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.

Hon. Jim Carr

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to all my colleagues for their tributes to our colleague and friend, Jim Carr. I am especially grateful to the Prime Minister, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for their words.

I think everyone felt the same feelings because we lost someone dear to us, someone we all loved very much.

I had the great honour to know Jim for quite a long time. We got to know each other through an organization that is playing quite a role here at COP15. The International Institute for Sustainable Development is based in Winnipeg. Jim was a member of the board, and I overlapped with him on the board for five years, beginning in 2000. He went on to be the vice-chair of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and I saw the influence of that experience in working on sustainable development in his work in Parliament. It bound us together as friends before we met in the chamber as fellow members of Parliament.

There have been many words said about Jim's enormous depth of character and his range of interests, none of them superficial. Imagine being interested in music and being able to play oboe at a symphony orchestra; being concerned with the rights of people around the world and serving to meet those ends in Parliament.

In his work for the community, particularly to the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley I want to mention knowing what a strong advocate for the Jewish community Jim Carr always was, with his Russian-Jewish ancestors having come to Canada in 1906. He never forgot those roots.

Jim was also, of course, a journalist. So much has been mentioned that I can think of only one thing that has not been shared yet, but I think a lot of us knew it. Jim was really funny. He had a killer sense of humour. He could perhaps have been a professional impersonator. I do not know how many members ever got to see his quite killing imitation of JFK. He had Kennedyesque looks, and he pulled off a Boston accent like nobody's business. He was enormously gifted, and he shared those talents with us all.

The president of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Richard Florizone, said in the statement from that organization that Jim was “the rare polymath”. That is a tribute to the ways in which he was able to come into our lives, into policy, into politics, into the arts, into community, into business, and never superficially. He has left an enormous impact throughout his life on so many different facets of our society. No doubt, the Prime Minister is exactly right: He loved this country, every inch of it.

I will cherish the memory, but it is almost impossible to believe it was only seven days ago that I hugged Jim next to his desk when Bill C-235 passed. It was a distinct honour, and one I do not take for granted, that he asked me to be his official seconder. It is rare to ask someone who is not in one's own party to second one's bill, but I hold it as a cherished memory. I never would have believed that when I hugged him to congratulate him on Bill C-235, the building a green prairie economy act, it was the last time I would get to hug him.

We knew his days were not many, but each day made a difference, as he said every day he passed my desk to walk down to take his spot in the front row. I would say, “Jim, how are you?” He would say, “Every day is a blessing.” Let us remember his words and live our lives to be worthy of that knowledge, that every day is a blessing. Let us use each day as a blessing in the service of our Lord, whatever faith we follow. Let us remember that every day is a blessing.

We are honoured to have known Jim and to have loved him. I will miss him. I give my deepest condolences and sympathy to Colleen and all the family.

I thank all my colleagues for this opportunity to share a few words in honour of the great human, the great Canadian, the mensch we lost.

Criminal Code

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, at the outset let me acknowledge that I am speaking to you from the traditional lands of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people.

As this is my first opportunity to speak since the passing of the Hon. Jim Carr, I want to express my deepest condolences to the Carr family and my appreciation to them for sharing Jim with us, both in Parliament as well as in Canada, and for the remarkable legacy that he leaves in being who he was, such an honourable gentleman who crossed party lines and in many ways reached out across the aisle. I am heartened to see so many very positive comments coming from everyone, from all parties.

I wanted to particularly express my condolences to Ben Carr, whom many in the House may know as someone who was very much part of our government at the beginning stages. He moved on to Winnipeg, to serve his community locally.

As we close the year, Jim's passing should give us some guidance in terms of how we should not only work with each other and towards strengthening this institution, but also work across the aisle to make things happen for Canadians. As we know, one of the last things Jim did was see the passage of his private member's bill to build a green prairie economy, Bill C-235, which received unanimous support.

Today, we are in a very similar moment here, with Bill C-291, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts in respect of child sexual abuse material, brought forward by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, providing that opportunity.

I would note that during this process we worked very well together, collaboratively, with him and his colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, in terms of getting this bill both through the House and through the committee stage at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I want to thank the member and his colleague, and all members who are part of the justice committee, for working on this bill expeditiously and getting us to this point.

We must take measures to fight child sexual exploitation. We have comprehensive and robust criminal laws against it. We need to have strong and effective law enforcement, and we need to continue to advance and facilitate measures that seek to support victims.

I would like to take this time to highlight the vital work done by the child and youth advocacy centres across this country. These centres provide a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach in a safe, comfortable environment to address the needs of children and youth and their families. Children and youth who are victims or witnesses of crime in Canada deserve protection and justice. Online child sexual exploitation is some of the most disturbing conduct facing society today. The pandemic has contributed to a rise in sexual offences committed against children, including their facilitation through technological means.

In the fiscal year 2021-22, the RCMP's national child exploitation crime centre received 81,799 complaints, reports and requests for assistance relating to online child sexual exploitation, which was a 56% increase compared to the previous fiscal year in 2020-21, with only 52,306 reports received, and an 854% increase compared to 2013-14, when 8,578 reports were received, based on the internal numbers provided by the NCECC.

The website cybertip.ca, run by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, reported a 120% increase in reports of children being victimized online in comparison to prepandemic rates.

According to Statistics Canada, in 2020, police reported crime data which included the first year of the pandemic, as indicated, and that incidents of making or distributing child pornography had increased by 26% in 2021 compared to 2019, and by 58% over the five-year period of 2017 to 2021. Possession of or accessing child pornography increased by 44% in 2021 compared to 2019, and represents a 146% increase since 2017. Incidents of luring a child via a computer have gone up 23% compared to 2019, a 48% increase from the previous five years.

This bill changes the term “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. This new term captures the full scope of Canada's law, as well as the jurisprudence available from the last 30 years. The Government of Canada, therefore, is committed to preventing and protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation of any kind, including internationally.

Canada works closely with international partners to combat online child sexual exploitation. This includes not only the extent of information regarding new and emerging threats, but also the sharing of best practices and lessons learned in combatting this crime.

Canada is a state party to a number of international agreements to protect children from sexual exploitation, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and the convention on cybercrime, or what is called the Budapest convention.

The sexual exploitation and abuse of children has devastating and long-lasting consequences on victims. We remain committed to taking meaningful action to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse materials. Canada's existing criminal laws against child sexual exploitation and abuse materials are among the most comprehensive in the world. The Criminal Code prohibits all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse materials, including against possessing, accessing, making or distributing it, which can be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to 14 years for each event.

Serious crimes deserve serious consequences. I, along with my fellow members, look forward to watching this important bill progress in the other place. As a community, we all have a role to play in protecting children.

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.

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Industry and Technology

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to Bill C‑235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That concludes clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑235.

I want to thank you all for your collaboration today. It is much appreciated. That was the only order of business. It was a first experience for me and for this committee in this legislature, so I appreciate your collaboration and your hard work.

Thanks also to the legislative clerks, the analysts, the translators and all the support staff.

That concludes the business we had on the agenda today.

I see Mr. Masse.

Mr. Masse, before I adjourn, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you for explaining your amendment, Mr. Perkins, 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 prioritize projects in traditional energy industries “to replace higher-emission energy sources produced under lower human rights standards”.

As I mentioned earlier, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770 that “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 the amendment would add a requirement to adhere to human rights standards in developing a framework for a green prairie economy, which amounts to a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

Accordingly, the amendment is out of order.

That brings us to PV‑1.