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 House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

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

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

[Some hon. members]

On division.

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

(Motion agreed to)

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

moved that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre. It is with particular passion and enthusiasm that I talk about this bill, which is so important to my region of the country and indeed the country as a whole.

I will begin with some words of praise about the committee process itself.

As my friend, the member for Winnipeg North, knows so well and as we experienced together in the Manitoba legislature, when we ask the public, when we ask witnesses to comment on a bill, every time they improve it. When we think that we have looked at every nook and cranny of a piece of legislation, all of a sudden, our oversights are picked up by others who may not be quite as immersed in the detail that we have been, in my case, for many months or, on another level, maybe many years. I do have to say that this bill was improved, and I want to thank the witnesses for making these improvements possible.

Also, I am thankful for the tone and tenor, which is sometimes partisan. It is sometimes difficult, particularly for those of us who have some pride of authorship, to know that perfection is elusive. There are oversights, and there are better ways of doing things. Indeed, the process of the committee itself indicated that in a way that I think was very important. There have been amendments that have been proposed and agreed to by members of the committee, in some cases on division and in some cases not, and they are common-sense amendments.

For example, the original bill talked about an 18-month timeline for the framework to be developed. However, things take too long around here. Sometimes the pace of change is more important than the change itself. To move the period from 18 months to 12 months made a lot of sense, and it was immediately accepted.

Also, there was not enough thought given to the role of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, which is an essential part of the prairie region with our capacity to grow and with the importance of taking what we grow and moving it internationally. For example, the province of Saskatchewan is the most trading province of all. More than 60% of what is produced in Saskatchewan is exported internationally. Increasingly, it is not just the natural resource or the product. It is the value-added production, which is creating jobs right across the region and making a difference for the producers who are actually the essential lifeline.

Speaking of lifelines, the work of committees is the lifeblood of Parliament. It is where some of the heavy lifting is done. It is where parliamentarians come together, seek common cause and seek to align aspirations in the national interest, which is precisely the essential element of this bill. There was not any reference to jurisdictional creep, because there is none. This is respectful of constitutional jurisdictional divisions in Canada, which are the essential note of Canadian federalism. It moves from time to time and is in constant flux as circumstances change.

However, I am very happy to report that, through witnesses and other ways in which we could discern public opinion, such as through letters, conversations and the associations that came forward to make their views known, this bill has been substantially improved. I am very grateful for that and for the capacity of the committee. Through representing all kinds of opinion across the country, we were able to align essentially in the same place, which I think is so important.

The framework adds leaves to the national table. It reaches out to people and says, “You should be here.” Who are the “you”? It is provincial governments, indigenous communities and leadership, NGOs, unions and municipalities. To invite people to tables where they have never been invited before, in itself, is major progress in the way in which our federalism grows. Sometimes it happens at a pace that makes some of us feel impatient, but if we are patient we will end up in a better place than where we began.

That is the story of how we were able to move this bill along incrementally, but in ways that are impactful and will be, it is my hope, not just for tomorrow and next month but for years to come. When I am asked by people what impact I think this bill, if passed into Canadian law, would have on the way in which we do business as a nation, my answer is, from zero to changing the way we do business as a nation.

The missing ingredient is political will. The political will would have to come from implicated ministers within the Government of Canada and within their own jurisdictions. However, to have the value-added from provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities is the missing ingredient. They would have to report back, and do it within 12 months.

We can debate what number is the best number, but what should not be debatable is that there must be accountability. If a group of people is given a job to do but no timeline and no way in which to be accountable for the work they do, it is pretty empty. This bill is not empty. It is full of promise.

Here is snapshot of some of the problems we face on the prairie. I had hoped to travel in traditional ways, by airplanes, railways and buses, to give speeches in Saskatoon and Edmonton, and points south and west. However, I am glad we changed our minds and made it a virtual tour. If I had relied on airplanes, I would have had to wait for the only plane from Saskatoon to Edmonton. I would have been on the ground and sitting on an uncomfortable chair for seven and a half hours.

It is outrageous, in a dynamic region of our country that produces so much wealth, that we cannot figure out a way to move people by any mode of transportation. That is an outrageous reality. It is a snapshot in time. It is one example of many, but it is a real one that affects people every day of their lives as they try to move around this dynamic region.

What about the prairie region itself? We have been creating wealth since we became a nation, and since the western provinces became part of Canadian Confederation. In a dynamic region where wealth is created, we love to have endless debates about how we are going to distribute the wealth in our country. My colleague thinks there should be more spent on health care. My other colleague thinks it should be spent on education. Frankly, I want a lot more money for symphony orchestras. We have to talk more about cement infrastructure. We have to talk about the poet, the artist and the musician. This is what is really distinctive about who we are.

Any discussion about the prairie region goes well beyond the traditions of infrastructure and bridges, or even support for producers and value-added production. It has to extend to wealth creation, which is the job of the private sector. Government is better at determining how we distribute the wealth, for which it should be accountable. As a Liberal who feels very comfortable with this balance between distribution and creation, I think it is an important distinction to make.

I want to thank the institutions of Parliament, which I think in this case have produced exactly what they ought to produce. Hopefully, it will be a result that will make people feel even more comfortable with the prairie region. The beauty of the bill and the template that is implicit in it is that it is equally applicable to other regions. Who is going to argue against this kind of inclusion of putting leaves in the table with the knowledge that people have been asked? If we do not ask, then we will not benefit from the wisdom that they no doubt will be able to share with the rest of us.

I rise here with a sense of gratitude to the committee, to colleagues, knowing that it is going to come back. There will be accountability and there will be measurement. I am so pleased to have had the opportunity to move along this notion of the next chapter of federalism and wealth creation. For that I am grateful.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know for myself, representing a northern part of Vancouver Island and a more northern part of the mainland in my riding of North Island—Powell River, that we have the best solutions for our area. One of the challenges is sometimes having those smaller communities be able to have a loud enough voice for different levels of government to hear them, understand them and to respond accordingly. I really appreciate the member talking about bringing everyone together and having that collective coordinated voice.

I am wondering if the member could talk a little bit about how important it is for the government to listen to smaller regions that may not have a big population but often are very much the creators of this country's wealth.

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

Madam Speaker, we will not progress in sustainable ways, and I use the word carefully, if we ignore those voices. I remember many, many years ago when I was on the board of directors at the CBC and I was interested in regional broadcasting and to understand how expensive it sometimes is in this far-flung nation to get to the last 5%. It is way more expensive.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s especially, when we would use microwave in order to hit remote northern communities, was it worth it? Of course it was worth it. How do we develop a public broadcaster if no single Canadian has the opportunity to witness what is on that radio dial or that television dial? It is the cost of the geography of being Canadian.

Is it worth it? Of course it is worth it. What would be the cost if we did not reach them, if we did not attempt that last mile? For smaller communities, absolutely. Then what do we do with what we hear? Listening and attempting to listen are really important, but if one does not take what one hears and rolls it into action that actually affects the lives of people, then it is pretty empty.

This bill recognizes that and I hope addresses it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, representatives from the governments of the three provinces involved came to testify that they did not want this bill. I think we need to respect provincial jurisdictions. This bill does not affect Quebec, but we call on the federal government not to interfere in our jurisdictions.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about that?

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

Madam Speaker, there is no jurisdictional creep here. This is within the federal jurisdiction. The bill seeks input from those who have a stake in the result of deliberations within that jurisdiction. There have been accusations that it is bureaucratic heavy. No, it is not. There are accusations that it is overreach, jurisdictional creep. No, it is not. In any case, there are accountabilities built into the legislation that will report back.

I hear the opposition on the basis of that jurisdictional or even constitutional division. I just do not believe it is going to happen. It should not happen. In any event, there is always the check and balance of public opinion. We should never underestimate that power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the individuals or groups that have played a critical role in the member bringing forward the legislation, as I know he has talked to a great number of people from the Prairies over the last number of years.

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

Madam Speaker, that question drives at the heart of stereotypes in the sense that only one point of view is representative of the Prairies or of Alberta or Saskatchewan. It is not true. It has the same diversity as any other region in the country, and we know that.

I always like to use the example of Michael Houghton, a Nobel Prize laureate who works at the University of Alberta. When we think of Alberta and insist on a stereotype, let that be our stereotype for Alberta, and erase whatever other stereotypes we may have.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak in favour of good legislation and against bad legislation. This evening I am doing the latter.

Bill C-235 represents yet another top-down, Ottawa-knows-best approach to the western Canadian resource sector, continuing a legacy that goes all the way back to Pierre Trudeau's national energy program, and also includes more recent legislation, such as Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the west coast oil tanker ban.

Opposition to this bill from elected politicians in western Canada should come as no surprise to even the most casual of political observers. This bill applies to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only. When we voted on this bill at second reading, of the 62 members from those three provinces, only 10 voted in favour; 51 voted against, and one MP abstained. Put another way, this bill is opposed by fully 82% of the MPs from the provinces to which it applies.

When this bill was being studied at committee, this opposition was echoed by our provincial counterparts. The committee heard from two of the three affected provincial governments, and they basically said the same thing, that this legislation was neither wanted nor needed. The only provincial government we did not hear back from was Alberta, because it was in the process of installing a new premier, who had just finished campaigning on a platform of asserting provincial sovereignty and resisting interference from Ottawa. I am quite confident that if we had heard from Danielle Smith, her feedback would have been very similar to what we heard from her counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I hope that the views of these provincial representatives are not lost on the members of this House from the other parties and from the other provinces when they are making up their minds about how to vote on this bill. Just imagine for a minute if there were a federal private member's bill about Hydro-Quebec or Quebec's aerospace sector that applied only to Quebec. If 82% of Quebec MPs voted against the bill, and Premier François Legault testified at committee against the bill, I cannot help but think that the MPs from the other provinces would take notice, and those MPs who voted in favour of the bill at second reading would be thinking that maybe they should reconsider before they vote for the bill again at third reading.

The stated objective of Bill C-235 is “the building of a green economy in the Prairies”. While the bill never defines the term “green economy”, I think that in general, the term “green” has become synonymous with “environmentally friendly”. However, the bill does not seem to recognize the good, environmentally friendly work already being done in the prairie provinces independently of the federal government.

In addition to hearing from provincial government representatives, the committee also heard from municipal representatives, organized labour, the mining sector, oil and gas workers, farmers and ranchers. They all spoke in considerable detail about the work that is already being done on the Prairies to be more environmentally friendly, often because being good environmental stewards makes good economic sense as well. In fact, about the only people the committee did not hear from were representatives of Canada's indigenous peoples. I will leave it to the proponents of this bill to explain why they were not consulted.

Particular concerns were raised about paragraph 3(3)(b), which focuses on fostering job creation and skills transfer in regions that rely on traditional energy industries. It is implied that these actions will be necessary because of the Liberal government's continued opposition to the development of the western Canadian resource sector and the continuation of the Liberals' policy of leaving Canadian oil and gas in the ground where it does not do anybody any good.

In any case, at committee, Mr. Bill Bewick cautioned against transitioning workers out of the oil and gas sector too quickly and argued in favour of recruiting more workers to the sector to increase production. I would like to quote what Mr. Bewick said at committee. He said, “If you really care about the environment, the single greatest thing Canada can do to reduce emissions is to get LNG flowing in copious amounts off our west coast.”

Mr. Bewick went on to explain that Canadian liquefied natural gas should be exported to China, which would enable that country to shelve its plan to dramatically increase coal production and energy generation from coal. Doing so would save emissions equivalent to the size of Alberta's oil sands. This would be far preferable to landlocking Alberta's oil sands, as some Liberals have advocated for in the past.

The war in Ukraine was also discussed. Here we are, more than nine months into Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the images on our TV screens are just as disturbing as when the war began back in February. Vladimir Putin and his thugs continue to commit genocide against their peaceful neighbours. Where does Vladimir Putin get the money to buy all the tanks, missiles and artillery that make up the Russian army? Even the most high-level analysis of the Russian economy will show that it is heavily dependent on oil and gas exports to western Europe. Instead, if we could export ethical Canadian oil and gas to western Europe, we could seriously inhibit Russia's ability to wage war against Ukraine or any of its other neighbours.

This next point is very important. Even if the war in Ukraine were to end tomorrow, and even if Vladimir Putin decided that he wanted to be friends again with the international community and to give everyone a big group hug, it would be profoundly irresponsible for the international community, and Canada in particular, to allow western Europe to once again become dependent on oil and gas from Russia. The world needs more Canadian oil and gas, but we cannot do this if we are transitioning workers out of the oil and gas sector, and this is why Bill C-235 is so problematic.

Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of Senate reform. If there are any political science students watching this debate, let me tell them right now that if they ever have to write a paper about Senate reform in Canada, Bill C-235 should be one of their examples. This bill applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only, and the vast majority, 82%, of MPs elected from those provinces voted against it.

Unfortunately, this bill is probably going to become law, because unlike bicameral legislatures in other countries, Canada does not have an elected Senate with equal representation from all provinces. This is a problem that is not experienced by our American neighbours south of the border. If there were ever a bill in the U.S. Congress to take all of the money from North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana and give it to, say, California and Texas, such a bill may very well pass in the House of Representatives, but it would not pass in the Senate.

That is because, although the seats in the House of Representatives are allocated by population, in the American Senate, every state, large or small, has the same number of senators, and every senator is elected. That means the large states like California and Texas cannot gang up and enact legislation that is detrimental to the small states, because any such bill would be defeated in the Senate.

Sadly, there are no such safeguards in the Canadian parliamentary system. The larger provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec, can outvote the smaller provinces, in this case Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and there are no safeguards in the Senate to stop it. However, given that I am almost out of time, my thoughts on Senate reform will have to wait for another day.

In conclusion, Bill C-235 represents an additional, unnecessary layer of federal government bureaucracy that will only get in the way of the good work already being done by provincial governments and the private sector. The only provinces affected by this bill, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, did not ask for it. They do not want it, they do not need it and they are better off without it. I would encourage all members to vote against Bill C-235.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Winnipeg South Centre for the quality of work he did in moving his bill through the House of Commons. He put his heart and soul into it. It is with reluctance that I have to say that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting the member for Winnipeg South Centre's bill.

Of course, preparing an action plan to promote the transition to a greener economy in the Prairies is certainly necessary. It is a timely move, and we support any initiatives that promote and power such a transition. However, we are against the federal government interfering in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec with regard to their economic and environmental choices and directions, which are their own. We are worried that this will set a precedent, which is why we will not be supporting it.

I do not want to point fingers, but I think it is important to mention that, currently, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers; one Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. This is an enormous challenge, and the Bloc Québécois agrees 100% with the member for Winnipeg South Centre's statement that the central provinces absolutely have to go green. Even so, it is wholly inappropriate for the House to force the government's hand to legislate any directive whatsoever, because it is up to the provinces to choose when and how they begin that shift. Are these provinces truly on board with switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy? I am not so sure.

One thing we do know is that the prairie provinces will need a lot of help to achieve that. That is what the government is for. Without encroaching on provincial jurisdiction, the government should provide financial and organizational support as well as incentives. Above all, it should give them the means to undertake this transition, which can be highly destabilizing if not underpinned by support measures commensurate with the challenges these provinces are facing. That is key to making any radical change socio-economically palatable.

It is 2022. It is high time a plan was developed to accelerate the shift to a green economy in the Prairies, and the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was the natural resources minister from 2015 to 2018, knows that this is an enormous undertaking and that he would have to mobilize a massive amount of resources. He also knows that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that these provinces are facing decline unless they diversify their economies and begin the energy shift. The sooner they start, the less painful it will be. It is up to the government and its institutions to support the Prairies in that regard but not by imposing a law that will have the stifling effect of centralizing federal powers.

The fact that the member for Winnipeg South Centre and former natural resources minister introduced this bill says a lot. If he wants to force his government to develop an action plan to promote the transition to a greener economy in the Prairies, it is because he knows that the government currently has no such plan. He feels obligated to propose a bill to force the government to do so. We understand that and we commend him for it. We admire him because we share his concerns; however, we want to prevent government interference and that is the most important factor in our position.

That being said, the extent of the challenges our friends in the Prairies are facing is enormous. In economics and regional development there is a concept called intrusive rentier syndrome. That is what a region experiences when a major employer that pays high wages is operating in a sector in decline. It drags the entire community into that decline and prevents it from being competitive. That is the story of oil because it governs all the rules and levers, hence the scope of the challenge and the insecurity around change.

The approach in the bill is interesting. It proposes sitting down with everyone, which I like, and determining the economic strengths outside fossil fuels and creating favourable conditions for their development. Whether it is infrastructure, training or regulations, a development plan calls for coordination. It calls for the public's participation because the economy has to serve the people. 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 licence. We save time by getting everyone around the same table from day one. That is truly one of the strong points of the bill.

My colleague's reasons and arguments are interesting. It is a good premise, but it clearly represents interference in provincial jurisdictions. I would like to remind members that over the years, it was the decisions of both Conservative and Liberal governments that made it possible to develop the oil sands.

Let us look back. There was Pearson's energy policy. Then budgetary policy fostered the development of oil. In 2009, under the Harper government, Canada made a commitment at the G20 to eliminate its inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. However, there has been no progress since then. The Auditor General and the commissioner of the environment indicated in three reports that 13 years after the G20 commitment, the government is still unable to define what it considers to be an inefficient subsidy. Therefore, it is not getting rid of those subsidies.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to support for fossil fuels. We would be very pleased if the money and subsidies that are currently being spent on fossil fuels were instead redirected to the western provinces' transition to renewable energy. Given the magnitude of the challenges they will face, we think that is a good idea.

We believe that the energy revolution we face will be on the same scale as the industrial revolution. That is quite significant. The revolution would never have happened if it had to rely solely on government legislation. It happened because all the actors in the economy, in particular the financial sector that enables investments, contributed to it. The same holds true for the renewable energy revolution and the green economy. Developing this sector of the future will mean relying on the strength of the financial sector and the experts in the field.

In 2021, Greenpeace published a study on investments in fossil fuels. Since late 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, Canada's five big banks have pumped nearly $700 billion into fossil fuels. That makes no sense. To this day, even though several banks say they are committed to the 2050 net-zero goal, there is no indication that the banking community is looking to shift away from fossil fuels: Investments have increased from $122 billion in 2016 to $160 billion in 2019, and the trend keeps going strong. Canada's five big banks are all on the list of the world's top 25 investors in fossil fuels. I find that disturbing.

The oil and gas sector is set to decline, for both environmental and fiscal reasons, both here and abroad, and stock market trends are also following the green trend in finance. Unfortunately, this trend has not had much influence on Canadian banks. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre seems to be aware of that. It is up to the House to send a clear message to the financial sector, where something could be done. This is more likely to increase the chances of a successful transition to a green economy in the western provinces, which is what the member for Winnipeg South Centre is calling for. Given the magnitude of the challenges faced by those provinces, they will need help and motivation, not a framework imposed through legislation that interferes with provincial jurisdictions.

I was recently fortunate enough to connect with economists and actuaries in California, where incentives for green investment are already well established. These same experts are actively moving forward and giving speeches to financial organizations around the modern world. I wonder if Canada is doing anything like this. I am simply asking the question. I would be happy to put the government in touch with these proactive firms, which have already helped implement a financial system that is firmly committed to responsible investments that will save the world. It is up to us in the House to support the redirection of funding and fossil fuel subsidies towards green financing to help the provinces that need it most.

We all know it. We all see it. The evidence is clear. Fossil fuels are killing the planet and all the life upon it. Many are suffering the terrible consequences of our cowardice in the face of deteriorating planetary ecology. The maritime provinces and the Magdalen Islands just went through hurricane Fiona. That was right here at home, not halfway around the world. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is currently studying how hurricane Fiona affected the Maritimes. We all know there is no escaping this. It is real. It is happening, yet investments are still being made in Bay du Nord. Investment in natural gas is being tolerated and even promoted, but there is no move toward creating incentives to direct funding toward sustainable development.

In closing—

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

Order. I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member because her time is up.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be here to speak to Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. I want to thank the member for Winnipeg South Centre for bringing this forward.

As a person who lives on the coast, I do not have the experience of living in the prairie region. However, I do connect to this very important issue, because I live and have grown up in more rural and remote communities. I recognize that when one lives in those environments, there is a very different way of being in the world.

We are a lot more connected to our communities. We often have a harder time getting to other places. I really appreciated the member talking about flying places and then having to wait many hours. I know when I come here, often I get to fly to one part of the country and then wait a few hours before I can get to this part of the country.

That is just the reality that we experience. It is something we all know we need to do better, especially when we are thinking about how we are going to make sure those spaces are more accessible. We think about making sure they are part of our communities across the planet and across this country, and they have an economic viability. That can sometimes be a challenge for more rural and remote communities.

This bill talks a lot about how to bring people together to talk about how we can see more of a green economy. It is something I really believe in. When we stand in a place like this, where we collectively represent the whole country, the stories from each region are unique, yet there is a common ground, especially when we talk about rural and remote communities.

We know they often go through a cycle of boom and bust. One moment it is going well, the economy is strong and people are doing well, but then it changes quickly. It is these communities that have built this country. Their resources and people have given so much in taxes and resources to this country, and often a lot of urban centres are built on the labour of more rural and remote communities. They are not included in a way that is meaningful.

In the last Parliament, I was happy to table Motion No. 53 on the principles for a sustainable and equitable future. It talked specifically about having solutions locally that looked at what the resources were, what our skill set was and how we were going to make ourselves more sustainable in rural communities. Then we can have a more stable economy but also address the issue of climate change, because we are in an emergency and things are changing very rapidly.

I can argue at a later date about what I think the government is doing, because I have to say, quite frankly, it is not moving in the direction I would like to see it move. We are pushing really hard to get some of those actions. When it comes to emissions and addressing climate change, we have a lot more proactive work to do.

Part of that conversation has to be looking at these communities in the Prairies, looking at rural and remote parts of Canada and asking what is sustainable in those communities. What are the skill sets in those communities? How do we bring people together? That is what this bill is about. How do we bring all those different voices together to make sure there are meaningful solutions going forward?

In my last job, I worked with newcomers to Canada. One of the things I found interesting was the amount of research that has happened in Canada and across the whole planet on how to create the best solutions. It is said again and again that with more diversity at the table and with more people with different opinions at the table, it can actually be worked through. It takes longer. There is no doubt.

When we are trying to figure out how to get from one place to another, and we have a lot of people around a table with differing opinions, it is going to take longer to get to that. The research has proven repeatedly that once we get there, even though it takes longer, the other side of that is a lot more coordinated, the solutions are a lot more innovative and they are long-lasting.

It is something we should be looking at and addressing, and that is what my motion talked about. How do we bring people together? How do we have a regional approach? When we look at what is happening in our environment, when we look at the challenges and concerns around stable employment, how do we not fight against each other? We need to come together and create solutions that are going to make sense and make sure there are good jobs in our region, but also address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.

We have to do that work. We have to do it with an urgency, so I appreciated the member talking about making that timeline shorter.

In his speech, the member said that the pace of change is too slow. I agree. When we are looking at the challenges that we are facing today, we cannot wait. We cannot sit here in this place and have big discussions. We need to give resources to local regions and communities and say to them that they are the experts in their area, that they tell us the criteria and the next steps they are going to take.

The NDP will be supporting this because I think it is important to look at those solutions, to look at local responses and to look at regional responses. They can profoundly make a difference.

When I look at my area, a lot of things are being ripped out of the earth, in one way or another. They are being shipped off to somewhere else, often outside of the country, to be changed into something, which is sent back to us and then we buy it. I am really concerned about that.

When I think about local solutions and when I look at the environmental crisis that we are in, we need to see more value-added production in our communities and in our regions. This is something that I think the bill will touch on. I hope that every person in this place will take it under consideration. If we do not start seeing more production with our own resources in our own country, we are going to continue to see wealth being here for a short time but it will not stay here permanently.

Last Friday, I was in Campbell River. A lot of people came together to talk about the housing crisis we are experiencing right now. Of course, inside of that issue, like every issue across the country, the climate crisis was brought up, how people without homes are having to live on the streets and what that means when we are having incredibly unpredictable weather and how we deal with these issues. We also talked about the vulnerability of seniors who live in our region. Our region usually does not get very hot but we are seeing this huge increase in heat, and then, during the winter, there is the very high cost of energy for people to stay warm and what that means for folks.

I think of Cortes Island, a small community in my riding, which is two ferry rides away from where I live. That community is working together. They are actually fundraising, as they have a high level of poverty in their senior population, so that they can all have heat pumps. The community itself is recognizing this huge challenge and they are collectively working together to deal with the climate crisis and also honour and respect the seniors in their communities by trying to find a solution.

In closing, we have to recognize the dynamic approach of our smaller communities. We have to work with them so that they have more opportunities. We have to understand that while the federal government has a very important role, sometimes its important role is to make sure that the resources are there so that the local communities can do the work that needs to be done.

I cannot say enough about that. When I look at economic development and when I look at addressing the climate crisis, we need to see those communities recognized, honoured and listened to. Sometimes bringing them together is really going to make a long-term difference, so that we can get to a solution that we can sustain.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will start off with a bit of a different perspective. I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-235, which has been sponsored by a dear friend of mine, the member for Winnipeg South Centre. The member and I go back to 1988, actually. I have heard a great number of speeches from my friend.

Over the years, one of the things that I have really appreciated, and I think we need to put this into the context of the legislation that we are debating, is that the member for Winnipeg South Centre is very much a visionary. Virtually from day one since I have known him, he has brought forward ideas that can really make a difference.

This legislation is something which the member is very passionate about, because he understands the needs of the Prairies. The member has met with many mayors, councillors, stakeholders, not only in our home province of Manitoba but also throughout the Prairies.

There is a bit of a mindset that some like to say about people from the Prairies and that is, yes, we are all about economic development but the climate is an afterthought—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, based on my count, we are at 16 people in the chamber, which is well below quorum. I would like to call a point of order on quorum.

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

There is a quorum call. We will count the members.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum.

The hon. member may proceed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one might question the actual timing of that particular quorum call, knowing full well that members are, if not here, in the MP lobbies. I would think this would not be done, at the very least out of respect for the fact that we are talking about private members' legislation.

The point I was attempting to make, prior to the quorum call, was the fact that what we have before us is something to enable a strong and sustainable prairie economy. Some might try to give a mindset that the people on the Prairies are only concerned about the economy, which is somewhat of a false impression. People from the Prairies are also concerned about the environment and recognize that climate change is indeed very real.

There are two points I want to emphasize with regard to the legislation. One is that I do not believe there is any form whatsoever of jurisdictional creep. This is about a framework. It is not about jurisdiction. It is about bringing people together in order to establish a framework so that the Prairies could move forward on the issue of a strong, sustainable prairie economy.

For people who would try to suggest that it is anything other, I would really encourage them to meet with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. He would be able to alleviate those concerns. In 2019, we had a wonderful organization. It used to be Western Diversification. There were a number of prairie members of Parliament. and I like to think I was one, who wanted to establish PrairiesCan, as opposed to Western Diversification.

The Prairies is something I am very familiar with. It is very unique in its very nature. PrairiesCan brought together over 125 experts to deal with the issue of water management. They were brought together in the city of Regina, and it involved a wide spectrum of stakeholders, from the federal government, the provincial government, municipalities, indigenous community members, labour, industry reps and others.

At the end of the day, what we saw was a compilation of ideas and thoughts dealing with the issue of water management. In fact, I think out of that group came a report that has been referenced in many ways from many different jurisdictions.

I would suggest that we are better off as a region as a result. I can say, as I have heard many from the Prairies say, water, and the flow of water, does not respect jurisdictions. Water management issues in the Prairies are a prairie issue.

This bill recognizes that climate change is real. This bill recognizes that the future of the prairie economy is immense. The potential, and I know the member for Winnipeg South Centre would be able elaborate in great detail, is equal to or greater than any other region of Canada.

I remember consistently over the years that the member would talk about having lots of wheat and many different types of resources coming from the Prairies, but it is the processing that gives us the jobs people in the Prairies want. When we talk about a greener economy, as this legislation is referencing and wanting us to move toward, the prairie provinces, as a region, need to continue to invest in that.

Clean energy and clean tech are absolutely critical for the future growth of our Prairies. Whether they are big corporations or new start-up companies, all of them recognize that the future means clean energy and moving towards an economy that is greener. People of the Prairies do not fear that.

The bill recognizes the need for the Prairies to come together, bring the stakeholders and establish that framework. We have many bright people on the Prairies. The member for Winnipeg South Centre highlighted a Nobel Prize winner from Edmonton.

Whether it is from Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon or the many municipalities in between, and I have lived in all three provinces and am proud to say I am from the Prairies, I believe the future is there, and we should not be fearful. It is not a jurisdictional issue to establish a framework of prosperity, and that is what this bill would do. I commend the member for Winnipeg South Centre for taking the initiative and once again providing a vision, not only for people in the Prairies, but for the entire country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated listening to the various speeches on this subject, and as someone who is very proudly an Albertan, which is part of this area, I think it is commendable in the effort, but the follow-through and the actual bill fail to meet the mark.

One thing I have heard exceptionally clearly from my constituents, and it does not matter whether they are from far north in Fort Chipewyan, down south in Cold Lake or anywhere in between, is that they do not believe an “Ottawa knows best” approach is correct. One of the major problems with the piece of legislation as proposed is that it would impact only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, yet we heard, when it came before committee, that Saskatchewan's and Manitoba's governments do not support it. They do not want to see it go forward. They do not believe it is in the best interests of their provinces, and I can speak with pretty decent certainty, being an Albertan, that the Alberta government is definitely not keen when the federal government puts its part on provincial jurisdiction.

Therefore, something critically important to highlight is that while the bill has good intentions, good intentions pave the way to a lot of places, and not all of them are good. I would suggest the bill does not meet the mark and is not good enough. It is not going to serve the Prairies in a positive way, and I would urge everyone that, if they think what they are doing is helping the Prairies, they are part of a paternalistic structure that is telling the Prairies it knows best and those provinces do not know the best thing for their own area, because those provinces have made it exceptionally clear they do not support the bill.

Something the government needs to do a better job of is listening to provincial governments when they tell it that enough is enough, and acting on that. That is not something we have seen—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

We have come to the end of the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business. The hon. member will have eight minutes when the bill next comes to the House. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak to this bill, but I also do so with great humility.

The principle of Bill C-235 was interesting in the sense that the Government of Canada can act specifically in a regional development fund and that there can be a contribution from regions and territories that take matters into their own hands and provide some sort of support for innovation in their jurisdiction. The principle seemed very appealing to me.

Then again, in committee, we felt that, despite the good will of the sponsor, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, whom I salute, the bill also had a political aim. To me, that is an irritant.

The Bloc Québécois is as much in favour of the principle of the bill as it was when we voted on it at second reading. However, I am now saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-235. This is the position I defended in committee.

Of course, we are in dire need of a plan to accelerate the greening of the Prairie economy, which is currently trapped in the 20th century because it relies far too much on fossil fuels.

As members will recall, the member for Winnipeg South Centre was the minister of natural resources from 2015 to 2018. He knows that this is going to be a huge project and that it will take a monumental effort to muster the necessary resources. In fact, it might have been interesting to see such a bill put forward back then.

We know that an economy based on oil and gas development is not sustainable in the long term and that the prairie provinces will suffer a decline unless they diversify their economy and start going digital. They will have to start soon, but doing it quickly may be just as painful.

The Bloc Québécois agreed with the principle of Bill C‑235, but, as I mentioned, during our study, which included five meetings, 17 witnesses and five briefs, several shortcomings were revealed. The transition to a green economy that Bill C‑235 talks about is essentially a shift to nuclear. Many people saw it as an opportunity to push small modular plants, which would provide the energy required to extract more oil. That shocked me.

In this context, I think that we cannot equate a transition to clean energy with a transition to nuclear energy. Let us not forget that there are still some serious safety issues involved in the management of nuclear waste.

We heard testimony from the governments of the three provinces covered by Bill C‑235, and they basically told us that they did not want it. For me, as a Bloc Québécois member representing the interests of Quebec, this was quite revealing. Perhaps that is what made me change my mind. Why should we impose a bill on other provinces that will dictate to them how they should develop their own land?

To me, the provinces are the real experts. If the federal government wants to contribute financially, great. However, the real question is, who will be in charge of coordination and whose development vision will prevail? In this context, the provinces have made it clear that it is not up to Ottawa to take the lead. They will not allow the federal government to take charge of regional economic development on their territory. They do not want the federal government to be responsible for coordinating the various stakeholders involved, particularly the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, and the workers, who are also under provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois does not feel directly involved because, obviously, we do not have any members from the Prairies. We are limited to Quebec. However, when a province asks that we respect its jurisdiction, we listen. We hope to get the same consideration in return when we ask others to respect the autonomy and jurisdiction of Quebec. It would be nice if the House applied this principle more often: If an issue concerns us, we are interested; if it does not, we can still take an interest in the principle and support it. That is what the Bloc Québécois has done. However, when we examine the bill in depth, we realize that it is flawed. Above all, we want to say that the federal government should refrain from interfering even if it would like to. That is the position that we in the Bloc Québécois will take.

The amendments that the committee adopted and that are in its report are essentially technical changes, such as specifying which department is responsible for what, or semantic changes, such as adding a green veneer to the wording. However, this does not fix the flaws in Bill C‑235, and many people expressed concerns about the bill being somewhat improvised.

With all due respect to the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who I think had a commendable motive in introducing the bill, there are significant challenges in the Prairies. As we know, one Albertan emits as much greenhouse gas as six Quebeckers, on average. A Saskatchewanian emits as much as seven Quebeckers. Transitioning to a green economy will really be a major challenge, but I do not think the answer lies in this bill. That speaks volumes about the magnitude of the challenges facing the provinces.

In regional economic development, there is a concept known as the “intrusive rentier syndrome”. It is what happens when a region has one large employer that pays high wages but is part of a declining industry. That is the challenge. Think of Trans Mountain, for example, which cost us $14 billion and counting, with all the repair costs and so on. I made a suggestion in committee: Is it not time to sell that pipeline and invest the money in the research ecosystem so that solutions can be found in universities for a truly green economic recovery?

There was a certain amount of backlash against the acquisition of the pipeline. People reacted to the idea that the government would own such a big pipeline. The government should not take such a risk with taxpayer money from Quebec and Canada. It would normally be up to the private sector. The greening of the economy requires concrete incentives. The federal government can collaborate on this, but should not be interfering in local co-operation as the bill stipulates. It is a step we are not ready to take.

Of course there were some interesting options: the transportation issue, job creation, job retraining, projects that create natural infrastructure and a clean environment. That is in there, but, as I said, so is nuclear power. That is something I found that to be an irritant. Nuclear power cannot be presented as an option just by naming it. I think there would be some background work to do. I am glad that we were able to hear from the witnesses who came to testify during our study of the bill. They told us that progress has been made, but it remains an extremely risky industry. I am not prepared to take that risk at this time, although it is believed to be a good thing. A lot of good things can be said until a disaster happens. To me, that is very concerning.

I would like to talk about the fiscal policy that encouraged development of the oil industry at the time. There were tax credits on oil exploration and site development, or investment and subsidies to clean up the pollution. It was a public takeover of some of the environmental liabilities. There are some reasons for what happened in the past, but at the same time, they can lead us to solutions now.

Again, we can make a real transition with a better sharing in terms of energy. We know that a hydrogen plant was recently established in Alberta. Some solutions are being put forward. However, I wonder if this hydrogen produced in Alberta will be truly green. It does not make sense to burn oil to produce hydrogen in order not to burn oil in our cars. The issue of economic development in the Prairies is not a simple one. I acknowledge it is a good idea to want to have a greener economy in the Prairies. We will always co-operate when such is the aim, but the Bloc Québécois will oppose Bill C‑235.

To conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the Liberal government has already made many commitments that it has not kept, and its credibility has been damaged. We know, however, that businesses and many citizens have gone to great lengths to make their contribution. The various Quebec governments have acted boldly on the environment for several decades. They have made courageous and ambitious decisions, and Quebec is therefore on the right path to a green economy. The committee study did not show that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have followed comparable and compatible directions. In fact, they voted against the bill. Our hope is that grassroots initiatives in the provinces will be adequately supported for the good of our communities.

The Bloc Québécois has long called for an end to supporting the fossil fuel industry and welcomes any measure aimed at redirecting the money towards businesses—

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

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to express my support for Bill C-235. I had done that before at second reading.

It is a bill that essentially requires federal ministers to come together to consult with provinces and indigenous peoples on a path forward for the Prairies in order to green their economy. I think that is a laudable goal. In fact, it is a goal that Canada ought to have made more progress on by now. I do think we need to be acting with a sense of urgency.

While I would say there are many more things we need to do, I do not think it hurts at all to create a framework wherein some of the coordinating conversations have to happen between various levels of government, including indigenous governments. It is a step in the right direction.

If we are going to get serious about facing the urgency of the climate crisis, though, we are going to have to get beyond talking about how to have conversations and what conversations we ought to have, and get talking about the very real projects that we need to undertake. Often in Canada when we talk about energy projects, we are talking about particular oil and gas projects. Whether that is a new extractive oil sands development or whether it is the building of a pipeline, we are going to require public investment. In the same way, incidentally, that the oil and gas industry, particularly the oil sands in Alberta, required massive public investment in the 1970s and 1980s in order to make that industry what it is, we need a comparable level of public investment in renewable energy now to set us up to be energy leaders in the future energy economy that is coming, whether some of us would wish it were not.

That is why often New Democrats are quite upset to see massive public expenditures in the oil and gas sector. That is an established sector, one which has already benefited for decades from public investment of various kinds. The opportunity cost of spending public dollars now on the oil and gas sector is real, because it means that we are not setting ourselves up to continue to be major players in an energy sector that is transforming. We see international competitors already undertaking the work not just to reduce their own emissions and green their economy, but to become experts in the building and maintenance of that very technology that is going to be the future basis of the global energy economy.

Canadians should be at that table. Canadian workers should be developing that expertise. Canadian companies should be developing that expertise. We will not be developing that expertise if we do not see government investment that is directed toward the energy sector being directed to renewable energy as opposed to going back to the well, quite literally in this case, of the oil and gas sector.

We are going to continue to extract some amount of oil and gas well into the future, because it is not just used for cars and it is not just used for home heating. It is also used for plastics. It is an important manufacturing input. To that extent, we know that Canada has to ask itself the question as to what a sustainable level of extraction is. I believe there is an answer for that.

We could work backwards from Canada's emissions commitments under the Paris Agreement and other international agreements where Canada has committed to lower its emissions, and we could talk about what a sustainable oil and gas sector looks like. It does not look like approving every project that the industry itself says is a good idea. Unfortunately, that has been the model. It does not look like when private sector actors make a major investment, as they did in the TMX pipeline, the government running out to bail them out and say, “Oh, we are so sorry your project did not work out in Canada. That is all right. Canadian taxpayers will carry the load for you. There is no risk investing in Canada, because if you make a bad investment, we are here to bail you out.”

It is particularly frustrating, because when I talk about the role of a sustainable oil and gas sector in Canada, the focus really has to be not on just extracting more and more oil and gas, but on getting more and more value out of the oil and gas that we do extract. One of the ways to do that is to increase Canada's refining capacity. We have actually seen a significant diminishment of Canada's refining capacity. Often the argument is there is not the money to build a refinery, that it would cost tens of billions of dollars to build a refinery in Canada. That is what the government says in response to those of us who would like to see more emphasis on a value-added oil and gas sector.

However, what did the government do? It found what ended up being an over $20-billion investment overnight for the TMX pipeline.

I will not be told that money is not available. The problem is that it is not available within the context of a strategic future-looking framework. It is just available as a knee-jerk reaction to the oil and gas lobbyists when they come asking for money in Ottawa. That is not the way public dollars ought to be invested in the energy economy.

We saw it again in the last budget, where the Liberals announced billions of dollars in new subsidies for carbon capture and storage. The way the politics of that works is that the Liberals lay out tons of funds for the oil and gas sector, only to be told by the Conservatives that they are not doing enough and that they do not understand the oil and gas sector, so it is a pretty nice setup the oil and gas sector has here in Ottawa.

It has a subservient Liberal government and an official opposition that, no matter how much money the Liberals pump into the oil and gas sector, is going to say it is not doing enough and that it does not take oil and gas seriously. That works pretty nicely for the industry, but it does not work out well for Canadian workers who are interested in having their children and their grandchildren be able to get meaningful employment in the energy industry as that changes.

Often, the way the public debate crystallizes is around these individual projects, whether they are the northern gateway pipeline, the TMX pipeline or energy east, and that is because the industry itself already has access to vast amounts of capital, so those companies are able to make the initial investment to raise hopes and excitement about these kinds of projects. What we need is access to capital for renewable projects.

The Canada West Foundation is not know to be a typically NDP organization. I think that is fair to say. It has a great paper out on the potential for a western power grid, something I hope folks, under the consultation framework proposed in Bill C-235, would get serious in talking about. I also hope that those same governments that come to the table under the auspices of the framework required by this bill would also put up capital to move ahead on that. There are some interesting findings that could help lower energy costs and certainly help lower emissions, but what we need is capital behind these projects to show Canadians that these things are possible. We also need to talk about the benefits of these things, not only from an environmental point of view, but also from an economic point of view. I believe that is how the conversation around climate is actually going to change in Canada as we create excitement around real projects in the same way there is excitement around real pipeline projects.

I am a construction electrician. I understand that excitement. I know what it means to look to a big project as a source of work and income for one's family, and I know that is true for so many Canadians out there. Renewable energy can be that same exciting source of potential future employment to support families, but we are always talking about it in the abstract because we have not had people come together and mobilize the capital it would take and do the planning to show the path on individual projects.

I talked about one that I think makes a lot of sense for western Canada. There are other parts of the country I can look to, which of course I will not speak to because we are talking about western Canada in the context of the bill, but I think how we shift public opinion and build the trust that has to be built with workers to effect a proper energy transition is by talking about particular projects.

The bill would not do that, and I am disappointed that after seven years in government the Liberals have not acted with the appropriate sense of urgency. They have not built excitement around particular projects that could be meaningful sources of work for Canadian workers and help us build the competency within Canada for those kinds of projects.

That is competency that we can sell not only here in Canada, but also across the world in the way Manitoba Hydro once had a very successful division that was sought the world over to help build hydro projects across the world. That was until the Tories sold it off for pennies on the dollar. However, there are ways of developing that kind of expertise, and that has a real value for us, for Canada's reputation in the world and also for Canadian workers.

That is where I hope to see the direction of government policy go. I think this at least would create some tables for conversations to happen. We are going to have to do a lot more than that, though, if we want to meet the real climate challenge that Canada and the planet are facing.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my long-time friend and hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for his hard work in bringing forward this proposed legislation and his years of service to his community, to his constituents, to Manitobans and, indeed, to all Canadians. I know this is a topic about which he is very passionate, and it is one I fully support.

I followed the debate on Bill C-235 in the House and committee, from members as well as stakeholders and other orders of government. In the member for Winnipeg South Centre's speech during the first hour of debate on the bill, he highlighted how members sat at the committee table and considered a range of views to make the bill even more impactful and stronger. That is the value that committees and the varied opinions and expertise within the House bring to improving legislation.

Indeed, creating a framework for co-operation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs will lead to conditions for greater collaboration and more effective program delivery. It is about bringing everyone to the table.

Much has been said about the prairie virtues of self-sufficiency, hard work and collaboration. It is that spirit of collaboration and co-operation to achieve a shared goal that animates this bill. It is about those things and reaching out broadly to find areas in which we can find agreement and alignment. It is also about acknowledging that one order of government alone cannot build a greener economy that benefits everyone.

The government is deeply engaged to achieve shared goals and always looks to partner with indigenous communities, provinces, territories, municipalities and organizations to build a stronger economy and address the threat of climate change. This is evident in the renewed emphasis we have placed on economic development across the Prairies, with the additional resources invested to create PrairiesCan as a stand-alone regional development agency for the Prairies. PrairiesCan is now on the ground in more places across the region than ever before, ensuring that more communities have more help to prosper, because the best way to deal with local issues and opportunities is with a local perspective.

We are making progress with partners and finding opportunities in the transition to a greener economy.

There are projects across the prairie provinces in renewable energy, in carbon capture and storage, and in green transit and construction.

Municipalities understand local priorities and concerns. They are passing bylaws mandating sustainable development and investing in climate change adaptation. This is why we worked with other parties in committee to amend Bill C-235 to include consultation with municipalities. Our path forward must include consensus building and meaningful partnership and consultation with indigenous communities as well.

Many across the Prairies are already developing and launching community-led projects that will see their local economies go greener and develop clean energy, like the Cowessess First Nation solar project.

Bill C-235 proposes a framework to align all the different parts of the government that are working on the energy transition, decarbonization, and creating a green economy on the Prairies and the good jobs Canadian workers can count on.

The bill is about a green economy that builds on the Prairies' economic strengths while increasing sustainability in sectors including energy, agriculture, forestry, mining, transportation, manufacturing, technology and tourism.

Through this bill, we have an opportunity to work with the prairie provinces and regional stakeholders to build this collaborative framework together. The framework will be one that prioritizes local and regional challenges and opportunities and meets our shared objective of green, sustainable and inclusive economic growth and employment across the Prairies.

As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre mentioned in previous debate on the bill, the Prairies have tremendous engineering expertise of a global calibre, not only in energy projects but in carbon capture, irrigation systems and more. Reaching Canada's net-zero targets will take a concerted effort to mobilize that expertise.

We know that consumers worldwide are demanding more sustainable energy development and Canada's energy sector is working to meet that demand. We need to recognize the work that has been done to reach sustainable net-zero goals. Achieving more of it depends on developing the next generation of energy infrastructure that is cleaner, sustainable and marketable.

By creating a framework for consultation, this bill will support the building of value chains that connect the Prairies, agriculture and forestry biomass to the manufacturing of biofuels used in Canada's automotive, aerospace, construction and energy sectors.

Industry in Alberta is working to reduce emissions in a range of sectors, including petrochemicals. It is advancing work on carbon capture and storage, as I mentioned before. One of the world's first net-zero hydrogen facilities will be located in Edmonton.

Prairie agriculture is also greening. Bill C-235 meshes with initiatives like the agricultural clean technology program. It helps agribusinesses invest in new clean technologies to increase sustainability and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

More than any other region, projects funded by the program, 24 of 60 projects, are taking place across the Prairies. The outcomes are more climate-friendly grain dryers, solar panels and precision agricultural technologies.

As critical minerals become more important on the world stage, Canada's economic prosperity is even more linked to sustainably developing and exporting our natural resources and value-added products. That is one reason PrairiesCan has invested in the development of its first-of-a-kind rare earth element processing plant in Saskatoon.

The $7.5 million of federal support complements provincial government investments to help establish a domestic rare earth supply chain. This is because Canadian companies are not only suppliers of resources, but also processors and producers of value-added products. Bill C-235 can catalyze opportunities like these by ensuring improved alignment among the various stakeholders in the new prairie economy.

The western economy is incredibly well-positioned to thrive in the green economy and our government is taking steps to make sure partners have the necessary tools to make this happen. We are helping companies and communities on the Prairies capitalize on opportunities in the transition to clean technologies and a low-carbon economy.

An example is the Clean Resource Innovation Network, a group of over 1,300 oil patch companies, academics and innovators that are working to change the conversation from “energy or the environment” to “energy and the environment”. They are dealing with important issues like curbing undetected methane emissions into the atmosphere.

The bill aligns with an array of additional federal programs tailored to economic and environmental areas outlined in the framework, such as infrastructure, natural infrastructure, forestry and transportation.

In a time of significant change, a strong prairie region is critical for a strong nation and the post-pandemic economy. People and industries across the prairie provinces make important contributions to Canada's economy and to feeding and fuelling Canada and countries around the world. Our government has been there for them and we will continue to be there for them.

As we partner with others through this bill to build a green Prairies economy, there will be new economic opportunities and job possibilities for Canadian workers that will be inclusive, long-lasting and effective.

I want to congratulate my hon. colleague and friend for presenting this bill. He is a true prairie champion whom I have worked with and admired for over 30 years. All of us on the Prairies should be very grateful.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in the House of Commons, and it is my honour to do so tonight on this bill.

I will begin by saying that I was pleased to enjoy the remarks of the member for Winnipeg South Centre in the first hour of third reading. I look forward to his participation in this debate. He should know that he has my best wishes and my congratulations for bringing this bill to third reading, although I do not support the bill and I am going to say why in a moment.

It is actually quite astonishing to me that this bill has made it to third reading and seems likely to pass, based on the remarks we have heard from other parties tonight. I say it is astonishing because this bill will do nothing other than compel a process, which the people affected do not want, by a federal government on unwilling provinces in furtherance of objectives, which the people of the provinces affected are not in agreement, in order to report back to a federal government that does not listen and has a track record for which it can be expected it will impose further harm on the three Canadian provinces that have already been severely harmed by the government.

For the benefit of those who were not here in the 42nd Parliament, the mover of this bill was the minister of natural resources. During his tenure the natural resource sector endured unprecedented capital flight estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The global investment community ran away from Canada and moved its money to Texas, North Dakota, Mexico, North Africa and, sadly and tragically, to Russia, where the fruit of this capital reallocation is being used to finance a murderous war against innocent people in Ukraine.

The human cost of that capital flight from Canada was 200,000 jobs lost in the energy sector. Many of these people live in my riding. I had grown men in their fifties reduced to tears in my office on many occasions as they told me of the hopelessness and despair they had suffered as a result of the mass layoffs following the election of the Liberal government.

Among the very first things the Liberal government did when it was elected was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then the member, during his tenure as minister, and the government chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada and bought the Trans Mountain pipeline. Instead of being completed and in operation with private money, creating thousands of upstream jobs, it is now a much-delayed project on its way to becoming a bloated government boondoggle, which it may not be able to ultimately sell.

The member now wants to force a federal framework on three unwilling prairie provinces and ask members of this House to support it. I will not do it. I do not agree with the member or the government of which he was a minister, that it needs a framework for policies of a federal government that is bent on destroying the livelihoods of thousands of my constituents who get up and go to work every day providing the necessities of life for Canadians and people all over the world.

Without affordable, reliable and abundant energy, there is no quality of life for anyone. A warm home, affordable food, basic transportation, light, electronic communication, literally every single manufactured product that anyone wears or uses is only possible with access to such affordable, reliable and abundant energy. Western Canada abounds with such energy resources, and industry continually finds ways to reduce the emissions created by the extraction process. The three provinces, their municipalities and industries are already doing the hard work of being part of an overall goal of reducing emissions, but the world is desperate for Canadian energy.

The Economist recently reported that 150,000 people in Europe will likely die from the cold this winter. We should think about that. There are 150,000 people, most of whom live in countries among the wealthiest in the world, who may not make it through the winter because many will not be able to access affordable energy. As people suffer from chronic cold, their blood thickens and their blood pressure becomes elevated. They are unable to maintain circulation throughout their body and they succumb to heart attack, stroke and illness. This is the consequence of Canada's inability to export its energy resources, and we are enabling Putin's weaponization of energy.

I listened to the member's speech during the first hour of debate at third reading, and I must say I was incredulous at this member's comments on how he thinks the bill is the embodiment and fulfillment of Canadian federalism.

We had testimony at committee. The minister of justice for Saskatchewan said:

This bill would require federal ministers “to develop a framework for...the implementation of federal programs”, which to us in Saskatchewan sounds pretty top-down, pretty definitive language, and what we call here “assertive federalism”.

She went on to talk about a report that said, “a green transition that is carried out too glibly, too quickly and too politically will impact some 450,000 Canadians, and 450,000 Canadians could lose their jobs.”

The president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities said, “In rural Saskatchewan, we are making excellent headway on our own solutions for a greener economy, and we don't require a federal framework.”

Only Liberals steeped in the tradition of Pierre Trudeau's generation and his approach to federalism could possibly think that a bill that imposes a federal process on unwilling provinces is somehow a triumph of the federation.

The bill would impose a process to create a federal framework for the imposition of federal policy on three provinces that do not want it. They did not ask for it. They do not like this government. They disagree with this government. Fifty-six out of the 62 members elected to this chamber from these three provinces are not from the government's party. That is 90% of the MPs from most provinces who are elected here. They were elected in opposition to this government's agenda.

Is that a triumph of Canadian federalism, the imposition and creation of this framework? That is exactly the kind of imposition on western provinces that is sadly eroding people's faith in Canadian federalism, just like under Pierre Trudeau when he was prime minister, when he destroyed the Canadian energy industry for a generation in a spectacular abuse of Canadian federalism. No, the bill is not a triumph of Canadian federalism. It would not be a springboard for some abstract, mythical, undefined, so-called green economy. It would not help Canadian workers.

This government has been promising green job retraining for oil and gas workers for years, and it does not exist. This will not help western municipalities. This is a bill that people in western Canada do not want. It is a bill that nobody asked for. It is a bill that would at best do nothing and at worst harm my constituents.

I am aware, following this debate, that this is likely to pass third reading. If it does, I offer the member for Winnipeg South Centre my personal congratulations. The passage of a private member's bill is no small thing. To him, I wish the very best, but I do not support the bill and I will oppose it.

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

We will now go to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to start by expressing some deeply held emotion. I love this country, every square metre of it, in English, in French, in indigenous languages and in the languages of the newly arrived.

The characterization of the bill as jurisdictional creep is simply not the case. In fact, the opposite is true. The Government of Canada has added leaves to the national table. This is an addition, not a subtraction, and it is inclusive, not exclusive. It seeks to unite, not to divide.

My respect for Parliament has grown by leaps and bounds. The wisdom of inviting witnesses to add thoughtful commentary and an opposition that has been respectful though occasionally dissenting are what a democracy is all about, and it is always rooted in strengthening the national fabric, woven as it is from those mini threads that make Canada the envy of the world. With resources, natural and human, comes responsibility to each other and to the world itself. How could we not be humbled by the greatness of this magnificent country?

If I have a favourite part of this bill, it is the report back to Parliament it would require. In one year, those who occupy these chairs, which will be filled with so many who for too long who have been denied, must be heard, and they must be heard with all of the magnificence of this diversity, which truly is the envy of the world.

I invite members to travel, as we all have, and let the conversation turn to what Parliament represents to so many in faraway places, many of whom, given the choice, would rather be here than where there are. They would look at this chamber as a place where people gather to improve themselves, where we look at accomplishment and we take the personal accomplishment to the national one, and it is no small feat. It is woven from these strands of all of the diversity that makes this the most magnificent place on earth.

For me personally, this is a wonderful moment. I listened to my friends in the Bloc talk about the French language, the identity of the French language, how deeply enmeshed language is with their culture, their identity and their sense of belonging in ways that make us whole. In my little corner of this country, on the Prairies, we strive to create wealth and a sense of belonging across a wide range of natural and human resources.

In wrapping up this debate, I want to thank the people of Winnipeg South Centre, without whose confidence this would never have been possible. For all those who raised their voices in support of this idea, some may say it is aspirational idea, and I can handle that. I can handle aspirations, especially when they are shared, and that is at the centre of what this bill is all about.

It is with gratitude, thanks and a deep respect for this institution that I humbly present this bill to my colleagues in Parliament.

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

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.

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

I request a recorded vote, Madam Speaker.

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

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred to Wednesday, December 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑235 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #236

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 32 minutes.