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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

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

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

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

Accordingly, the amendment is out of order.

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

I see Mr. Fillmore on G-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I therefore call clause 2.

(On clause 2)

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I'll start with the Alberta Beef Producers.

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

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

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

What parts of Bill C‑235 should be reworked?

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

Do you agree with that?

[Dale Austin]

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon, and thank you for having us today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much. Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call the meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Trudel, thank you for being here.

[Applause]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming out here today.

Mr. Carr, the author of this bill, admitted that he had not consulted with the premiers of the provinces that this bill specifically impacts. We also heard at the last meeting that the municipalities in Saskatchewan had not been consulted on Bill C-235.

Mr. Carr also noted that this bill does not have the endorsement of any municipality. It does not have the endorsement of any provincial minister or premier and it does not have the endorsement of any first nation. He also noted that there are zero petitions of support from the public on this bill.

Mr. Masterson, how important is it to ensure that stakeholders directly impacted by legislation are consulted with, and do you see any potential risks with passing legislation that does not have the support of the people it directly impacts?

[Cathy Heron, President, Alberta Municipalities]

Hello. My name is Cathy Heron and I am the president of Alberta Municipalities. I'm also the mayor of the city of St. Albert, which is just north of Edmonton. About 67,000 people live in my community, so at a federal level, we're considered a small community.

Alberta Municipalities is an association that represents Alberta's cities, towns, villages, summer villages and specialized municipalities. We represent the communities in which more than 85% of Albertans live. I'd really like to thank you for inviting me to present here today, although much like Mr. McGowan, I wish I were in Ottawa with you. Next time I will be, hopefully.

At the beginning of October, five municipal associations representing Canada's prairie provinces met in Edmonton to discuss issues of common interest. In attendance were Alberta Municipalities; the Rural Municipalities of Alberta; Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, SUMA, which is the urban association in Saskatchewan; and of course the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, which represents all municipalities in Manitoba.

During our discussions, we talked about issues that Bill C-235 addresses. I have to be very clear that I don't speak for the other associations, but I do think that the discussions we had will really help to improve this bill before it goes back to the House of Commons.

First, Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to subclause 3(1) of the bill, the “Development” section.

The language in this section speaks to the creation of a green economy in Canada's prairie provinces. This seems to suggest that prairie provinces do not currently have a green economy. However, during my meetings with the leaders of the prairie municipal associations, we discussed many green innovations in our respective provinces, including examples from agriculture, solar energy, oil and gas, and waste management sectors. The language in this bill would be more accurate if it referred to “strengthening” or “supporting” a green economy in the Prairies. We are very much already heading down this path, but it is agreed that further federal support is needed and would be more than welcomed. I don't believe any government anywhere has ever created an economy. That only happens with the full involvement of private industry. It is the government's role to create a business-friendly environment, and then businesses move the economy forward.

I'm going to move on to the “Consultation” subclause of this bill.

This subclause speaks to engaging provincial governments, indigenous communities and the private sector to help develop a green economy in the Prairies. Unfortunately, one of the major gaps in this subclause is that you've left out municipalities. I don't believe the Minister of Industry would succeed in the implementation of this framework without consultation with municipalities. Therefore, I ask that municipal governments be included in subclause 3(2) of this bill. I believe that was probably the intent. I've heard a lot of talk today about local, and that's exactly what we are—local government. Of course, you've invited me here today, so I do believe the intent is there, but it would be nice to have it included.

In subclause 3(3), the “Content” section, the bill speaks to prioritizing green projects and integrating more green energy into agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and tourism sectors. This section also speaks to the establishment of programs and projects that would stimulate a green economy and ensure that infrastructure projects incorporate climate change mitigation. These are all areas I was glad to see integrated into the bill.

Paragraphs 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b), however, leave a lot to be desired. Paragraph 3(3)(a) is worded in a way that indicates that we don't have public transit in the prairie provinces. I can't speak for my counterparts in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, but I can assure you that Alberta has public transit. While we would benefit from more funding and support, it definitely does exist. We have 18 municipalities in Alberta operating their own local transit authorities. Approximately 3.1 million Albertans live in those 18 municipalities. Those 18 communities don't include the various not-for-profit and volunteer-operated transit systems in smaller communities, which help seniors or people living with disabilities continue to reside in their community.

I would encourage the committee, through the chair, to consider amending this language to acknowledge that we have transit in the Prairies and that the framework considered in the bill would work with municipalities to improve and strengthen municipal public transit.

We know that other models of public transit exist besides the ones that currently work in large centres. Those different models that exist in smaller communities need to be considered and funded. These include ride-sharing programs, not-for-profit models and on-demand solutions. The town of Okotoks in Alberta, for example, launched an on-demand transit system that has been so successful that it won the minister's award for transportation innovation. Okotoks is just south of Calgary, and I think their population is less than 30,000 people.

I'd also like to adjust paragraph 3(3)(b) of the bill since it fundamentally misrepresents the role the energy industry will play in the move to a net-zero economy. Instead of “retraining” people who currently work in the oil and gas industry, this section should speak to leveraging their expertise to implement an emission-reducing technology.

In my region, we have what is known as the Alberta Industrial Heartland group. This group has made a very strong business case for hydrogen's role in our future, and I'm talking about blue hydrogen from methane. This business case has been so strong that billions of dollars have been invested into the region so that we can be among the first to produce hydrogen at a commercial scale, because there is a worldwide demand for low-emission energy sources. Alberta is also piloting hydrogen into residential natural gas systems to lower the emissions from heating our homes.

These are just two examples of how the oil and gas industry is playing an integral role in moving Canada towards a net-zero or low-carbon economy.

I would like to thank the chair and the committee for their time today. Thank you for considering municipal perspectives as you work to improve this bill. Alberta Municipalities hopes there will be other opportunities to provide input, feedback and advice in the future.

[Gil McGowan, President, Alberta Federation of Labour]

Good afternoon.

My name is Gil McGowan. I'm the elected president of the Alberta Federation of Labour. The AFL is the largest worker advocacy group in Alberta, representing more than 170,000 unionized workers in both the public and private sectors, including thousands of people who work in oil and gas and in oil and gas-related construction.

I'm here to support Bill C-235 because it would provide an organized and constructive framework to get Prairie folks talking about the unfolding global energy transition—and, man, do we need to talk. As it stands right now, rational discussion on these issues is being deliberately blocked and shut down.

Instead of helping citizens of Alberta and Saskatchewan prepare themselves for a world that's changing fast, far too many conservative politicians from our region are using these issues to sow misinformation and whip up anger for their own political gain. They say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is trying to shut down our resource industries. They say that an effort to plan for the future that might look even a little different from our past is an attack on our way of life in the Prairies. They even suggest that you're not a real Albertan if you don't join them in defending and doubling down on the status quo.

Frankly, I call BS on all of it. I'm as Albertan as you can get. I grew up on a farm in rural Alberta. I went to school in Alberta. I raised my family in Alberta. I'm also proud of our oil and gas industry. It's the engine of our economy and has brought us unprecedented prosperity. Alberta workers, the folks I represent, built it and maintained it, and we are proud of that fact.

However, we also know that change is coming. We know that we can and should prepare and plan for it. We know that if we don't, we could be left behind. This is why I support this bill. We need platforms for all the diverse voices from the Prairies to be heard.

For the Conservative members around this committee table, please stop. Please stop pretending that you speak for all western Canadians. You don't. Stop trying to drown out other western voices. We deserve to be heard just as much as you. Stop trying to demonize us. We're just as much real westerners as you are.

To give you a sense of what could be brought to the table should this government create the framework for consultation contemplated by Bill C-235, I refer all of you to a report that the AFL released in Calgary last week. We call it “Skate to Where the Puck is Going”.

Our report is not an emission reduction strategy, a climate leadership plan or a green new deal. It's certainly not a plan to shut down our resource industries or end our western way of life. Instead, it's just the opposite. It lays out a bold and ambitious plan for the Alberta economy, a plan that would preserve existing jobs in oil and gas, create 200,000 new jobs both within the oil and gas sector and beyond it, and set us on a path for continued prosperity in a changing world.

Significantly, our plan for adapting the Alberta economy is similar to plans released by Alberta business groups like the Business Council of Alberta and Calgary Economic Development. These are the kinds of western voices that are currently being drowned out. They are also the kinds of voices that, for the sake of our future prosperity in western Canada, desperately need to be heard.

That's why we support this bill. Please provide a platform for the western voices who are currently being drowned out.

Thank you.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

In fact, I think it would help if Bill C‑235 referred to working together with respect to the laws and regulations that already exist.

Instead of starting fresh in Bill C-235 and saying that now, for these enumerated areas, from tree planting to the rest, we are going to mandate implementation—which sounds pretty top-down—but we're going to then consult on that mandated implementation, it seems to me that it would be more helpful, I think, to say.... There are dozens of top-down regulations, policy mandates and laws on the books, from the federal fuel standard to clean electricity regulations to holding on to our carbon tax money to the rest. It's almost difficult to keep track of all the federal programs on the books that are in that mandate to provinces.

I think it would be helpful, in light of all of these—from the federal fuel standard to the carbon tax to the methane—to say that we're going to share data, we're going to talk to communities, we're going to talk to ministers. We're going to lay all these things on the table, literally and figuratively, and we're going to figure out how we can actually work together in a real way and in an apples to apples way.

I bring up methane, for example, because it was “Reduce it by 75%. Thanks for doing 50%, but we raise you to 75%”. We provide our numbers, but where are your numbers?

It seems to me that we don't need a Bill C-235 to say that collaboration should start now around new areas, new infrastructure and new projects. I think it's really about stopping where we are, pausing and going back and talking through everything that has been imposed till now.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Eyre, when you were Minister of Energy and Resources in your government, you said that the costs associated with the green transition were a major obstacle. You were concerned about the costs in terms of lost jobs and lost revenue if the transition happened too quickly. You had indicated that there was a need for grassroots consultation.

In theory, Bill C‑235 takes a step in that direction. It aims to establish programs and projects that stimulate a green economy to take into account the local situation, in addition to engaging local businesses, governments and civil society organizations. I am referring here to section 3 of the bill.

Doesn't this bill help to address some of your concerns? Would it be an interesting step forward?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

Well, it's a shame that the tone of the bill is so top-down. I guess I would say that there's nothing stopping ministers right now from sharing their methane data with us.

We don't need Bill C-235, surely, to work collaboratively with provinces on things of joint interest. As I say, the data isn't being provided on methane. I don't think we need Bill C-235 to mandate anything when that's just what honourable partners do.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

Well, I've said through the remarks this morning that one thing that's concerning about the bill is the top-down name, the top-down tone, and the implementation of we're not quite sure what. It's the vagueness, frankly. It's both the vagueness and the prescriptiveness, if that makes sense. It's the prescriptiveness of tone and the vagueness of purpose.

I think we've seen this movie so many times before in Saskatchewan with, as I said, the funds, the priorities, the fostering and the strings that come with those efforts. Unfortunately, a mistrust has built up. In the context of what the premier was trying to highlight last week, which is around our jurisdiction and the economic harm of some of these policies, I think the alarm bells go off when we read titles like the one for Bill C-235. We wonder what it means and what it will mean. We've seen, for example, a movement around capping oil and increasing methane reduction caps, and turning on a dime on that, as I've referenced. What does this mean, and where are they coming next?

One of your committee members referenced our amazing story in agriculture. Of course, we're very concerned that the federal government is now shifting to a policy against that as well. It affects growth, it affects our economic potential and it affects our exclusive jurisdictions.

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

How do you see federal Bill C-235 fitting in with Premier Moe's plan to defend Saskatchewan's economic autonomy?

[Bronwyn Eyre]

It's a very good question, and I'm going to use a very specific example to answer, because we want to make sure we're trying to be constructive about what could help the relationship.

I often use the example of our methane plan. The Province of Saskatchewan has federal equivalency for methane. People don't really know that, but we do. We worked very hard for two years to negotiate with the federal government in good faith. We got equivalency. Our methane plan has been approved, as I say, and the federal government has signed off on it. The problem is that they don't share any data with us.

I, in my former role, raised this issue with Minister Wilkinson, and he said it made sense that ECCC should share data with us. We had a plan and we lowered methane by 50%. Minister Steven Guilbeault tweeted his congratulations, and we appreciated that, but it was like “Congratulations, Saskatchewan. You've lowered methane by 50%. Now we'll raise that reduction to 75%.”

However, we don't see any of the numbers. Are the models they're imposing on us from Texas or Alberta? We don't know. We get a portion of the data, but we don't get the full data. How can you not be cynical about a partnership in which you're not really partners because the numbers on which the new strictures being imposed are based are not being shared with you?

Therefore, to your question about whether the consultation is dysfunctional, I would say, based on that very real example, unfortunately, yes. We actually worked hard together to get to a point, and then the game is constantly changed. The numbers are constantly changed. The goals are always changed.

We worked hard to reduce methane, to the point where we were congratulated federally on our efforts. When we talk about Bill C-235, then, what are the new expectations going to be, and what strings are going to be attached, and how is it going to impact our sectors?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing this morning and joining our committee.

I'm going to move to Bill C-235 specifically. I wonder if you had any thoughts about the implementation schedule that is now being suggested, which is 12 months instead of 18 months. Do you have an opinion on that?

I'll get to some other questions, but this is one thing that the Honourable Mr. Carr presented in changing the timeline. I wonder what your thoughts are on that, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone. It's good to see everyone after constituency week.

Welcome to meeting number 38 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

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

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

For this first hour of committee, we have the honour of having Madame Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Government of Saskatchewan. Welcome, Madame Eyre. It's a pleasure to have you.

Without further ado, I'll cede the floor to you for five minutes, more or less.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will take advantage of your generosity.

Ms. Ness, paragraph 3(3)(c) of Bill C‑235 says that nuclear energy would be considered. Are you in favour of nuclear energy development on the prairies?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

My questions are for Ms. Seagrave.

My understanding is that your organization provides critical strategic investment advice and services to business developers of clean, green and sustainable technologies. In your opinion, what are the biggest hurdles faced by new enterprises entering the clean energy sector?

The second part of my question is, can you tell us how Bill C-235 will have a positive effect in addressing those challenges?

[Raymond Orb, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Good afternoon.

My name is Ray Orb. I am the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, known as SARM.

I was born and raised and live in the rural community of Cupar, northeast of Regina, which has a population of about 625 people.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for the opportunity to share our association's thoughts as it studies Bill C-235, an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Our membership is made up of Saskatchewan's rural municipal governments. SARM has been the voice of rural Saskatchewan for over 100 years. Today, I'll share the perspective of those we represent by sharing our thoughts on how the proposed bill would impact our livelihood in rural Saskatchewan.

SARM has considered the proposed legislation and does not support it. Upon review, we determined that it will not further the best interests of rural Saskatchewan.

The bill proposes that a consultation framework be built to facilitate the building of a green economy across all prairie provinces. It assumes the interests of all those residing in these provinces to be the same, and that simply isn't going to work. Issues facing rural Saskatchewan are unique to us.

Rural Saskatchewan's economic success and livelihood are a reality because of the uniquely rich and vast landscape it houses. It boasts a wealth of access to some of the most arable land for growing food and to resource-rich lands that house critical natural reserves that the world needs. This has allowed the agriculture, mining and energy sectors to flourish, sectors that could not flourish in an urban setting or, equally, in all prairie provinces. They need access to rural Saskatchewan's unique land base.

When rural Saskatchewan has a problem or requires federal or provincial collaboration, we would like to work with government directly. We don't want to be trapped in a bureaucratic framework that attempts to treat everyone the same. Some of our unique issues include making sure our key sectors aren't stifled by trade agreements, taxes and world politics, while also ensuring access to efficient rail, road and broadband and cellular infrastructure. Issues like the ones facing rural Saskatchewan are not necessarily shared by those living in Calgary, Winnipeg or even Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

In rural Saskatchewan, we are making excellent headway on our own solutions for a greener economy, and we don't require a federal framework.

Saskatchewan has some of the greenest agriculture producers in the world. Most Saskatchewan cropland is zero-till. This means that our producers use a low-disturbance direct seeding system. Not only does zero-till agriculture sink more carbon, but it also reduces soil erosion and the amount of fuel required on farms.

The Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association has been studying carbon sequestration for years. Through their research, they found that Saskatchewan producers sequester 9.64 million tonnes of new carbon dioxide every year over 28 million acres.

Our province announced its own target for renewable energy use in 2015 and set it at 50% by 2030. To help accelerate this target, SARM partnered with the First Nations Power Authority to provide a tool to help our municipalities and first nations navigate the site selection process for renewable energy projects.

As you can clearly see, rural Saskatchewan has unique issues and is already implementing unique solutions, so SARM is opposed to this bill. In essence, this new legislation would try to implement a one-size-fits-all framework that is not going to work.

In closing, on behalf of Saskatchewan's RMs and rural Saskatchewan, I thank the standing committee again for the opportunity. I look forward to continued dialogue and to the upcoming question period.

Thank you.

[Meaghan Seagrave, Executive Director, Bioindustrial Innovation Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the invitation to speak today.

My name is Meaghan Seagrave, and I'm the executive director of Bioindustrial Innovation Canada, also known as BIC.

Before going any further, I would like to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Wolastoqiyik, Mi'kmaq and Passamaquoddy peoples here in New Brunswick.

I'm happy to speak to you about Bill C-235. BIC supports this bill, as it complements our existing work as a not-for-profit and national business accelerator, focused on supporting developers of clean, green and sustainable technologies here in Canada. BIC is leading Canada's circular economy development as the only business accelerator in Canada focused on providing critical strategic investment advice and services to those businesses and developers in the green sustainable space.

BIC has a long track record of success in identifying and supporting early-stage clean-tech and clean energy companies, by focusing on helping them overcome hurdles to commercialization and allowing them to remain and grow here in Canada. BIC has been involved with companies in various sectors, from battery recovery and resource recycling to the identification and growth of value chains for the country's agricultural and forestry biomass.

To date, BIC has invested in 32 early-stage companies and fostered its own investment fund. In the process, our portfolio companies have created over 5,200 jobs and leveraged an additional $350 million in third party investments. We're on track to document greenhouse gas reductions of over 13 megatons by 2030.

We understand that reaching Canada's net-zero targets will take a nationwide effort and concrete initiatives. The proposed framework that promotes economic sustainability, growth and employment in the Prairies aligns well with BIC's current mission to identify, support and grow sustainable business opportunities across the country. The Prairies have an abundant and sustainable biomass resource, which not only is foundational to Canada's food and protein production, but also provides the building blocks in terms of starches, fibres and oils that are critical to the production of bio-based products.

Bill C-235 has the potential to catalyze those opportunities, particularly those rooted in resource and industrial sectors. By ensuring improved alignment among stakeholders, this bill will further enable the region's green transition, focusing on the role of agriculture in the new prairie economy, as well as Canada's largest emerging circular economy.

This bill will support the building of value chains that connect Canada's agriculture and forestry biomass to the advanced manufacturing of biochemicals, biomaterials and biofuels used across a multitude of industries, providing alternatives for greener application in Canada's automotive, aerospace, construction and energy sectors and successfully stimulating a green economy while helping Canada move towards its net-zero targets.

In summary, supporting this bill will effectively support organizations like BIC by way of programs and products that support early-stage businesses and help them innovate and overcome commercialization hurdles.

Decarbonizing Canada's economy is a long-term objective. BIC wants to ensure that all regions get to benefit from a green economy, especially regions like the prairie provinces, with considerable promise to help Canada move towards its net-zero targets. This bill will help the Prairies attract additional investment and business opportunities while creating the jobs of the future for the region.

Thank you for your time.

[Justine Ness, President and Chief Operating Officer, Safety First, As an Individual]

Thank you for having me on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

For the purpose of context, I would like to provide you with a brief background.

I'm the president and chief operating officer of an oil field services company that was established in 1996. It's a second-generation, family-owned company. I also come from a farming family and we have two beautiful daughters who are the fourth generation on the family farm.

The oil and gas sector and farming have been the heart and soul of not only our family, but also the majority of Albertans, Saskatchewanians and Manitobans.

My business works closely with Canada's world-class energy sector and is proud to do so. As president and COO of a business that helps industry improve areas of reasonable quality and safety, I can attest to the high standards already enforced in Canada's oil and gas industry. Yet, we have our Canadian government, which fails to support our industry and which is not allowing us to succeed to our fullest potential. We choose to ship oil across our oceans and support countries like Saudi Arabia.

According to the international merchandise trade database, Canada imported from Saudi Arabia approximately 1.5 billion dollars' worth in 2020, and 3.5 million tonnes in 2021. Saudi Arabia does not produce oil ethically, has little to no human rights and no regard for the environment, whereas in Canada we have created a safety industry around the care and protection of our industry-leading workers. Let's first look to our own industry and support our own country, our own citizens and our own economy.

Every day we see innovations brought forward by Canadian energy producers and we see just how important they are to the economic and social fabric of western Canada. Hard-working men and women focus on delivering the world's safest, most ethically sourced and environmentally friendly petroleum products. It is deeply important that we recognize the power that people have to invoke change in our society and understand that we all have vastly different experiences. This is what makes Canada great.

Canada produces less than 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Of that, Canada's oil industry produces about 0.3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me be clear. My family and I have a great love for the outdoors and a great aspiration for a clean environment. It is very important that we protect it. I care about the decisions that are being made by the Canadian government. By adding red tape and buying fossil fuels from countries that do not take the same environmental protections as we do, we are supporting unsafe and environmentally damaging practices.

I fear that Bill C-235 in its current form will effectively harm the resource industry in Canada even further and rob the world of the energy securities it so desperately needs.

These policies have also had a frightening destabilizing effect on western democracies in Europe, making them vulnerable to Russia. We will still need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. With the invasion of Ukraine and Europe being held hostage to Russian energy, it has become clear that the world needs more clean, green Canadian energy. We need to be self-sustainable and able to rely on our own resources and our own infrastructure. We do not want to fall victim to energy insecurity the same way Europe has.

Canada has low-cost green energy solutions to prevent the current energy crisis. Alberta and our western neighbours are doing the greening of the economy already. We have solar and wind farms and carbon capture trunk lines, and we produce the cleanest oil and gas in the world. We have the largest coal reserves in the world for making clean, efficient coal gasification in the making of syngas.

Entrepreneurs and provinces do not need federal interference on how to run our industry. We all want the best for our environment for generations to come, but drowning this generation and the future in inflation and red tape is not how we prosper and promote innovation and our economic success.

Bill C-235, again, is another step by our government to kill an industry that would be needed well into the future—whether you want to hear that or not. Wind energy, solar energy and electric cars still depend on fossil fuels. Canadian entrepreneurs are best equipped to solve these problems. Not only does this bill fail to recognize the leaders in this field, but it does nothing but hold those innovations back.

I will leave you with this. We are shipping oil across our oceans when it is unnecessary, considering the abundance of our own resources. We are shipping 500,000 barrels a day up the St. Lawrence River to Quebec refineries, instead of using pipelines and building more pipelines, which are far superior for the environment.

I ask you, why are we continuing to fixate on the west? I strongly believe that if this government truly understood our resources and how they are being produced in the west, it would have a different outlook. I encourage you, and I invite you, to come and understand the truth about Canadian energy.

Bill C-235 seems to be a classic federal overreach, trying to dictate and influence these three western provinces. In simple terms, the federal government needs to step back. We are already a leader. We need to start promoting it. We need to start educating people on the importance of our world-class industry.

Let's start by recognizing and supporting the world's greenest, safest, ethically produced oil right here in Canada.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Mayor, City of Edmonton]

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My name is Amarjeet Sohi and I am the mayor of the city of Edmonton, Alberta.

Like many major cities in Canada, Edmonton is growing quickly and we are feeling the effects of the climate change crisis. It is our responsibility to work together towards solutions and to create action plans accordingly. This is why I am very excited to see the introduction of this bill, Bill C-235, by the Honourable Jim Carr.

The City of Edmonton supports the approach of local co-operation and engagement outlined in the bill and looks forward to being an active participant in the development of the framework. Municipalities are not specifically mentioned in clause 2, but we should be at the table as partners in this work.

The prairie region is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Over the last 20 years, the insured costs of climate hazards in Alberta have been increasing. Since the 1990s, Alberta has experienced six out of the 10 biggest climate hazard insured losses in Canada.

The prairie region is warming at the fastest rate in Canada, outside of the Arctic region. This brings a high risk of flooding, a high risk of drought, and a high frequency of extreme heat events. Prairie cities will need to become more climate- and energy-resilient and we need to collaborate with all sectors and all orders of government to transition together. This transition will be a huge driver for job creation and economic growth.

The framework developed through the implementation of Bill C-235 will help prairie cities to proactively plan, collaborate and advance on employment and economic priorities that are intended to mitigate and minimize disruption from climate change. This work is happening at both the local and regional levels, and there are many opportunities, such as regional public transit programs, that can be built into this work.

I will give you a few examples of how the proposed federal framework aligns with Edmonton's strategic plans, and what we have already accomplished.

Edmonton's economic action plan sets the path of creating more jobs and more businesses, and it is purposefully designed to steer us towards opportunities in the green economy.

Edmonton's community energy transition strategy and action plan facilitates the growth of local green economic sectors, including renewable energy, green transit and construction, carbon capture and storage, and smart technology.

Since 2015, this strategy has already led to the city of Edmonton being on target to have 100% renewable electricity for its civic operations in the next few years; deployment of 60 electric buses, piloting of two hydrogen buses, and plans to deploy several hundred low-emission buses in the next decade; and development of district energy systems downtown and in the Blatchford community.

Collaboration with partners like the FCM and the Province of Alberta has resulted in Edmonton being the first large city in Alberta to have initiated a clean energy improvement program. Currently, three other Alberta municipalities have initiated their own CEIP, and 19 Alberta municipalities have passed clean energy improvement bylaws in preparation to start their programs.

As you can see, Edmonton and many prairie cities want to transition to a green economy. We are ready for this, and we need your help to be successful.

Another example is the role of partnerships and the great work being carried out due to the federal government's climate innovation fund, which has supported essential capacity building to better prepare Edmonton's real estate, building and construction industries to transition to a green economy.

The last city plan I want to highlight, which aligns with the proposed framework, is “Climate Resilient Edmonton: Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan”, which was approved in 2020 and is Edmonton's approach to adapting to the impacts of a changing climate.

One of the first priorities being undertaken is the development and implementation of our flood mitigation plan, a $1.6-billion investment plan that includes a combination of homeowner program, drainage systems improvements, green infrastructure and smarter stormwater networks that will allow Edmonton to anticipate and react to storms in real time.

Alberta will be home to some of the largest net-zero petrochemical manufacturing facilities in the world because of our provincial carbon offset framework, along with geological conditions that optimize for carbon capture and sequestration. One of the world's first net-zero hydrogen facilities will be located here in Edmonton by 2024.

I would be remiss not to advocate for policies that recognize decarbonization opportunities that align with the strengths of my region's economy. Becoming a carbon capture and hydrogen leader in the Prairies is not a given, specifically due to recent incentives of the Inflation Reduction Act that are creating more favourable conditions for those projects to be in the U.S. Canada can do more to increase the competitiveness of our hydrogen sector while increasing sustainable economic growth.

Prairie cities like Edmonton are ready to partner with anyone who will help us to build a new, inclusive economy. We're willing partners committed to being at the table, ready to work together. We will be involved in several different federal ministries, and the framework will allow us that singular focus and a point of access that will build efficiencies and allow us to address these challenges faster.

Thank you so much for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Good afternoon, colleagues. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 37 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

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

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Witnesses and members will therefore be participating virtually using Zoom. Everyone knows the rules, so raise your hand if you want to intervene.

Without further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses, who are taking the time to be with us today to talk about this important bill.

First up is Amarjeet Sohi, mayor of the City of Edmonton, who is participating remotely. Mr. Sohi is a former colleague. Welcome. It's good to see you.

We also have Justine Ness, president and chief operating officer of Safety First, who is with us in person here in Ottawa. Thank you for being here.

From Alberta Enterprise Group, we have Catherine Brownlee, president, who will be joining us at 4:30. We'll interrupt the question period and hear from Ms. Brownlee.

From Bioindustrial Innovation Canada, we have Meaghan Seagrave, executive director. From Fairness Alberta, via video conference, we have Bill Bewick, executive director. From the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, we have Raymond Orb.

Thanks to all for being here. Considering that we have a lot of witnesses, we'll start without further ado.

Let's start with Mr. Sohi.

You have the floor, Mr. Mayor.

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

I guess it really doesn't matter if the premiers don't agree with it or anything like that. It doesn't really matter because it's going to be a top-down approach anyway.

Mr. Carr, Bill C-235 mandates that the framework to build a greener prairie economy must involve various ministers. However, you've already mentioned that it has zero mention of the agriculture minister and that you're going to include that.

Did you forget to include Canadian farmers and ranchers in your bill, or is your government once again intentionally just forgetting about them?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Mr. Carr, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I read Bill C-235. It's my understanding that this bill applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

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

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

Committee members who are in the room and would like to speak should raise their hands. Those who are participating via Zoom should use the “Raise Hand” feature.

This is our first meeting of the season, and I'm delighted to see you again.

I'm also very happy to receive the hon. Jim Carr.

Without further ado, I will now give the floor to Mr. Carr.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Mr. Speaker, it is with enthusiasm and hope that I introduce a private member's bill called “building a green prairie economy act”.

Among the many lessons and reflections about battling COVID-19, one is that Canadians want their governments at all levels to work together toward a common goal. This bill captures that sentiment and mandates the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, along with colleagues, to build a framework that includes provincial and municipal governments, first nations and Métis governing bodies, the private sector and its employees, and leaders in civil society to work together building a green economy on the Prairies. This bill offers the scope and the challenge of uniting and inspiring us. I look forward to the debate.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)