Federal department says 'just transition' document refers to industry size, not job loss

On Monday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she had a"pit in her stomach"after afederal documentwas written aboutby three Alberta columnists, who suggestedthe "just transition" would cost hundreds of thousands of Canadians their jobs.

Referencing the document again on Tuesday, Smith wrote on Twitter that the plan would "eliminate 2.7 million jobs."

But the federal government said that those numbers had been misinterpreted, and that the figures referred to the overall size of the workforce of various industries, not anticipated job losses.

"The federal government's approach to sustainable jobs is about creating jobs, not eliminating them,"saidNatural Resources Canadapress secretary Keean Nembhardin an email.

The 81-page briefing documentwas addressed to the minister, who was appearing before a committee, discussingcoming"just transition" legislation.

The federal government says the legislation is intended to "seize economic opportunities associated with" a low-carbon economy, whileprovincial officials argue it is code toshut downthe oil and gas sector.

"It's worse than I feared. 'Just Transition' isn't about a transition at allit's about eliminating entire sectors of our economy and hundreds of thousands of good Alberta jobs deemed too 'dirty' by elites in Ottawa," reads a statement from the premier's office sent to CBC News on Tuesday, attributed toSmith.

Columnists atthree Postmedia publications were responding to an initial story from the Ottawa-based online news publicationBlacklock's Reporter. "Energy jobs, about 202,000 workers gone," reads a Calgary column. "In Alberta, 187,000 jobs toast. Read that number again."

"If you're from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Newfoundland and Labrador, this plan might well strike you as madness," reads an Edmonton column.

The documentis publiclyavailable on the federal government's website. It consists of speaking points prepared for Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson in June 2022 before speakingto the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

On page 68 of that document, a hypothetical question is posed: "What sectors and regions will be most affected by a transition to a low-carbon economy?"

The document states that"significant labour market disruptions" will take place across Canada as a part of the transition, including in agriculture, energy and transportation.

The memo then goes on to list various job numbers associated with each industryfor instance, 202,000 workers, or one per cent of Canada's employment, in the energy industry.

And though the premier attributed that figure as being the number of jobs lost, a press secretary with Natural Resources Canada said those numbers were included to provide a snapshot ofthe total number of people working in each industry.

"Those industries are identified because global economic shifts could affect them," he said.

READ | Page 68 of an 81-page briefing document, as referenced to by the Alberta premier and three Postmedia columnists:

'Just transition' has become contentiousin Alberta

The"just transition" legislation, which has yet to be released, was part of the Liberal Party's 2019 election platform.

But in recent weeks, provincial officials have increasingly taken issue with the branding of that legislation.Alberta Environment Minister Sonya Savage has called it "polarizing," pointing to its usage byclimate organizations, and Smith has suggested it was little more than "social justice" language.

In a statement to CBC News on Tuesday, thePathways Alliance, a group representing 95 per cent of oilsands companies, said it shared that concern over the proposed name of the legislation,but added it was supportive of the government creating plans to "address the tens of thousands of skilled jobs needed in our country as the oil and gas and other sectors ramp up efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions."

Speaking toAlberta@Noon host Judy Aldouson Tuesday, Savage said the federal government was sending mixed messages, adding the Alberta government had "picked a lane" attracting investment while reducing emissions.

"If we don't need to retrain, we're going to need a lot of workers for traditional oil and gas, because we want to be the most sustainable barrel," she said. "On top of that, we need additional workers for all the new and growing things."

In a subsequent interview on the same program,Andrew Leach, an energy and economics professor at theUniversity of Alberta, said the overall effect of global economic forces and legislation in Ottawa will inevitably change the makeup of the province's key industry.

"[The challenge is] wemay have lots of clean energy jobs, we're probably not going to have them in exactly the same places, for the same skill sets, for the same people, as we have for oil, gas, coal jobs we have today," he said.

The scope of various federal climate strategies have received criticism, and not only from those on the conservative side of the spectrum in Alberta.

On CBC'sWest of Centrepodcast on Friday,Alberta's Oppositionleader Rachel Notleysaidshe didn't agree with thefederal government's plan toreduceCanada's emissions.Those 2030 targets require the oil and gas sector to cut emissions by 42 per cent below 2019 levels.

"Both are wrong, and I've been very clear on that, and that has been my position and I will advocate that position with every tool and tactic thatI can muster, should I be given the opportunity to do that job, because it's not practical," Notley said.

On Tuesday, Notley wrote on Twitter that she was also calling on the federal government to "put the brakes" on their sustainable jobsplan, as well as its emissions cap.

"We need real care and competence when it comes to Albertans' jobs," she wrote.

Canada's environment commissioner has also said the 2030 emissions targets are unrealistic, stating they rely too heavily on "unrealistic" assumptions about hydrogen use.The Albertagovernment has also strongly pushed back against the federal government's coming cap on oil and gas emissions saying it would challenge it in court asserting it would lead indirectlyto a production cut.

Martin Olszynski,a lawyer and associate professor at the University of Calgary in the faculty of law, said there is global agreement on the need to respond to climate change.

"What we're talking about here is just a policy response to that, right?Andit won't be perfect. And I'm sure that a lot of people would like it to just go away, but it's not going to go away," he said.

"So we need to have a reasonable adult conversation about these things. And unfortunately, we're not having that right now."