Industry Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2022

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

It's a great idea. I would hope, given what I've just said about the importance of agriculture as the essence of what we're trying to accomplish here in the naming of the minister.... That is exactly the kind of idea that I don't think has had a full airing. So many of these issues have had no airing, and this is a chance to pump a little bit of air into that tire and for people to be accountable for it. I don't want to diminish the importance of reporting back to you. As a parliamentarian, I know that if I have a deadline and that deadline means that I have to have my ducks in a row to talk to a parliamentary committee or the whole of Parliament, I'm going to take it seriously. I have to take it seriously, and I should.

The difference between what Shannon has talked about as a seven-year legacy...is that now we're compelled. If this becomes law, there is a mandate and a compulsion to do the things that she wants done.

By the way, in the middle part of your intervention, when you reviewed all of the accomplishments within Alberta towards a sustainable energy future, I was just nodding my head. Why can't we do more of that? Why can't those accomplishments become better known?

That's what we're doing. Rather than bemoan the fact that these kinds of things ought to be acted upon, let's agree and get a move on, and then know that within 18 months or 12 months, if you agree with this possible amendment, there's going to be an accounting—and there should be.

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

Given that I went over my time for my first question, I'm going to stop here, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Carr.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire. I'm very grateful to you for that.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just one quick question. It's with regard to the financing of the bill in terms of costs and stuff like that. Has there been any kind of evaluation of that? You have several ministers it goes through here. To your credit, you have those ministers onside. They voted to get it here. I've questioned about the other support, but at the same time, you have their support.

Is there any kind of structural lead from the various ministers who are named in the report? I guess one of the concerns that might be expressed is that it might slow down other types of economic development parts or whatever, with conflict or so forth along that line. Who takes the lead so that it doesn't accidentally get in the way of things?

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

Yes. It's an interesting story, by the way, about why the minister in charge of PrairiesCan wasn't named in the first place. The drafters say that you have to have statutory authority to be named as a lead minister. That ministry didn't have statutory authority, but apparently there are ways in which that can be corrected.

Again, it would be awfully presumptuous to anticipate what all of this is going to yield over time, but there is no attempt here to create any kind of mechanism for duplication or for money to be spent that doesn't play directly to the framework. The first step is to establish the framework. Then we take half a step back and say, “What are the implications of the framework moving forward?” I don't think we can answer that question yet.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We'll move to Mr. Mazier for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Carr. I have to be honest; any time your government starts talking about introducing legislation about the Prairies, I do worry. Your government believes in an “Ottawa knows best” type of approach, something that I do strongly oppose. Whether it be your government's carbon tax or fertilizer restrictions, your government claims to be helping the Prairies when in reality your government is really hurting them.

Have the premiers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta publicly supported your bill—yes or no?

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

I have not asked the premiers to support the bill. Presumably, they will be right at the top of the list of the implicated ministers if this should become law.

Let me make a comment that might surprise you. You know, I spent all those months traversing the Prairies, however virtually, and I was asked to explain why we do so badly—we the Liberal Party—in prairie Canada. It's a source of constant frustration to me personally, as a prairie dweller, as someone who's lived in the region all my life, representing both a provincial constituency in Manitoba and a federal one in Parliament. I offer the same kind of common-sense analysis that anybody else would. We've failed continuously in aligning our political interests to the real interests of prairie folk. It's demonstrable. Just look at the results. Look at the numbers. I'm not going to try to sugar-coat the results. They're real. I'm delighted that we won a couple of seats in Alberta, on a partisan note, but we didn't win any in Saskatchewan.

It keeps me up at night. The only way you can penetrate that kind of dislocation is by opening your ears and by advancing policy suggestions that are important to the daily lives of people who live in these provinces. Show up and be there, and be there often, with both ears wide open. Clearly we have not done that, and we've paid the political price time and time again.

I hope we can change that. I'm not here to make any partisan commentary whatsoever. I'm here to look at the interests of the people who live in these provinces and try to better align our policies to make their lives more fruitful.

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

If the premiers all speak against the bill, will you withdraw it?

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

It's not up to me to withdraw the bill, and it's not up to me to conduct a referendum among premiers.

The consultative process will put, at the top of the list, conversations with ministers and premiers to see if they can find alignment. If they can't find any alignment, I would be disappointed—maybe they didn't try hard enough—but the answer to your question is that I don't think that's the way it works.

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

This is a bill coming from Ottawa, legislating how the Prairies build a new green economy. However, just a few years ago, your government rejected the Manitoba green plan, a plan that was developed by Manitobans for Manitobans.

Why do you believe that Ottawa knows better than Manitoba?

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

I don't know that Ottawa knows better. I do know that we have an obligation to better understand what Manitoba wants, not only as expressed by its premier or its government—because just as you may not like what you call a top-down approach from the federal government, nor would many Manitobans, may I add, like a top-down approach from the provincial government. They would want to know that the provincial government is bending over backwards to have a better understanding of what Manitobans believe to be in their best interests as we plot the next chapter of Manitoban economic history. So, I would say that top-down can be applied to any government, not just the national one.

[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?

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

It was an oversight for which I take total responsibility and seek to redress.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Gaheer for five minutes.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Carr, it's a pleasure. Congratulations on your private member's bill.

I know that, in your own words, you haven't sought endorsements, but could you speak about the level of grassroots support you've seen for this bill?

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

During the course of my many months of talking to reeves, mayors, canola producers, ranchers and virtually every interest that in combination make up the backbone of the prairie economy, I heard people say that they want a seat at the table. This is a quote from so many: they want a seat at the table.

Well, they're going to get a seat at the table. Rather than anticipating what it is they might say—though I have a pretty good idea through these many months of talking with them—it's better that the implicated federal ministers hear directly.

I know that these will be direct, sometimes very painfully honest conversations that will lead only to better places because the level of understanding...and it plays right to the political questions that have been asked. When you are able to take that kind of attitude towards a series of discussions with people who make the prairie economy tick literally from the ground up, only good can come of it.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Great. Thank you.

If this bill were to become law, there would be a consultation phase to develop a framework. Can you talk about how the bill will ensure that everyone feels welcome to the table and actually shows up, including minorities and indigenous peoples?

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

Because that's what the bill seeks to do and it's direct, not only in the naming of examples, but also in the spirit of what it intends to accomplish. If people were left out of the process, then they'd have every reason to say that the spirit of the bill is not being lived in real time and in real life, and that would make me very unhappy.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

When critics review this bill, perhaps one of the questions raised is about how more regulation means more red tape. Is that what the bill means?

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

It doesn't imply more regulation. It may imply less. That would be presupposing that the consultation process will yield this result. It doesn't seek to do that. It just says—I think and hope in pretty simple terms—that these partnerships don't necessarily happen on their own.

A single minister, industry or union may have the motivation or ambition to accomplish this set of goals. However, unless we find a way to rationalize, consolidate and pull out of all the special interests—to find a common, public interest—I don't think we can perform the kind of work I envision as the best possible implication of this bill. As I said to Mr. Masse a while ago, the range of impact is from zero to changing the way we do business as a country; and, as I said to the Bloc member Monsieur Lemire, it's equally applicable to other regions.

This is not just an aspirational Pollyanna exercise, by the way. It's pragmatic, because the results ought to be good jobs for our people. What stakeholder, at any level of government or in the private sector, would disagree with that?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

That concludes our final round of questions.

Mr. Carr, I'd like to thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. I'd also like to congratulate you on your private member's bill. It will now continue on its path.

This isn't the first time I've heard you talk about the Prairies with such passion, intelligence and enthusiasm. It's always a pleasure to hear you speak. You inspire us to do the same in other regions of Canada, as someone said at the meeting.

Thank you very much.

Before I let everyone go and adjourn this meeting, we have a notice of motion of which, I think, all parties are aware. It reads as follows:

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to grant access to the committee's digital binder to the offices of the whips of each recognized party.

Do I have unanimous consent for this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Perfect. Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.