On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pate, for the 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.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, if 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, is adopted at second reading:

1.it stand referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology;

2.the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources be authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill; and

3.during its consideration of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to take into account any public document or evidence received by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources during its study of the subject matter of the bill, as well as any report from that latter committee on the subject matter of the bill.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-355, An Act to prohibit the export by air of horses for slaughter and to make related amendments to certain Acts.

(Bill read first time.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, “Keep the jobs. Cut the carbon. Build the future.” This is the slogan of Blue Green Canada, a membership organization comprising labour, environmental and think tank organizations.

Colleagues, “Keep the jobs. Cut the carbon. Build the future.” That is, in essence, the purpose 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 — the economy of the future of Canada and the world.

While we cut the carbon and build our future net-zero emissions economy, we must ensure we have good-quality jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Colleagues, five years ago, the government committed to introducing legislation to support workers while unlocking economic opportunities. In February 2023, the government released an interim Sustainable Jobs Plan for 2023 to 2025. That plan outlined 10 actions, including the commitment to introduce this legislation.

This legislation aligns with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and specifically with a number of its Sustainable Development Goals, including Goal 7, on affordable and clean energy; Goal 8, on decent work and economic growth; Goal 9, on industry, innovation and infrastructure; Goal 11, on sustainable cities and communities; and Goal 13, on climate action.

Senator Yussuff, the eminently qualified sponsor of Bill C-50, has explained the background of the bill, highlighted its key elements and cited support for Bill C-50 from various quarters. I will remind you of a few points he made; it has been a little while.

The bill is fundamentally about workers — protecting their rights and interests, supporting their families and enabling their communities to grow.

Climate change is causing economic change. Change can be good or devastating. Recognizing change and having the will and means to prepare our economy and those who work in it to embrace that change is of fundamental importance.

Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, articulates a number of guiding principles.

It establishes a sustainable jobs partnership council with representation from labour, industry, Indigenous communities, environmental organizations and other experts. It will designate ministers responsible for planning and implementation. It will create a sustainable jobs secretariat to assist and coordinate federal actions and requires updated action plans every five years.

As Canada works hard to align its workforce policy with its climate policy, this act will ensure workers have a seat and voice at the table.

Senator Bellemare, our in-house economist, spoke at second reading as well, agreeing with the fundamental principles of Bill C-50 and saying that it is important to facilitate a labour market transition. However, she did raise questions about some of the details in the bill. As she said, “. . . the devil is in the details.”

She questioned whether Bill C-50 will allow a labour market transition plan to be developed and implemented within a reasonable time frame and with noticeable results in terms of sustainable jobs.

Senator Bellemare reminded us that the Employment Insurance, or EI, system in Canada remains the primary source of funding for public interventions in the labour market.

She also highlighted important studies on the impact of the green transition on the labour market, which show that the success of these plans depends heavily on the workforce’s ability to carry them out. She cited a Canadian Chamber of Commerce report, which stated:

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.

Senator Bellemare said the green transition will create new jobs and transform existing ones. She cautioned that Canada’s economy is affected by the accelerating changes in climate and technology, including AI and demographics.

Skills upgrading will play a vital role in workforce development in Canada, and EI will be one of the major funding sources.

Given this, Senator Bellemare suggests that EI commissioners sit on the sustainable jobs partnership council and that those with the labour and industry seats on the council be appointed to represent the most representative workers’ and employers’ associations rather than on an individual or personal basis.

She ended her second reading speech with a call for urgency.

Colleagues, on this matter of urgency and on the matter of the context of this labour transition, I wanted to share with you some points relevant to our debate on the Canadian sustainable jobs act made by panellists at our recent Senators for Climate Solutions session. It was entitled “Keeping the Lights On, Ensuring Energy Security and Stability During the Transition to Net Zero and Beyond.”

I will quote excerpts from the presentations of two panellists, Dr. Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, and Mr. Mathieu Johnson, Vice President for Strategy and Development at Hydro-Québec.

Dr. Birol provided a snapshot of some of the indicators and the trends of the global transition to net-zero emissions. He said:

Energy is at the heart of the climate debate because more than 80% of the emissions causing climate change come from the energy sector, which means without fixing the problem in the energy sector, we have zero chance to reach our climate goals.

The most important sector in energy use is electricity generation. In 2023, of all power plants built in the world in that year, 85% were renewable, with about 5% nuclear and 10% powered by fossil fuels.

As for transportation, only 4 years ago, 1 in 25 cars sold in the world was electric. This year, it is expected that one out of five cars sold will be electric. In China, almost every second car sold today is electric.

Dr. Birol continued:

Our numbers show that this year, the total energy investments in oil and gas, renewables, nuclear, et cetera are about US$3 trillion. Of this, US$1 trillion is for fossil fuels, and US$2 trillion is for clean energy investments — with clean energy investments doubling in the last 10 years.

I notice a trend here.

Dr. Birol says there are three reasons for that:

One is simple economics — renewables are now cheaper compared to fossil fuel alternatives. Solar is the cheapest source of electricity generated in most of the world.

The second reason is energy security. Many governments . . . understand that clean energy is not just good for the environment . . . . Since it is usually generated locally, reliance on other countries —

— I will not name them —

— will be reduced, thus resulting in greater energy security.

The third reason for clean energy investment and fast clean energy transitions is industrial policy. Today when you look at clean energy manufacturing — solar panels, windmills, batteries, electrolyzers for hydrogen — there is one country dominating: China. This is not necessarily driven by climate policies, but by China’s industrial policy.

Dr. Birol illustrated how quickly the transition is moving and how industrial policy and global climate policy have come together.

Our panel discussion also looked at the real-world case of Hydro-Québec, the fourth-largest hydro producer in the world. Vice President Mathieu Johnson spoke of the scale and scope of the challenge his company faces in this transition.

I will share a few key excerpts. He said:

I’ll start by sharing with you what is keeping us up at night. Historically, what utilities have been doing when they do forecasts is they ask themselves what is going to happen by 2050 and then they do an action plan according to what they think is in their crystal ball. We at Hydro-Québec used to do that. But if we take this approach, we will not get to carbon neutrality by 2050 because we are asking ourselves the wrong question. It is not what is going to happen, but rather what needs to happen by 2050 in order to meet the targets that we set as a society, starting with the outcome and do the reverse engineering to identify what actions we need today. It might change. There is a lot of disruption. There are new technologies, so the plan will evolve.

We need to double the electricity produced in Quebec in order to be carbon neutral by 2050. We are going to have to build the same capacity in the next 25 years that it took us 80 years to build previously. That is the scale of the challenge.

There will be new hydro, and also we are going to rely on wind power in Quebec. Just in the next 10 years, we will need to cover an area equivalent to 15 times the area of the Island of Montreal with wind turbines. It is enormous. To connect the power to the consumer, we will require 5,000 new kilometres of transmission lines.

Currently, we’ve been investing on average $4 billion a year on capital expenditures. For the next 10 years, Hydro-Québec will have to invest over $150 billion on capital expenditures.

The biggest challenge we —

— in this case Hydro-Québec —

— have is the workforce. If we don’t have the workers, we will not be able to spend all that money to build new assets in order to electrify. Even at our current rate of annual capital expenditure, we are experiencing serious labour shortages.

We estimate that we will need 35,000 employees just to work on our projects in Quebec over the next 10 years — at peak, it is going to be 20% of the current construction workforce that we have in Quebec.

We need to change the way we do things.

The recipe that we have been using for the last 80 years cannot be the recipe for success for the next 25 years.

Mr. Johnson particularly stressed the importance of forging a completely new kind of relationship with Indigenous partners.

The urgency that Senator Bellemare spoke of becomes immediately real when we listen to Hydro-Québec’s Vice President Mathieu Johnson’s telling of the scope, scale and pace of the challenges that this important utility faces. Dr. Birol echoed the same scope, scale and pace points on a global level.

Colleagues, Canada cannot afford to miss this boat. We even have a chance to captain some new boats in this significant and historic industrial and labour transition to a net-zero future.

Many countries are already further down the road — or should I say “stream,” to keep with the boat reference — in their efforts to keep the jobs, cut the carbon and build the future.

Honourable colleagues, let’s move Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, to committee for thorough study. Canadian workers need it. Canadian industry needs it. Our communities and regions need it.

Colleagues, Bill C-50 is one essential component of our plans to ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for generations to come here in Canada and globally. Let’s move it forward without delay.

Thank you, wela’lioq.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the Senate of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator White, debate adjourned.)

(At 11:34 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dasko, for the second reading of Bill S-279, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (data on registered charities).

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 9, 2024, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, introduced in the House of Commons on May 19, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto;

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 13, 2024; and

That the committee be authorized to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, provided that it then be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting following the one on which the depositing is recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 172, which seeks to authorize the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs to conduct a pre-study of Bill C-20. This bill would create a new public complaints and review commission for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.

The bill would significantly strengthen independent oversight and the handling of complaints for the RCMP by establishing clear deadlines, reporting requirements, including disaggregated data, and sanctions if the review procedure is not followed. The bill would also create the first independent complaints and review process for the CBSA.

[English]

Bill C-20 would fill a long-standing, glaring gap in our law enforcement landscape, finally providing genuine, independent recourse to people who feel they’ve been wronged by a border official.

Many senators will be aware of how long this chamber has been clamouring for such a mechanism. It was notably recommended by a report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs in 2015, and it was the subject of a bill proposed by former senator Wilfred Moore, first in 2014 and again in 2016.

In 2017, former Clerk of the Privy Council Mel Cappe wrote a report for Public Safety Canada analyzing the options and considerations with regard to the establishment of a review body for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. One of his main recommendations was that a single agency cover both the CBSA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP.

In keeping with that recommendation, the government introduced the former Bill C-98 in 2019. That bill was adopted by the other place in June of that year, but died on the Order Paper in the Senate.

After the 2019 election, the government reintroduced the legislation, but that bill was sidelined when COVID-19 hit and everyone’s priority became dealing with the pandemic.

In March 2022, when then Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino was here for Question Period, Senator Cordy highlighted some of this history, including the work of former Senator Moore. She asked when Parliament would, “. . . finally achieve what I think is an extremely important policy?”

The beginnings of an answer came two months later in May 2022 when the government introduced its legislation a third time. The new version was amended — and I would argue improved — in several ways, notably to strengthen review mechanisms for the RCMP and to require reporting of disaggregated demographic and race-based data. It’s that bill — Bill C-20 — that is the subject of this motion.

Our colleagues in the other place have completed committee study of Bill C-20, and are currently debating it at report stage. It seems on track to get to us in June, meaning that five years since senators last had a bill before us to establish independent review for the CBSA, we will finally have another opportunity to achieve this long-standing objective. I think we all understand that if we wait until we receive the legislation to start studying it, our odds of passing it before the summer would be low.

My motion, therefore, proposes that the National Security Committee begin a pre-study now. That would give us the best chance of passing Bill C-20 before we rise for the summer break.

Colleagues, this leads to the natural and legitimate question of why we shouldn’t just wait to deal with Bill C-20 in the fall. I think the answer to that is twofold and relates firstly to the substance of the bill and secondly to the history of this file.

[Translation]

The substance of this bill concerns basic rights and freedoms, but especially, CBSA’s authority to infringe on them with relatively little accountability. Colleagues, more than six million people enter Canada every month. In some months, that number doubles. These millions of people from across Canada and around the world interact with a border officer without the protection of any kind of independent monitoring or complaint mechanism.

Most of these interactions occur without incident and most officers are competent professionals. Travellers arriving at the border, however, are in a vulnerable position. They necessarily relinquish some of their privacy and mobility rights to an officer who wields a great deal of power under the circumstances. Travellers who feel mistreated need a better option than to take their complaints to the CBSA itself, or go to court.

[English]

A review mechanism is needed to help protect the many millions of travellers who submit to questioning and examination when seeking entry into Canada. There are also thousands of people deported or detained by CBSA every year, and these are individuals even more vulnerable than travellers at the border. Some of their most fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement and the freedom to be in Canada, are largely in the hands of the CBSA.

Every day that goes by without adopting Bill C-20 is another day that people on the vulnerable end of this power imbalance have nobody to complain to about mistreatment or discrimination other than the CBSA itself.

On the one hand, we could say that this issue has existed for years; what’s another few months? On the other hand, given the chance to fix a long-standing problem involving fundamental rights and freedoms, we could choose to simply fix it now.

This brings me to the history of efforts to establish an independent accountability mechanism for the CBSA. The CBSA was created in 2003. In the 20 years since, calls for independent oversight have come from many quarters.

As I mentioned at the beginning of these remarks, those calls have often come from the Senate of Canada. Members of this chamber have made recommendations and proposed legislation in this regard more than once.

[Translation]

However, such calls have also come from experts and lobby groups that, for years, have been asking Parliament to address this issue as a matter of urgency. Indeed, implementing independent oversight for the CBSA without delay was a recurring theme in testimony and briefs to the committee studying Bill C-20 in the other place. Amnesty International wrote, “Amnesty welcomes the introduction of Bill C-20” and noted that “independent oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency” is “long overdue.”

The Canadian Council for Refugees wrote, “we welcome this bill as a long overdue measure.”

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers wrote, “The establishment of an independent oversight mechanism for the CBSA is desperately needed and long overdue.”

[English]

The Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne declared his support for Bill C-20, noting that he also supported the government’s first attempt to get this done five years ago. The National Council of Canadian Muslims told the committee that:

. . . one of our key battles over the last two decades has been in calling for oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency.

In other words, many people have been pushing for a long time to make this happen.

It’s also true that many people in successive governments and parliaments have missed opportunities to make it happen much sooner. I would argue that doing our best to move quickly on this bill now is a matter of respect for the advocates who have worked so hard for so long.

To be fair, many stakeholders, including some of those I quoted, recommended amendments to Bill C-20. After hearing their testimony, the committee in the other place did, indeed, amend the bill in several ways. A pre-study would allow senators to hear from stakeholders to understand to what extent the House of Commons’ amendments addressed their concerns and be in a position to potentially proceed expeditiously if senators are satisfied.

Essentially, my argument boils down to this, colleagues: Bill C-20 is about protecting fundamental rights and freedoms. It’s Parliament’s third try in five years to get this done, and stakeholders have been telling us for years that it’s urgent. Even if the National Security Committee does a pre-study, we still may not manage to pass the bill by the summer, but let’s at least get started rather than foreclosing the possibility.

Colleagues, this leads me to make a few points about what this motion does not do. It does not prevent thorough study. The committee could hear the same testimony it would hear during a regular study. This is especially true given that the House of Commons committee has already completed its clause-by-clause study, so in all likelihood, we know exactly what the bill will look like when it comes our way.

This motion does not tie the committee’s hands. If, having completed the pre-study, senators on the Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs, or SECD, feel that they have more work to do — more witnesses to hear from, more analysis to undertake or amendments to make — they will be free to do so when we receive the bill.

This motion does not commit us to passing the bill before the summer or, indeed, ever. A month from now, if enough senators feel that we’re not ready for the question and Bill C-20 should be amended or further debated, then that’s what will happen. This motion simply gives us options. Without a pre-study, we would essentially be precluding the possibility of passing the bill before the summer. With a pre-study, we would be keeping that option open. It’s as simple as that.

Let me address one final point. Some senators have mentioned to me — I’m sure we will hear this in debate — that Bill C-20 has been in the other place for two years, and they’ve wondered why we should treat it with urgency when our colleagues in the other place up the street haven’t seemed to do so. That’s a fair question to which I will offer two answers.

First, I do not speak for all members of Parliament so I am not entirely sure why Bill C-20 has taken them this long, other than observing that a minority Parliament is a complicated institution and it is not uncommon to find bills moving more slowly than the government would like. From the government’s perspective, however, Bill C-20 is the third try in five years to get this done, and that is probably the best indication of the government’s commitment to this file.

Second, and most importantly, as senators, we can and should make up our own minds about what deserves to be treated expeditiously. Senators, you are free to be annoyed with our colleagues in the other place for moving too slowly. You are free to pin the blame for delay on the government, the opposition, on neither or on both, but our main consideration has to be what’s in the best interests of Canadians.

For years, we’ve been hearing that there is a crying need for an independent review of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and for more effective review of the RCMP. We’ve been hearing that this is especially important to the communities that are most affected by systemic racism and discrimination.

We’ve seen promising legislation get waylaid, first by an election and then by a pandemic.

The calls for action have come from experts and stakeholder groups, as well as from within our ranks here in the Senate, including from former senator Wilfred Moore, who worked so hard to advance this cause; from the senators who wrote the 2015 report of the Committee on National Security and Defence, including Senator Dagenais, who was on the committee then as he still is now; from Senators Jaffer and Oh, who co-authored an article in 2017 calling for proper independent oversight of CBSA’s immigration detention practices; from Senator Cordy, who raised this issue with the minister in 2022; and from Senator Omidvar, who has championed this cause for a long time and who is continuing her advocacy as sponsor of Bill C-20.

It has been a long and winding road to get to this point, but here we are. However annoyed or frustrated you may be about the various causes of delay over the last 20 years or the last 20 months, the choice before us is a stark one, and it is simply this: Do we pass the motion and preserve the possibility of adopting Bill C-20 before we rise, or do we reject the motion, conceding right now that the project of creating an independent review mechanism for the CBSA will be delayed again by another three months or more?

I urge honourable senators to make the first choice. I encourage you to pass this motion, to keep our options open and do everything that we can to institute independent review for the CBSA and improved review for the RCMP as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I’m wondering whether Senator Gold would take a question.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald moved second reading of Bill S-277, An Act respecting a framework to strengthen Canada–Taiwan relations.

He said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to rise today to begin discussions on Bill S-277, the Canada–Taiwan relations framework act, which I tabled in this chamber late in 2023.

The bill before us today takes an important step forward in our relations with the Republic of China, or Taiwan, as it is increasingly called, by establishing a broad framework for our foreign policy that is clearer and stronger, in order to better reflect and accommodate the realities of our growing partnership.

There is nothing particularly controversial about this bill, unless you are a Beijing apologist who insists that Taiwan does not have the sovereign right to decide its own future. Taiwan’s existence as a self-made, independent, self-governing and democratic nation has long been self-evident. This is a reality that should be embraced by all democratic countries and freedom-loving people. Taiwan is a free country that should remain free to choose its own future and its own government.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Senator MacDonald, will you take a question?

Senator MacDonald: I’m shocked, Senator Woo, that you want to bring up a question.