The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, where do I even begin? This legislation before us is — for unnecessary, unreasonable and cynical reasons — long overdue.

While I support this bill and its quick passage, many of you won’t like what I have to say about this government’s and this chamber’s track records on dealing with foreign interference.

I don’t doubt that I’ll be accused of partisanship in my remarks, but there’s no greater partisanship than that which has been displayed by the Trudeau government — and by many of you — when it comes to Conservative efforts to fight foreign interference and transnational repression, through the creation of a foreign agent registry in particular.

Let’s start there, colleagues. Let’s start with, if you check the scroll, Bill S-237.

I tabled this bill in February of 2022. That’s more than two years ago, and it has sat in this place collecting dust. With one exception, none of you found foreign interference to be interesting or pressing enough to stand in this place and utter one word about it in relation to this bill. Is it good, positive or neutral? Should it be amended? Should we take it and run with it?

I didn’t hear from Senator Woo, who earlier espoused his great concern about foreign interference. He didn’t rise to speak about Bill S-237. Could that be because many of you received calls from the PMO or from a minister telling you not to? Probably not, but I know one thing for certain: None of you received calls from the government or the Leader of the Government asking you to deal with the bill because it was of such importance to national security and foreign interference wouldn’t be tolerated.

There are two possible reasons why there was no interest on that bill. Perhaps the government thought there was no problem with foreign interference and carried on. Or perhaps there were partisan considerations and they didn’t want to debate a serious issue put forward by the official opposition. Whatever the reason, colleagues, your silence and the silence of the government on this bill speak volumes.

The only one who showed true independence on this issue, true concern over foreign interference and transnational repression and chose to speak from a principled position was the Honourable David Adams Richards. I thank him for it.

With that said, I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge that this bill was resurrected from a private member’s bill tabled during the previous Parliament by former Conservative MP Kenny Chiu. All credit must go to him, even if the government currently refuses to acknowledge that. Kenny became a victim of the very foreign interference he was trying to expose and fight.

During the subsequent election after he tabled his bill, Mr. Chiu was the target of an aggressive campaign of disinformation spearheaded by the Communist regime in Beijing and propagated by those acting on their behalf here on Canadian soil. This campaign was largely conducted through Beijing-controlled social media apps and Beijing-infiltrated Chinese-language media, right here in places like British Columbia.

Disinformation was used to create fear amongst Chinese Canadians by invoking a very dark chapter in Canadian history — disinformation in which Mr. Chiu’s Liberal opponent and now MP Parm Bains was all too happy to engage.

In the dying days of the 2021 election, Mr. Bains, a former Liberal staffer, was quoted by a media platform believed to have close ties with the Communist regime in China, saying he believed Chiu’s bill to be a discriminatory policy. That same day, the magazine publicly endorsed Mr. Bains, urging readers in the largely Chinese-Canadian riding to vote for him and for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It didn’t stop there, according to investigative journalist Sam Cooper in “The Bureau,” who wrote:

. . . one Chinese community leader campaigning for Bains with CCGV has so much power in Vancouver’s diaspora that he was later personally recognized in a meeting with President Xi Jinping and Beijing’s United Front Work Department cadres, after the RCMP opened investigations into his group’s alleged involvement in Chinese police stations in Canada.

Mr. Cooper’s piece also reports that Mr. Bains was seen in a video echoing Beijing’s allegations of racism and Sinophobia against Mr. Chiu and former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole.

Does that sound familiar, colleagues? It should because it’s the exact same regurgitation of Beijing’s talking points that have been levelled against me in interviews, private and public events and right here in this very chamber. It’s nothing new. Beijing’s talking points were also repeated here in this chamber when we were scolded and told that Canada had no place to speak on the genocide being carried out against the Uighurs because of our own history with residential schools. If you’re noticing a pattern, it’s because there is one.

We have so many human rights advocates in this chamber and so many who are concerned about the rise of Islamophobia but collectively not concerned enough about the Muslims being eradicated by Beijing to condemn it as a genocide. How many of you met with Uighurs here in Canada in recent years, colleagues? How many of you listened to their heart-wrenching stories about their loved ones being rounded up and forced into detention camps in the Xinjiang region? How many of you have heard their stories about the phone calls they receive here in Canada from authorities in the People’s Republic of China, or PRC, or people here in Canada acting on behalf of the PRC, telling them their mother is dead, their brothers are all dead, and threatening them to stop talking about the genocide or more of their family members will die? We heard testimony right here in a Senate committee.

This is the kind of transnational repression, threats and intimidation happening right here on Canadian soil that my bill and Mr. Chiu’s bill were designed to combat. This legislation wasn’t racist. The motivation behind it wasn’t racist. On the contrary, it was Chinese Canadians themselves who came to us begging for help for years.

I also hear it through my work with Hong Kong Watch. That’s why I became involved with them and follow their work. I’ve had meetings with Hong Kongers in Canada who are afraid to show their faces or use their full names for fear of repercussions from Beijing, especially now, with the draconian national security law the Communist regime has enacted in Hong Kong.

It’s not just the Communist thugs in Beijing that are engaging in these activities here on Canadian soil, not by a long shot. I’ve also met with Iranian Canadians who share similar stories of feeling threatened here in Canada by representatives of the malign regime in Iran, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC. We also have Cuban Canadians who fear for the safety of their loved ones in Cuba every time they speak out for freedom here in Canada. We see the handiwork of Putin’s attempts at disruption, especially through social media accounts and by funding protests like the ones we are seeing now on our university campuses from coast to coast to coast.

Speaking of Putin and Cuba, how must it make Cuban Canadians feel to see Canada send one of our naval vessels to dock alongside a Russian warship as a sign of our “long-standing bilateral relationship” with the Communist regime there? That’s the latest lunacy from this government, who claim to be fighting authoritarianism and taking seriously the threat of foreign interference. Over the weekend, we learned that a Canadian warship had been sent to anchor in Cuba alongside a Russian warship as a token of friendship with the Communist regime of Cuba. Wonderful.

What’s worse is that when our Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked about this during a television interview, she replied this weekend that it was news to her. Doesn’t this sound like something our foreign affairs minister ought to know, especially if it was a well-planned decision, as it has since been described by Minister Blair? Then again, this is the same minister who also supposedly didn’t know that her staff attended a garden party at the Russian embassy shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This is the same department — Global Affairs — that we now know, thanks to NSICOP’s confirmation of a story in The Globe and Mail, had been warned numerous times about the suspect action of a Chinese diplomat here in Canada. We had to learn that from The Globe and Mail.

They claimed that CSIS didn’t have a proper understanding of what regular diplomacy looks like. I would argue that these officials and the Trudeau government don’t have a proper understanding of what foreign interference looks like. It’s something that’s highlighted in the NSICOP report — don’t take my word for it — the lack of a common intervention threshold.

We talked about this in our Defence Committee right in this chamber. While other nations and Five Eyes partners have legislation in place and have empowered their national security forces to take action, we are still debating the definition of foreign interference in Canada. This is where we are in 2024.

This is the same diplomat who was ultimately expelled from Canada, but only after someone at CSIS anonymously blew the whistle. That is when Global Affairs Canada took action. And yet, Minister Joly had the unmitigated gall to go on television this past weekend and tell Vassy Kapelos that Canada is the most “forward leaning” of the G7 countries in combatting foreign interference. Colleagues, I fell off my chair when I heard that: “forward leaning.”

Canada has become a laughingstock among the Five Eyes allies when it comes to fighting foreign interference. They are ahead of us not only in the implementation of measures included in this legislation pertaining to intelligence sharing but also in establishing foreign agent registries. We are the last to come to this party, and Ms. Joly thinks we are the most forward leaning because we are having a public inquiry right now on foreign interference, which her government was dragged into kicking and screaming. We have the Hogue inquiry in spite of Justin Trudeau’s best efforts not to call one, and this minister wants to point to that as a measure of the government’s success. Like everything else with this government, they say all the right things, then do the very opposite, and then act like something’s being done to them, not by them.

The Trudeau government has been, at best, one abysmal failure after another every time they’ve been faced with the threat of foreign interference, especially in our elections, and in some cases, wittingly turned a blind eye because the foreign interference was politically beneficial to them.

CSIS warnings were ignored not only by Mélanie Joly and Global Affairs but also by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office and senior officials within the Liberal Party and the Liberal campaign team. They turned a blind eye, did nothing to guard against the meddling in our democratic institutions, and when the truth started coming out, they lied about having any knowledge of it. Instead, they focused on finding out who leaked the information. Because we want to get the leakers — that’s the real problem, the people telling the truth.

When reports first surfaced that CSIS had briefed Justin Trudeau about Beijing’s interference in the previous two federal elections, he returned to one of his favourite phrases. He claimed that the story in The Globe and Mail was false. He denied repeatedly, including in the House of Commons, knowing anything or even having been briefed by CSIS. It was also news to him. He denied it repeatedly.

In March 2023, he was asked point-blank in a television interview:

Did you know that there was interference in those elections, not prior to but during that campaign? Were you made aware that there was interference?

The Prime Minister’s response to this very simple question was, “We put together a panel so that the question could be looked at.”

He put together a panel to do what? Tell us what was in his own head? He’s the Prime Minister. When it comes to national security, the buck stops with him.

In April of that year, at the public inquiry, the Prime Minister was shamed into finally telling the truth by the commissioner. It was revealed that the Prime Minister’s Office was briefed by CSIS on foreign interference at least 34 times between June 2018 and December 2022 and that the Prime Minister himself was personally briefed on at least three occasions during that time. That’s the public inquiry. I am not making this up. These are the facts, Senator Gold. CSIS drew his attention to foreign meddling in the 2018 and 2019 elections and offered recommendations to guard against it in future elections.

Since then, we have had two bills go through the House. There is a bill collecting dust here, and we needed a public inquiry to get the Prime Minister to come clean. Our Prime Minister ignored all of the recommendations. He did nothing with the information he was provided through those briefings.

Furthermore, he went on to lie about those briefings. He lied to the Canadian people, and he lied to Parliament. Mr. Trudeau tried to claim that the information didn’t reach him. During his testimony at the Hogue inquiry, he claimed that he doesn’t really do much reading — shocking — and the only way to ensure he’s aware of something is to tell him verbally. Yet, during a previous appearance at a House of Commons committee, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Katie Telford testified that Mr. Trudeau reads every document that he’s given. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Whichever it was, those were 34 missed opportunities to do something about foreign interference, and Justin Trudeau chose to ignore the warnings instead.

In December 2019, December 2020 and again in February 2022, the Prime Minister was briefed about electoral interference and was asked to sign-off on measures to combat it in future elections. On all three occasions, he refused to do so. He has also received three reports from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, outlining concerns of foreign interference, and he’s done nothing to respond — hardly what can be described as forward-leaning.

We also now know, thanks to Justice Hogue, that the Prime Minister was made aware of Beijing’s meddling in Liberal member of Parliament, or MP, Han Dong’s nomination in Toronto and that he wittingly chose to do nothing about it because, as he himself admitted to Justice Hogue, he didn’t want to lose that riding. That’s the Prime Minister, colleagues, and not anyone else. The Prime Minister put his own electoral interests ahead of the interests of Canadian democracy. He put his political fortunes and thirst for power above national security and above the fundamental integrity of our elections. That is beyond rich for someone who constantly accuses others of eroding confidence in our democratic institutions.

Mr. Trudeau also failed to act again on information about a Chinese diplomat here in Canada targeting sitting MP Michael Chong, including threats to Mr. Chong’s family in Hong Kong. This is the diplomat I mentioned a moment ago, the one the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, repeatedly warned Global Affairs Canada about, only to get blown off by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The latest NSICOP report supports what was reported in The Globe and Mail last year about Global Affairs Canada ignoring those repeated warnings. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s own words last fall belie his failure to act on this information when he was first presented the opportunity to do so. The Prime Minister said that he ordered an investigation into the matter as soon as it became public, not that he ordered an investigation into it when he first learned about it two years previous; it was only after it became public.

By the way, those threats against MP Chong and his family came at the time the House was debating a motion to recognize the Uighur genocide. It was a similar motion to the one that was shamefully defeated here in the Senate. Senators had previously been issued a warning against such motions by China’s then ambassador to Canada. The point of him doing so while in my hometown of Montreal was not lost on me. It was at a public event.

Beijing’s meddling didn’t work in the House — even though I have to remind you that the government did not vote for the motion — but it worked perfectly well in this chamber, the only chamber in the Western democratic world to vote down the recognition of what is happening to the Uighur people. It was a shameful day when it happened in this institution, and I still can’t get my head around it.

Another motion that did pass in the House of Commons, not once but now twice, is a motion calling on the government to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, a terrorist organization. The first motion passed six years ago and a second one during this session of Parliament. The Trudeau Liberals continue to refuse to adhere to either motion. This government doesn’t just refuse to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity, they’ve allowed members of this murderous death cult to come to Canada to do things like lecture at our universities. What could possibly go wrong?

For starters, the malign regime of Iran is the world’s worst sponsor of state terrorism, and you can be sure they are involved with some of the pro-Hamas protests we have been seeing on our university campuses and in our streets for the past several months. Why isn’t our government asking questions about those connections, especially where the funding is coming from?

Speaking of asking questions, remember all the questions we had about the firing of two scientists from the country’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, scientists we now know were intentionally working to benefit the interests of the Chinese Communist Party, not Canada? Was it forward-leaning when the Trudeau government did everything in its power for several years to prevent Canadians from learning the truth about what happened at that lab? We only recently learned the truth because, again, the opposition relentlessly pursued it. The Trudeau government tried for as long as they could to cover it up by, first, invoking privacy and security concerns to avoid four motions of the House and its committees requiring the tabling of relevant documents. That eventually resulted in the House holding the President of the Public Health Agency of Canada in contempt of Parliament, followed by Justin Trudeau taking Parliament to court. Imagine it: The Prime Minister used the federal court to block the parliamentary order.

That cynical move not only underlines how unserious Justin Trudeau has been about foreign interference but is just another example of the contempt he has for the supremacy of Parliament. He wanted the court — the judicial branch — to insert itself into the privilege of the legislative branch. It’s really quite something that could have done untold damage to our parliamentary system and democracy.

That’s how far he’s willing to go, not to fight foreign interference but to cover up his government’s inaction on fighting it.

The court was saved from having to rule when the Prime Minister conveniently dissolved Parliament. It was eventually an ad-hoc committee of four MPs and three former justices who ultimately made the decision to release the pertinent documents on this issue. In doing so, they said that while some amount of secrecy was warranted as it pertained to certain CSIS documents, most of the documents were held back by the government out of concern for protecting the organization from embarrassment more so than any legitimate national security concerns.

The Trudeau government is using the same play even now with the Hogue inquiry on foreign interference. They are either heavily redacting or withholding altogether all relevant cabinet documents that were proposed to the inquiry by Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc last September, regardless of their sensitive nature.

Again, they are saying the right thing one minute but then doing the very opposite.

I’ll remind everyone here that the Prime Minister can and should waive cabinet confidentiality, as he promised he would. He has the power and authority to do so, just as he does with the NSICOP report.

Justin Trudeau is the only one who can release the unredacted report or parts of it, including the names of any parliamentarians believed to have wittingly or unwittingly been implicated in foreign interference. Canadians and Parliament deserve to know, regardless of their political stripes. Instead, we have the fourth- and fifth-place party leaders making public statements that do nothing more than muddy the water on what is or isn’t in the report. Between Elizabeth May and Jagmeet Singh, Canadians can’t make heads or tails of it.

By the way colleagues, there are two things that we heard during our committee study on Bill C-70 that must be on the record here. First, claims that the allegations against parliamentarians can’t be discussed because they are under RCMP investigation are bogus; and second, there likely aren’t mechanisms in the Criminal Code to investigate these allegations because what’s being described doesn’t likely give rise to the very high bar of treason.

This testimony made it all the more clear that these allegations will have to be dealt with by some other measure, such as publicly naming the implicated parliamentarians. Parliamentarians are politicians, and there is political accountability in Parliament. That is where we get to the bottom of political accountability.

However, again, the Trudeau government says one thing and does the opposite. After initially appearing to agree to send the NSICOP report to Justice Hogue to investigate the allegations against parliamentarians — publicly named MPs and senators — that she believes are implicated, Minister LeBlanc balked during his Senate committee appearance when asked if the relevant documents would be turned over. It was a pointed question, I think from Senator Carignan. He just balked; he did not give a clear answer.

Meanwhile, over the weekend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs decided to add some mud of her own. She doesn’t know that we have a warship docked alongside the Russians in Cuba, but she had no problem confidently telling Vassy Kapelos that there are no Liberal caucus members implicated in the report. That’s odd because when the Prime Minister was asked at the G7 this weekend if any Liberals were on the list, he refused to answer one way or the other. Either the Minister of Foreign Affairs is, as usual, confused and the Prime Minister is back to not reading his briefing notes or they’re not being honest. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, of course.

What the Prime Minister did say to Canadians and the media at the G7, though, was to call into question the work of NSICOP. The Prime Minister echoed the words of the Minister of Public Safety Dominic LeBlanc in saying that he disagrees with NSICOP’s interpretation of foreign interference and that he made clear to them the problems he has with their work. That is NSICOP, about which we all talk and about which we’re all so confident. He certainly isn’t.

Why is it with this guy that he’s always the ultimate authority on everything and resorts to degrading and dissing the work of anyone who disagrees with him, even if they’re his own hand-picked experts? Here is a reminder of what Mr. Trudeau said about this committee of parliamentarians in March 2023:

. . . NSICOP is well placed to look at foreign interference attempts that occurred in the 43rd and 44th federal general elections, including potential effects on Canada’s democracy and institutions . . . .

It’s one thing today, and another thing tomorrow.

I will remind you about what his Senate leader — our very own Senator Gold — said less than two weeks ago about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP. In his latest report, he highlighted the value of the work that committee does and said that his government thanks them for their work. Well, send a memo to Prime Minister Trudeau, Senator Gold, because you guys are not on the same page — not at all.

Mr. Trudeau will also call into question the work of Justice Hogue’s inquiry when it concludes. Do you know whose work he didn’t question? He didn’t question the work of his Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference: family friend and, yes, former governor general David Johnston. The fact that Mr. Harper wasn’t dissuaded from appointing such a close Trudeau family friend shows his lack of partisanship in such matters. It’s too bad Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Johnston don’t have the same lack of partisanship.

At any rate, Minister Joly and Prime Minister Trudeau like to cite the special rapporteur as another example of how Canada is the most forward-leaning G7 country in combatting foreign interference. Remember, appointing the special rapporteur was the initial response by the Trudeau government to Conservative calls for a public inquiry and for a foreign registry. The special rapporteur was going to solve all problems.

It was never about accountability or taking foreign interference seriously, colleagues. It was about ragging the puck. It was about delays. The special rapporteur didn’t even talk to Liberal MP Han Dong, who was at the centre of the electoral interference allegations. On June 6, 2023, the rapporteur admitted before a House committee that he didn’t even have access to the intelligence that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, provided in a briefing to former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole. The rapporteur said, “The evidence we had before us . . . was what was available to us at that time.”

Later that same day, in a CBC interview with David Cochrane, he said, “the amount of information available was an ocean and we saw a very large lake.” Yet, after all that, the rapporteur exclaimed, “Nothing to see here, folks! Carry on. Canada is a picture of national security.”

My colleague Senator Plett asked Senator Gold in Question Period the day after that CBC interview, “. . . who chose the CSIS information that the rapporteur based his report on?” No answer was given, but we all know the answer. We know where the information came from. What an unmitigated disaster and waste of time and taxpayer money, and what a sham. Canadians deserve better.

The bottom line is that Justin Trudeau is the one person holding the power to come clean with Canadians about foreign interference, whether it be in our elections or our Parliament, through security information he’s gathered. The various institutions that we know are porous are being infiltrated by regimes that do not respect democracy, freedom, the rule of law and human rights. He talks about the importance of Canadians having confidence in our ability to defend our democratic institutions. He uses that as an excuse to not disclose the names of parliamentarians implicated in the NSICOP report. In fact, his lack of transparency and lack of forthrightness is having the opposite effect, colleagues. When a cloud of suspicion is left hanging over the head of every parliamentarian, how can Canadians have any faith in us or in our institutions?

I understand the consequences that must be considered when disclosing these names, both when considering the sources who provided information to our intelligence agencies and regarding the principles of due process. Where was that concern for protection of sources and due process when the Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons last year and, out of nowhere and without offering any evidence, accused the government of India of being involved in the killing of a British Columbia man last June? All he gave Canadians was, “Trust me. I have seen it, and I believe it.”

As for the work of NSICOP, this committee of parliamentarians has provided three reports to the Prime Minister outlining concerns about foreign interference. Similarly, CSIS has provided several reports regarding foreign interference with recommendations to safeguard against similar meddling. Those briefings and reports from NSICOP go back to 2018. That’s six years ago, and only now are we getting around to legislation that deals with it. Like everything else with this government, they do it fast and they do it hastily — because they only had nine years to think about it. That’s not something of which we should be proud, Senator Gold. This is not a valuable use of the skill sets and the goodwill that parliamentarians, and especially senators, have. In the case of this government, that doesn’t sound like someone eager to lead the fight against foreign interference.

Despite Justin Trudeau’s revisionist history — as recently as this weekend, he told the media that he did things the Harper government fought against — the truth is that the first thing this current government did when they took office was to repeal a previous government’s foreign interference legislation, Bill C-51. It was the first step. Red flags were raised in 2013 and 2014. Bill C-51 was that first step in 2015 to start strengthening our national security laws, and it was a precursor of what would eventually become the foreign registry.

I’ll tell you what happened, colleagues. The first thing the government did when they came into power was to repeal the bill. They revamped it, repealed it and took the teeth out of it in a bill called Bill C-59. Go read it for yourself. Go read Bill C-51, and then go read the revamped Bill C-59. Senator Gold was the sponsor of that bill. That was the first thing the government did. Then they spent the next nine years doing everything they could to further fight Conservative attempts to combat foreign interference and transnational repression, including lobbing accusations of racism and bigotry against us and Liberal MPs even taking part gleefully in disinformation and conspiracy theories online.

The only reason we’re here today with this legislation before us is due to the government exhausting every avenue available to avoid getting to this point. They ragged the puck in ways that we have never seen before, basically trying to prevent the foreign registry from coming into place. Now, of course, I’m not even sure we’ll get this foreign registry into place, because the truth of the matter is that I don’t share Senator Dean’s enthusiasm. I’m somewhat skeptical of the bureaucracy being capable enough in 12 months to have it in place before the next election. That is the concern of most parliamentarians who will face the Canadian public in the next general election — those of us who want to have a fair election and an election that isn’t tampered with by foreign entities. I hope, somehow, there’s goodwill on the part of the government and the bureaucrats to have it in place.

I will support this legislation, colleagues, even though it has been put into place hastily and has been facing delay after delay. We all know, at the end of the day, that the government rushed to put this out after Justice Hogue had a scathing preliminary report about the foot dragging of this government when it dealt with foreign interference. Like everything else they do, they rushed quickly to get this out the door to make it look like they’ve done something and put something in place before the next election.

It’s still better than the alternative. I still believe this piece of legislation is just the first step. I’m confident the next government that will come into place will take national security and foreign interference seriously and will add all the subsequent measures this bill requires, including giving tools and resources to the RCMP and to CSIS to make sure there can be cross-communication between our police agencies in this country in order to combat the serious threat to our democracy and, more importantly, the serious threat to the Canadian people.

I became interested in foreign interference many years ago for one simple reason. Canadians of Cuban descent came to my office. I had Hong Kongers and Canadians of Chinese and Persian descent. They came into my office one after another, giving me horrid stories of intimidation and threats from foreign governments toward Canadian citizens. This is what foreign interference is all about: It’s about regimes — like China, Iran, Cuba, Russia and Türkiye — that believe they can intimidate people in their homelands and, unfortunately, they can, and there are limited things we can do. However, when these nations come onto our soil and go after Canadians just because they happen to originate from those countries and intimidate them and their families to the benefit of these rogue dictatorships, then there’s a serious problem.

I don’t care who the Prime Minister is or who the government is. This is not about politics. This is about the essence of our Canadian citizenship and what has brought us all to this country. I’ve said this a thousand times: We’re all immigrants to Canada, and we all come here for freedom, democracy and rule of law. That’s what we hear: It’s for fundamental human rights. We as parliamentarians should fight for that above all else at all costs.

Thank you colleagues. I support this bill, and let’s make it pass as soon as possible.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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

(On motion of Senator Dean, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff moved third 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.

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Today, I want to discuss the main aspects of the bill and how it will create a framework to not only mitigate the negative consequences of net zero to workers and communities but better prepare them to capitalize on the opportunities that it presents.

The framework includes guiding principles, governance structures and reporting requirements. It is a bill based on the principles of dialogue and consensus, representation, engagement, sustainability, transparency and accountability. It creates a straightforward process that gives workers, industry and Indigenous communities a seat at the table to provide input for their future, and it creates accountability and transparency measures through a designated minister and a five-year action plan that must be made public.

Colleagues, this is a very straightforward bill. At its core, it is about putting workers and the communities they live in at the centre of the government policies that affect them the most by committing to a process of social dialogue in determining how we can all succeed in a net-zero future.

Colleagues, I will admit that I am more than a little biased towards this bill because it has been something workers and I, as a labour leader, have been demanding for a long time. I am also a very passionate supporter of this bill because of my participation on the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities, which I co-chaired. I think perhaps that it is one of the best things I have done for my country, and I would like to share a story on that work and how it relates to this bill.

The impetus for the task force can be attributed to the fact that Canada had committed in 2016 to the phasing out of coal generation of electricity by 2030. In the context of doing that, the government created a task force to look at what the effects would be on workers and communities as they transition from their economic dependency on coal. The task force was made up of workers, businesses, environmentalists and communities.

The work of the task force led us to visit 15 affected communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to hear the issues of workers and communities who relied on coal for their very survival. Hearing directly from businesses, workers and community leaders enlightened my understanding of what was needed to truly have a just transition for these workers and communities. It also gave me the recognition of the hopefulness of Canadians in general — Canadian workers and Canadian communities — about the future. It also gave me a better understanding of the policy tools we need to devise to help us get to a place where we can have workers and communities most affected by net-zero policies be able to give direct input on the government policies that will affect them most as the world, including Canada, decarbonizes its economies.

The task force’s final report in 2018 made 10 policy recommendations, and one of them called for legislation that Bill C-50 embodies.

I experienced first-hand after going to communities like Coronach in southern Saskatchewan and Leduc County in Alberta that workers and communities must be heard first and foremost to understand the issues through their eyes. We cannot minimize the real anxieties and suspicions that decarbonization policies are having on communities and workers, including Indigenous communities, who rely on energy development projects — whether it be coal or oil and gas — for their economic sustainability.

One way to address the anxieties of workers and communities is to ensure their perspectives are heard and solutions to help them transition are developed from the bottom up, not from the top down. This bill does exactly that. It gives workers and communities that opportunity through the partnership council and through the required engagement the council must have with affected workers and communities.

Senators, humankind’s history is one of transition. From the Industrial Revolution to the information and computing revolution, workers, communities and societies have had to go through some very difficult transitions. Each transition creates adversity as well as opportunity for workers. The goal for government should be to minimize the negative effects and maximize the positive opportunities that transition provides. That is the intent of this legislation.

In Canada over the last 75 years, workers have had to deal with several major transitions, including the effects of automation and trade policies like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. In his second reading speech, Senator Wells spoke to the effects of a major transition that Atlantic seafood workers and communities went through in the early 1990s when the groundfishery was shut down, causing tens of thousands of workers to lose their jobs. Unfortunately, for most of these transitions, workers and communities who were most impacted never had the benefit of any proactive plan that had their interests at its core because, for most, they were never given a voice.

What I would argue is different about how this government is attempting to handle this transition compared to others in the past is that it is actually trying to be proactive in creating a plan and putting the interests and views of workers and communities at the centre of the policy-making process to deal with the good and bad of this transition.

I would like to return to Senator Wells’ example of the collapse of the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada in the early 1990s. I would agree with him that, for the most part, the federal government’s reaction in terms of its policies and programs were wholly inadequate for the workers and communities hardest hit by the closure of the groundfishery. Where we differ is that I believe those workers and communities would have been better served if legislation like Bill C-50 had been in place before the fishery crisis hit our shores.

Senators, imagine if the government of the day had not buried their head in the sand about the ensuing fishery crisis but instead had been proactive in addressing the economic and social realities workers and communities were about to face. Imagine if the government had a tripartite council similar to the partnership council created by Bill C-50 that would have required the government to get input directly from fishers, plant workers, businesses and communities. Imagine if the government had been required to create a plan that respected the realities these groups were experiencing, not the perceived realities of the bureaucracy in Ottawa — that policies would have been built from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Colleagues, I think we can imagine that reality and would agree that workers, businesses and communities dependent on the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada back then would have been better, not worse off, if a bill like Bill C-50 had been in place.

Colleagues, this bill is quite simple and straightforward in its purpose and design. It aims to create a framework to how the government will manage a just transition to a net-zero future in terms of the processes and principles it must follow. It does not detail what the specific policies and programs will be. That will come in the sustainable jobs action plan that this bill requires the government to develop and make public every five years, starting next year.

Let me take a few moments to explain the bill in more detail. First, the bill would create a sustainable jobs partnership council. As outlined clearly in the legislation and a product of careful study and consultation, the council’s membership employs a tripartite plus approach, ensuring a balance between representatives of Indigenous groups, labour and industry. The council would be required to conduct meaningful and regular engagements with Canadians.

They will combine what they hear with data, research and their own expertise to advise the federal government on the best pathways for further policies and actions.

Second, this legislation would require the government to publish a transparent sustainable jobs action plan by 2025 and then every five years after that, including reporting on progress to date as well as committing to future actions. To ensure further transparency and accountability, progress reports on each action plan will be required 2.5 years after its publication.

Third, the legislation would require that the government identify a lead minister for implementing this act. This minister would be supported by other ministers with specific responsibilities under the legislation. This reflects the reality that this initiative requires involvement from the ministers responsible for both economic development and social policy, working together to foster economic growth and support workers and communities. They will collaborate with other ministers as required to ensure all facets of this issue are considered. This requirement flows from one of the recommendations in the report of the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities, based on the rationale that if you do not have someone who is responsible, you don’t have accountability.

Finally, the act also requires the creation of a sustainable jobs secretariat to support the act’s implementation across federal entities, including providing support for the action plans and the partnership council, engaging with provinces and territories and acting as a source of information for workers and employers with regard to federal programs, funding and services.

Taken together, these fundamental components of Bill C-50 will support workers in having a seat at the table alongside industry, Indigenous voices and sectoral exports.

The transformative changes in the nature of work as a result of not only climate change but AI and other technological advancements will have a profound effect on workers. Having a process that places workers at its centre to develop a plan that first recognizes the challenges workers and communities face and then develops realistic policies to help both mitigate the negative effects and, just as important, capitalize on the opportunities that the new realities of work will bring, is common sense. This is what the sustainable jobs act is really about.

That, colleagues, is a good thing for workers and the communities they live in — and why this bill should be passed.

Colleagues, once you see past the politics of this bill, you understand that the critical stakeholders, from business and labour groups to Indigenous and environmental organizations, support this legislation because it is necessary if workers and industry are to succeed in a net-zero future.

Bea Bruske, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents more than 3 million workers, said:

Workers need action now, we needed it yesterday, and we need to make sure that we get this legislation passed so all parties – labour, business, and government can sit down at a table . . .

Patrick Campbell, Canadian Director of the International Union of Operating Engineers, which has more than 50,000 members, said:

The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy. . . .

In addition to leading national voices, regional organizations have also been quite supportive, including the President of the Alberta Federation of Labour, who asked people to look past the rhetoric of the detractors and read the bill. He said:

What the Conservatives are saying . . . is that this Bill is a blueprint for the phase-out of oil and gas . . . but nothing could be farther from the truth . . . .

He lives in Alberta. He continued, saying:

Bill C-50 is about creating a framework for discussion on diversifying our economy so that we’re prepared for a lower carbon future. That’s good for workers, that’s good for business, that’s good for the country.

This is similar to what the President of the Business Council of Alberta said:

The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals. . . .

Environmental advocates are also on board with this legislation. The Executive Director of the Pembina Institute said that:

By bringing workers, businesses, Indigenous Peoples, and environmental groups together with governments behind coordinated action, we’ll show the world that Canada is ready. Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

Before I close, colleagues, I would like to underline that this bill is not only about mitigating the negative effects of transitioning to a net-zero future, but also seizing the economic opportunities that this future will bring.

To get a project built or keep an industry competitive in a changing world, we must ensure that investment, technology, regulation and, yes, skilled labour are all well coordinated and prepared to act. If any one of these factors is insufficiently available, it will arbitrarily constrain Canada’s ability to grow and become a leader as we move into the middle of the 21st century.

In conclusion, senators, this legislation is rooted in the work of the Task Force on Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities and has been informed by over two years of thorough discussions with workers and industry, extensive cooperation across many government ministries as well as in-depth engagements with industry, provinces and territories, Indigenous organizations, civil society and environmental and labour experts.

Undoubtedly, the decarbonizing policies that governments around the world are enacting to meet the Paris Agreement will have an effect on some resource development workers.

This bill is not about restricting energy development or dictating emissions reduction as some critics may want you to believe. Although this bill is related to net-zero policies that affect emissions, it is not one of them, but instead a consequence of them. In other words, it is the opposite side of the same coin. It is meant to help communities and workers not only mitigate the negative effects of net zero but capitalize on the opportunities it presents.

It is an approach and a bill that I am proud to sponsor today because it fundamentally seeks to help workers gain a seat at the table as we chart our collective future, which requires decarbonizing our economies if we are to survive.

That is why I ask you, colleagues, to support this legislation, Canadian workers, the communities they live in and the next generation in building a more sustainable and prosperous country. Thank you so much.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Will Senator Yussuff take a question?

Senator Yussuff: I will.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, before I deliver my speech, I want to say that we are on the unceded ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

The transition to a net-zero economy is urgent for the planet, but it is also urgent if we wish to protect the standard of living in our country and reverse the downward trend in our per capita standard of living. Making the shift to net-zero is the path to prosperity.

[English]

The purpose of this bill, however, is very comprehensive and commendable. Let me quote clause 3 of the bill, which comes after a long preamble:

The purpose of this Act is 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 through a framework to ensure transparency, accountability, engagement and action by relevant federal entities, including those focused – at the national and regional level – on matters such as skills development, the labour market, rights at work, economic development and emissions reduction.

When I read the first version of this bill in 2022, I thought it was a big sectorial committee, the purpose of which was upskilling and reskilling of oil and gas employees in the Western provinces. Now I have changed my view. I think of it as a more comprehensive, ambitious and multi-sectorial federal initiative to reshape many aspects of the Canadian economy.

[Translation]

I feel that Senator Yussuff rightly pointed out that this is much more than a sectoral committee; it is an initiative to reshape Canada’s economy.

Looking beyond the principles and generous objectives described in the preamble to this bill, here is how I would describe, in concrete terms, the issue or issues that Bill C-50 addresses.

The issue is first and foremost to help all Canadians — whether they are Indigenous, racialized, living with a disability or are part of the 2SLGBTQI+ community — who will have to move to a different job that is consistent with the net-zero objectives that Canada has agreed to internationally, and to do so while upholding a set of principles.

[English]

This bill is mainly about helping Canadians transition from a high-carbon-emitting job to a sustainable one. This bill is about upskilling, reskilling and creating sustainable jobs. It is not only about training; it is also about creating jobs. It is much more comprehensive than the main purpose of Employment Insurance, which is to sustain income and reintegrate unemployed participants back into gainful employment.

[Translation]

The Bill C-50 issue goes beyond the professional integration of vulnerable groups and the unemployed. Moreover, while this bill focuses on job transitions linked to climate change, it won’t be able to ignore job transitions caused by technological change, demographic change and international political crises. In my opinion, the federal and provincial governments cannot work on these issues in silos.

[English]

Indeed, let me briefly describe the tasks to be undertaken. First, to achieve the purpose of Bill C-50, Canadians must be willing and available for training. Employers must encourage their employees to train, then training providers must be ready to offer proper training on the job, in institutions or elsewhere, and to certify these new skills. Suitable replacement income while training also needs to be offered to maintain the standard of living of those who get the training. Enterprises need to invest in green sectors and create new jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, mining or elsewhere in the service economy. They must get the financing and all the permits and authorizations needed to start greener projects. All of these are done at the local, municipal or provincial level.

On June 5, at a meeting of the Social Affairs Committee, Rick Smith from Leduc County in Alberta, which Senator Yussuff just spoke about, explained how his community proceeded to transition its local economy from coal to agriculture and manufacturing. He explained how this success story relied on collective actions at the local level with the participation of the province, which had to adapt regulations to deliver permits within the proper timing to create new jobs.

[Translation]

In short, the transition to net-zero jobs requires the participation of many local and regional stakeholders, who will have to work together by promoting social dialogue. The witnesses who appeared before the committee made that quite clear.

I will be voting in favour of this bill because it is fundamental and must be done, but we can also raise concerns. Can we really believe that the objectives that the government is trying to achieve will be met in the context of shared federal-provincial responsibilities? What challenges will the sustainable jobs partnership council and the sustainable jobs secretariat have to face? That’s what I’m going to talk about.

In my opinion, there are many challenges associated with Bill C-50. In the next few minutes, I will focus on two major challenges. First, the federal government doesn’t currently have control over the institutional mechanism needed for the effective implementation of a transition plan. Second, the current sources of funding for implementing the plan are insufficient.

Implementing a transition plan is clearly dependent on local and provincial institutions. It is dependent on partnerships that must first be built between the company and its workforce, then with local training institutions and with provincial and federal economic development agencies. The federal government doesn’t have the appropriate local institutional arrangements to achieve its objectives unless it has solid partnerships with the provinces. This is often the challenge with federations.

The transition’s success can’t be based on an action plan developed with granular data produced by federal civil servants — no matter how competent they may be. The action plan can’t come from the top. It must be drawn up by the stakeholders or partners concerned, and they must also be the ones to implement it. This principle is especially important in free and democratic societies.

In a past life, when I was the CEO of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d’œuvre, or SQDM, the Quebec workforce development corporation, we developed regional action plans to get unemployed persons back into the workforce. Quebec’s unemployment rates were very high at the time. These plans targeted the local and regional levels. Employees of local and regional offices and partners on regional tables knew the workforce, the companies in the region and their future plans. Making plans was helpful. Think global, act local, that was our motto and it worked. We had no choice, everything was happening on the ground.

The Quebec Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, or labour market partners commission, set out the broad parameters, but interventions were negotiated locally with companies and service providers. Partnerships were also established with local and regional economic development agencies.

In my opinion, the federal government can’t monitor the transition of people who work in companies in the regions and in the municipalities based on statistical information that is outdated as soon as it is published and can’t take into account the companies’ future intentions and plans. In fact, the Governor of the Bank of Canada made a similar observation, stating that he couldn’t conduct his monetary policy using model-based statistics, as they reflect the past, whereas the future is increasingly uncertain and ever-changing.

It is through labour market agreements with the provinces that the federal government can promote transitions in the labour market regardless of whether they are technology-, climate- or demographics-based. We can hope that the system put in place in the bill is used in establishing renewed labour market agreements. I think that is key and that the partnership council and the secretariat won’t be able to overlook labour market agreements.

That’s why I suggested at second reading stage that the EI commissioners be invited to participate at the very least as observers, because they are the ones who control the labour market agreements. It is truly a responsibility to follow the funding of local agreements with each of the provinces.

I’d now like to talk about the financial challenges. Transitioning the Canadian economy poses a major financial challenge. It is no small thing. One has to wonder, where will the money to fund Bill C-50 come from? A small amount of about $99 million was provided for in the finance minister’s budget, but that certainly won’t cover the cost of the transition. We need to make sure that we have a proper budget for this.

What the government is telling those who ask how it plans to fund the transition is that Bill C-50 will be funded under Part II of the Employment Insurance Act and under the general revenue targeted for vulnerable groups. All of that will be used to make a major transition. The problem, and I will come back to this, is that EI recipients, regardless of whether they are receiving benefits under Part I or Part II of the act, are generally people who paid into the system and who lost their job. They aren’t people who work in sectors with high greenhouse gas emissions and who are at risk of losing their job. Employment insurance helps employed people only in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the maximum replacement income of $668 per week in 2024 — the average is generally half of that — is far less than the wages paid in greenhouse gas-emitting industries. These industries need to transition. There are a lot of issues to address and employment insurance reform is going to become urgent, if we want to transition to a greener economy.

A number of participants at the fifth jobs and skills round table convened by the EI commissioners on June 3, argued for the need to reform employment insurance so that this important program better reflects the challenges of the day associated with professional transitions, be they climatic, technological or demographic crises.

Right now, the training and workforce integration measures used to do all the work is funded under Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, implemented in 1994. The Employment Insurance Act, colleagues, provides that job transition funding can amount to a maximum 0.8% of payroll in the GDP, but this has never been reached. EI funds have increased very little since 1994. They rose slightly in 2017, when the federal government added $625 million under a six-year agreement, again through EI, that it no longer wants to renew. Funding provided for EI currently amounts to $2.3 billion, minus the $625 million that will be pulled out. Other amounts, roughly $600 million, are also available from general revenues. All of that pales in comparison to the challenges we face, as outlined by the OECD.

For example, in 2019 and 2020, my office conducted a survey, carried out by Nanos, in order to see how Canadians perceive their training needs and their future. This survey obtained similar results before and after the pandemic, and these results, which intersect with the OECD results, were published prior to the pandemic for all industrialized countries and for Canada.

In the survey we sent to Canadians in December 2023, 20% of employed respondents thought it was likely or somewhat likely that technological advances and climate change would threaten their jobs. A total of 20% of Canadians thought that climate change, technological advances or other changes pose a threat to their jobs. That represents four million Canadians, and these figures are comparable to the slightly lower OECD figures, which are closer to 17%. Thirty-seven per cent of employed Canadians who responded to the survey think it is likely or somewhat likely that technological and climate change will affect their work tasks and that they will require training. That amounts to eight million Canadians. An even higher percentage of young people gave that same answer, and they’re fresh out of school.

The need for training in Canada is fundamental, and this is especially true for industries that emit a lot of greenhouse gases to help with their transition. A major training effort is needed.

These programs are funded by the labour agreements currently signed between the federal government and the provinces. They are for a fixed term and differ from province to province, but generally involve labour market partners.

In short, EI needs to be reformed to better fund labour market transitions and training for those at risk of losing their jobs. This practice must become the norm, not the exception, as is currently the case.

We need to pass Bill C-50. It is a major target and a big task to achieve, but we need to be cognizant of the fact that this bill doesn’t answer all the questions and that the agreements with the provinces will be essential to getting this right.

Before concluding, I’d like to add a few comments about First Nations. The Social Affairs Committee heard from First Nations chiefs who don’t want their communities to be considered as one of the target groups and vulnerable groups. On that, Chief Freddie Huppé Campbell couldn’t have been any clearer.

Colleagues, let’s not forget that First Nations people have been living on the land since time immemorial and we owe them our respect. The climate crisis is having an impact on the economic and social development created for First Nations, by First Nations. Their presence at the sustainable jobs partnership council is certainly invaluable. However, the federal government should consider concluding friendly agreements with them for the delegation of authority with results-based objectives and targets developed with them in bilateral agreements.

In conclusion, the bill’s intentions are both laudable and necessary if we want the planet and Canada to survive. I believe in those objectives and will be voting in favour of the bill. However, implementing Bill C-50 could cause friction with certain provinces, even if the government plans to act in its own areas of jurisdiction and respect provincial jurisdictions. The problem is that it cannot take a silo approach. If it really wants to make economic prosperity and the well-being of all Canadians a priority, the federal government must, in my opinion, focus on cooperation and social dialogue with the economic players, as proposed in Bill C-50, and it mustn’t forget the provinces. This is in Canada’s best interest.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Gignac, do you have a question?

Hon. Clément Gignac: As you know, jurisdictions are a ticklish subject for Quebec. Workforce training clearly falls under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec has one of the smallest carbon footprints. Do you think the federal government should be more open to provisions allowing provinces to opt out with full compensation? The Quebec government seems to be a little annoyed with this bill, given the jurisdictional overlap.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[English]

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Bellemare, I think I heard you say in your speech — but it was through translation, so I’m not positive — that your Senate office did a public opinion survey about some aspects of this, about training or something like that?

Could you please give us some more details about that? If it was paid out of your Senate office budget, could you please tell us how much it was?

[Translation]

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. This is a long-awaited bill that will ensure that Canada has a framework. We are at the level of the framework. We are not yet at the level of creating jobs in the details of the negotiations with the provinces. This is a framework in place to prepare the workforce for the jobs of a net-zero economy. The transition is already here, whether we want it or not.

The bill establishes a sustainable jobs partnership council responsible for engaging workers, industry and other governments. It will require the publication of a sustainable jobs action plan every five years. It also creates a sustainable jobs secretariat to support the implementation of the act. This is simply a framework to provide government accountability as we help workers transition to the sustainable jobs of today and tomorrow.

This is an urgent matter, especially for Canada, because we are behind. As a natural resource economy, we have enormous economic potential to help advance the net-zero economy through the mining of critical minerals and the production of renewable energy in a sustainable circular economy. Yet, at this moment, we continue to increase our already disproportionate investment in fossil fuels, which contributes to the climate crisis that brings destructive extreme weather events.

A few years ago, we adopted the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to reach our climate targets, but, to this day, we are still missing a plan to help workers thrive in this new economy that we are building. This bill starts us on this path.

It is not just a question of reaching the climate targets we set. This bill is essential to ensure our continued prosperity as a country. Some critics of the bill have been vocal about their concern that this bill is a ploy to eliminate the fossil fuel industry in Canada. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s not a given government that is doing this — even less, this specific government that bought a pipeline for us and keeps giving billions of dollars in subsidies every year to the oil and gas sector, which is reporting record profits today. In fact, it is the change in technology, the disruption of the business-as-usual markets and the increase of these climate and nature-related costs — because of these extreme weather events — that are driving this transition. We are behind — behind our peers and our commercial partners. We must catch up.

Let me explain: In comparison to renewable energy technologies, an energy system based on fossil fuels is highly inefficient. When we produce and deliver energy systems by resource extraction — and it’s not refined here in Canada; it’s refined elsewhere in North America — valued product transport, as well as electricity production, transmission and delivery, along the way we waste almost two thirds of the initial potential energy. Indeed, renewable energy is two to three times more efficient at generating electricity, one and a half times better in delivering electricity, three to four times better at heating, and two to four times more efficient than combustion engine vehicles. At this point, dear colleagues, it must be evident to you that an economy based on fossil fuels causes inflation at each step of the supply chain.

We have seen previous industrial revolutions. We need to embrace more efficient, cleaner, cheaper and safer technologies. We have done it in the past. Resisting is not a smart choice. Colleagues, must I say the obvious? Civilization did not abandon the Stone Age because of the lack of stones. We did it because we had a greater gain in efficiency. Canada is behind our peers in both productivity and competitiveness. It’s not from the defenders of past polluting technologies whom we will hear the solution to this problem. We must listen to the experts. We must listen to scientists.

The International Energy Agency recently published its annual report on oil and gas. It predicted that the world will see an unprecedented level of surplus global supply capacity, outpacing demand growth by 8 million barrels per day by 2030. Global oil demand is expected to plateau by 2030, even in China, and will lead to an era of lower prices. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, Canada’s fossil fuel sector does not fare well in a low-price market scenario — and I challenge you to remember the last time a barrel of oil was $100 — leading to decreases in employment and employee compensation, profitability and government tax revenues.

[Translation]

Colleagues, whether we like it or not, our fossil fuel sector is not going to carry our economy into the coming decades. If we actively try to keep Canada in the economy of the past and prevent the country from moving on to renewable energy, we will be remembered as the generation of parliamentarians who closed the door on the tremendous economic opportunities that the global energy transition will offer.

We need a legislative framework so we can build a workforce capable of making Canada a global clean energy leader. That being said, the government’s bill is a first step in helping workers make the transition.

[English]

Parenthetically, as a civil engineer specialized in the environmental field, I’ve been teaching engineers for the last 20 years that we were in the transition period. But we weren’t. What happened to all those incredible engineers who we formed for the transition? They went elsewhere. I heard my colleague talk about training technicians and engineers. We’ve been doing that, but, unfortunately, sustainable jobs were not available, so they left.

[Translation]

During the study in committee in the other place, the MPs made important changes to the bill. For example, they included a definition of the term “sustainable job,” an important addition for ensuring that these jobs will indeed contribute to the energy transition.

The MPs also clarified the composition of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to ensure that trade unions, industry, an environmental organization and Indigenous peoples would be represented. The council will also be tasked with advising the minister responsible on areas of cooperation with the governments of the provinces and territories and other governments in Canada. These are important additions for recognizing the role of the provinces and territories in the labour field. I completely agree with my colleague, Senator Bellemare, that this grand plan will come to nothing without provincial intervention, especially at the municipal level. However, other challenges will also have to be addressed.

During our own study on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, we heard serious concerns and we made a number of observations. First of all, every level of government needs to listen carefully to transition-affected communities, especially those affected first and worst by the transition, to tailor their programs and investments in ways that respond to these communities’ priorities, whether for education and skills development or for other needs.

In this time of transition, it’s important that we help all communities thrive and prosper. In particular, the committee encourages the future partnership council to focus its work on supporting Indigenous peoples, as well as rural and remote communities, so that they can benefit from the transition to clean energy.

It’s also important to note that several committee members raised the importance of engaging with non-unionized workers, which the bill doesn’t explicitly address. In 2019, Statistics Canada confirmed that over 70% of Canadian employees are non-unionized.

It would be unconscionable to ignore the needs of such a large portion of Canada’s workforce.

[English]

Colleagues, Bill C-50 has received widespread support from workers across the country, including from regions heavily invested in fossil fuels. Ultimately, workers want good, sustainable jobs that can support them and their families. The world energy market is changing along with the jobs in the energy sector. We need to recognize that and deliver a plan to mobilize Canada’s extremely skilled workforce towards those jobs that will carry us through 2050 and beyond.

I would like to end on this point: Bill C-50 is only one piece, although a much-needed one, in the transition to a net-zero economy. As we know, we need a whole suite of actions if we are to succeed in this global competitive race. Economists advocate for a price on pollution. Implementing the right to a healthy environment is what the vast majority of Canadians expect. But there are still significant gaps in Canada’s climate action plan. We need the finance sector to scale up and materialize the needed changes.

Although providing training for a skilled workforce is essential, we must also facilitate investment in the clean and renewable energy sector if we want to create a solid sector that will provide workers with good-paying, stable jobs. We need a taxonomy to help inform investors on desired projects, something that over 40 countries and regions already have — we are again behind — including the European Union, China, Mexico, Russia and the ASEAN countries. We also critically need stronger guidelines for the financial sector, something that I have proposed but many nations and experts around the world are also raising. It is only when the financial sector is aligned with our climate commitments that the other sectors — energy, construction, building, transport, infrastructure, health — will then create the sustainable jobs that are referred to here in Bill C-50.

It is only when all these different parts are integrated into a comprehensive net-zero path and work together towards this common goal that we will achieve our climate targets and prosper at the same time.

Dear colleagues, I urge you to support Bill C-50 to better position Canada’s workforce for us and for generations to come. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak 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. And I speak to you tonight as an Albertan. Alberta is home to 97% of all of Canada’s oil stores. Over 20% of our province’s gross domestic product is tied to our oil and gas industry, and our energy sector employs more than 150,000 workers.

It will not be easy, and it will not be painless to transition away from that economic base. But most Albertans know and understand that such a transition will be necessary nonetheless — for environmental, economic and social reasons. And younger Albertans, in particular, know that the energy industry that employed their parents and grandparents is going to look very different by 2050.

Albertans have already made hard and courageous choices to reshape our energy economy, which employs so many and pays them so well. Let me point to the bold, brave and difficult way Alberta has transitioned from coal electricity generation to a cleaner, greener grid.

At the start of this century, a full 80% of electricity in Alberta was produced by burning coal. Alberta coal was cheap and plentiful and had a reputation for being cleaner than other coal, less acidic and less damaging to the environment.

But in 2015, when Rachel Notley became premier, she made a visionary — some said quixotic — choice to accelerate Alberta’s shift to alternate electricity generation. It was not easy. Many people who worked in the coal industry lost their jobs. And, one might argue, the policy was in no small way responsible for Rachel Notley losing her job as premier, too.

No one should minimize the sacrifice made by Alberta working families, nor the political cost to the one-term NDP government. But just look at the results: When 2024 began, just 6% of Alberta’s electricity came from burning coal — down from 80% in 2001. And I am pleased and proud to say that last night, Sunday, at 10:57 Mountain Daylight Time, Alberta’s last coal-generating plant — Genesee 2 — came offline. As of today, there is no electricity generated by coal in Alberta.

Let me put the focus on those last two coal plants, Genesee 1 and 2, in perspective. They are run by Capital Power, and the shift from coal to natural gas will deliver more than 1,350 megawatts of reliable baseload electricity, while at the same time reducing CO₂ emissions by 3.4 million tonnes relative to 2019. That represents a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, a 40% increase in installed capacity. As an added bonus, according to Capital Power, the high efficiency of the new units will mean an extra 1 million tonnes of emission reductions. And all that has happened six and a half years ahead of schedule.

So let no one doubt that Alberta and Albertans can make these transitions when we try. We know we have more work to do, especially in renewable power, which now makes up 30% of Alberta’s electrical grid.

According to the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, in 2022, Western Canada accounted for 98% of Canada’s total growth in wind and solar power, with Alberta adding almost 1,400 megawatts of installed capacity in one year. Last year alone, Alberta’s renewable energy sector accounted for more than 92% of Canada’s overall growth in renewable energy and storage capacity. According to the Pembina Institute, that included 118 renewable projects in Alberta, representing $33 billion in investment. That meant there were green energy projects representing, according to the Pembina, 24,000 job-years at some stage of development.

Now, I’ll admit the absurdly draconian restrictions that Danielle Smith’s government has recently imposed on wind and solar investments in Alberta are a problem, but notwithstanding, the capital market is telling us that wind and solar have a huge role to play in Alberta’s and Canada’s energy future, and that means not just sustainable power but sustainable jobs.

But the big new power play in Alberta — I don’t mean the Oilers, although their power play is very good — is hydrogen. And it isn’t a fantasy. There are already projects in Alberta in development to transition diesel buses and trains and heavy equipment to hydrogen, to convert natural gas power plants to hydrogen, to heat new subdivisions with hydrogen, to use hydrogen in all sorts of industrial processes. There is huge economic and employment potential in a serious shift to green and blue hydrogen — and huge environmental gains to be made as well.

Nor are sustainable energy jobs the only kinds of sustainable employment that Alberta has. Alberta and Saskatchewan are perfectly positioned to become powerhouses in agri-food production so that we’re not just exporting our mustard, lentils and durum wheat, but turning them into value-added products; so that we’re creating new domestic and international processed food markets for crops as diverse as haskap berries or lupins.

Then there’s the exciting prospect of repurposing Alberta’s oil sands. Instead of burning that bitumen for fuel, suppose we used it to create strong and lightweight carbon fibre and to use that carbon fibre to build everything from airplanes to auto parts to sports gear to protective clothing. With the right mix of public and private investment, we could be able to turn our bitumen reserves into a manufacturing sector, an entirely new kind of sustainable economic engine.

There are sustainable jobs to be found too in the transportation transition. Alberta is actively exploring plans to create a rail system that links Calgary to Banff and an even more ambitious plan for high-speed rail linking Edmonton to Calgary.

These have been pipe dream projects for years, but as our population grows — and as the social and market pressure to move away from carbon-intensive transportation increases — it may finally be time to start taking steps to make those dreams reality, creating rail construction jobs on a scale we haven’t seen since the Last Spike and creating infrastructure for low-carbon transportation that could radically reduce the number of cars on Alberta highways and the number of planes flying between Edmonton and Calgary.

So a transition to a less carbon-intensive economy with well-paid sustainable jobs for all kinds of workers is far from impossible. It’s certainly no more impossible than an 8-1 victory over the Florida Panthers.

This is the future that Alberta and Canada need to embrace, and I believe Albertans have the courage and drive to make that transition, but it is hard for me to see how Bill C-50 helps.

Bill C-50 doesn’t invest more money in research and development. It doesn’t set aside a penny for job retraining or for post-secondary education. It doesn’t invest in clean tech, agri-food or transportation infrastructure. It doesn’t do anything to encourage investment nor offer capital markets any tangible assurance that we are really serious this time, at long last, about meeting our climate change goals. And it doesn’t do anything to pull Canadians together with common purpose to fight for our future.

Instead, it establishes a framework to strike a council to have a social dialogue to enable a secretariat to create an action plan, all subject to a 10-year review. Will Bill C-50 create jobs? Well, it will certainly create jobs for the 15 members of the Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council, and who knows how many more jobs for the members of the Sustainable Jobs Secretariat.

I fear that this is an example of the most cynicism-inducing kind of government legislation. At a time when we desperately need to fight greenhouse gases, Bill C-50 is little more than hot air. As we might say in Alberta, “Where’s the beef?”

This legislation won’t do anything to reassure Western Canadians who are legitimately worried about their economic future. It won’t do anything to make them feel included, to make them feel that their voices and concerns are being heard or that their hopes and dreams are being supported. Instead, I greatly fear it will be seen as a provocation if not an insult. It will be a gift to those reactionary, soft-separatist voices in my province who are all too pleased to rage farm by turning Albertans against their fellow Canadians.

My friends, it is long past time for frameworks, councils, action plans and 10-year status reports. It is time to be up and doing. If we want an economic transition that doesn’t leave workers behind, we need to invest in R&D now, not a decade from now. Now.

If we want an economic transition that doesn’t leave workers behind, we need to tell capital markets that we are serious, that investing in Canada and Alberta is safe and smart, that we’re not going to pull the rug out from under them by suddenly changing policy and leaving them stranded. We need to invest in our colleges, technical institutes and universities so workers are ready for the jobs of the future. We need to invest in green infrastructure, from hydrogen plants to passenger rail lines. We need tax incentives and tax policies that reward innovation and green entrepreneurship. Most of all, we need federal and provincial governments to work together and not at cross-purposes for the good of all Canadians.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

An Hon. Senator: He doesn’t read either.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today at third 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. The short title is the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act,” but many of our Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee witnesses, in particular from the environmental movement, have referred to the bill as the “Just Transition Act.” In fact, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Yussuff, referred to it four times in his speech just a short while ago. It’s what the bill used to be called until there was public outcry and the government changed the title — not the content, colleagues, just the title. Remember, this bill is not sponsored by the Minister of Labour. It is sponsored by the Minister of Natural Resources.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for their study of the bill.

At the Energy Committee two weeks ago, we heard from the Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Minister of Labour. During the minister’s testimony, he tried to avoid talking about what is actually contained in the legislation. More specifically, I asked him about training and the retraining elements contained in Bill C-50. The minister cut me off several times until our colleague Senator McCallum intervened to remind him of the importance of decorum in Senate committees. The chair agreed and instructed the witness accordingly, and I want to thank both Senator McCallum and Senator Verner, who was in the chair, for that reset.

After a few attempts to ask my question regarding training and retraining, which is the essence of the bill, the minister denied that there was any mention of training in the bill. Minister O’Regan said:

I am looking at Bill C-50. There is no mention of training talking about a table where workers can have a say. There’s no mention of training.

Colleagues, the word “training” appears 6 times in the bill and 78 times in the briefing note for the minister written by the department officials at Natural Resources Canada.