of a Sustainable Jobs Action Plan in each House of Parliament no later than 2026 and by the end of each subsequent period of five years;
(d) provides for the establishment of a Sustainable Jobs Secretariat to support the implementation of the Act; and
(e) provides for a review of the Act within ten years of its coming into force and by the end of each subsequent period of ten years.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will be able to add more during questions and comments. We will not be able to get through all the questions and comments, but we will do the best we can.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Natural Resources has the floor.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, what I really appreciated was the focus the member placed on the well-paying jobs that are going to be available to workers as we move toward a net-zero economy and building out the clean electrical grid.

In that speech, one of the points he raised was the need for certainty: We need to make sure there is certainty and transparency as to how things are happening and what the plan is, planning ahead for workers to make sure those well-paying jobs are there.

With this bill, there are proposed requirements for action plans to be tabled and for there to be advice from a partnership council. The members from the official opposition are raising points that would make radical changes to such policies as carbon pricing. Could the member elaborate on the importance of that kind of stability and on perhaps what he sees as the dangers to those well-paying jobs when he hears that?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, certainty is very important. That is certainly something we hear around the Standing Committee on Finance table. I have heard it around the Standing Committee on International Trade table as well. Investors are looking for a predictable public policy environment. When we get governments that suddenly pull the rug out from under clean energy investments, what they do is make it harder to attract private capital. It is frustrating in the case where we then have a party that turns around and says that the government cannot fund this transition all on its own and that we need private capital too. Why would it undermine the prerequisites for attracting private capital?

Certainty is important in another sense, because we need certainty for workers in this transition as well. That is why employment insurance reform is really important, and it is something we need to do with a mind to the energy transition, pension-bridging opportunities and training for workers. All these things have to be built into a plan. Again, this bill is not perfect, but it is the beginning of creating some certainty not only for international investors but also for workers about this transition, which is coming led by the market if not led by the government.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the House, I keep hearing the indignant pleas of my NDP friends, who are very committed to the fight against climate change, as they push the Liberal government to stop investing in fossil fuels and affirm that we must absolutely do more to fight against greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, when the time comes to take action, one of the few things we can do in the House to act against the government is to vote against it. In the last budget, budget 2023, there were still billions of dollars handed out to the oil industry, including for carbon capture, which we know does not work at all. My friends at the NDP voted in favour of that.

I would like my colleague to explain that to me.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that the NDP does not sit at the cabinet table. Our job is to criticize the government and try to negotiate with it. They do not agree with us on everything. Perpetual elections will not create the necessary conditions for dealing with the climate crisis, either. We are here to do our work. This includes criticizing the government, but perpetual electioneering is not the solution either.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member for Elmwood—Transcona brought up signals that the current government and governments around the world are sending. Five years ago, I was at a G20 meeting on energy. The subject was this transition that we are talking about today. Germany, Japan, Argentina and even China were talking about the need to move to renewables quickly, and Canada got up and said we built an oil pipeline and would like to build more natural gas pipelines. It was a real face-smacking moment on the world stage. Workers can see that too. They see this transition is happening. Could the member talk more about how we need to involve workers in this process?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is where that question of the three Ds comes in. Workers do know, as everyone can see it. We could not miss this summer that there are real problems beginning to happen as a result of climate change. They pose real threats to human life and safety, our property and our economy. We cannot get away from that.

What is on offer in political alternatives? There is a party that is offering the idea that we can just ignore it and maybe it will go away. Too often we have seen from the government a willingness just to say, “Yes, that is important, and we are going to get to it”, and then it just keeps kicking the can down the road. In the face of that, it is easy to despair and say, “What do we do?”

We are not seeing leadership from government. What we are starting to see is some leadership in the market and that is because, thankfully—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member will have to continue his questions and comments the next time this matter is before the House. I do apologize for having to interrupt him.

Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has, in the eight years I have been here, gone on about court decisions, yet we have seen in the last week how it has been completely slapped down by the Supreme Court for showing a flagrant disregard for provincial jurisdiction. It has no regard for how our Constitution is supposed to work as it relates to natural resources and provincial responsibility, yet it is bringing in time allocation to rush through aspects of its extreme anti-energy agenda, even at a time when the Supreme Court has clearly said it has overstepped.

Why will the government not take a pause and listen to not only parliamentarians, but also the Supreme Court instead of ramming through its unconstitutional anti-energy agenda?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, the pearl-clutching.

If the members on the other side had not moved concurrence, maybe we could have been debating this last night. However, they used procedural games to avoid debate, and here we are happy to take questions on a very important matter.

I would also take issue with the fact that the Supreme Court, in its opinion, did a slam dunk or that a fulsome 100% judgment was rendered from the other side. It did not. It actually gave a very thoughtful opinion on where the federal government and the provincial governments should work together on matters of jurisdiction.

I can say that we took it, as we should, very seriously and will be looking at amendments we can making in order to make sure it complies with the rendering that came from the Supreme Court last week.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, there seems to be two block parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the block everything party. That party is the Conservatives, who block every piece of legislation and refuse to move them forward. They blocked dental care. They blocked everything that provides supports for Canadians.

In this case, of course, I guess there is some weird logic, because they hate clean energy. We have certainly seen that in Alberta where Danielle Smith has ripped up the clean energy sector, costing thousands of jobs. Therefore, legislation that actually helps to support that clean energy sector, creates new jobs for workers and also ensures that workers have a seat at the table is anathema to the Conservatives. Of course, they love bankers and CEOs, but they seem to hate workers, seniors and anybody who really benefits.

Through you to my colleague, is that really why the Conservatives, yet again, have blocked this type of legislation that actually benefits workers and Canadians?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into the psychology of the Conservative Party. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for the question, but I will refuse the attempt.

Let me just say this. I would like to comment on his last point, if I could, as that is really what is at the heart of what we are proposing to do here.

Energy workers, oil and gas workers, should not just have a seat at the table, but should be leading that table. The problem is that for far too long concurrent governments, and I would argue ours, have left them out of the debate. They need to not just be a part of that debate, but to lead it.

I have skin in the game. My constituents are oil and gas workers. We have built a very proud offshore industry off the coast of Newfoundland. When they hear talk about change, tumult, and things that are exaggerated on social media like there is some master plan that is being made up in some star chamber, they get nervous necessarily. What we are saying with this legislation is that we are putting them at the table as decisions are made to best prepare them for a future that is happening now.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was supposed to rise today to debate Bill C‑50, an important bill that, in fact, was originally to have been named the “just transition act”. For reasons unknown to me, the government seems to be afraid of using this expression, even though it is recognized internationally. It was created by the unions and approved by the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and even the European Union. Everyone in the transition, biodiversity protection and other fields uses the expression.

We have questions. The Bloc Québécois has had only one opportunity to speak, and here we are on day two of the debate. Why is the government unwilling to let us debate Bill C‑50?