Bill C-235

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies

This enactment requires the minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces, in collaboration with the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources, to develop a framework for local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors to build a green economy in the Prairie provinces.

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

, seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

He said: Mr. Speaker, one does not plan in life to win the lottery, but when one does, one is left with decisions about how to take advantage of the good fortune. I thought long and hard about how I would use my good fortune to come up with a private member’s bill that was an extension of so much of the work I have done across the Prairies.

The building a green economy in the Prairies act was inspired by reflections over decades. The first were in my own province of Manitoba. In the 1980s, the $200-million core area initiative program shaped the interests of the governments of Canada, Manitoba and Winnipeg into a common agenda. The three levels of government, through their senior representatives, met often to work to align their policies in the interest of rehabilitating and renewing downtown Winnipeg's core. Almost $200 million was invested through this format. It was successful and well regarded by the citizens of Manitoba.

More recently, during the first months of the pandemic, it was notable how much Canadians appreciated governments collaborating, co-operating and co-ordinating their agendas around the common interest, the public interest, to achieve shared goals. Canadian federalism is strong and flexible, but it cannot be taken for granted. This bill was developed by placing these thoughts side by side and applying to them the economic development of my own region, the Prairies.

This bill would give the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry of Canada, in consultation with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, a mandate and statutory framework of consultation with provincial governments, first nation and Métis governments, municipal governments, businesses and their employees, and civil society itself to prepare for significant changes in federal public policy. This is adapting to the new reality of how we produce energy, how we adapt to the new reality of using that energy and how we prepare for the changes to the energy environment worldwide and in our own communities.

We know that the prairie provinces are going to be especially impacted by climate change and the policies implemented to combat it. Traditional industries will take on a far different look, and we already have evidence of that. Leaders in the corporate sector are changing their strategic plans to adapt to a reduced reliance on fossil fuels and investing in other sources of energy. We have many examples of this.

In my home riding of Winnipeg South Centre, there are start-up companies that recognize the growing importance of carbon capture utilization and storage, and they are developing prototypes to build this technology on an industrial scale. Alberta is already the largest hydrogen producer in Canada. It recognizes its role in bringing this cleaner, low-cost energy to the rest of the Prairies, Canada and the global market. We see the evolution of the small modular reactor technology, and we know that if Canada is going to meet our objective of net-zero emissions by 2050, we must rely on a wide variety of energy sources.

For a few hundred years now, we have grown food on the Prairies to feed ourselves and to feed the world. Increasingly, it is evident that what we grow on the Prairies can also fuel the world. The pace of innovation in the biomass supply chain means that very soon we may be able to do just about anything with a bushel of canola that we can do with a barrel of oil.

The bill recognizes this and knows that, to implement these policy objectives, our chances of success improve if there is co-operation among the levels of government and those who create wealth. In Canada, we talk about the distribution of the nation’s wealth, and these discussions are critical. We should also talk about wealth creation, something that we do not do much about because we are so focused on how we are going to spend the bounty of our nation.

We can take child care as an example. It is both an economic and a social policy. We know that the Prairies are struggling with other difficult circumstances. I can use transportation as an other example. Anybody who has tried to get from one part of the region to the other over the last number of years will know how challenging it has become.

Train service has been dropped. A train has not run between the cities of Calgary and Edmonton since 1985. Bus service has been curtailed across wide sections of the Prairies, making life more difficult, particularly for seniors living in rural communities. Let us review this, discuss it and debate it. The bill emphasizes this.

This bill represents a new way of doing business as a nation. Many of the elements and the aspirations of the bill are already here, not because they are mandated or obliged to happen, but because a particular minister or a group of MPs or a premier or a mayor has an idea that co-operation would be a good thing. This bill would do more than make suggestions. It would give the minister of industry and the federal government 18 months to establish this framework, after deep and meaningful consultation with those mentioned in the bill, and it demands a reporting to Parliament.

The intention is to focus the ministerial mind to make that kind of consultation and coordination easier because it must happen. It mandates collaboration, co-operation and relationship building.

This bill is not about jurisdictional overreach. It is clear that these policies are within the federal jurisdiction but must consider local circumstances and continuing dialogue with local governments and with businesses and workers who, after all, are best positioned to understand the consequences of changing policy on the way they run their governments or their businesses in an ever-changing landscape.

Indigenous nations are partners because their interests are integral to the success of the entire region, and the entire country. Not only does our Constitution demand this, but we know that development of resources across first nation, Métis, and Inuit land requires these conversations to be meaningful from the start.

Though the bill is succinct, I believe it is full of possibilities and ideas that span a wide range. I am optimistic, which springs from spending many months as the minister responsible for the prairie provinces, talking to decision-makers and regular folk across a vast range of interests. I was working on my little computer on the second floor of my house. That gave me the scope and the capacity to cover a lot of ground.

I remember one day when I chatted with people over breakfast at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce before moving on to a visit with canola producers and then ranchers. After that, I talked to people who are in the power business in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, before leading a round table with first nations and Métis community and business leaders. I was in touch with the heads of unions and other associations too.

I was able to do this in a single day because I did not have to get on a plane. Having that ease to stay in touch with so many people was a great advantage.

What I found was that there are very few stereotypes that hold water and, in any case, stereotypes are barriers to progress. I wonder if colleagues know of Professor Michael Houghton at the University of Alberta, who has a PhD.D., is a Nobel laureate, and was recognized for his work combatting hepatitis C and with vaccinations. The Prairies are absolutely full of scientists in each of our provinces.

When we think of the Prairies and when we think of Alberta, I want us to think of Nobel prize winners. I want us to think of the cutting edge of research. I want us to think about feeding the world.

I was struck, over the course of those several days, by how much community of interest I found across the great diversity and expanse of the Prairies. In perspective, in topography and in geography, it is a vast region. What I found was that we can find common ground if we seek it.

I was often delighted and encouraged by the degree of agreement I saw and that played out as we moved closer to a whole variety of decisions.

The time for a bill like this one is now. It takes what we have already accomplished across this special part of our country and builds on it. I am hopeful this bill will tap into the aspiration that the country should unite around shared objectives and values.

The bill recognizes that what we have, more than the bounty of natural resources we have been so adept at developing, is this generation of young people who understand the urgency of climate change. They are sophisticated in their thinking and see the economic opportunities that building a new Prairie economy would provide for them as they choose career paths over the next 10, 20 and 30 years.

We want our young people across the Prairies to thrive in the region and to have prosperous and secure futures. We want the energy infrastructure we have today to help us move along to the next generation of energy development that is clean, sustainable and marketable. Without question, the region will be very attractive to those looking to invest in the new economy.

Though the Prairies are the region I have chosen, because it is the region I live in and the one most impacted by changes in the energy world, I am certain this bill provides a template for a way of building relationships and doing business that would be relevant to any other region of Canada.

Therefore, I am encouraged, excited and optimistic about how we can strengthen our federation in ways we have strived to achieve as a nation for decades. With this framework, mandated by a statute passed by the majority of members in the House of Commons and the Senate, I am confident that we will have ushered in a new era of co-operative federalism and a dynamic moment for Canadian democracy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to second the bill brought to us by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He and I first worked together as board members on the International Institute for Sustainable Development. It was a board on which the parliamentary secretary seated near him also served.

I support the bill. I look for some amendments taking place at committee, particularly. I think the Minister of Agriculture should be referenced. As well, the hon. member will know I am not enthusiastic about the inclusion of the nuclear industry.

I see this bill as a template for coordination for sustainability and for the transition to a green economy. I just want to ask him this. Is he open to amendments when we get this bill to committee?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes. I would like to remind the member that we go back maybe 30 years through a whole bunch of different issues, venues and challenges. I have a great respect for her perspective and her integrity. One of the great advantages of having lived a while is that one learns that one does not know everything. If I said that I would not consider an amendment, that would assume that I know more than everybody else. Everybody knows that I do not.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his bill.

In his speech, he talked about the provinces' involvement in developing all this. What provisions are there to force the government to heed the report? What can be done to ensure the government does not just shelve the report?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had that authority. We do our best. We make an argument, we bring people to our argument and then we hope that others in a position of influence will buy the argument. What this bill does require is the reporting back to Parliament. That is what is different about this, and that is where I find hope.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre, which is the riding where I grew up. The approach I saw in this bill was the Prairie approach of collaboration. It reflects what we have learned in COVID about isolation versus collaboration. This bill could help to bring government together and also to bring Canadians together.

Could the hon. member comment on that, please?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, although I stayed in Winnipeg, and I want that to be made clear, the best way to talk to people is to be respectful of their point of view, even if it is different from one's own.

What this bill seeks to do is reach out as broadly as the region itself in order to find those areas where we can find agreement and alignment. When we do that and as we are successful in defining that alignment, we really will change the world.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Winnipeg South Centre for his visionary remarks and for presenting this very important bill. The Lake Winnipeg prairie watershed extends from the Rocky Mountains to the Manitoba-Ontario border and touches four U.S. states. It is the prairie watershed. As the hon. member knows, we have had two major floods and the worst drought in seventy years.

Can he offer us some reflections on how this co-operative framework can assist in protecting and managing our water resources?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because my hon. friend spent most of his adult life trying to wrap his arms around water—let us just imagine that for a minute—he knows the jurisdictions that are inherent in the Lake Winnipeg issue.

I think the jurisdictions include four provinces and a number of states and an international border. What is required in trying to make sense of all of those interests is to have a common goal, and the common goal is to clean up that water. I know that my colleague will play an integral part in making sure that is a success.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Regina—Lewvan and colleagues right across Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, I will respond to the private member's bill, Bill C-235, from the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

I first wanted to say that I really respect the member. I enjoy working opposite to and sometimes constructively with him. Most of all, I am sincerely heartened to see him here and in good health.

My own background is, of course, a rural prairie one. I grew up near a village of about 200 people. My husband and I live and raise horses where he grew up a mile west of a town of fewer than 1,500 people, so no matter where I go or what I do, I am always a rural Alberta farm girl at heart.

As an MP, I have fought non-stop for farmers, for farm families, for oil and gas workers, for responsible resource development, for rural and indigenous communities and against burdensome government red tape, taxes and barriers to rural life. I am grateful to our interim leader for her friendship, counsel and confidence and for the opportunity to focus on rural economic development and rural broadband in the months ahead.

Right off the top, let me share the general view of prairie residents, especially rural people and those in Lakeland. The federal government in Ottawa is very far away, very expensive and very slow to respond. It does not get the realities or the priorities of prairie life, and the very best way the federal government can help the Prairies to develop and diversify their economies, to create jobs and to reduce emissions is to get out of the way. We are already doing it.

I know this member is sincere in his intentions to increase collaboration between all levels of government and indigenous communities, but it will instead add the very layer of bureaucracy that often stifles economic development initiatives or private sector projects, partnerships and investments in the first place.

A framework to enhance consultation sounds commendable. The reality will be a complex bureaucratic process spanned across three provinces and at least five federal departments, dragged out over a year and a half, just to create a plan that is likely to mostly feature predetermined federal Liberal government ideology and goals. While effective and timely collaboration does not always happen in practice, this attempt to create yet another layer of red tape is, and ought to be, unnecessary. There is nothing stopping federal and provincial ministers, existing departments and public servants from working together on any and every policy area that overlaps and impacts each other already. The fact that an MP thinks it is necessary to legislate such practice is actually an indictment on the status quo approach of current governments and politicians, and maybe even senior levels of departments and regulatory bodies.

I think most Canadians expect that this sort of work is already happening regularly and that it should not take a new law and a long drawn-out process to get it done. As someone who has worked in a provincial public service primarily focused on energy, environment and economic development policies and issues, I can say first-hand that it is eminently possible and reasonable for public servants to work in cross-departmental and cross-provincial capacities with the federal government, along with a variety of private sector and indigenous partners, and to achieve real outcomes.

A federally imposed, top-down, drawn-out legislated bureaucratic process is not necessary and is most likely to be long on meetings, procedures and reports, but short on deliverables, outcomes and actual economic or environmental results. Instead of accepting that yet another legislative- and administrative-heavy framework is what is required, it seems to me the ministers, departments and each level of government should both demand and do better. I believe that timely accountability is what most Canadians expect too.

On top of that, frankly, I think what the member is trying to remedy in his bill is already happening in the provinces to which it applies. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Most notably in the Prairies and across Canada, provinces have created and already implemented working plans to reduce emissions and enhance environmental protection. These are both programs that enable more R and D and innovation to advance energy technologies and energy efficiency through seed funding or private-public partnerships, and specific programs designed to increase indigenous participation in economic opportunities, both as partners and as owners, by increasing the capacity for indigenous and Métis communities to participate in regulatory processes, and to advance economic reconciliation by enabling indigenous people to secure more significant, long-term economic opportunities to build legacies of prosperity and self-sufficiency for future generations through increased access to capital. The duty to consult on major federal resource projects or related infrastructure is of course an explicit federal responsibility, and it should focus on getting that right.

Therefore, it seems to me that an obvious unintended consequence of this bill is that it could actually undermine the extensive work already being done across the country, and particularly in the Prairies already leading the way, by municipal and provincial governments, indigenous communities, utilities and the private sector. Instead of this “Ottawa knows best” approach to formalize oversight across three provinces and to federally wag the dog on their respective approaches to environmental stewardship, the federal government would do well to identify all the ways in which federal programs, rules and taxes overlap, duplicate, contradict and add costs and administrative burdens to entrepreneurs, resource developers and farmers.

The federal government would do better to listen to private sector proponents and indigenous communities, which say the regulatory burden the Liberals have created in Canada is politicized, onerous, punitive and driving away billions of dollars in projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the very sectors this bill focuses on, because it is so disproportionate from competitor jurisdictions and economies that nothing can get built here. The federal government would do better to listen to innovators and fix the major problem in Canada that they call the valley of death, where years of risk-taking, innovation, collaboration, creativity, inventiveness, research and development, and money go to die before ever making it to real commercialized, usable, feasible technology in Canada, making innovators go elsewhere. The federal government must maintain high standards in its key areas of responsibility, obviously, but otherwise should get itself out of the way of local and provincial governments that know their jurisdictions best and out of the way of private sector proponents, entrepreneurs and innovators, who know their sectors best.

Let us face reality. It is safe to say that the majority of people in the prairie provinces, where the major economic drivers are agriculture, mining and gas and oil extraction, and which are home to 62% of employment in Canada's egg activities and food processing and 19% of Canada's resource-based employment, are rightly skeptical and suspicious about the current federal government's intentions and actions. The Liberals' high-taxing, anti-energy, anti-resource development, anti-private sector legislative and regulatory approach has killed pipelines, driven away billions of dollars' worth of business and indigenous-partnered projects in oil, mining, natural gas and LNG development, and initiatives for more Canadian resource exports. Their approach has stuck 20 billion dollars' worth of resource and critical infrastructure proposals on idle in their cumbersome and prohibitive-by-design regulatory framework. The point really should be efficient, transparent, fair, objective and evidence-based due diligence in consultation, while maintaining Canada's world-class standards, not checking off boxes with ever-changing rules over the years and then not being certain a project can go ahead if it does get the green light. All of that has really done more to stifle innovation, R and D, technology advances and economic development and diversification in the Prairies than anything else.

This, of course, is at the heart of the matter. It is the fundamental difference in the world views and the approaches between the Liberals and the Conservatives and perhaps, really, between Ottawa and the Prairies.

The most significant private sector investors in clean tech; in emissions reduction; in new, renewable and alternative energy technologies; in solar, wind and green hydrogen projects; and in others areas are existing oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies. All kinds of government bodies at all levels, and utility companies, are currently shovelling millions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into pilots for what they call the energy transition. However, in real terms with real outcomes, it is actually the private sector energy and resource companies that have long been leading efforts on emissions reduction, technological adaptation and mitigation, energy efficiency, and environmental stewardship and remediation, without risking billions in tax dollars.

It is also true that initial academic and government partnerships with seed funding and favourable regulatory approaches were important to starting major developments that benefit all of Canada and spinoff employment in multiple other sectors like the oil sands. This is 100% true in agricultural industries and among egg producers too, so it is strange that this bill does not actually include egg production at all. I notice this is a PMB seven years in, so one wonders how much of a priority it is to the government.

The fact that the heavy lifting and real leadership in emissions reduction and green technology advancements come from the private sector should not be a surprise to anyone. However, the federal government does often seem to be unaware. It stifles the very work and outcomes it says it wants to achieve, in favour of top-down, high-cost, complicated, low-results big government.

People in the Prairies, and especially in Lakeland, are not inclined to welcome the “I'm from the government and I'm here to help” mentality, and for many, many good reasons, so notwithstanding this respected member's goodwill and positive aspirations, the Conservatives will oppose Bill C-235.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed reading my hon. colleague's bill. It is very interesting. The intention is sincere, and it could be impactful. Kudos to my colleague, and I thank him.

This bill talks about concentration in the economy and the importance of diversifying the economy. As we know, having an extremely concentrated economy primarily in the provinces that produce very polluting resources has an important impact not only on those provinces, but also on the rest of the country and Quebec.

The first thing we need to talk about is the environment. We all know that one Albertan produces six times more greenhouse gas emissions than a Quebecker. One Saskatchewanian produces seven times more than a Quebecker. That is substantial.

Next is resilience. A poorly diversified economy is less resilient in the face of stress, recessions, geopolitical uncertainties and pandemics.

There is also dependence. Anytime too much of the economy is focused on a single resource or group of resources, that creates dependence.

Conservative members like to say that Quebec and other provinces depend on equalization. However, the greatest example of dependence in this country is Alberta's dependence on oil. I will give an example. I had a lot of fun looking at Alberta's old budgets. I like public finances. There are normally very few surprises in the public finances of the provinces, but Alberta was pleasantly surprised this year.

Based on last year's projections, Alberta was expected to run a deficit of almost $11 billion for the 2022-23 fiscal year. All of a sudden, a $500-million surplus is announced. The Alberta government appears to be a genius at managing public funds.

The difference between the two Alberta budgets is that royalties on what they very affectionately call “bitumen” have increased by almost $8 billion. That is what magically covered nearly 70% of the province's deficit. Note that if Alberta had a value-added tax, a sales tax like most industrialized countries that know how to tax properly, like Quebec and the other provinces, like Europe, there would no longer be a deficit.

Yes, those provinces need to diversify their economy.

Beyond that, the market concentration can be calculated. Without getting into any detail, there are concentration indicators, such as the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. When we look at the concentration of Alberta's exports, the index is six times higher than that of Quebec, Ontario and the Canadian average, depending on the year. The most recent reliable statistics that I have date back to 2017. They are a few years old, but when we were debating the situation in Ukraine, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills did not hesitate to refer to a report from 2015 to say that we needed to produce more. I do not think that it will bother anyone that I am using data from 2017, but as an economist, I can say that the basic gist remains the same.

Yes, we need to diversify the economy.

Since I have been a member of the House, I have heard a lot of talk about diversification, in particular from those sitting next to me. Is there a problem with western Canada's public finances? Let us diversify and produce more oil. Is global warming a problem? Let us produce more oil and hope that, in 70 years, when the oceans have risen by three centimetres, we are able to sequester greenhouse gas emissions. That is pretty obvious.

On a more serious note, I would say that the Conservatives even used the war in Ukraine to try to justify the construction of pipelines that will take 10 to 15 years to complete. We are not talking about Keystone XL; we are talking about forever. They are trying to sell us that. It is serious.

I am a relatively new MP. In passing, I would like to say hello to my constituents in Mirabel and thank them for electing me six months ago. Parliament is a rumour mill. We hear things in the halls and secrets in the cafeteria. It would seem the Conservatives are thinking about putting oil in Canada's food guide.

It seems that this would resolve the problem of diversifying our diet. However, they do not agree at all. Some are wondering if it will be in with the fruits and vegetables. Others are wondering if it will be in with the meats and alternatives. I think it will end up with the dairy products because some people will put oil on their cereal in the morning. Since there is a leadership race, this question will likely be settled in September, or at least we hope so.

Let us come back to serious matters. This is an interesting bill that says that within 18 months after coming into force, the ministers concerned will meet with stakeholders. It says that they will have to make recommendations and reflect—it is a smart process, we admit it—that the report will have to be tabled in the House and brought to the attention of members, and that the process will have to be repeated every five years.

However, let us make sure that these reports do not end up like all the other reports, including the IPCC report. The government shows interest for a day and then throws it in the trash.

The same thing happened to the report of the commissioner of the environment. The commissioner blamed the government. We then asked questions in the House, but to listen to them talk one would believe that the commissioner was congratulating them. They need to do something else with these reports other than say that diversification will be paid for with more oil.

I, too, would like to see major research being conducted in Alberta. I have several university friends there, and I know that some research is already being done. I, too, want to see excellence, but this must be financed with something other than royalties.

Alberta must become less dependent. Their public finances indicate just how vulnerable Alberta is. When the price of oil goes up, everything is good; when the price of oil goes down, things are very bad. When things are good, they want more of it; when things are bad, their solution is to have more. Alberta and oil, it is like nicotine. When you miss it, you smoke more; when you smoke more, you cannot stop.

In the process that will lead us to reflect on this bill, I hope that we will find ourselves in a situation where we are constructive, forward-looking and do not continue to invest in an industry of the past. We must look ahead more than 10 years and stop relying on an industry in decline. Canada's history shows us that it has not always been easy. In former times, with the Pearson government, Canada's policy focused on buying Canadian.

We know they are very interested in the price of oil. Well, they were selling us their oil for more than the global price. That profit margin enabled them to develop the western oil sands, which cost a lot more to exploit than conventional oil because of the three processing stages.

In 2009, the Harper government said it would eliminate inefficient oil subsidies, whatever that means. Anyway, it does not matter what it means because the government did nothing. Since the 2015 Paris Agreement, our banks have invested $609 billion of our money, our savings, in non-renewable energy projects, in oil. That is a total of $609 billion, including $84 billion for coal. This is the 21st century, but we are investing in coal. It feels like we are back in the days of old locomotives.

There are solutions, in particular industry-led ones. This has to be a two-way street. The Bloc Québécois has made a lot of green finance proposals because the transition must be financially worthwhile. We need to ensure that the big capital is going to the right place, that investors have an incentive to invest, and that effective price signals are sent. We can use taxation, a savings tax. Transparency in the banking system is lacking. I want to know if my bank is investing my money in dirty oil. I will then make my own decision, but I want to know.

We are talking about maybe working on the fiduciary duties of pension funds, which invest our pensions for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, when this industry is expected to be on the decline. We are talking about norms, about norms from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or TCFD, about other norms that could be applied to Crown corporations, and so on.

There is a lot to think about. There is a lot of work to be done. We need to get a lot of people around the table. I read this bill with great interest and I hope that it will produce something constructive for the future of people in western Canada.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-235. It is clear that we need better co-operation between the federal government, the provinces and the territories in order to get serious about climate action. We know that is the case because we have not seen serious climate action. We haven't seen our governments rise to the occasion and make the investments we know we have to make for Canada to do its part with respect to lowering its greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, there is a need for a conversation, so it is difficult to oppose a bill that sets up a framework for that conversation and a mechanism to report on that.

It was interesting to listen to the member for Lakeland because I think we have a very different take on the central message of this bill. I do not see it as an “Ottawa knows best” bill. I think it is an admission that Ottawa does not know enough about how to take serious action on the climate change file. That is a real disappointment to a lot of people who have been looking to governments and especially the federal government for leadership on climate action since it was elected in 2015 and promised it would do exactly that.

It is worth remarking on the fact that the bill is being presented by someone who has been a central player in that government, a former minister of both natural resources and international trade. If there is a disappointment with respect to the bill, it is that there are no clear indications as to what kinds of projects we should be moving forward on as a country. Clearly, there are conversations that need to happen to be able to co-determine those priorities along with other jurisdictions.

The fact that we have somebody who has been a central player in the current government for the over six years now that it has been in power, and whose main suggestion is to get the conversation going, is a real testament to the fact that Canada is not where it needs to be and that the government has not lived up to the promises it ran on in not only 2015, but 2019 and 2021. The fact that it went from having a comfortable majority in 2015 to just kind of hanging on by its fingernails in 2019 and then again in 2021 is a testament to the fact that Canadians are watching and they know the government has not made good on its commitment to take serious climate action.

Therefore, by all means let us carry on this conversation and have some public reporting out so there can be some accountability, but I do not think we can pass over in silence the disappointment at not having some concrete ideas about how we get there as a country.

It would be nice to see the federal government, the provinces and the territories agree on some things with respect to investments. I look to our own region, the region that is indeed the subject of this bill, western Canada and I think about some of the conversations that have happened and the various reports that have been published about the possibility of a western Canadian power grid. That would be about more than just simple transmission between provinces, but about trying to have a coordinated system of generation, transmission and distribution so that provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have an enormous potential for solar and wind energy, can benefit from having neighbours in B.C. and Manitoba that have an abundance of hydroelectric power that can be used to even out the generation cycles of those other forms of renewable energy. That could be a massive benefit to Canada with respect to lowering our own greenhouse gas emissions.

It is also a project that could create a lot of employment, both with respect to the building and the ongoing maintenance and operation of the grid. A lot of Canadians look to pipeline projects as a place to create construction and ongoing jobs, but we can do that with renewable energy infrastructure as well.

Six and a half years of government by the Liberals and no real progress in championing a large infrastructure project like that is a missed opportunity and we are running out of time to keep missing opportunities. We need to get serious about selecting some of these opportunities. We need to get serious about investing in them. We need to get serious about investing in them not as a one-off pilot or a little project here or there, but with a plan for the next 10 or 20 years on how we are going to create sustainable infrastructure in Canada. That is important to not only get a sense of how we will do with respect to our greenhouse gas emissions but for work forecasts as well.

That is what gives Canadians confidence that they are going to be able to go out and get jobs, if they are employed in the industries that build and maintain our critical infrastructure of this kind.

It is also really important when we look at a stubbornly high unemployment rate, and we are going to talk about training. We need to talk about training, but we need to know what work is going to be there in the next 10 to 20 years. Certainly, a lot of work is going to be there just as a product of demand in sectors such as housing and others. We are going to continue to need tradespeople. There is an opportunity here to lay out some ambitious projects on a timeline for companies and other actors in the sector. I think of my own union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which does a lot of good work in training electricians for the workforce.

Having a sense of the kind of work that is going to be out there, and that is going to be publicly funded as part of our effort to do our part in the battle against climate change, allows those organizations to work with training colleges, unions and contractors to figure out how we supply the workforce that we need.

That is why it is so disappointing. This would have been a great bill in the year 2000. This would have been lovely work to do back then. It would have been great for the government to have done it in 2015. The information and the research are out there. That is why these conversations between governments are important, because it is a matter of choosing those priorities and building that political will, in the absence of which we are simply not going to make progress. As I say, we are really just running out of time to get this done.

To the member for Lakeland, I would say that this is not about whether government knows best. This is about there being a meaningful role for public investment in facing down the climate crisis and in training people for the economy. All the time, we hear that employers are concerned that they cannot find people with the relevant skills and experience to make their businesses go. They are looking to the government for solutions on that. They are looking to have meaningful training programs that are publicly funded, at least to some extent.

Those are things that the private sector is looking to the government for. We know that there has to be a role for the public sector in rebuilding the economy post-pandemic, and we know that there has to be a role for the public sector in taking on the climate challenge. The idea that somehow there is not a role for the public sector here is certainly naive, if it is true. Otherwise, it is just sort of trying to pass over the important role of the public sector here for the purposes of a political narrative. I think that is doing more harm than good.

We need coordination in order to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. We need coordination to meet the challenges of the labour supply shortage that we are facing, even in the face of a high unemployment rate. We have this curious problem in Canada: we have a whole bunch of people who are looking for work and cannot find it, and a whole bunch of employers who are saying that they are looking for workers and cannot find them. If the private market, on its own, was going to fix that, it would have done it by now. There is absolutely a role for governments to work with all of those stakeholders and come up with a plan.

Ultimately, this is a bill that is about planning. That is fair enough. This is planning not only that we need to do, but it is planning that we should have done by now. I think it is an admission. The fact that this bill comes from somebody who has been such a central player in the government is an admission that the government has not been doing that work, or certainly not doing it well enough.

Let us get on with this. I hope the government will not wait for the deadlines established in this bill, because I think it has enough information, or it should by now, in order to come up with a plan. I would hope that the conversations this bill calls for are conversations that are already ongoing. If they are not, we have a big problem.

I am comfortable moving the bill along, but I certainly hope the government is not going to take that as a sign that it can sit on its hands and wait another 18 months to start thinking seriously about how we take climate action in Canada.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned in his intervention a moment ago, sometimes we need a little bit of luck, and only 24 members had worse luck than I did in the last private members' draw. Fortunately, my prairie colleague has put forward an excellent private member's bill, Bill C-235, which I was honoured to second at first reading, and I am thrilled to rise once again in support.

My hon. colleague recently served as the special representative to the Prairies. In this role, he provided members in this House with a clear-eyed assessment about the direction this government must take for our region to grow and our communities to thrive. The hon. member's guidance and wisdom have been deeply appreciated by everybody who has had the pleasure of meeting and working with him. We will never forget his passionate advocacy for those who call western Canada home.

As chair of the Liberals' Prairies and northern caucus, I have had the privilege of leading many great conversations about western Canada's future. Last week I had the immense pleasure of touring across Saskatchewan, meeting with local mayors, business and community leaders and area residents. These conversations have left me hopeful while giving me a deep appreciation for the challenges ahead of us. They have also shown me how valuable a framework of co-operation, as proposed through Bill C-235, would be in addressing these shared challenges.

I am a newly elected member of Parliament, but I have been a Calgarian my whole life. I have watched my city grow and develop through boom and bust. We are resilient and hard-working and we are always ready to come together to solve problems.

The world is changing more quickly than ever before. We are facing many massive challenges, and there are not many challenges greater than climate change. We are witnessing the devastating impacts of climate change today. It is not just tomorrow's problem.

The area I represent, northeast Calgary, was ravaged by a hailstorm in June 2020. I stood up for the thousands of residents affected by this devastating storm, which caused more than one and a half billion dollars of damage. This storm was one of the costliest weather events in Canadian history, a clear example of extreme weather caused by climate change.

While touring Saskatchewan, I heard about the growing threat of drought looming over the farmers who put food on Canadians' tables across the continent. From massive devastation caused by flooding in British Columbia to fires tearing through our forests, climate change is happening. Our Liberal government has already invested over $100 billion to fight climate change. We are going to do more, and Bill C-235 will help us focus our efforts.

Our government has committed to fighting climate change throughout all we do. We have already taken major steps toward reducing emissions. There is much more work to do, and we are going to do it, but while we do our part, we cannot forget about western Canadian workers. The member forWinnipeg South Centre said it best: “This bill represents a new way of doing business as a nation.”

Our western economy is incredibly well positioned to thrive in a green economy, but our government must make sure this happens. Western Canada, the Prairies, Alberta and Calgary need to be world leaders in all things energy as we move towards a low-carbon economy. Industry stakeholders understand that this is inevitable and are reorienting their operations to compete in a low-emissions environment.

Our government should incentivize the transition while understanding that it cannot happen overnight. Only the Liberal government recognizes both the urgency of climate action and the importance of supporting Canadian energy workers. Striking this balance is at the heart of Bill C-235.

Our green transformation will have tremendous effects, not only on the energy industry, but also in reaching our net-zero goals, which will require an economy-wide effort. It is about integrating clean energy into all energy-intensive sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, transportation and manufacturing; rethinking how we live and move in and between our cities and towns, investing in public transit projects, such as the blue line LRT in my riding of Calgary Skyview, as well as Edmonton-Calgary and Calgary-Banff train links; investing in rural transit; and consulting with counties, hamlets and towns to better understand their needs.

I recently spoke with Chief Cadmus Delorme of the Cowessess first nation. He re-emphasized the importance of his community being self-sustaining and of being an economic partner in the growth of the province and country. Our government recently invested $5 million in a solar grid at Cowessess, which will allow the nation to power its own homes with renewable energy and contribute to the Saskatchewan grid. Bill C-235 would facilitate projects like these by mandating co-operation, collaboration and relationship building.

As a former city councillor, I have seen what happens when local government perspectives are shut out of conversations. Municipalities understand local priorities and concerns. Our federal government needs to build strong, productive relationships with our counterparts in towns and cities across the country, focusing on the Prairies. Bill C-235 proposes a framework to build a better economy. It is a framework that will help our federal government coordinate local co-operation and engagement. It is a framework that acknowledges that one level of government cannot build a green economy alone, and it is a framework that can serve as a model from coast to coast to coast.

I want to voice my full support of this bill once again. I hope the House can stand up for prairie workers as we continue to build a green economy that works for everyone.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity to speak to this bill. I congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre for bringing forward his thoughts on how we can succeed in the Prairies. It is great to see him back in this place, and I bid him more successes.

I was also pleased that the member would be open to amendments because, as he said, none of us has a monopoly on all the good ideas. I thank him for phoning me yesterday to have a conversation about this bill. I had some concerns, which I shared with him, and he was willing to look at an 18-month time frame that might be put forward for something like this.

He is very aware of the fact that there have been lapses in some of the green funding in the Prairies for some of the projects there. I spoke specifically to him about one with natural gas in the south central area of Manitoba. The government may not be willing to fund those types of things anymore, but it is a great benefit to a small part of one little prairie province.

The agriculture side of the industry has made great steps over the years in efficiencies, the use of energy savings and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and this seems to be more focused on getting things green than in getting things done.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, March 21, 2022, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from March 4, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-235.

This is an interesting bill. The bill presented by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre basically tells his government to better organize its actions in the prairie provinces. I salute his courage. He knows that his government does not have an action plan to effectively combat the effects of climate change. He also knows that financial investments must be redirected. He is therefore calling on the ministers of his government, starting with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for the economic development of any of the prairie provinces. The message is clear. In other words, the member is telling the government to get its act together.

Many reports have been written over the past 20 years. Many governments have come and gone, and action has yet to be taken. I understand the frustration of my colleagues in the House. The Bloc Québécois has said so, and we have voted on this issue many times. We must be rigorous and act intelligently when it comes to the environment.

Not a day goes by without there being an article about climate change, and even climate catastrophe. Climate change amplifies the natural risks we already face, like floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts, and so on. This causes increasingly frequent and more extreme disasters.

For some 30 years now, here, in the House, members of the Bloc Québécois have been informing their colleagues of the consequences of the decisions that governments put off until later. In that vein, I applaud my former colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who was ahead of his time on these issues. The important thing is that we need to be ready to deal with the current and future impacts of climate change. This seemed necessary to us, and it still does. We are right in the middle of a global realization that is leading to changes in consumer preferences, innovation, economic activity, competitive advantages and wealth creation, among other things.

The member's bill represents a solution for communities that feel the need to change course immediately. Consumers are increasingly demanding goods and services with a small environmental footprint. Climate-smart innovations are only marginal solutions. They are becoming a huge opportunity for the global market and creating quality jobs. With these changes, sound environmental stewardship is becoming increasingly associated with market access and becoming a key source of sustainable competitive advantages.

We cannot stall any longer. There is no doubt that we need to propose real action to fight climate change. Obviously, serious measures need to be considered, and they are especially crucial in the provinces referred to in this bill, particularly because they are amongst the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. It would be hard to oppose a bill that establishes a framework to compel the western provinces to get in line and calls on the government to report to Parliament and to be accountable. I simply must point out my usual concern that provincial jurisdictions must be respected.

I believe this bill is an opportunity to shed light on the money that the oil industry is currently receiving and to keep track of the projects. The sponsor of this bill knows that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term, that these provinces are facing decline unless they diversify their economies and begin a greener energy shift. The sooner they start, the less painful it will be. There is no doubt that Quebec has made tremendous efforts. Its industry is in the process of making an industrial shift towards electrification and the development of a green industry.

It is important to remember that huge sums of money have been invested in the oil companies. In fact, the western provinces benefit greatly from the federal government's investments. Is our colleague from Winnipeg South Centre illustrating that the money is not being used to help the western provinces make a real green shift? As the old saying goes, you have to follow the money. It is so obvious that this money is not going to communities and businesses that want to make the necessary energy transition and change their habits.

There are many measures that are part of the solutions for growing a green economy. The western provinces have a much longer way to go because they are determined to hold on to an economy from bygone industrial days. I agree with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, on the fact that the different governments, whether federal, provincial or territorial, must play an important role.

I was talking about investments in the electrification of transportation. In Quebec and even Ontario to some extent, the federal government could invest in trade corridors and approve a number of signature projects that focus on a green economy, by providing a supply of green fuel or even supporting projects that promote electricity produced in Quebec.

The various ports on the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River represent an unavoidable link in the supply chains of several industries, so this is certainly a strategic investment that provides a distinct advantage for businesses in every industry whose products, both inputs and end products, come through these places. I commend the leadership of the Port of Montreal on that.

The government will have to finance the development of the electrification of heavy vehicles and contribute to converting fleets of trucks and equipment, such as vehicles used for moving containers to their destination. The electrification of modes of transportation for Canada Post could be a good example, as could the installation of electric charging stations everywhere, in every village in Quebec.

When the federal government does that, then every business and SME will benefit from the economic spinoffs from these strategic investments.

Automation plays a part in making this industrial shift more effective, but also in countering the labour shortage that is affecting many industries.

I want to point out the importance of corporate social labelling.

In an era when consumers are increasingly critical and aware of the efforts that businesses should be making to use safer methods and protect the environment, it is not surprising that businesses are focusing more and more on all the links in the supply chain. That is why it is important to keep investing in businesses that strive to be better citizens for our planet. Businesses that cultivate their social label will have a distinct advantage in this green economy.

With regard to green financing, can Quebec grow as a result of its financial services moving to invest in greener businesses, those working to reduce their carbon emissions? Most definitely. My colleague from Mirabel spoke about this when we studied this bill, and he could talk about it for hours because he has studied the impact on Quebec.

Let us consider what Canada's banks are currently doing. For years, they have had a big stake in oil. Canada's big five banks have invested $694 billion in fossil fuels, $477 billion in loans and $217 billion in warrants.

We now know that 88% of the total went to oil and gas companies. The rest, $85 billion, went to coal. We need to start redirecting the financial sector's investments to greener, more sustainable and more promising sectors.

If we redirect a portion of the public's savings or the financial sector's investments towards renewable energies, low- or zero-emission sectors, change-resistant infrastructure to reduce climate risk, and emerging technologies rather than hydrocarbons that are doomed for demise, hundreds of billions of dollars will be made available and can be used to boost the action plan set out in Bill C‑235.

I also want to talk about local investments and economic diversification in rural areas.

I would like to give an example of some proactive work done by my office to enable an entire region to better coordinate its bio-food production. Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a region of Quebec that is further north and far from any major centres, so I understand when another MP wants to better equip his communities that are far from a major urban centre.

Global warming inspires all kinds of ideas about possibilities for better land use. Our region in particular has all kinds of potential for the coming years thanks to critical minerals in the ground and the fact that it is potentially the second-largest organic agriculture land mass.

The member talked about developing a plan that requires coordination and getting people involved so the economy serves them, and of course getting everyone on the same page from the get-go is hardly a waste of time. Doing so saves the proponent from constantly going back to the drawing board because the initial proposal lacks social acceptability. That is one of the promising aspects of this bill.

We have to consider the predominant role businesses play in our communities and do more to help resource processing startups. That will make regions like my colleague's and my own, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, more attractive. A territorial innovation fund operated by and for regions working toward the same goal makes a lot of sense.

In closing, the government made lots of promises, but it is not keeping them. Our hope is that grassroots provincial initiatives will get the support they need from our communities.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and welcomes any measures aimed at reorienting investments toward businesses that are switching to green energy. While we are at it, why not sell Trans Mountain and invest the money into developing the Prairies—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for choosing to table a bill focusing on building a low-carbon economy. This bill would require the Minister of Industry to consult about, prepare a plan for, and report on a strategy to create a green economy on the prairies. While this bill is a welcome step in the right direction, ultimately we need bolder, more concrete action if we are to truly meet the urgency and scale of the climate crisis.

My New Democrat colleagues and I support efforts to better coordinate climate action, but we expect the government to move ahead on more concrete initiatives and far sooner than the timeline proposed in this bill. The climate emergency is here now, and Canadians need their government to take real action to reduce emissions and support workers in the transition. From coast to coast to coast, we have seen the impacts of the climate crisis: devastating floods, wildfires and record-breaking heat waves. Canadians cannot afford any more delays.

I think of the work of Seth Klein, who reminds us that we need to move at a speed and scale not seen since the Second World War. The Climate Emergency Unit reminds us that we mobilized then and we can mobilize now, sound the alarm, jump-start the needed transition and transform our economy to tackle the greatest existential crisis of our time.

For every sector of society, every level of government and every one of us, this is about protecting our communities. It is about protecting our future. It is about protecting everything we hold dear. This is our opportunity to meet the biggest challenge of our time, and it is now or never.

While young people, the UN Secretary-General, our own environment commissioner and the world's top scientists are calling on us as elected officials to take real action, the unfortunate truth is that the Liberal government continues to fail to answer this call. In the words of Seth Klein, “The uncomfortable conclusion is this: Canada’s approach to climate is a hot mess of incoherence and contradictions, and it is fundamentally at odds with what the IPCC demands of us.”

However, I do welcome Bill C-235 and any initiative that works to secure a green and prosperous future. I especially welcome the parts of the bill that push for identifying innovative public transport solutions for small cities and communities; the parts that push for fostering job creation and retraining for a zero-emission green economy in regions that rely on traditional energy industries; the parts that push for developing natural infrastructure projects and using new sources of clean energy; the parts that push for integrating clean energy into agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, transportation and tourism; the parts that push for establishing programs and projects that stimulate a green economy; and last but perhaps most important, the parts that push for infrastructure projects that facilitate tackling the climate crisis.

While I welcome this bill, it is important to note that the member who tabled it, as a Liberal MP and especially as a former minister in Trudeau's cabinet, is accountable and responsible for the situation—

[An hon. member]

The member referred to the Prime Minister by name.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

My apologies.

As a former minister in the Prime Minister's cabinet, he is responsible for the situation that we find ourselves in and for the Liberal government's inaction. There is a continued pattern of saying the right thing but doing the opposite, of talking about climate leadership while handing out billions to big oil and gas, of declaring a climate emergency while buying and building a pipeline, of promising to reduce emissions while approving Bay du Nord, of saying that they believe in climate change while ignoring the science.

What we need is a green new deal, a just transition for workers. What we need are massive investments in green infrastructure, in retrofits, in supports for workers, and we need a real plan with good family-sustaining jobs for the communities that are most impacted. While communities are paying the price for the government's inaction, the biggest polluters, the biggest oil and gas companies, continue to make record profits while collecting billions in fossil fuel subsidies. We need to stop giving our public money to the corporations that are fuelling the climate crisis. We need to redirect those funds into climate solutions now—not sometime down the road, not in a few years, but now. It is not about the environment versus the economy, not a trade-off between jobs and climate solutions. Climate solutions are job creators.

Unfortunately, when the Liberal government talks about balancing the economy and the environment, what it means is increasing oil and gas production while making promises about meeting the targets that it keeps missing. The climate crisis is here now. We are already seeing the impacts. We need to drastically reduce our emissions and we need action that aligns with limiting global warming to 1.5°C if we have any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic outcome.

Instead, the government continues to leave Canadians with an uncertain future and continues to fail workers, particularly those in the oil and gas sector. A green economy should mean good, sustainable jobs, not more boom-and-bust economies. It should be creating employment in the sectors that tackle the climate crisis, in the sectors that tackle the biodiversity crisis. It means cleaning up our environment and reducing our emissions, and doing it in a way that supports workers.

We need a well-managed and inclusive transition to a zero-carbon economy, and that transition must be in line with the needs of the communities most impacted. An inclusive transition means ensuring that first nations, Inuit and Métis people are not only at the table but supported in leading the conversation. We need a transition that addresses the needs of women, of racialized communities, of young people, of newcomers.

To quote Blue-Green Canada, “We must find solutions so our economy is just, green, inclusive and fair.” Denial is no longer possible. Delay is no longer an option. Canadians want ambitious action on the climate emergency. A climate-safe and more just future is possible; we just need a government with the political will to make it happen.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for his passionate work to bring forward this proposed legislation.

As a member from the prairies, I am proud to stand in full support of Bill C-235. In a time of significant change, a strong prairies region is critical for a strong nation and our postpandemic economy. The bill is about recognizing our innovations and ensuring that we make smart investments that are good for prairies communities, good for the Canadian economy and good for the planet.

It is about building on the prairies' economic strengths and increasing sustainability in sectors such as energy, agriculture, forestry, transportation, manufacturing, technology and tourism. It is about seizing the opportunity to maintain our leadership as a source of food and energy for the world through wise stewardship of our natural resources and sustainable development for the future. It is about long-term infrastructure projects that anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change. It is about protecting and developing our natural resources and building a clean economy that will provide the good-paying, middle-class jobs of today and of tomorrow.

Bill C-235 represents a new way of doing business as a nation, and we are already heading in the right direction. Since 2015, our government has invested more than $100 billion to help fight climate change and protect the environment. We are helping companies and communities on the prairies capitalize on opportunities in the transition to clean technologies and a low-carbon economy.

For example, in Calgary last January, my friend and colleague, the minister responsible for PrairiesCan, announced more than $3 million to support innovation in Alberta's clean-tech sector. That includes a new energy transition centre in downtown Calgary, a world-leading centre of expertise that pairs industry and the University of Calgary to help small and medium-sized businesses develop new technologies to meet the growing global demand for environmentally friendly energy projects and processes, clean-tech benefits from our existing energy expertise, a talented workforce and emerging capabilities in the energy transition.

As we shift gears into the future, carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, will play an essential role in a prosperous net-zero economy. In this year's budget, we propose an investment tax credit for CCUS to secure Canada's place as a leader in CCUS and support the Canadian innovators and engineers advancing this technology.

Decarbonizing our economy is a long-term piece of work, and hydrogen fuels are poised to play a key role. The expanding global hydrogen market is estimated to be worth $2.5 trillion within the next three decades. Investing in it during these early days is why our government developed the hydrogen strategy for Canada.

Alberta is a natural for this. It has the natural gas reserves to feed it. It has the right people and talent grown in our energy sector to participate in it. Edmonton is positioned to be at the epicentre of the new hydrogen economy. For example, our government is supporting C-Fer Technologies to upgrade its testing facility. Our investment means that more businesses can develop and refine their products and technologies to ensure they are suitable for use with hydrogen and capitalize on future growth. This is just one example of the ongoing transition and how the prairies can be a world leader in the net-zero economy.

Indigenous communities on the prairies have long understood the need for sustainability. For example, the Birdtail Sioux Dakota Nation is a joint venture partner in the Birtle transmission project to flow up to 250 megawatts of Manitoba hydro power, clean power, to the SaskPower grid.

Two years ago, Fisher River Cree Nation launched Manitoba's largest solar generation project, built entirely by indigenous employees with financial support in the way of $1 million from our government. Now other indigenous communities are reaching out to Fisher River for advice on starting their own solar farms and cutting their reliance on diesel generators in the north.

Building a green prairies economy is also about using our know-how to build sustainable things that people need, and I am proud to say that this government has supported the electrification of Manitoba's heavy vehicle manufacturing industry. As an example, in the great city of Winnipeg, where I am from, the not-for-profit Vehicle Technology Centre is working with local companies to design and build zero-emission urban and intercity buses, fire trucks, recreational vehicles and agricultural and mining equipment.

In conclusion, the bill before us would develop a framework for local co-operation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors to build a sustainable green economy for the prairie provinces. I know that my hon. friend is proud of the work that he and other colleagues played to bring PrairiesCan into being to work with others to meet the unique needs of more prairie communities, and I thank them for that.

On the prairies, we know the value of collaboration. It is how our ancestors made it through bitter winters and turned survival into success. A common thread running through my meetings with indigenous, business and community leaders is the hope of greater co-operation as we address the challenges ahead of us. We make progress when municipal governments, indigenous governments, communities and provinces, local community organizations, learning institutions and private sector companies large and small work together. Together, and recognizing that this is not an easy thing, we can stimulate a green prairie economy. This bill will create a new, collaborative plan for the prairies, a game plan to meet the challenges we face and achieve our ambitions.

Finally, I am proud that this bill is an opportunity to stand up for prairie workers and communities as we continue to build a green economy that works for everyone.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the prairies. I am always eager to speak to any legislation that will impact the prairies, so I want to thank my hon. colleague from Manitoba for his interest in our province and in the Canadian prairies.

The fact that this bill was introduced as a private member’s bill and not as a government bill shows the lack of priority the government continues to display toward the Canadian prairies. I sincerely hope that more members, such as my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, call on the government to support the Canadians who proudly call the prairies their home.

Bill C-235 is an attempt to increase local collaboration and build a green economy in the prairie provinces. I applaud the intent of the legislation. However, I cannot help but notice the lack of focus on agriculture.

I have always said that Canadian agriculture should be part of the solution and not treated as part of the problem. When it comes to the environment, Canadian farmers are world leaders in environmental leadership, and their record proves it. They are some of the most sustainable stewards of the natural landscape across our country, and their efforts to preserve and conserve the environment should not go unrecognized. Any plan to build a green economy must include Canadian agriculture, especially in the prairie provinces.

This is why I find clause 5 of Bill C-235 so disturbing. Clause 5 states that the Minister of Industry must “prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework, setting out the Minister’s conclusions and recommendations” on this green economy.

The legislation states that the minister must collaborate with “the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources and any minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces”. However, it abruptly stops short of including the Minister of Agriculture.

How can a plan for the Canadian prairies not have the minister responsible for agriculture at the table? Agriculture is an economic pillar for the Canadian prairies. Any plan to grow a green economy must include agriculture. If this bill makes it to committee, I urge members of this House to amend it so that Canadian agriculture is included. The Minister of Industry should be mandated to consult with the Minister of Agriculture on any plan to green the economy, especially in the Canadian prairies. I believe that including this would dramatically improve the bill.

Additionally, the absence of agriculture is shown in subclause 3(2) of Bill C-235, which is focused on consultation. Subclause 3(2) would require the minister to consult with the provincial government representatives responsible for transportation, environment, and employment, but does not require the minister to consult with the provincial agriculture representatives.

Canadian farmers and ranchers deserve a seat at the table. Bill C-235 could easily be improved by including agriculture in the provincial consultation process.

I should also note that I have a lot of questions about the metrics that will be used to determine the outcomes of Bill C-235. Subclause 3(3) of the legislation states, “The framework must include measures that promote economic sustainability and growth and employment in the Prairie provinces”. However, how the government will measure these targeted outcomes appears to be unknown.

The bill also requires the Minister of Industry to prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework. However, how the minister will determine what is considered effective is also unknown.

My constituents know that I have never believed in the Ottawa-knows-best attitude. Unfortunately, I fear that this bill may only fuel this approach by adding a new layer of red tape and regulation to economic development at a time when we should be reducing it.

I find it interesting that Bill C-235 is a bill focused on improving the environment within specific provincial boundaries because it was only a few years ago when the Liberal government rejected Manitoba’s very own green plan, which was specifically designed to meet the needs of the province. I strongly believe that a one-size-fits-all approach will never work for environmental policy, and I hope that the government will one day acknowledge this too.

I do applaud the fact that the bill would give priority to making use of new sources of energy, including nuclear. As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I have heard loud and clear that we will never meet our climate goals if we do not embrace nuclear energy. The government must grow Canada’s nuclear industry, and I am pleased to see the member for Winnipeg South Centre acknowledge that.

In conclusion, I support the spirit of Bill C-235 to improve local engagement in building a greener economy, and I thank my colleague for focusing on a region that we both proudly call home. However, I have major concerns with the blatant neglect of Canadian agriculture in the bill. Simply put, there would be no prairie economy without agriculture, and Bill C-235 fails to acknowledge this in its current form.

I hope that my remarks and suggested changes regarding this legislation are considered by members during its consideration in committee. I am always happy to work with any member of the House to grow Canadian agriculture and grow the Canadian prairies.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was with great interest that I read the bill introduced by our colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, which calls on the government to work with key stakeholders to develop an action plan to move the prairies toward a greener economy.

It may not be easy, but western Canada must move away from fossil fuels. Everyone acknowledges the pressing need for an energy transition away from oil, except perhaps some of our colleagues, who, unfortunately, have occasionally tried to take advantage of the crisis in Ukraine to promote Canadian oil and gas.

However, the challenge will be enormous, given the forces involved. The sponsor of this bill is well aware of this, having served as natural resources minister from 2015 to 2018. If the challenge is great, it is primarily because of the power and scale of the oil lobbies. Everyone is aware of this. These behemoths hoard talent and put pressure on wages and costs. They hinder the creation and growth of innovative SMEs, which are trying to develop sectors that would diversify the economy of this region.

The energy revolution is inevitable, however. It will happen. That is a fact, no matter what fantasies some people may still have about green oil. A total transformation of the existing framework requires support from all economic stakeholders, in both the political and financial sectors. Unfortunately, the financial sector is not currently making much of an effort or much progress. Many banks talk a good game, promising to move away from fossil fuels and commit to Ottawa's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. That is the latest objective announced, and the plan is still in development.

However, investments in the oil industry jumped from $122 billion in 2016 to $160 billion in 2019. Investments did drop in 2020 as a result of the pandemic, but the five largest Canadian banks are still among the top 25 largest investors in fossil fuels—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would ask him to take his phone off his desk because the vibrations are bothering the interpreters.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I would also like to take a moment to sincerely apologize to the interpreters.

I was saying that the five largest Canadian banks are all still on the list of the world's top 25 investors in fossil fuels. Knowing that today's investments will be used to increase tomorrow's production, I will be polite and simply say that we are not exactly positioning ourselves to meet our environmental objectives.

We hear about carbon capture and storage, but these measures will have little effect on reducing emissions. These strategies will never replace a real shift to renewable energy. The strategy of “let's increase production, then we'll increase capture” is simply doomed to fail.

Remember that one of the objectives of the Paris Agreement, signed by Ottawa, is to use financial flows to promote the development of an economy that has low greenhouse gas emissions and is resilient to climate change. I encourage my government colleagues to finally adopt a policy to implement this objective, in case they have forgotten about it. It is Parliament's responsibility to send a clear signal and to support the green shift, which must be accelerated. Canada is asleep at the wheel, make no mistake about it.

In 2019, an expert panel, jointly created by the departments of Finance and the Environment, stated that this transition would not be possible without real change in financial models, and pointed in particular to the urgency of reorienting investments toward greener sectors. Instead of offering a real strategy to move away from oil, the government talks about supporting this industry into a low-emission future; in short, it wants to continue pumping oil while trying to do as little damage as possible. The time for such nonsense is over.

To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, we need to immediately stop financing the development of new oil and gas projects. These are not my words, but those of the International Energy Agency, which cannot be accused of being ideologically anti-oil. We must urgently reorient these investments toward the sectors of the future. However, as I said before, to do that, stakeholders from all sectors must seriously do their part.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is pretty open to supporting Bill C‑235, currently before us, since several federal ministers would be required to work in partnership with the provinces and the private sector to bring in an action plan to develop a green and modern economy in the Prairies. This is a step in the right direction. As they are developing the action plan, I invite the ministers to consult the Bloc Québécois' proposals, where they might find the inspiration that they have quite clearly been lacking so far, unfortunately.

Getting back to the bill, it talks about transparency regarding climate risks. We need to leverage savings by making green RRSPs more tax efficient than RRSPs that include investments in fossil fuels, in order to free up a huge amount of capital to finance the green shift. Billions of dollars need to be freed up. Public funds will be a crucial aspect, but they will be insufficient. We absolutely must invite the financial sector to take up this challenge.

In the shift we are proposing, some see only costs, complications and bureaucracy. However, the economic benefits of a green transition are numerous, first of all by allowing the development of cutting-edge technologies and industries. As we know, Quebec is full of forward-thinking creators. The green transition will be lucrative. Investors will therefore have access to more dynamic and promising assets, rather than assets whose performance is condemned to plunge, as well as to a more stable financial sector.

We are certainly facing a huge task, but this is a historic opportunity to lead a strong and radical, but beneficial and incredibly motivating, transformation. Many of my colleagues here certainly claim that they entered politics to change the world. We have heard that many times. Now is the time to be on the side of the visionaries and agents of progress.

I will close by thanking the sponsor of this bill for trying to put a bit of pressure on his government. That takes courage. I assure him of our support in this matter. We will vote in favour of this bill, and we will co-operate with all initiatives and all attempts to facilitate the urgent and inevitable transition to renewable energy.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that whatever happens to this bill, tomorrow or beyond, from my perspective it has already performed a wonderful piece of service because we have been witnessing, over the past hour or so, a debate in the Parliament of Canada about the future of the Prairie economy that resonates not only with people who live on the prairie, but also with people from Quebec, British Columbia and all over the country. To be able to focus the parliamentary mind on the future of prairie Canada, in the context of all of the regions of this diverse, disparate and magnificent country, is so satisfying.

I could take some of the quotes from all of the members who spoke today and say they might have been speaking for me and for the intent of the bill. For instance, “Better coordination on the Prairies”, said the member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue. “Solutions for communities who want action”, he said, and “Access to markets.” “Lasting sustainable action.” “The federal government has an important role to play in the development of a sustainable economy on the prairie, as it has for every region of the country.” There was then a very interesting set of ideas on green finance.

This is exactly the kind of debate and the framework that is envisioned in this bill, not in 45 minutes of discussion on the floor of the Parliament of Canada, but in hundreds of discussions, in city councils, within the councils of provincial decision-making, with the indigenous communities and in the private sector, which is going to have to take the lead.

I also welcomed comments from the member for Victoria about supporting workers in transition. Of course, we can talk about economic development all we want and about wealth creation, but if the very basis and motivation of that creation is not the creation of good jobs for our people, then it is a bit empty and does not lead to where we want to be, which is prosperity that is rooted in sustainability right across the region.

I love her expression “a green new deal”. Maybe I like it so much because I am just reading a biography of FDR at this moment. There is incredible vision. Other members have spoken about it being time for visionary politics. The vision FDR had in 1933, and throughout his presidency, really created an entire new social structure and way of doing business in the United States and is instructive for all of us. For this debate to talk about a “new green deal” is one of the reasons why it was introduced in the first place.

I would say to my friend, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, that I think we should talk at committee about the importance of agriculture in the Prairies. I am sure that there will be ways of ensuring the bill not only refers to agriculture, as it should, but also the role of agriculture in the new Prairie economy, because people sometimes forget that in that region of the country we are growing what the world wants and needs, not the least of which is protein: It is food and sustainable sources of what it takes to sustain life itself.

When people ask me what I think the impact of this bill might be, I say that it has a wide range. It could be from absolutely zero, to changing the way we do business as a nation, or something in between, which is more likely. What it requires is what has been referred to by everybody who has spoken in this debate, which is an understanding that those of us in public office, or in positions of community leadership are at the table with indigenous communities, those in universities and on the cutting edge of research in value-added agriculture, and those in the life sciences where there is so much leadership in Prairie Canada.

I want to thank members for their support. Sometimes that support was expressed as an admiration for the spirit of the bill and in other cases even clause-by-clause language has been used to express its aspiration.

I look forward to moving this bill on to a vote and to committee, and I thank my colleagues very much for engaging in a debate about a green Prairie economy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for a recorded division, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.