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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you for explaining your amendment, Mr. Williams, but I need to make you aware of a ruling by the chair.

Bill C-235 would enact the act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. The purpose of the amendment is to foster “job creation in traditional energy industries in the Prairies”, rather than fostering a zero-emissions economy through retraining.

According to page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “an amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The chair is of the opinion that job creation in traditional energy industries is contrary to the principle of the bill.

Accordingly, the amendment is out of order.

If there are no other comments, we will move to the next amendment we have, which is G-4.

I see Mr. Fillmore on G-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 44 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-235 , an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see everyone again.

First, there are a few items of business in terms of how we are going to proceed on the clause-by-clause consideration today that I'd like to share with you.

As the name suggests, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing the amendment, who may explain it should they wish. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to comment, the amendment will be voted on.

The amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package the committee members received from the clerk.

Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk.

Since this is the first time this committee is examining a bill clause by clause, I will proceed slowly so that everyone can follow the discussion.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment.

Once an amendment has been moved, the member will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

When an amendment is being debated, members may propose subamendments, which must be submitted in writing. The permission of the mover of the amendment is not required. The committee can have only one subamendment before it at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote to adopt or defeat it.

Once the committee has voted on the various clauses, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself.

If any amendments have been adopted, it may be necessary to order a reprint of the bill as a working copy for House use at report stage.

Lastly, the committee shall instruct the chair to report the bill to the House. The report shall indicate only the text of amendments that have been adopted and any clauses that have been removed.

Everyone seems to be clear on the procedure, so I think we are ready to start the clause-by-clause study.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

I therefore call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I heard the question about transportation. I also had a question on that. I remember that, in 2018, Greyhound Canada announced cancellation of service in several regions in Canada, including the Prairies, but I also know that paragraph 3(3)(a) of Bill C-235 calls for “addressing the limited or non-existent transportation options in small cities and communities, and advancing innovative solutions for public transportation services in those cities and communities”.

I know that this may not be directly related to your industry or the group that you represent, but it is transportation for workers and for residents and it does matter quite a bit for the future development of these communities, as well as for predictability when it comes to municipalities, provinces and the federal government coming to the same table and laying out the plan for public transit.

I just want to hear from the witnesses about their thoughts on this particular paragraph. Do you think it will perhaps help to draw a blueprint for public transit options in the Prairies?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I didn't get a chance to ask the Canadian Cattle Association specifically about Bill C-235, whether they support the bill. I think they do, but I want to make sure they get an opportunity to respond, as well.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

You mentioned the Impact Assessment Act, and you had some concerns about the timelines that projects can take stemming from the Impact Assessment Act. I tend to be of the view that everyone comes to politics with good intentions and that there isn't the intention to add an additional layer of bureaucratic burden, but, with the Impact Assessment Act and with Bill C-235, could we agree that there is at least the potential for additional bureaucratic burden as an unintended consequence?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Austin, it's good to have you here in person. I'll begin with you.

Cameco is certainly checking a lot of check boxes that governments tend to look for. You are already transitioning to a low-carbon economy. You talked about indigenous partnerships and businesses that you're already working with, and then Bill C-235 comes along and refers to nuclear power as a new form of energy.

What do you really need from Bill C-235 to continue the work that you're doing? Would it be easier if the government just stayed out of your way and did not add a new level of bureaucratic burden that you have to deal with?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I'll start with the Alberta Beef Producers.

I commend your efforts with the tallgrass prairies. We have them in Windsor. There are only two places left in North America. My private member's bill looks to protect them. They're just city land, right now, but they're very rare and delicate.

I want to get this from you, specifically: Do you support Bill C-235 and its specifics? If not, why not? Are there improvements that can be made to the bill? That's what we're figuring out here—whether or not this is actually an improvement. I'd like your opinion on that.

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

What parts of Bill C‑235 should be reworked?

Witnesses have told us that the bill adds red tape and puts pressure on industry and business.

Do you agree with that?

[Dale Austin]

In my view, and I'll confine my comments to the energy sector, one of the main challenges on the prairies is looking for ways to make use of all forms of energy. This is not a situation where we are picking either-or. We are going to need all forms of energy into the future.

I believe the way it is presented in Bill C-235, to begin discussions about how that might be able to occur, is a very reasonable approach. In the confederation that we live in, the ability of the federal government to work with their provincial counterparts, with indigenous organizations and with industry will play a main role in whether or not this will be successful

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, would like to acknowledge the fact that we have Rémy Trudel here. You may or may not know that he was the member of the National Assembly who represented Rouyn‑Noranda—Témiscamingue at one point in time. When I was a young activist, he was one of the first people whose influence helped shape the course of my life, opening the door to politics. He may be the reason why I am in this seat now.

Thank you, Mr. Trudel. I'd also like to thank your students for being with us and for being interested in the workings of the federal public administration.

Mr. Austin, you didn't necessarily come out against Bill C‑235. On the contrary, I think you see it as a good thing.

What are the biggest economic challenges facing the prairie provinces right now?

Would Bill C‑235 help you address those challenges. Why or why not?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

I also appreciate the opportunities that I and my colleagues have had to meet with the various indigenous businesses that are up north and that you're working with. That's exemplary, and we look forward to that growing as the opportunities increase for you guys.

I would like to ask Tyler.... He mentioned the Guardians Of The Grasslands video, which I was going to mention. I'm glad that he did it first, quite honestly, because it is remarkable. I think it would give this committee a clear understanding of how important those grasslands are.

Bill C-235 focuses on emissions reduction, which is a continued focus of the government. From your perspective, what work is happening in your sector on emissions reduction? Are there other environment issues that we should be focusing on, as well, to include ecosystems, biodiversity and whatnot?

[Tyler Fulton, Officer at Large, Canadian Cattle Association]

Good afternoon, and thank you for having us today.

I'm Tyler Fulton, a beef cattle producer based in Birtle, Manitoba. I'm currently the president of the Manitoba Beef Producers, and an officer at large with the Canadian Cattle Association. I’m honoured to be here today to discuss the opportunities in the Prairies to build a green economy, and how that impacts cattle producers.

Beef cattle production in the prairie provinces represents a large portion of our sector, and one of the largest economic contributors in the region. We, in the beef cattle industry, are proud to be one of Canada’s largest agricultural sectors, supporting 348,000 jobs and contributing $21.8 billion to GDP, while also conserving 44 million acres of important grassland ecosystem that stores 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon.

However, it doesn’t stop there. Beef cattle production in Canada is leading the way internationally in terms of sustainable production practices. While production methods differ by region and landscape, our goal is aligned—to contribute to Canada’s economy, while conserving and protecting Canada’s environmental landscape. It is in the best interests of beef farmers and ranchers to preserve the environment, so we are always striving for continuous improvement.

The Canadian beef advisers, alongside the robust membership of the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, made scientifically sound environment goals leading into 2030. These goals are ambitious but measurable, and we have a plan for how we can achieve these goals.

We are committed to continuous improvement and leaving the environment in a better position for the next generation of beef cattle producers: for example, a 33% emissions intensity reduction by 2030, sequestering an additional 3.4 million tonnes of carbon every year, and maintaining 35 million acres of native grasslands. These efforts have us excited about both the environmental and the economic future of Canada’s beef industry.

When we look specifically at Bill C-235 and developing a framework for a green prairie economy, we have a few comments for the committee’s consideration.

First, it is essential to include cattle producers during the development phase. The Prairies have a large agriculture economic presence, and primary producers are the subject matter experts. Including agricultural advisers will be key for long-lasting success.

Second, the Canadian beef sector is confident in our 2030 goals, and we recommend that any framework be built by starting with industry-led goals. This will ensure that we’re working toward achieving shared objectives with an incentive-based approach.

As innovation and research continue around sustainability, there are tools coming to light that do have some public good. However, these result in added costs for producers. I need to emphasize that primary producers cannot pass these costs along, which will make the tools economically unsustainable. Looking to install those tools in a regular practice will not happen on its own, and a regulatory push would be costly and generally ineffective. We’ve seen how a regulatory approach drives up costs, and exports production to other jurisdictions.

Canada has one of the leading sustainable beef production systems in the world, with less than half the global greenhouse gas emission average. If there are regulatory and cost burdens on producers, it becomes unattainable to maintain production effectively in Canada. This will have a negative impact on our domestic and global food security. It will also have a severe negative consequence on Canada’s landscapes, without producers stewarding the land with their cattle.

Third, with regard to the content under paragraph 3(3)(c) in Bill C-235, it talks about “prioritizing projects that generate natural infrastructure and a clean environment”. Given the landscape that cattle graze in the Prairies, we strongly encourage cattle production to be included, given our positive contribution to biodiversity, temperate native grasslands, and the many species at risk that live on these pasture lands.

When we’re discussing “greening the economy” in the Prairies, the temperate native grasslands are a key consideration. While Bill C-235 mentions forests and forestry multiple times, there is no reference to grasslands. Analysis by the Nature Conservancy of Canada shows that, on average, over the past 25 years, roughly 148,000 acres of temperate native grasslands were lost through conversion each year. This doesn’t include the tame pastures and hay-lands, which are also being lost at similar rates. These losses are detrimental to key environment and climate change objectives. In fact, a recent study by Nature United identified stopping this loss as the number one solution we have for natural climate solutions.

Canadian cattle producers are well positioned to be a part of the climate change solution and to help conserve these grasslands, while contributing to Canada’s economy.

On that note, I would invite members of the committee to watch the short documentary entitled Guardians Of The Grasslands. It is available online, and we can share the film with committee members following today’s meeting.

Thank you very much for your time today. We look forward to your questions.

[Dale Austin, Head, Government Relations, Cameco Corporation]

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

It's my pleasure to appear at committee today on behalf of Cameco Corporation to provide input to your study on Bill C-235.

The bill and the committee's study of it are of particular interest to Cameco. Headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Cameco is one of the world's largest producers of uranium for nuclear energy and is the world's largest publicly traded uranium company. We're uniquely situated with operations across the nuclear fuel cycle, including in mining, refining, conversion and fuel manufacturing. The majority of our operations are located in Saskatchewan and Ontario, and our total Canadian workforce stands at just over 2,900 employees and long-term contractors.

Cameco is a proud and important part of Canada's nuclear and critical mineral supply chains, which deliver reliable, emissions-free electricity in Ontario, New Brunswick, and around the world. Canada's uranium and nuclear fuel sectors already play a significant role in underpinning green, low-carbon economies and are positioned to lead the transition to net-zero emissions by providing highly skilled, well-paying jobs; engaging suppliers in a wide range of skilled trades and expertise; and stimulating innovation in a variety of nuclear disciplines, including small modular reactors.

Cameco is well positioned to provide input to and support the development of a framework for a green prairie economy that considers all forms of low-carbon energy and the role they will play in electricity generation and in industrial and transportation-related emissions reductions.

As the committee considers what building a green economy in the Prairies might entail, we must also recognize that indigenous partnerships and indigenous businesses will play a major role. As you may be aware, Cameco is one of the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada, with about half the workforce at our mines and mills in northern Saskatchewan being residents from within the region. Beyond employment, over 80% of the services used at Cameco's mines and mills in northern Saskatchewan, totalling more than $4 billion since 2004, are procured from northern indigenous businesses.

Our success depends on the long-term, positive partnerships and mutual trust we've built with first nations and Métis communities where we operate, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. A green economy in the Prairies will also require indigenous partnerships and strong indigenous businesses along the entire value chain to maximize future success.

A significant number of economic, energy, environmental and national security policies being pursued by the Government of Canada, including the contents of this bill, are focused on achieving net-zero emissions. It is Cameco's view that there is no path to net zero without nuclear energy. We were pleased to see nuclear energy mentioned in the content of the framework; I might, however, disagree with its characterization as a new source of energy.

Access to significant amounts of reliable, emissions-free baseload electricity is the foundation for any green economy. Current use of nuclear energy worldwide helps the planet avoid some 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year. Cameco is very proud of our contribution to global greenhouse gas reduction efforts from our home base in Saskatoon. Saskatchewan uranium facilitates the generation of clean, carbon-free baseload electricity that will power the transition to a low-carbon economy.

That said, there are mixed signals coming from the federal government regarding the use of nuclear technologies to achieve climate goals and to support the transition to a green economy. The Government of Canada's climate policy framework clearly includes nuclear energy in its clean and low-carbon technology definition; however, recent decisions that excluded nuclear technologies from the tax rate reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturing and Canada's green bond framework send mixed signals to markets and investors.

Nuclear energy is a clean, carbon-free source of electricity. We ask that as the framework for a green Prairie economy is being developed, governments take a technology-agnostic approach and consider all emissions reduction technologies on a level playing field for inclusion in government programs and investments. The most effective path to a low-carbon economy will require the targeted, fit-for-purpose use of all types of zero-emission energy technologies.

Canada's and the Prairies' resource wealth has long been a major driver of our financial health, socio-economic well-being and job creation efforts. The bill's proposal to develop a framework for a green prairie economy could provide an opportunity to enhance and modernize the prairie resource sector's economic contributions and solidify our reputation as a responsible resource developer that meets the standards of ESG investors. Canada's economic prosperity is, to a significant extent, linked to our ability to responsibly and sustainably develop and export our abundant natural resources and the value-added products that are produced from them.

Cameco supports the intent of Bill C-235, which is to work with provincial governments, indigenous governing bodies and the private sector to develop a framework for a green prairie economy. We ask that all zero-emission technologies, including nuclear, be given the same consideration as the framework is being developed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 39 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 1, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C‑235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.

You all know the rules, so please follow them whether you are in the room or participating remotely.

Before we get started, I'd like to note that we have with us here, in Ottawa, Rémy Trudel, an adjunct professor at the École nationale d'administration publique, or ENAP, and a former minister in the Quebec government who oversaw a number of portfolios.

Mr. Trudel, thank you for being here.

[Applause]

He has brought his master students at ENAP with him. Welcome to the House of Commons and to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I just want to let the committee members and those watching our proceedings know that Manitoba's Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade, Cliff Cullen, was supposed to be here, but unfortunately something came up, so he won't be with us for the first hour, as planned.

We will therefore start with the panel scheduled for the third hour. From the Alberta Beef Producers, we have Dr. Melanie Wowk, chair, and Mark Lyseng, lead, government relations and policy, who are both joining us by video conference.

We also have Dale Austin, head of government relations at Cameco Corporation, and from the Canadian Cattle Association, Dennis Laycraft, executive vice-president, and more than likely Tyler Fulton, officer at large, both of whom will be joining us by video conference.

Before we hear from the witnesses, I'm going to turn the floor over to the clerk to preside over the election of a vice-chair.

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

I share many of the opinions you have stated, particularly the one about the urgent need to create a place for consultation and development where people can sit down and discuss matters.

I also recognize the essential role that civil society plays, particularly the trade union community, which you represent and which I welcome. However, I believe that elected representatives play a fundamental role in our democracy and also represent an opinion that is shared by the population.

In the context we are concerned with, Bill C‑235, would you support diversifying Alberta's economy to allow it to benefit from emerging economies? Consequently, why should we favour a top-down approach, as many witnesses have argued since the beginning of our study?