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, 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, 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.

The House resumed from September 29 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.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-50.

I am never surprised when I see the Conservative tactics, whether it is on Bill C-50 or Bill C-49. However, Canadians are telling us, as parliamentarians, what issues are important to them, one being jobs.

Jobs are so critically important. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know what the Canadian and provincial governments are putting into place so that we have good middle-class jobs well into the future.

Whether it was Bill C-49 or now Bill C-50, the Government of Canada, in co-operation, in good part, with other parties, although not the Conservative Party, has been able to get important legislation through.

As someone said to me, the word that comes to mind when we think of the Conservative Party nowadays, especially if one reflects on its behaviour and the types of things it does to prevent legislation like this from passing, is “reckless”.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not know where it is going. Canadians would be taking a chance, very much a risk, with the Conservative Party today, because it is so reckless in the policies and decisions it makes. We seem to see that more often. The longer the Conservative leader, with the Conservative caucus, focuses on making these policy decisions, people should be concerned. They should be concerned about those middle-class jobs and where the Conservative Party wants to take the country.

Another issue is the environment. This legislation deals specifically with the environment and the need for us to be in a position to build a healthy, strong, net-zero economy, something with which most parties in the chamber are in sync. They understand that this is also a priority of Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the global environment and what is taking place in Canada today.

The number of forest fires, storms and floods have a direct correlation to our environment. Canadians are aware of that. The government brought forward legislation a few years back on targets to get us to net zero. I believe Canadians can get behind this type of legislation and support it.

Today, Bill C-50 not only talks about that net-zero economy of the future; it also talks about the issue of jobs and transition, ensuring that we have strong healthy middle-class jobs well into the future. Clean energy is being looked at in a very serious way around the world today.

Where is the Conservative Party? I made reference to the word “reckless” and we should maybe emphasize that fact. At the end of the day, we saw where the Conservative Party was when it voted against the Atlantic accord.

[An hon. member]

Because it is unconstitutional.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they do not know what they are talking about. Liberal Atlantic caucus members stood up one after—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. Someday I will get back to my Nova Scotia riding in West Nova.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious.

Let us take a look at Bill C-49. The two bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, are fairly close with respect to the environment and jobs.

Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment.

Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading.

Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading.

We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate.

Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.