Evidence of meeting #33 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prairie.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

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.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Hi, everybody.

I want to start by saying that it's a pleasure to appear in front of you because I have learned, especially over the last number of months, that parliamentary committees are the pulse, the heartbeat, of Parliament. I honour the work that you do.

You may think that it's odd to discuss the future of the Prairies. I'm going to start in 1901.

We have spent the last number of weeks mourning the loss of a monarch, but very few people will know that, on the day that Queen Victoria died, Winston Churchill was in Winnipeg. He looked out the window towards the west. He said, in correspondence with his mother that day in January of 1901, that someday this land would feed the world. Little did he know that it wouldn't just be what we grow. It wouldn't just be the food supply that's so essential for all of us, but that a bushel of canola might be as powerful as a barrel of oil.

It is this sense of promise, of discovery, of building an economy from the ground up, that has distinguished the contribution of prairie Canada to the national economy and the international demands that we are meeting all of the time.

It's a very special part of the country, not only for me because I was born and raised there, but for people who appreciate this relationship between natural resources that have fuelled economic development in the region and the intellectual firepower that's a part of it.

I've always thought that stereotypes were dangerous because they are barriers to progress. If you say the word Alberta or Saskatchewan, you may get a stereotype that comes to your mind, but I bet you it's not Michael Houghton. Michael Houghton is a Nobel Prize laureate who works at the University of Alberta. He was given the Nobel Prize for his discovery of vaccines and hepatitis C.

I would prefer, if people think of stereotypes in Alberta, that they think of Nobel laureates rather than whatever else they may have in their mind. It's a tribute to the diversity and the intellectual firepower of the prairie economy.

I won the lottery in appearing in front of you today. Now I know why, when somebody wins the lottery, there are all kinds of people who want to talk to them about the best use of their proceeds. When it became apparent that I was lucky enough to be able to appear in front of you, people had all kinds of ideas of how I should use this slot.

I did have an idea of my own, and it was to build on the work that we had done across the prairie through the lens of how we can align the interests of governments, the private sector, academic institutions and the working class in order to give ourselves a better chance to move this file ahead.

Look at the diversity of what we're dealing with here. It's the natural resource of the production of energy in all of its forms. It's agriculture and value-added agriculture. It's the life sciences. It's how we manage water across our region. The only thing that gets in our way, really, are the limits of our imagination and the barriers that we erect for ourselves.

That's what this bill is all about. It's to reduce those barriers by mandating, by requiring ministers of the federal government to report back to Parliament about the framework that they have constructed in order to better align those policies. This is not a jurisdictional grab to maybe pre-empt some questions. This is within the federal jurisdiction, the federal government reaching out to counterparts in the provinces, the municipalities, the unions and NGOs, because we all have a stake in writing the next chapter of prairie economic history.

I don't think the template in this bill is exclusively regional. I think, if it becomes Canadian law—and I hope it will—it will be an example for other regions of the country whose inhabitants feel as passionately about their region as I feel about mine. I see this as a promise—as a possibility of working not at loggerheads or in opposition, motivated either by ideology or special interest, but in alignment around the common interest. This bill, I think, is a modest expression of what is possible.

When I was first asked by people what I thought the influence of this bill might be, my answer was, “Somewhere between absolutely zero to changing the way we do business as a nation.” We'll see where the truth lies, but I'm betting it will be somewhere in between.

The first step is agreeing that this framework will have to be reported back to Parliament within a reasonable period of time. That framework will drive the future chapters we will write together as prairie folk and as Canadians. It says we're not going to leave partnerships to chance. We're not going to leave them to the ambitions of any one government, any level of government, or any one industry or union. Its aspiration is to align the interests of all of us.

It's not pie in the sky. It's pragmatic, because what we seek to do is create wealth. We spend a lot of time in our country talking about how we are going to distribute wealth. That is a primary function of the public sector and it's important that we have rigorous debates about it. Where is the wealth coming from? Who's creating the wealth? How do we create the conditions where that wealth can be created sustainably, with an eye on trends that will drive future public policy and investment decisions? That's what we seek to achieve.

I know we have most of an hour to engage in debate. I'm really looking forward to that, Mr. Chair. It's a chance for us to think together about the best way we can achieve this common aspiration.

With those few words of introduction, I truly welcome the conversation.

Thank you.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

That was a very eloquent presentation, as I expect from you, Mr. Carr. Thank you very much.

Without further ado, let's start this conversation with MP Michael Kram for six minutes.

September 22nd, 2022 / 4:15 p.m.

Conservative

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?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Yes.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

Those three provinces are represented by 62 members of Parliament. When we voted on this bill last June, 51 of those MPs voted against it and only 10 voted in favour, with one MP abstaining.

The question has to be asked: Why do you suppose this bill is so unpopular in the only three provinces it actually affects?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

I wouldn't say it's unpopular. I just haven't persuaded you yet, and I have 52 minutes to try. The framework will be constructed over 18 months, so there will be a lot more time to do this. I can't possibly explain why, in the initial stage, it didn't receive support from members of Parliament. I hope that, when it's examined and the potential is assessed and some of the details are fleshed out, there will be more support than that.

I could turn the question around and ask, “Well, why did it pass on second reading?” That's because there were a number of members of Parliament who believed it was in both the Prairies' interest and the national interest.

I'm going to try harder to persuade you that it's good for our region.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

Okay. That's fair enough.

For years, provincial governments in western Canada and the oil and gas sector have been calling for more pipelines to get built, such as the Keystone XL, Trans Mountain and northern gateway pipelines. However, this bill talks about prioritizing projects such as tree planting and solar energy.

How will that help get more pipelines built in western Canada?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

The goal is not explicitly to build more pipelines in western Canada; it's to look ahead at the next generation of developing the energy sector in our region of the country. That's going to include sustainable development in the oil and gas industry. It's going to include hydrogen in Alberta. It's going to include biofuels across the region and all the traditional sources of alternative energy that are known or will be known to everybody. It doesn't constrain the possibility of moving in well-known directions or in directions that we now know through experience and following the flow of investment capital internationally. Consumers worldwide are demanding more sustainable energy development, and Canada is a part of that. Canada is actually on the cutting edge of it. Never, ever, underestimate the entrepreneurship and the capacity of traditional sectors to adapt, to adjust and to thrive. I'm sure we're going to witness that.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

The Government of Saskatchewan is currently forecasting $4.7 billion in revenue from non-renewable resources for the current fiscal year. That's about one-quarter of the provincial government's budget. If that stream of revenues stops coming in from non-renewable resources, then how would you recommend the Government of Saskatchewan make up that budgetary shortfall?

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

I'm not going to give Premier Moe advice on how to run his government. I want to reach out to Premier Moe. I have to admit that I'm sure if we try hard enough we will find alignment, because his interests are the same as ours—to create good jobs for his people, where those jobs can be found and where they can be generated, where the public environment will offer incentives for those jobs to be created, but just as there are those around this table who don't want the Government of Canada to creep jurisdictionally, I'm not going to creep jurisdictionally into Premier Moe's territory.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

Have you consulted with Premier Moe or any provincial cabinet ministers in Saskatchewan about this legislation?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

No, but the committee will have to. If this becomes law, it won't be a suggestion; it will be mandated. Not only that, but they're going to have to report back to you and you're going to have a chance to ask those questions. It's clear what the goal is. The goal is that they will do exactly that and they will look for alignment.

Look, if there's no spirit of goodwill ultimately, a bill like this is not going to succeed. There has to be a sense that its direct objectives are honourable and in the interests of the people we represent, and those interests are rooted in the capacity of my kids and my grandkids to choose to stay in Manitoba, or, in your case, home. That, I think, is really at the heart of what we hope to accomplish here.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK

I'm not saying that there isn't a sense of goodwill, but what are you going to do with the feedback from the provincial premiers, which is that they do not want this bill and they do not want this framework and they would rather govern their own provinces in their own areas of jurisdiction?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

This bill does not encroach on their areas of jurisdiction, and they're free to do so and they should be encouraged to. It does, however, mandate that federal ministers seek alignment on those policy areas in which we can combine our efforts. There is no attempt to undermine, to encroach or to somehow cajole. It's an exercise in finding common ground. If someone says at the top end that they do not want to find common ground, that they want to be left to their own jurisdiction and that we should go home, that constrains the capacity of other jurisdictions or federal ministers to participate in what I hope to be a positive nation-building exercise.

Let's see where the framework goes, how it's developed, where the opposition lies and why, and seek to answer questions that are motivating people who may start here, but who, I hope, will end up in a different place.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you very much.

Ms. Lapointe will now have six minutes.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

I'll be sharing my time today with my colleague MP Fillmore.

MP Carr, the rural and northern immigration program is a very successful program in northern Ontario. It helps our businesses with their workforce shortages and labour needs. It grew out of a very successful initiative in Atlantic Canada. In your opinion, would this model you're proposing be relevant to other parts of Canada?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

I'm glad you brought up immigration because it was actually my home province of Manitoba that initiated increases to the provincial nominee program. When we began our advocacy in 1999, Manitoba was taking in 500 provincial nominees a year. Now it's taking in more than 15,000. It fuelled the economic development of Manitoba. That model has been replicated across the country and is thought by many to be a model for the world.

It's an extraordinary example of how creative and ambitious immigration targets and a change in the way we administer the program can allow us to take full advantage of our economic potential, which was not the case in Manitoba. It was not the case in many parts of Atlantic Canada or in rural Canada.

I'm very glad you brought up that example.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

There are many very good goals in that bill, but how do we ensure that the bill complements what's already happening in the Prairies to build a green economy?

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

We do that by assessing where we are and where we want to be, and then by aligning the interests of everybody around the table to work together to get there.

The successes are fabulous. The story of the development of prairie Canada from so many perspectives is really a model for the world, I would say. We opened the door to the talent, the creativity and the entrepreneurship from every continent. We have the wisdom and the savvy to find a way to make those people who are so diverse feel at home. In the first place, it was agriculture that drove it and subsequently it was other industries.

If you look at the development of the demographic profile of prairie Canada, you will see a success story that should help inform us as we move forward to debate immigration policy, temporary foreign worker issues and how we relate to the rest of the world. This is an important role for us to play because we have to diversify our trading partners. We're still so dependent on our relationship with the United States. Because of our profile and because Saskatchewan—as an example—is by far the most diverse trading province in Canada, doing business with so many nations around the world, there are lessons there, too.

If you combine a progressive immigration policy with a trade policy that reaches out to those parts of the world where we have not been successful, you have a recipe for very exciting potential.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Viviane LaPointe Liberal Sudbury, ON

That's the end of my questions.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you, Chair. I will take it up if there's still time.

Jim, it's wonderful to see you. Congratulations on a wonderful PMB. I've been happy to support it so far and I look forward to continuing to support it.

You will remember back to when our government tabled a motion declaring a climate emergency. I listened carefully as we debated that in the House to my prairie colleagues and I listened to all of the debate. We learned from that debate that even though, for many Canadians—even many corporations, including energy corporations—the existential threat is climate change, for a segment of the population, which is concentrated in the Prairies, the existential threat is loss of job, not being able to pay a mortgage or put food on the table. I learned a lot from listening to that.

Now you're here today to convince parliamentarians that there's a better, cleaner and greener way to transition. If your bill passes, government and Parliament will have to work with those residents to win them over and show them a better way.

I wonder if you have any advice for us in that eventuality. How can we bring the people for whom the existential threat is economic along with us in this transition?

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

It's by the force of argument and by the use of measurable statistics, which will be compelling to people who have open minds and an open hearts.

If they've made up their mind and if they're not interested in entertaining argument—that is to say that they dissent from their own position of “I don't know”.... This is a question for the ages: What do you do in a conversation if nobody wants to listen to you?

I happen to believe—I'm just built in a way that wants to believe—that most Canadians are open to reasonable argument and debate. If that assumption is wrong, then I wish all of us luck. I'm pretty certain that I'm not wrong. I have lots of evidence to think that people do change their minds. They change their minds when circumstances change. If they don't care about circumstance, then I don't think they have an open mind and I don't think they have an open heart.

I would remain optimistic based on that presumption of human nature, the Canadian national character and building on the success that we've already achieved together. I hope I'm right.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

I think you are, Jim. Thank you.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound

Thank you very much, Mr. Fillmore.

Mr. Lemire, you have six minutes.