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.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize for the length at which I'm dealing with this issue. It's just that it is crucial to the livelihoods of the people that I represent, to my relatives and my family members in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario. I know each and every member of Parliament here takes that seriously for their own constituents, and also for all Canadians.

It might seem to Charlie that this is irrelevant, but it's not. I'll explain why.

We are talking about the order and the scheduling as Marc had pointed out to me. We are talking about the scheduling that will dictate the order by which we do our duties as members of Parliament and assess the bills that must take precedence over our already existing work.

The reason we are saying Bill C-69 must be dealt with urgently.... It's, frankly, by the Prime Minister and the NDP‑Liberals, and it's shocking that this hasn't actually happened in a tangible way yet, but what else is new. They're now going to add more uncertainty, and a lack of clarity.

I'm also talking about Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, because that's germane to this exact motion that has been dropped on the table here, and it is the content of the scheduling that we are discussing. Another reason that Bill C-69 is so germane to the legislation that's coming to this committee—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been listening very closely, but we are debating Bill C‑50 and Bill C‑49. We're not debating Bill C‑69. We have a motion before us, and we have to address that motion. If Ms. Stubbs wants to bring another motion, and we finish the legislative agenda, we can actually deal with that, and see what we can do, but right now, she has diverted from the topic at hand. Either she moves on and lets another member speak or she speaks to the motion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. I certainly will.

I'm sorry that it's lengthy. I'm trying to map out for all Canadians why it's important we do the first things first, and get this right, but also why it is so important to every single Canadian in every single province and region that we do this.

My colleague, Marc, and I sat together on this very committee between 2015 and 2019 when I was in my first term. He was also in his first term. During that time, I was also the vice-chair. It happened at that time under different leaders, and I was also the shadow minister for natural resources.

I remember well the introduction and the debates on Bill C‑69. Of course, the fact is that bill was announced in a dual way by both the former environment and natural resources ministers involved. Since the Liberals also want to...I know Charlie does, since the NDP‑Liberals want to assess Bill C‑50 through this committee, and I certainly also want to do that, but the trouble with a caution about Bill C‑69 being environment is that, of course, Bill C‑50, the just transition—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He's claiming to have a motion when I have the floor.

Chair, if you will allow me to continue, because I am here to do my job as a parliamentarian to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and the need for us to respond to the—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleague for explaining that to me. You could see, even as you were explaining it, how easy it is to mess those up, so I appreciate that advice and that friendly and constructive criticism of what I've said here. I can certainly tell you one thing, though. The people of Lakeland definitely didn't send me here to worry too much about our navel-gazing, inside baseball or fancy parliamentary procedures. They just want me to be here to fight for their livelihoods and for their communities, and I think all Canadians do as well.

Chair, as I was saying, these are the reasons our position remains the same. Regarding the order when we are discussing these bills coming to committee and the precedence they must take, it is blatantly and blindingly obvious that Bill C-49 must be first because the Atlantic premiers want it, and then Bill C-50 must be after that. We cannot agree to timelines. We cannot agree to clause-by-clause. We can't presuppose how this is all going to unfold, because Canadians must be heard.

Of course, the most pressing and most urgent and biggest issue this committee ought to be dealing with and that, certainly, the government should have addressed by now.... Imagine the outcry if a Conservative government had rammed through a cornerstone, significant, wide-ranging, sweeping bill that was passed and was then on the books and then the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada said, “Hang on a second. The vast majority of this is largely unconstitutional.” I can't imagine. Well, I think we all can. Of course, the most urgent issue of all for the Prime Minister—but since he won't do it, I guess we have to try to deal with it here in committee—is to deal with this decision on Bill C-69 and to fix the bill and fix all the problems that Conservatives warned about, as did all the provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents and municipalities—all of them—when it was leaving the House of Commons.

Then, of course, Alberta pursued a court case against Bill C-69 primarily focusing on jurisdictional division—a warning Conservatives gave on Bill C-69 would become a problem—but, importantly, Alberta was supported by seven other provinces through this charge. The Alberta court said, “Yes, Alberta, you're right. This thing is unconstitutional. Just as Conservative official opposition members said when it was in debate and just as thousands of Canadians spoke out against five years ago, this thing is unconstitutional.” The Prime Minister immediately said he would appeal it to the Supreme Court. What happened a couple of weeks ago was that the Supreme Court said, “Yes, Justin Trudeau, you're wrong, and these seven provinces are right. Get this thing fixed.”

On Friday, the Minister of Environment said he guessed you guys were going to get around to that in the next couple of months, but what's terrifying is that what he said he would do would be to take the approach of these interim guiding principles. Well, I would remind everyone that's exactly what they did in our first term when the Liberals froze all of the existing major projects across all aspects of natural resources development. They froze all of those applications for two years, threw the economy and the sector into utter uncertainty, disarray, lack of clarity and, frankly, fear. The consequence of that was, over the years, losses of literally billions of dollars in projects that are especially important in remote, rural, indigenous and low-income communities.

I'm getting there, Charlie.

This is how important this issue is. This was all ignored, and the Supreme Court has now said it's a big deal. Now the environment minister is saying, “We'll get around to it in a few months, but right now, we're going to do these interim guiding principles,” but that's what happened the first time. It caused chaos for two years, an absolute collapse in oil and gas investment, collapses in all that investment in clean tech that's done in that sector, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs and, of course, as you know, particular harm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, because of the importance of the leading private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and still to this day despite all the hostility and anti-energy, anti-development, anti-private sector policy, it still remains Canada's top export. It underpins the entire Canadian economy, including, obviously, the TSX, the importance of energy stocks there.

People on Bay Street and people in Toronto also need to be worried about their jobs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As my colleague has pointed out, of course this is a new motion, an attempt to ram through scheduling, complete with dates and timelines. It presupposes the number of Canadians who must be heard and how long that will take on two bills. Of course, as we explained before, this is before all of those details are worked out, like witnesses, and until we hear from every Canadian who would be impacted by these various bills.

In the case of Bill C-49, people with many different livelihoods, and those impacted provincial governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland do of course want this regulatory framework. That's one reason why, of course, this should come first, including coming before Bill C-50, including the fact that it was introduced, time allocated and passed at second reading, all before Bill C-50.

Also regarding Bill C-50, I am aware that this committee did study it. I think I came into the committee on the back end of that. Given the importance, significance, and the scope and scale of Bill C-50, this is at once a plan to plan jobs and skills training, but it is actually about the fundamental economic restructuring to a top-down, central, five-year planning approach that will immediately destroy 170,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector. This will impact the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians otherwise, and cascade through the entire economy, which is what the internal documents of the NDP-Liberal government show.

Of course, years ago we warned on the carbon tax that the same thing would happen.

These bills are extremely significant, and Conservatives can't possibly support this before we have had a discussion with all of the Canadians, who must be heard from on all of these bills. We can't ram through a scheduling motion right now that is full of dates.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I will begin from the top. As someone who has spent my career in opposition, I'm well used to committees having their work schedule thrown out of whack by legislation, which bumps other considerations.

We have two pieces of legislation that have been referred to us over the last two weeks, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we get to them quickly.

In terms of Bill C-50, we had 26 meetings with 64 witnesses in the preparatory study that led up to the legislation. If you add the emissions cap study, that was 21 meetings and 53 witnesses. The emissions reduction fund was nine meetings with 16 witnesses. On energy issues, that totals over 133 witnesses, 56 meetings, over 112 hours of meeting and analysis, so I think we are all very well placed to deal with Bill C-50.

I'm willing to bring forward our witnesses but I do believe that at the end of the day we have to move this because what we learned over many months of studying this is that the world is moving dramatically fast past us in terms of a clean energy portfolio. Half the world is now past peak fossil fuel generation for power. It is going to be peak CO2 emissions in 2023 and then start to dramatically put down. In 2022, imagine this: The investment in clean tech matched pretty much dollar for dollar oil, gas and coal, and that was for the first time. Within less than a year, clean-tech investments have almost doubled that of oil, gas and coal.

If we don't move with a sense of urgency, we are going to be left behind. We cannot allow the sabotage to the Canadian economy, what Danielle Smith has done to the Alberta economy. The Americans are moving dramatically fast. The Chinese are moving. The Europeans are moving. We need to be competitive or we are going to lose out, so the longer we dither and delay and obfuscate, the more Canadian workers are going to lose out.

We've been hearing from Canadian workers again and again. They want this plan in place. There is a sense of urgency that we need to get moving on.

I would agree with my colleagues to move to Bill C-50 first, then move to Bill C-49, which is important. We see massive investments from the Biden administration on offshore Atlantic. We need to be able to compete or we're going to lose out.

I would say that at this point we have an obligation to the Canadian people. We have an obligation to workers and people who are expecting us to deliver. We have an obligation to start setting the stage for the future Canadian economy because this global capital movement of investment is moving and either Canada is going to be at the game or we're going to be left out, and we can't afford that.

I am ready to move on this. I'm ready to sit down and get the work done as soon as we can and get these bills passed. The New Democrats will be there. We will be bringing our witnesses. We'll be bringing our amendments and we're ready to get this job done.

Thank you.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday to everyone back in Ottawa and back to work for the constituents and residents of your respective ridings.

Mr. Chair, I want to start this morning by moving a scheduling motion as a basis to begin our committee discussion today. I believe we forwarded the motion to the clerk, who will forward it on to all the honourable and esteemed members who sit on this committee.

I move:

That given 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 Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been both referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 with the following schedule:

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50, on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday November 8, 2023;

b) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on C-49 on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday December 6, 2023;

c) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-50 by 12pm on Friday November 3, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

d) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12pm on Friday November 10, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

e) That the Chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources available, for up to three hours each;

f) That the Chair issue press releases for C-50 and C-49 inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;

g) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-50 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-50 is scheduled;

h) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-49 is scheduled; and

i) That the Chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for C-50 and C-49 in advance of the beginning of their respective clause-by-clause considerations, but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings for each, and that the Members of the Committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the Committee, submit to the Clerk all of their proposed amendments to C-50 and C-49 no later than 5pm on the respective days established by the Chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to Members.

Mr. Chair, the committee clerk should be distributing this motion now in both official languages, French and English.

I would add that we've been waiting for the sustainable jobs legislation and amendments to the Atlantic accord acts for some time, given that they were both introduced before the summer.

On Bill C-50 specifically, our study on the topic has already made this committee well acquainted with the subject matter. Now that Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 have both been referred to this committee, it is our obligation as parliamentarians and members of this committee to move forward with examining them. That is our job. Legislation has always been considered a committee priority. The sustainable jobs act is a brief 11 pages. It is self-explanatory, and the committee is well acquainted with the subject matter. Labour groups are calling for its consideration.

Bill C-49 is a much larger bill, and a very important bill that the governments of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are calling on us to advance. It is in the interests of their provinces and our country.

This motion lays out a reasonable timeline to begin consideration of both bills concurrently and to submit witness lists for both bills for the respective public panel hearings.

It would have the minister appearing on Bill C-50 first, perhaps even this week if we can vote on the motion today, and Bill C-49 in the coming weeks. As mentioned, we believe this motion lays out a very reasonable and pragmatic timeline for consideration of both bills, but if members want a little additional flexibility, we are certainly prepared to consider amendments today.

It includes at least four public hearings on Bill C-50 and at least four public hearings on Bill C-49, for a total, if we have two-hour meetings, of 16 hours, and three-hour meetings in addition to. It calls for additional time to be added to scheduled meetings so we can facilitate the inclusion of even more meetings.

At a minimum, we'd be looking at a month or more of public hearings, which will allow for substantial witness participation. It allows time for whatever is required for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 for the consideration of amendments. It allows for this committee to strenuously and judiciously analyze both bills.

Colleagues, I hope we can allow for a vote on this matter today so that we can move forward on the business of the House of Commons, the business of our residents and the business of all Canadians with regard to this very important committee and the matters that have been referred to this committee.

I thank everyone for listening to me on this Monday morning. I look forward to hearing everybody's feedback and hopefully moving forward as expeditiously and collaboratively as ever.

Thank you, Chair.

[Diana Sarosi, Director, Policy and Campaigns, Oxfam-Québec]

The soaring cost of living is now a predominant conversation topic among Canadians. Low-income Canadians in particular struggle with a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis, yet Canada’s biggest corporations are reaping record level profits and not paying their fair share of taxes. In 2021, corporations enjoyed their lowest ever recorded income tax rate, despite having their third-highest recorded profit rate, thanks, in part, to over $100 billion in federal pandemic support. Canadian corporations pay so little tax that less than one week of revenues covered all their income taxes for the entire year in 2022.

Meanwhile, public services that benefit all Canadians, such as health care, disability care, long-term care, education and public transport, remain dramatically underfunded. Also, a lot of the public services, especially in the care sector, are disproportionately done by women. In Canada, care workers make up nearly one-fifth of the total employed labour force, yet the care sector is characterized by low wages, low status and poor working conditions, especially for racialized women. The sector is left with a recruitment and retention crisis due to high levels of burnout.

Budget 2024 should respond to our current economic crisis by investing in the people who keep our society strong and resilient. Expanding the care economy and the public and emergency services on which Canadians depend should be a core priority.

Establishing a national care economy commission can identify current gaps, recommend solutions and best practices, and direct federal investments in a strategic manner.

To pay for the essential services on which we all depend, the federal government should raise new public revenues by implementing a wealth tax on the super rich and windfall taxes on large corporations that are reaping super profits.

The government should coordinate its investments in the care economy with its sustainable jobs agenda. A just energy transition presents a unique opportunity and avenue to promote gender equality and inclusiveness in the world of work. The sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, mentions “the creation of employment opportunities for groups under-represented in the labour market, including women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, Black and other racialized individuals, 2SLGBTQI+ and other equity-seeking groups”.

This will require significant investments and a workforce strategy that explicitly recognizes care infrastructure as part of Canada's climate resilience. Canada's care strategy and climate action must come together in the sustainable jobs agenda.

To conclude, Canada's next budget should make clear that a more green, stable and fair world would benefit all Canadians.

Thank you.

The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Daniel Cloutier, Québec Director, Unifor Québec]

Good morning. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our point of view on the topic of this study.

Unifor members are active in every economic sector, including aerospace, education, fisheries and food, in addition to a number of industry sectors that are facing very rapid transformations in terms of decarbonization and biodiversity protection efforts. From natural resources to manufacturing, every sector is affected. Whether we are talking about vehicle and bus manufacturing, aluminum, energy, aerospace, forestry, and a host of other fields, our members are leading the way.

Major transformations are under way. While these create historic opportunities, they also raise crucial issues for the future of workers. Will the same number of workers be needed for the production of electric vehicles, which have far fewer parts than today's vehicles? With the transformation of aluminum manufacturing technology, will the same number of workers be needed when anodes need replacing only every 30 months rather than 30 days? Will the cost of decarbonization initiatives be taken into consideration for our industries when they have to compete with products from countries that are less environmentally conscious? Will some border procedures be adjusted? Will the new green low-carbon economy result in good, well-paying jobs for workers, and enable them to exercise their right of association?

Unifor firmly supports the transition to clean energy. It is nevertheless very vigilant about the risk that this transformation might become a pretext for doing away with good union jobs. We shouldn't have to choose between the creation of vulnerable new jobs in a “green” economy on the one hand, and the decent retirement provisions, health and safety benefits and years of skills we have all fought so hard to acquire.

The fact is that the transition is not being deployed everywhere in the same way or at the same speed. That's why support mechanisms have to be flexible and adapted to the circumstances.

Unifor believes in a comprehensive approach tied to compensatory and transformative measures. Although support measures may be compensatory and designed to protect things like income security or facilitating requalification, we think that in most instances, support measures will be needed to assist with the transformation of existing activities and jobs and to help workplaces make the transition to decarbonization.

This requires an enormous effort that is going to increase over the coming decades. To meet the challenge, we need a broad and coherent industrial strategy. We need intelligent investment and targeted support measures for workers in key sectors. We have seen how the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act was a game changer in that country and everywhere else. According to estimates by the Climate Power non-governmental organization and others, approximately 300 clean energy projects in more than 40 American states led to the creation of no less than 170,000 jobs. That's impressive.

Canada is not being left behind. In the most recent federal budget, nearly $80 billion has been allocated to similar incentives. From Volkswagen to Northvolt, we can see that some efforts have yielded results. Nevertheless, we believe that these substantial investments of public funds need to have conditions attached.

Last January, during the consultation on clean energy and hydrogen credits, Unifor gave some concrete illustrations of the methods we advocate. One example was the introduction of a salary floor, a requirement for a 10% to 15% percentage of apprentices to offset the labour shortage and ensure the transfer of skills, the need to provide credits for activities other than those linked to the construction of new projects, such as production, in addition to ensuring the neutrality of recipient companies during unionization activities.

To conclude, I wish to underscore just how grateful we are for the language used by the federal government in its last budget. I am speaking more specifically here about the explicit reference to the role of unions as stakeholders in sustainable job initiatives.

Unifor believes that a fair transition must be planned, fuelled by social dialogue, and in particular that it should involve unions. Through the creation of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, Bill C‑50 gives us an opportunity to walk the talk. To succeed, however, the current wording needs specifically to require that one-third of the seats on the council be for union organizations. It's not too late to get things right and to improve the bill.

Thank you for your attention. I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 had phenomenal support, not only from the House of Commons but also from the premiers in Atlantic Canada. It was all about renewable energy and future clean, green jobs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of potential jobs from there to Bill C-50, and we recognize the future. There is a need to develop, promote and encourage those green jobs. However, the Conservatives, as they voted against Bill C-49, are now going to be voting against Bill C-50.

The member often makes reference to climate change deniers. Why does he feel the Conservatives are challenging these good, futuristic middle-class jobs that are going to be there today and tomorrow?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe we are talking about federal legislation and Bill C-50. The member keeps going off track, referring to provincial legislation in a province he does not live in, a province his party does not care about.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague who is celebrating her eight anniversary as a member of Parliament here in the House of Commons today. I wish her a happy anniversary and to the rest of us too.

In answer to the specific question that my colleague asked, I would answer that I only spoke about the environment and that I am very proud of that. I am a bit surprised to hear my colleague from Repentigny say that I did not speak about Bill C‑50, when, on the contrary, I made the focus of my speech the environment, a subject that is very dear to her heart.

What the Conservatives want is to help Quebec in its development. We understand Quebec, and that is why we are strongly opposed to the law stemming from Bill C‑69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric projects. I will not hide the fact that we are in favour of these developments and that we want them to move forward as quickly as possible.

We need to regain the momentum that we had in the 1950s when we tripled the infrastructure at the Beauharnois power plant, built the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations and gave the green light to the fantastic Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project and the Carillon generating station. In the 1950s, Quebec was really big on creating hydroelectric dams. Let us hope that we can see that again one day in Quebec.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am starting to wonder if I am in the right debate. I thought we were supposed to be talking about Bill C‑50.

I will bring my colleague back to Bill C‑50. Since he is a member from Quebec, he knows full well that there exists in that province the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which is a Quebec-Ottawa agreement on skills training. There is no mention of it in Bill C‑50. No one even thought of the fact that this agreement exists.

I also want to come back to the Conservatives under Harper. In 2013, the federal budget introduced the Canada job grant. It was the centrepiece of the budget. Quebec was against it. At the time, Ms. Maltais called the Conservatives to make them understand that Quebec already had something like that.

I would like my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent to tell me how the two major parties in this country do not even know what is happening in Quebec.