THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 13, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] to examine Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee and those who are subbing in for others that can’t be here tonight as well as those who are watching on the World Wide Web. My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I’m the chair of this committee. I’d like to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator C. Deacon: Senator Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia — glad to be back.
Senator Klyne: Good evening, Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, senator for Alberta.
Senator Oh: Senator Oh, senator from Ontario.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, senator from Manitoba.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we were all saddened to learn about the death of the Honourable James Carr, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre and sponsor of the bill that we’re considering this evening, who passed away yesterday. I know committee members join me in expressing condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. With that in mind, I would ask that you join me in observing a minute of silence.
(Those present then stood in silent tribute.)
Thank you, colleagues.
Today, the committee is meeting on Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. Two of our witnesses today are from Prairies Economic Development Canada: Dr. Anoop Kapoor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, who is with us in person; and Matthew Whitson, Senior Advisor, Advocacy and Partnerships, who is with us by video conference. Also joining us is the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, Government of Saskatchewan Minister of Justice and Attorney General and former minister of energy and resources, also joining us by video conference. Welcome, minister.
We will hear opening remarks from Dr. Kapoor followed by Minister Eyre. You’ll each have five minutes for your opening remarks. I’ll signal by raising one hand, which means you have one minute left. When I put both hands up, it’s time to start wrapping it up.
So with that, the floor is yours, Dr. Kapoor.
[Translation]
Anoop Kapoor, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Prairies Economic Development Canada: Good evening, chair, ladies and gentlemen and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this meeting as a witness in your study.
My name is Anoop Kapoor, I am Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy and Strategic Direction at Prairies Economic Development Canada. Matthew Whitson, from my team, is also joining us remotely.
PrairiesCan is the regional development agency supporting economic growth and diversification in economic sectors and communities throughout Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
[English]
We also perform advisory, convening and fact-finding functions to advance economic opportunities that support the prosperity of the Prairie region and Canada as a whole.
The late MP Carr intended that Prairies Economic Development Canada, or PrairiesCan, play an important part in reaching the objectives of Bill C-235. The PrairiesCan departmental priorities also align with some of the content areas that are identified in the bill.
I’m here today to answer any questions that may arise related to PrairiesCan and the department’s role in the implementation of the bill. That work would be to support our minister, who would be responsible for leading and coordinating the development and implementation of the bill’s framework should the bill pass.
I look forward to listening to the discussion and to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Moving on to opening remarks from the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Hon. Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan: Thank you very much. On behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, I would like to extend our heartfelt condolences to the family and colleagues of the Honourable James Carr, author of this bill.
With respect, Saskatchewan has concerns about the bill and what it represents. I’m going to start with its name, which is what really jumped out at me initially: An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. Apparently, this green economy is being built, but no one bothered to ask the Prairies.
This bill requires federal ministers to develop a framework for the implementation of federal programs. “Implementation” is pretty top-down, definitive language. It really reveals a deeper tendency — which we do, unfortunately, see again and again — of the federal government veering into section 92A of the Constitution, which is the exclusive jurisdiction the provinces have over natural resources and historically key drivers of their economies, such as agriculture, of course. Whether it’s this, the federal regional tables on critical minerals, the federal Low Carbon Economy Leadership Fund or the federal fertilizer mandate, it’s always a case of, “Nothing to see here; we’re just integrating, prioritizing, fostering, retraining, establishing programming or preparing infrastructure projects” — whatever it is. However, these go into provincial areas, including forestry, agriculture and energy.
There’s a lot more to this bill than immediately meets the eye. Why do we say that? Why does this make Saskatchewan so nervous? In am conscious of the time. I know we’re going to have a discussion, so certainly let me know when my five minutes are up. I will make a bit of a cross-comparison and cross-reference with some regulations, legislation and policies that we are seeing from the federal government, which this bill calls to mind, including, for example, the Federal Fuel Standard, coming into effect next year. This will have an enormous impact on the agricultural sector. You could just call it a bit of ethanol conversion, but the reality is that it will result in the import of billions of dollars per year of primarily American-produced biofuels. In Saskatchewan, we’re going as fast as we can on the infrastructure front, but that is still the reality. It will have a $700 million impact on gas and diesel consumption per year in Saskatchewan, and it will impact sectors — forestry, most certainly, and agriculture — that rely on these fuels as production input or to transport products to market. So it will hit the rail sector, retail sector and trucking sector; certainly, the agricultural sector and forestry sector will be hit very hard. It will also affect ordinary people who want to heat their homes and gas up their cars — in other words, everybody.
It’s really a second carbon tax. Rebates or no rebates, the Parliamentary Budget Officer testified earlier this year that the carbon tax has negatively impacted affordability for at least 60% of people in this country — as in, it left them worse off. Agriculture is hit very hard: $28 million a year for grain drying alone by 2030, and that’s, again, the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s own testimony.
In terms of agriculture and the carbon tax — and it is relevant to this bill because there are so many indirect, as I say, cross-references — the cost of food production is inextricably linked to the carbon tax. Producers are hit at every turn with the tax. Every farmer, every rancher is paying carbon tax on every piece of product that not only comes onto their farm but is also shipped out of their farm. There’s carbon tax on inputs during seeding, harvesting the grain, drying the grain, shipping the grain to terminal, utilities to process the grain, transporting the grain to a further stage processor, such as a wheat miller, utilities for milling the wheat, delivering the flour to a bakery, utilities at the bakery and delivering the bread to the grocery store.
I see my time is fully winding down. We can certainly leave this to further discussion in terms of the concerns that Saskatchewan has in relation to the key sectors, including, as I mentioned, agriculture, energy, forestry and, really, the cost of living and affordability in our province.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Now we’ll proceed with questions from senators. Before we do, I’d like to remind members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact our committee staff in the room.
As has been our previous practice, I’d like to remind each senator that you have five minutes, which includes questions and answers. At one minute left, I’ll put my hand up. When we get close to being at the end, I’ll put both up. We will go through multiple rounds if needed, so we’ll get through the questions as we can.
Senator Plett: Welcome to our witnesses. Minister, my first question is for you. I’ll read one sentence out of the bill that says, “ . . . federal programs across various sectors, with the objective of building a green economy in the Prairie provinces.” Of course, the bill itself speaks to federal programs and federal jurisdiction.
I’m with you, minister, in that I believe our federal government is overstepping its boundaries and wants to play Big Brother far too often. I want to thank you for appearing here on short notice. You have been very clear, both in your testimony in the other place as well as here, that your province does not support the bill. Neither does my province of Manitoba.
Minister, will the Saskatchewan government participate, if asked, in the consultations required by the bill, and what levers does the province have at its disposal to push back against a federal government that, indeed, seems determined to undermine provincial jurisdiction at every opportunity?
Ms. Eyre: Thank you very much for the question. There are a few points raised there.
I suppose in terms of means at our disposal, it will be no secret to senators this evening about The Saskatchewan First Act, which is an attempt to, at its root, certainly, assert constitutional jurisdiction and ingrain it in the parts of the Constitution that relate to Saskatchewan. It is the Constitution, and so we seek honourable partnership in that regard, but, as I’ve mentioned, too often that jurisdiction has been infringed upon.
The point of the transit through the bill is to quantify economic harm to our sectors, and I’ve raised some of them. The federal Clean Fuel Standard would be a very good example of, we feel, an infringement into section 92A of the Constitution, but also an infringement into our way of life here in Saskatchewan and our economic drivers that have allowed us to weather economic storms to the extent that we have.
There is grave risk, a $700 million impact, as I mentioned, on diesel and gas consumption through the federal fuel standard. One set of regulations alone; no rebates in the offing.
One of the key points is that to that end of wanting to be honourable partners and having a federation where — of course, there are exclusive federal jurisdiction areas and exclusive provincial jurisdiction areas — when cooperation is what is put out there as the goal, it has to really happen. For example, we see this with the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy. I think it gets to why there is such cautiousness and skittishness on the part of provinces, increasingly, to buy into some of these programs.
Senator Plett: We understand the problems, minister. I was asking a question about what the Saskatchewan government would do about it.
Ms. Eyre: This goes to answering that. I’ve mentioned The Saskatchewan First Act, but as a province, for example, with the sustainable agriculture program, we and producers in the province have been told that it’s not mandatory. It’s about best practices. But just in the last week, the federal government released a discussion paper on its Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, and it sounded a lot less optional. One of those approaches is:
regulations — amending existing or establishing new regulations that could establish performance standards and/or mandate or prohibit use of a specific agricultural practice . . .
I think that’s a good example, in microcosm, of why there is an increasing wariness about bills such as this one and about regulations such as the federal fuel standard, such as the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, such as the Clean Electricity Regulations, and on and on it goes — certainly, the carbon tax. This is why provinces are increasingly feeling as if they’re not being treated like honourable partners within the federation.
Senator Plett: Minister, unfortunately, the chair has held up both hands.
I have more questions, so please put me down on the second and third and fourth rounds if that’s how long the answers are going to be.
The Chair: We have you down.
Senator Oh: Thank you, minister, for being here. Could you please explain the green economy initiative that is already in place in the Prairies? That is for any one of you.
Mr. Kapoor: I’ll speak to the work that our department is doing in supporting clean energy. I’ll talk about it more in general, what we’ve done over the past five or six years, and give you an example. That will give you a Prairies perspective.
Since 2016, PrairiesCan and our predecessor organization, Western Economic Diversification Canada, invested about $120 million in supporting 130 clean technology and clean resource projects, which we expect will create 5,000 jobs. To give you some examples of those projects, we have invested $3 million to support Alberta’s growing hydrogen sector. At the University of Regina, we have invested close to a million dollars to develop a renewable energy, microtest bed for small and medium-sized enterprises to develop and test renewable energy products and systems, such as hydrogen production, solar technology and hardware and software development.
We have also invested $2.1 million in the Energy Transition Centre in downtown Calgary. The centre will help strengthen the collaboration, advance emerging leadership and attract private sector investments that will help grow the businesses operating in Alberta’s clean energy and clean technology sector.
We have also made investments in Red River College Polytechnic and Vehicle Technology Centre, where we invested $3 million to create clean technology and advance a manufacturing program for basically advancing the work on zero-emission equipment vehicles.
We recently invested about $7.5 million to establish two new rare earth element processing facilities in Saskatchewan, one of which will be the first of its kind in North America.
This summarizes some of the work that we are doing in clean technology and clean energy across the Prairies in three provinces.
Senator Oh: Thank you. Minister, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Eyre: If the question is about investment in green technology and about how to meet Paris targets, I’m happy to talk about that.
The Chair: Yes, it was.
Ms. Eyre: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question very well.
There are a number of similar reports, but TD Economics came out with a report a couple of years ago stating that if the green transition is carried out too quickly, up to 450,000 Canadians will lose their jobs. In Saskatchewan, we’re certainly very concerned about any transition that happens, as I say, too glibly or too quickly. I referenced the Clean Electricity Regulations earlier, which requires no fossil-fuel-generated power by 2035. Saskatoon was minus 50 degrees last week. I’m sitting here right now, and the heat is generated by the clean electricity power station, natural gas. SaskPower and others have said it’s literally impossible to transition that quickly off of fossil-fuel-generated power.
In Saskatchewan, we’ve done amazing work around innovation and certainly meeting targets. On methane, Minister Guilbeault congratulated us a year ago on our significant methane reduction by 50%, and that was before any federal imposition; it was all on our own. As I said, he congratulated us for a 50% reduction in methane. To that end, there were academic studies, including one report from the University of Calgary, that show that if every oil- and gas-producing nation on the planet extracted it the way we do in Saskatchewan and in Western Canada, global greenhouse gas emissions would instantly fall by 25% globally.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: If you can put me on second round, I’ll give you a heads up on that already.
Welcome to our guests and thank you. Mr. Kapoor, I want to cite a couple of pieces of Bill C-235, and I have a question to follow. Just some of the highlights of this — the minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie regions, which I assume is your minister, will:
. . . develop a framework to coordinate local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors, with the objective of building a green economy in the Prairie provinces.
In developing the framework, the Minister must consult with provincial government representatives responsible for transportation, environment and employment, and with municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, the private sector and representatives of employers and employees in that sector.
The framework must include measures that promote economic sustainability and growth and employment in the Prairie provinces . . .
How does your business unit, PrairiesCan, plan on rolling this out and building that framework in consultation and cooperation, doing meaningful consultation with the Prairies and ensuring that there is a framework that includes those objectives of economic sustainability, growth and employment for the Prairie provinces?
Mr. Kapoor: We are in the planning phase of that work. I think we’ll be guided by the principles that are laid out in the bill, and I think we will work with our minister and our deputy minister to build onto the existing relationships that we have in the region. PrairiesCan and its predecessor organization have 30 years of experience in the region dealing with economic development actors and stakeholders and looking at building consultations mechanisms, both internal and external to the government.
We are still in the planning phases of it. We will flesh out the details around the consultations in the next few weeks and then implement it. There will be a discussion among the ministers and our deputy ministers — the senior levels within the government. We will also reach out into our regional offices and build on all the expertise and the relationships that we have built, essentially to implement the spirit that is laid out in the bill here.
Senator Klyne: I can accept that you’re in the planning stages, and I’m glad that you mentioned you’ll build on existing relationships. Can you tell this committee what projects you’re currently collaborating or consulting on where you’re working with the various provinces and the Prairies right now?
Mr. Kapoor: We deliver four key programs, and then on top of that, we received investments in PrairiesCan —
Senator Klyne: Can you tell me which ones you’re currently working on right now in collaboration and consultation with the Prairie provinces?
Mr. Kapoor: These projects are numerous in —
Senator Klyne: Can you pick one large project?
Mr. Kapoor: I have laid out some that we have recently —
Senator Klyne: For the viewing audience, can you recite some of the major projects you’re working on?
Mr. Kapoor: Some of the projects in the clean area that I recently mentioned — we have funded some in critical minerals area. We are looking at supporting projects in value-added agriculture. We’re looking at supporting projects in digital technology and in health sciences areas. We’re looking at areas where we feel that the Prairies have potential to grow our companies and bring in new value into our region and create growth. These are some of the sectors I have listed, and I think those engagements happen at regional offices with a range of stakeholders, whether it’s businesses or not-for-profits.
Senator Klyne: That’s good. I assume there are some funding proposals on the table or there have been.
Mr. Kapoor: Yes, we fund these through our existing —
Senator Klyne: Nobody pushes away from the table when you’re giving them money?
Mr. Kapoor: No.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: Minister, I just wanted to acknowledge a great investment that has occurred and has been recently announced in Saskatchewan, which is the new canola crushing plant to create biodiesel in Regina. I gather that the province is contributing to that through some funds, and it’s about a $2 billion project that I know Murad Al-Katib and others have been working on for a long time. It’s great to see value-add occurring in agriculture and in the green economy.
The points you raised early in your comments talk about problems in the past because consultation had not happened. I certainly have the perspective that there’s too much Ottawa out and not enough Canada in to the decision-making in this city. So I share that perspective, but I view this bill as one that is trying to get at a continual greening. We’ve got to do a lot more greening in this world, and certainly the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Bank of Canada have identified that a swift transition in our move toward a net-zero economy is the safest thing for the economy and brings the least risk. So I was reading this from a different perspective than you. We need the federal government to consult with provinces and municipalities and prove that they have before a federal program is designed.
I’m struck by how differently I’m seeing this than you, although I share the concern. I’m from Nova Scotia, and Ottawa comes to Nova Scotia with lots of great solutions that they haven’t talked to us about. Try to help me understand why I’m seeing this so differently.
Ms. Eyre: It’s a big question. I’ll zero in on a couple of things. I mentioned methane earlier, for example. Let’s not forget, we have equivalency with the federal government on the methane plan in Saskatchewan. It was hard fought, hard negotiated with two years of collaboration, and a good example of how you can reach an agreement. But where we see the great frustration — and I use it as a microcosm — we have equivalency, as I mentioned, reduced methane by 50% based on our own work in the province, congratulated by the minister and then, about a month later, everything is changed to a new reduction target of 75%.
I think what we find the most frustrating is that data is not shared with the province. There will be an imposition of a new target with no acknowledgement of the good work that’s gone into achieving the previous agreement, the work we’ve done as a province to reach targets. Suddenly there’s no data sharing, which I’ve raised repeatedly with previous ministers, and new targets.
I look at enhanced oil recovery. For example, if we’re going to talk about Paris, one of the key ways to reach those Paris accord targets — and I’m not saying this; environmental experts are saying this — is through CCS-EOR, or carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery, which produces 80% less emissions than conventional extraction.
We know how the federal government feels about enhanced oil recovery. There’s another example that directly hurts our sector and all the innovation that the sector has carried out to invest in EOR. It isn’t acknowledged as anything that can meet Paris accord targets.
I’ll mention one other example. You talked about “in the past,” but let’s look at the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, the signals around which were changed just a week ago. I think it’s fair to say there are fundamental trust issues. They say, “Collaborate with us,” and indicate that something is optional, not mandatory. Then in a little line that’s released a few days ago, suddenly, it talks about prohibiting specific agricultural practices. The agricultural methods used in Saskatchewan are acknowledged as being world-leading. That is what’s so frustrating. It goes on and on.
Senator C. Deacon: I look forward to asking a question on second round to understand how less dialogue will get us further down that road, but thank you.
Senator Cotter: I do have a question for Mr. Kapoor, but perhaps I’ll save it for the second round.
Minister Eyre, it’s great to have you here. Thanks very much. I was fascinated and very much helped by your presentation. In a short amount of time, you identified a series of issues and challenges that a fair number of federal initiatives present for a province like Saskatchewan, which is already doing quite a bit. In fact, I tried to highlight that in a speech I gave in the Senate this afternoon.
Although you did express some concern about federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction, a fair number of these measures are actually exercises of constitutionally legitimate authorities of the federal government.
I’ll take agriculture as an example. Section 95 identifies it as a joint jurisdiction with federal paramountcy. So it’s difficult to say the federal government is interfering with provincial jurisdiction. I think it’s a different thing to say that they’re delivering policies that are unresponsive to provincial needs. I hear that richly in your submission.
As I think you know, I worked in the provincial government for a dozen years. This brought to mind scores of headaches I also had with the federal government about lack of cooperation and changes in positions, just like you identified. But I would have thought, somewhat like Senator Deacon was asking, that you would want to say, “Get out here and talk to us, and we will tell you the ways in which these programs that you’re planning to implement don’t accord with what we’re trying to do. They should be changed or modified or staged differently.” The best chance for doing that would be conversation.
I had one of my staff pull out a few press releases from the Government of Canada — some of them are Canada-Saskatchewan — a whole pile of them in a short period of time. Ottawa is flowing an awful lot of money here and most of it, I think, within their jurisdiction. I’d want to be part of that conversation so that the money flows in ways that work best for the people of Saskatchewan. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Eyre: That’s why I referenced that, in terms of agriculture, I’m not including that. When I talked about how it’s a historic driver of the economy of this province, that’s why I did that. I’m not linking it up necessarily with 92A, but I do think that it goes to other themes that relate to 92A.
When we talk about agriculture and how these reductions, for example, in fertilizer usage would inhibit producers’ ability to remain competitive, Saskatchewan producers are already employing the very methods that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada suggest will reduce emissions, and so it goes.
We’ve been trying for years to have consultations in some of these areas. On the Critical Minerals Strategy, it’s one thing to say that we should sit down and talk and set up regional tables. But I would respectfully ask that you look at the strings attached to some of not only those collaborative efforts but the actual regulations that are being placed, which will absolutely, quantifiably, economically harm the province: federal fuel standard, Clean Electricity Regulations, by 2035 no fossil-fuel-generated power. By all means, one doesn’t relish being in a position of difficulty, where there are trust challenges or where one is seeking honourable partnership.
When it comes to imposing new emissions limits on something such as methane and then not sharing the data with the province on which you are imposing this, to me that is an honour problem. It’s a long-standing honour problem. By all means, it would be nice to talk about it, but we’ve been raising these issues. As I say, I have raised these issues many times with ministerial counterparts. Some of those relations and conversations have been cordial enough. But the point is that Bill C-235 is not going to suddenly initiate conversation. Those conversations and attempts at conversations have been going on for as long as I’ve been in government.
Senator Gold: Welcome, minister and Mr. Kapoor. Thank you for being here today.
This is a question for both of you. I’ll be brief so that you have time to answer.
We’ve heard the concern from several individuals that this bill represents jurisdictional overreach by the federal government. I won’t read the sections of the act that were already read by my colleague Senator Klyne, but just to add that subclause 3(2), in addition to talking about federal programs, also requires the relevant ministers to consult the stakeholders, including the provinces themselves, the municipalities and, of course, Indigenous groups.
I’d ask you to confirm that my understanding is correct. The bill simply calls upon the federal government to develop a framework based upon the principles of coordination and collaboration to implement federal programs, as emphasized in clause 3, that would be done in tandem with the provinces, rather than being a “top-down” approach, which is part of the rhetoric — or descriptions, I should say — that we’ve heard of this bill.
I would ask the minister and Mr. Kapoor to comment on that interpretation that I’m giving to this act. Thank you.
Ms. Eyre: I guess the dilemma that a province such as Saskatchewan finds itself in is that there has been so much top-down regulation. I’ve cited a number of examples. Certainly, we feel that in regard to the carbon tax but also the federal fuel standard. A $700-million impact on the province is very significant for one year. As the remit of this committee is agriculture and forestry, it will have a massive impact on both of those sectors.
I suppose one could say it would be helpful if we could sit down going forward, but it would be even more helpful if we could sit down and talk about perhaps pausing the federal fuel standard or working with the provinces on it or responding to letters about it. When I was in the Ministry of Energy and Resources, I wrote a number of letters quantifying the harm that diesel and gas consumption will have on all our sectors and life here in the province. If we’re talking about agriculture and forestry, then certainly on those two.
It would be very helpful to have been able, along that path, to talk about the impact. It would be very helpful to talk about the impact of, as I say, the methane reduction and have some data shared with us; that would be very helpful conversing.
To now, after the fact, say that from now on forward we’re going to be consulting with you, I’m sorry if I say that, with respect, that does sound merely symbolic.
Senator Gold: Mr. Kapoor, again, to you, as you read the bill, am I not right in thinking that this is not a top-down approach, but that it is one in which the government and relevant ministers will be sitting with stakeholders from the ground up to develop understandings about how federal programs could best be designed and implemented?
Mr. Kapoor: My understanding of the bill is that it seeks a stronger collaboration on building a green economy. As you pointed out, it’s about the implementation of federal programs, more deep engagement and cooperation.
Then the bill also includes reporting back to Parliament on how we’re doing in terms of implementation of these programs in the context of the prairie provinces. It’s about enhanced collaboration and cooperation and then being accountable to Parliament and Canadians about this.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll add you to second round, Senator Gold.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My questions will be in French and will be directed first to the minister and, if time permits, to Mr. Kapoor as well.
Minister, I am seeking a clear understanding of how this bill is part of a collaborative and coordinated effort. From what I have read, there is talk of mobilization, so I sense support from the government in a climate emergency. Of course, I salute the green transition that you’ve documented, which is currently taking place in the Prairie provinces.
That being said, since we find ourselves in this climate emergency, isn’t the federal government’s support part of its responsibility or role, which from what I read in the bill, comes with no strings attached?
Ms. Eyre: Thank you for the question. From our point of view, this is precisely a long-standing problem of collaboration and cooperation. For several years, there has been very little collaboration and cooperation. Today, we apologize if we seem to be raising these two matters, but we are somewhat cynical because of the fact that until recently, this past weekend, there has been no collaboration in terms of agricultural regulation, perspectives and mandates.
If there is no collaboration and cooperation in the current situation, regulation and laws, you can understand our cynicism when we hear about collaboration and cooperation in a symbolic, theoretical and abstract way.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much for that response, minister. I would like to continue in this vein. If we look at the bill in the context of the effort to collaborate, coordinate and mobilize with stakeholders who, according to the testimony heard in the other place, do not share the same conviction, how can we expect to get results?
Will the success of this initiative be difficult to achieve to the extent that one of the two parties does not have that desire and interest in collaboration?
Ms. Eyre: We have a desire to collaborate and I think over the last several years we have demonstrated that. As I mentioned, on methane, for example, we have a relationship —
[English]
The Chair: You were directing that question to Dr. Kapoor.
Ms. Eyre: I’m sorry.
The Chair: We have about a minute left.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you for correcting me, that is indeed true, minister.
[English]
Mr. Kapoor: There are differences on a number of files within the federal government and provinces. From the experience of PrairiesCan in the region, what I can say is that we are working with a range of partners and stakeholders in many sectors and communities across the prairie region.
We have invested in, I would say, more than a thousand projects in our region. Some of those investments we are making in tandem with provinces. Some of them we are making with municipalities. Some of those investments we are making with businesses and not-for-profit organizations.
In the space of economic development, this bill aspires to build a green economy. We’re looking forward to the collaboration that we see on the ground on the projects that we support and to involving other ministers and other parts of the federal government in advancing the development of the green economy in the region by working with all stakeholders.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I have two questions, so I will premise with that, hoping to get them both in. I’m subbing in for my Alberta colleague. This is the first conversation I’ve been involved in. I have a question for the minister.
I certainly understand that you will not speak on behalf of your counterparts in neighbouring provinces, but I would appreciate any comments you are comfortable giving. I am assuming the other provinces have conversations together, so I am interested in hearing anything you are comfortable sharing with respect to Alberta and Manitoba and their feelings on this bill.
Ms. Eyre: I think it goes back to that skittishness about strings attached. Again, I won’t speak for any province in particular. It is fair to say that over the course of years, particularly in the energy and resources file, there came to be a concern about, for example, something such as the critical minerals regional tables structure. What’s in the preamble? Read them carefully. There are strings. There are expectations. There are infringements into 92A of the Constitution, which involves provincial jurisdiction.
The main thing in all of this is that we have to remember the source of pride that we, as Canadians, should have in the sustainability of some of these amazing sectors, which are the envy of the world when it comes to human rights law in this country, labour legislation, royalty structures and environmental regulation.
The sustainability, for example, in a sector —
Senator Sorensen: Minister, I’m going to interrupt because I’m going to try and get my second question asked here, if that’s okay. I apologize.
To Dr. Kapoor, understanding you represent Prairies Economic Development Canada, but your comment that the bill “seeks a stronger collaboration on building a green economy,” by which I assume you mean nationally, are there conversations going on — I know you’re very focused on your area — in B.C. or the Maritimes for that same kind of collaboration for a greener economy without a bill being created around it?
Mr. Kapoor: I’m not sure what conversations are going on in other parts of Canada.
Senator Sorensen: Again, very quickly, how would you respond to some of the concerns you’re hearing from the minister?
Mr. Kapoor: With respect to the specific files?
Senator Sorensen: Well, with the skittishness.
Mr. Kapoor: I’ve been following the bill. When I hear the sponsor of the bill, I think it’s truly with a genuine intent of collaboration on the economic development aspects of building a green economy.
There are many ministers that will be involved going forward, and we recognize that there are differences, but the intent here is for general collaboration in the spirit of the bill.
Senator Sorensen: Thanks very much.
Thank you, minister. Sorry to have cut you off there.
The Chair: I have a question. Certainly, we would have liked to hear from Manitoba and Alberta, and I did want to put on the record that Minister Brian Jean, Minister of Jobs, Economy and Northern Development from Alberta, declined, and the Honourable Cliff Cullen, Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade from Manitoba, also declined.
So, minister, we can only hear from you. My question is: You mentioned agriculture, energy, forestry, cost-of-living issues and constitutional infringement. Are there other areas that we should know about? You’ve highlighted those ones. Are there other areas that you would like us to be aware of?
Ms. Eyre: One thing I will mention is the First Nations side of this. Certainly, in Saskatchewan, we are very sensitive to the fact that forestry, for example, is a major employer, a greater employer of First Nations than any other province. Mining is another area where we see significant employment and opportunities for communities in northern Saskatchewan, for example, in the uranium sector and otherwise.
We have to be very cognizant of the fact that that can be the great unifier in this country in terms of energy projects, in terms of mining projects, in terms of forestry projects and in terms of building a very strong, sustainable economy. It’s really those amazing partnerships that have evolved — and the future of those relationships and those opportunities — that are, in many ways, impacted by federal policies, which, in many cases, can impact that great promise for everyone. That’s something that shouldn’t be forgotten.
The other element is cost. I know I’ve mentioned it a few times, but I mean about specific things, for example, the eye-popping cost of transitioning to an export-based hydrogen market or green hydrogen or geothermal. If it becomes an all-in option, these have massive dollar figures. We throw these things around, that we’re transitioning to hydrogen, for example, and then suddenly we’re left in this terrible position in Canada where we could have done liquified natural gas, or LNG, and we’ve been stopped in our tracks. Now it is in such high demand, and we’re playing massive catch-up.
If we look at other areas of the world in terms of the crises that they find themselves in related to something such as energy — and really agriculture — it’s a cautionary tale for why we really do need to have true collaboration between the federal government and provinces around what some of these policies mean.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Plett: The Province of Manitoba — since Senator Sorensen asked a question and no minister from Manitoba can answer that — let me at least put on the record what the minister from Manitoba did say, which was that “the province of Manitoba does not support Bill C-235 and views it as an unnecessary piece of legislation that lacked consultation.” Again, the word “consultation” with the provinces. And they said that the bill “was not brought forward in a timely manner and does not recognize the progress made within the green economy by the provinces, businesses and entrepreneurs.” That’s the Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade in Manitoba.
Mr. Kapoor — I’m going to be quick here, and I’m speaking faster than I’d like — please provide a brief answer because I have another question for the minister.
So far the government’s efforts to green the Prairie economy have included a carbon tax and a mandated reduction in fertilizer use. Both of them are extremely damaging within the Prairie economy and did not involve any true consultations. Why should we believe that the government is suddenly going to change its stripes and start working collaboratively? They haven’t so far.
Mr. Kapoor: I can’t speak to the file on carbon tax and the mandate on fertilizer, but I can say —
Senator Plett: I didn’t ask that. I said why should we believe that the government will work collaboratively?
Mr. Kapoor: As I said before, on the economic development work that we’re doing in the region, we are seeing great collaboration with a range of stakeholders on projects. We do invest with provinces and municipalities. We’re hoping to build on that spirit of collaboration that we see —
Senator Plett: Almost like when I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate questions in the Senate Chamber.
Minister, you mentioned the carbon tax. Considering this is the federal government’s flagship policy to green the Prairie economy, I can understand why you, certainly in Saskatchewan, are concerned about this bill.
Can you tell me, minister, if there are any specific green policies of the federal government that have indeed helped Saskatchewan, or have they all threatened the economy, such as the carbon tax and the fertilizer reduction threat?
Ms. Eyre: I’m panning currently. We’ve talked about some of the specific impacts that have flowed from the carbon tax, the federal fuel standard, Clean Electricity Regulations coming, the federal mandate on fertilizer and that which is envisaged further in terms of fertilizer and agriculture practices.
Again, I referenced earlier that there has been some work on the methane equivalency agreement. It is just unfortunate that, as the federal government accepted the provincial methane plan, we can’t then work together, as I say, to get data, apples to apples, and so on.
It’s difficult for me to think of any — certainly in the energy space there has been cooperation with First Nations communities. There has been some cooperation on some solar projects and wind projects in the province with the federal government. I’m aware of biomass and others. There have been some, and certainly those are helpful when they occur and helpful to the communities where they occur, but I think the broader span is of concern in terms of the direction of what building a green economy means when it comes to the damage that some of these policies can have on the economy.
Senator Plett: Thank you. I think you’ve answered it pretty well. The chair is threatening to raise two hands. I’m not going to shoot you, chair.
Bill C-235, Mr. Kapoor, allows only 12 months for a framework to be put in place, yet those consultations must include 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. Do you really think, Mr. Kapoor, that 12 months will allow sufficient time for those consultations? What happens if no agreement with the provinces can be found? Can you assure this committee that no framework would be put in place without the concurrence of the Prairie provinces?
Mr. Kapoor: We will work very hard to make sure that we do the consultations necessary to develop a framework and the decision —
Senator Plett: If you don’t succeed, will this bill go ahead?
Mr. Kapoor: The bill requests the development of a framework and decisions about whether the framework is finalized or not. We will be making recommendations to ministers, and I believe they will be making the final decision on whether it’s finalized or not.
Senator Klyne: My question is for Minister Eyre. Minister, it’s always good to have dialogue with you. Thank you for being here.
As I understand it, Infrastructure Canada is working on a National Infrastructure Assessment, or NIA, assessing infrastructure priorities throughout the country. That’s good news. As we know, transportation infrastructure enables trade, which accounts for 65% of Canada’s GDP annually. So transportation infrastructure is important to our national economy. It’s certainly important to the Prairies, and the Prairies are integral to any transportation infrastructure plans coming forward.
This takes me to logistics infrastructure. In this regard, a report was recently released by the Supply Chain Task Force, or SCTF, recommending a number of steps necessary to improve the competitiveness of Canada’s trade corridor network. We all know improvements and investment to Canada’s trade corridors and supply chains is not the exclusive purview and responsibility of the federal government. All provinces, territories, municipalities and the private sector also have important roles to play.
Minister Eyre, if there was a plan to coordinate these two major infrastructure initiatives, the NIA and the SCTF, and formally engage the Prairies’ respective governments and industries to participate in the effort to improve our trade corridors and supply chains, and consider the same — at, say, the next annual meeting of ministers of transportation and infrastructure from across the country, including the Prairies, which is scheduled for the end of January, or maybe even perhaps the forthcoming Council of the Federation meeting in 2023, or some other forum — would the Prairie provinces’ respective ministries of transportation participate in plans and investments to our trade and transportation infrastructure aimed at improving the competitiveness of our trade corridor network? If you can’t speak on behalf of the other provinces, will Saskatchewan attend?
Ms. Eyre: Well, certainly, when we talk about logistics infrastructure and trade corridors, I mean, Saskatchewan, as an export — let’s call it what it is — superpower in terms of the basis of our economy, has every interest in getting product to market. We’ve seen the challenges with the railways in recent years, the bottlenecking challenges, seasonal and otherwise, that have related to just that. We see the issues at the Port of Vancouver and the new fee increase that is set to be put in place, which will have a direct impact on shipping terminals of our goods, including our agricultural goods. That’s certainly of a concern.
Of course, you can’t raise the phrase “logistics infrastructure” in Saskatchewan and Alberta without hearing the word “pipeline.” So that remains a big concern, of course, for us in terms of getting the energy products that we produce here in Saskatchewan to market — north, south, east, west — however we can do it —
Senator Klyne: Just on that note, the Trans Mountain Expansion, or TMX, is on schedule, as is the Burnaby terminal, so I think that will all come together.
Ms. Eyre: Is TMX on schedule?
Senator Klyne: It’s making its way, yes. You can’t speak on behalf of Manitoba or Alberta, but as I interpret your answer and the importance and the concerns of the trade corridors and everything that is around that, you probably would participate in a forum that involves investments and plans going forward?
Ms. Eyre: I certainly wouldn’t want to suggest anything this evening in terms of commitment or discussion. I think, of course, we’re open as a province to ways and means that we can, as I say, get our products, which are in demand by the world, to market, and that covers off an enormous array. Absolutely, I would not be saying that anything would not happen at this point. I think that some of the concerns around infrastructure logistics are relatively well documented. But, certainly, we want to see our product get to market, and so that is certainly a discussion that we should continue.
Senator Klyne: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, again, minister. I’m hearing you say there has been a historic lack of collaboration and that you’ve got a relatively strong desire to collaborate. I’m struggling with the bill, which puts all the onus on the minister. He’s the one who has to consult with the provincial government representatives and municipal and Indigenous governing bodies. He’s the one who has got to put forward something that — and I look almost at the list in clause 3 as being key performance indicators. He has got to deliver on methods that have support, in my mind, because it’s demanding that he consult — which addresses a long-standing problem that you’ve clearly identified on addressing limited or non-existent transportation options that we’ve just been speaking about — job creation skills transfer options.
I’ve got to tell you, I’m very frustrated with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada not giving farmers the credit for all the carbon they sequester in soil. We haven’t got a comprehensive approach to how we’re dealing with climate change as it relates to farms. I’d like that opinion to be given to the minister responsible and for the federal government to have to listen clearly. So I’m really struggling with how — you see a historic problem here. You have a desire to collaborate. The onus is all on the minister. This seems to be turning the tables finally into something where I agree Ottawa has to listen.
So help me. I just haven’t heard from you a consistent answer as to why this is such a problem.
Ms. Eyre: I think the key really is how this bill will apply to specific regulations and policies that are either on the books or coming on to the books. That’s the key, as I’ve said. If, for example, for a number of months, agricultural producers in the province of Saskatchewan have been told that these agricultural mandates around fertilizer are not going to actually be prohibition, and then it’s sort of, dare I say, slipped into a discussion paper, cynicism is piqued.
So I guess the question on Bill C-235 is how will those consultations relate to something like that? That’s the question. Will it mean that will be discussed and removed from the discussion paper? Will it mean that, as you’ve suggested, we’ll have a very fulsome discussion of the amazing sequestration that the agriculture sector does in the province, or the amazing record that the energy sector has, or the mining sector, or the forestry sector?
But really, it’s not so much about collaboration. The easy part is to say, “We’re going to collaborate.” However, how will this bill specifically impact discussions around something such as the federal fuel standard or the Clean Electricity Regulations or the federal fertilizer mandate? That’s the whole key. It’s everything.
As I say, I think collaboration has been attempted in many guises in many ways over many years: for example, my attempts to ask federal ministers over the course of the time I was energy minister if Environment and Climate Change Canada could share the data they’re using to impose your methane reduction targets and mandates on us. It seems to me that if this bill could reveal that data and give us the full data that they’re using to impose new targets and mandates on us, or otherwise punish us, then maybe we’d be getting somewhere. But the proof really is in the specificity. Generality doesn’t show how any of these programs will actually be discussed out.
Senator C. Deacon: Is there a desire on your part — yes or no — if this bill were to pass, to deliver those sorts of messages and try to get some of these issues on the table in a way that the minister can be reporting back as is required?
Ms. Eyre: I would say those messages have been delivered for years and in letters to which we receive no response, and so there is cynicism. I don’t mean to be negative about it; it’s just a reality.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much. One aspect of the bill that we haven’t focused on a lot, Mr. Kapoor, is the expected coordination of a number of federal ministries. Around this table, we’ve had discussions from time to time — Senator Deacon has led them — that the Government of Canada seems to be functioning in a series of polarized ways. I haven’t ever talked to Mr. Carr about whether that was part of his motivation in building that in, but is that a fair description? And is it a fair description that this bill will require you and many of your colleagues in other departments to actually sit down, pool your initiatives and understand them better?
Mr. Kapoor: I think the federal ministers collaborate currently through different mechanisms and through different cabinet committees, so that collaboration is happening. I think it’s clear that this bill requires those ministers to emphasize the efforts that they’re making in the context of building a prairie economy.
Senator Cotter: I have a question for Minister Eyre. In some ways, I want to invite you to respond a second time to Senator Plett’s question. Senator Plett asked you about whether there have been any green initiatives that have benefitted Saskatchewan, and I think it would be fair to say the answer was “no.”
I haven’t done a bunch of research in anticipation of that question, but I see, for example, that Minister Wilkinson announced $10 million for clean energy support for Indigenous communities in Saskatchewan in July. The Government of Canada made a commitment of $4.3 million for sustainable protein products with pulse farmers. Your own government partnered with the Government of Canada on carbon sequestration initiatives. Would it be fair to say, just picking those three, those were beneficial to Saskatchewan?
Ms. Eyre: I don’t believe I said “no.” I believe I said there have been areas, and, for example, I’ve referenced some of the work that was done in the biomass sector. I know there have been First Nations partnerships there. Early on, someone referenced the canola crushing. There have been announcements around BHP and Strategic Innovation Fund funding and so on.
I’m not here to defend the record of the federal government or speak for the federal government. I’ve acknowledged that there have been areas, and I think I said that in those areas there have been helpful endeavours.
There have also been very cordial conversations. I had a very good relationship and could speak openly with Minister O’Regan, for example. We agreed to disagree, but I often raised concerns, as I did with Minister Wilkinson, about, for example, my methane data issue and others. That’s not to say there are never conversations, cordial or otherwise, nor is it suggesting that there are never efforts that benefit both sides.
What I’ve been trying to say is that we have an incredibly strong economy in Saskatchewan and sustainable agriculture and energy sectors, which we feel are often infringed upon by federal policies that are harmful economically. There’s much documentation to that effect, and I believe I’ve offered some of that this evening.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much.
Senator Gold: I’d like to focus our attention and that of the audience who are watching on clause 5 of the bill. When the late Honourable Jim Carr spoke about the bill, he said that this was, in fact, one of the things he was most proud of. We know that a report must be tabled a year after, with the framework tabled in each House of Parliament. But clause 5 goes beyond that, and I’m going to read it, and I would ask the minister to comment on it.
Clause 5 says that within two years after the report has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and every five years after that, the minister must, in collaboration with the other ministers mentioned,
. . . prepare a report on the progress and effectiveness of the framework, setting out the Minister’s conclusions and recommendations, and cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after it is completed.
There is a major role of oversight given to both Houses of Parliament. Would you not agree, minister, that this is an important step in ensuring that governments are held to account for the promises of collaboration and the promises of consultation that the late Honourable Jim Carr believed so strongly in?
Ms. Eyre: Well, I think that a number of voices, anyway, this evening, have raised that there are very tight time constrictions on that collaboration. It’s a mammoth task being set in terms of collaboration with pretty much every economic-related minister in every prairie province, plus First Nations groups and sector partners. I think we realize in our worlds that those types of consultations can go on for an enormously long time.
I think it’s an ambitious plan, and it’s not up to me to determine whether it will work within the timeline or not. That’s up to the mechanisms at the federal level.
My role this evening was simply to speak to the perspective of the province on what this bill means and signifies, and I believe I have done that, in terms of expressing skepticism, if you like, about what it could signify when any bill has in its title the building of anything, where the consultation is yet to happen and to be determined, in light of some of the issues that we have faced, and I’ve highlighted, as recently as over the last week on the sustainable agriculture strategy. I think there is nervousness. So we will see what transpires, I suppose.
Senator Gold: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that, and you’ve made your point and position clear.
I’m asking you a question as one parliamentarian to another. As a minister of the Crown of Saskatchewan, you know how important it is for your legislature to hold you and your government and any government to account. I’m asking for your comments on the aspect of the bill that requires a progress report to be tabled in both houses of Parliament within two years after the framework agreement and every five years thereafter so that senators and members of the House of Commons can hold the government to account as to whether they have, in fact, delivered on the promise of consulting from the ground up with the provinces, municipalities and Indigenous.
I understand your government’s skepticism. The government supports this bill, although it’s not a government bill, and it includes a measure to hold the government to account. I want to know whether as a parliamentarian you feel that’s a positive step.
Ms. Eyre: Well, accountability is always a positive step, and collaboration is always positive. If any member of the federal government, any minister, comes calling — and I don’t mean that in any glib sense — certainly, I will be happy to make many of the similar points that I’ve made this evening. The proof of the collaboration will be in what is built or envisaged to be built.
We have, for example, a federal government now which is very interested in the critical mineral space, and justifiably. It’s an emerging, amazingly promising space. But I guess part of the conversations, when you get into the nitty-gritty of collaboration, would, in Saskatchewan, inevitably revolve back to some of the policies that have been put in place, which will actually, to our mind, hurt innovation, exploration and development.
The former Environmental Impact Assessment Act, for example, had a massive impact on the mining sector in Ontario. The Impact Assessment Act impacted — and Quebec played a part in this; it wasn’t only Bill C-69 — the Saguenay LNG facility.
We would say that collaboration is great; a progress report is helpful. From our perspective, however, how will federal policies, and this collaboration that is envisaged, actually help us drive innovation in the province, or will it thwart it? That’s the conversation that would have to take place.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Plett: Mr. Kapoor, this government has never been very concerned about money and how much things cost. As Senator Gold pointed out, it’s not a government bill. However, it’s probably about as close as you can get to it being a government bill without it actually being one. Nevertheless, we haven’t seen any costing.
Can you tell us what the cost will be to complete the framework of the green economy required by Bill C-235?
Mr. Kapoor: In terms of costing and of building the green economy, governments at various levels have been investing in green projects. Those things will last —
Senator Plett: My question is: What will be the cost of implementing Bill C-235?
Mr. Kapoor: In terms of our staff time, the cost will be with respect to other staff in various ministries. We haven’t done a detailed costing of what that may look like in terms of people’s time and going out and doing consultations. There will also be the cost around what we hear — that is, if there are any existing programs or new programs — about work that will have to be done.
Senator Plett: On the record, there has been no costing done. The government doesn’t care what this will cost and will just move ahead.
Mr. Kapoor: I think —
Senator Plett: Minister, let me just ask a question here. As I said in my speech today, I considered Jim Carr a friend, even though we were political adversaries, and it’s one of the reasons I moved for us to deal with this legislation so speedily. Certainly, I never agreed to support the legislation.
Nonetheless, I am quite concerned about the bill. It’s a bit like placing a hammer in the hands of a bully. You never know what the damage will be, since this federal government has a solid track record, not only of not caring about inflation, or “Justinflation,” but they have a solid track record of trampling on provincial jurisdiction.
Minister, do you think there’s anything redeemable in this bill? Is it possible to see a positive outcome? If so, what will be the path forward in order to achieve that?
Ms. Eyre: I believe that former Minister Carr, as a westerner and from his perspective, cared deeply about the West and the country. That’s not in question. Although we disagree on some of the premises of this bill, and other issues, that certainly was the case.
I’ve mentioned this a few times this evening: Collaboration is always positive; partnership is always positive. However, in terms of something such as this bill, it all comes back to the specifics. Infrastructure was raised earlier. Again, one thinks of some of the discussion over the course of a number of years about hydro sharing between provinces, for example, between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But there was little talk about the cost of some of this corridor work.
Once again, if we’re going to talk about things such as an export-based hydrogen economy, corridors around hydro, green hydrogen or the rest of it, we have to be realistic for the sake of the citizens of this country and for the taxpayers in this country. We need to be up front with them about what some of these things actually mean and represent in terms of cost. That’s just being honest with fellow Canadians, and I think that’s important in this discussion.
Senator Plett: Thank you very much, minister.
Senator C. Deacon: I’m going to keep working away at this, if I could, minister. You just said — and I agree with you — that collaboration and partnership are positive. I firmly believe in working from communities up versus from Ottawa down. I have trouble with Ottawa coming with answers and not working from the community up, so I think we’re in agreement with all of that.
It’s also clearly stated that the minister is the one responsible for delivering a plan. So if the minister can’t engage with the provinces or municipalities, that’s going to be a pretty short report. Hopefully — because collaboration and partnership are positive, and there’s a belief that building from the ground up is a good thing — people will engage with the minister, and he will be held to account for results.
The other challenge I want to focus in on is the pervasive problem in Ottawa of siloing between departments, siloing between the federal government and the provincial governments and siloing between the provincial governments and their municipalities. We have a huge problem with too much government in this country at every level. Nobody is spending time working on the issues that really must have progress made on them. Subclause 3(3) of the bill sets out key performance indicators where the minister needs to see progress.
There seems to be a lot of agreement, but you’re not even in favour of an effort. I’m trying to figure out how we can get past that.
Ms. Eyre: From our perspective, part of the problem is “ideological siloing.” You asked, “Why this frustration?” Part of it is that we feel the amazing innovation and records in areas such as agriculture and energy, particularly in Saskatchewan — also in Western Canada — are being disregarded because of a broader ideology. That is, the sustainable agriculture strategy or enhanced oil recovery in the energy sector.
I’ve mentioned data a few times. You can’t have a real, honourable conversation with a fellow partner unless you’ve got everything on the table. I’ve mentioned that a few times.
Senator C. Deacon: That’s another point of great agreement, I can assure you.
Ms. Eyre: Yes. The other thing is science and agreeing on facts. We haven’t raised it this evening, but one issue is the cap on oil production — call it what you will, but that’s what it is.
Natural Resources Canada’s own figures show that there have been more or less flat emissions rates in the oil and gas sector in Western Canada for 20 years. How can you cap what’s flat? Whether it’s producers in this province — and I mean energy producers or agricultural producers, who, of course, are frustrated at the carbon tax, among other things — or just regular citizens and the government, it becomes an issue of helplessness, sometimes, in the face of that basic overriding of what we feel are facts regarding our own record. They’re sources of great pride and should be sources of great pride internationally. I think that is the frustration.
One has to have a real conversation. You have to be able to debate facts.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Klyne: Yes, again, a question for Minister Eyre.
We’re both fully aware of the Lake Diefenbaker Irrigation Projects. I know the provincial government has budgeted $4 billion for that. There’s probably no better shovel-ready project that I can think of on the Prairies. One existing canal was somewhat in abeyance; it just needs to get widened. The other one will take about two years of an engineering study to get ready. It sets the table for a great agricultural sector in Saskatchewan and makes available another 500,000 arable irrigation acres.
As a Saskatchewan taxpayer, I hope we will be looking for some federal participation in that $4 billion. Given that it’s shovel-ready, I hope the province is being consulted by the federal government or that there is some cooperation afoot there. Maybe you can enlighten me about that.
Ms. Eyre: Again, I think we’ve covered a number of areas this evening. You mentioned the infrastructure logistics, the corridors, the Diefenbaker project; a number of projects have been raised in terms of support by the federal government — acknowledged support.
Will those conversations continue? Will we be open to having discussions on that project and others? Absolutely. None of my comments on this bill relate back to any possibilities that the future may hold and the promise that is possible.
In terms of being asked for my perspective on the bill, it’s relevant to talk about other bills that are subtextually — or not so subtextually — very linked to any discussion of building a green economy on the Prairies. That is really one of the things I’ve commented on.
As I’ve said, it doesn’t preclude any discussions, movements or potential in the future.
Senator Klyne: I thought this was a here-and-now thing and not so much the future.
I see it as a large project that ticks off a lot of the boxes in terms of water management and other federal economic initiatives. If we have a deluge or runoff, we can control flooding. In times of drought, we can release water to certain areas.
I was just hoping there were discussions taking place and that you could enlighten us about that. I just hope that takes place before this finds its way to the market. Thank you.
Ms. Eyre: I agree with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Klyne.
I have a question for Dr. Kapoor. Other than the title of this bill, what makes it Prairies-centric or Prairies-specific? When I think of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, which also aims to meet our emissions reduction targets, grow the economy and build resilience to a changing climate.
What is the difference when you think of those two?
Mr. Kapoor: I think this bill is about economic development, building a green economy. It doesn’t get into climate change targets. It’s about the implementation of federal programs.
It touches upon some of the key sectors that are important to the Prairies economy. It’s related to agriculture, forestry and clean energy. It’s kind of centred on some of the key sectors that are relevant to the regional economy.
The Prairies will have to transition to a net-zero economy, and there will be a lot of effort required to move in that direction. It’s probably recognized as that element and makes it centred on the Prairies.
The Chair: Thank you.
Minister Eyre, in your opinion as the Minister of Justice, does this framework overstep federal-provincial jurisdictions at all?
Ms. Eyre: I think there’s a risk of that. We spoke earlier about jurisdictional integrity, if you will, under the Constitution. There have been a number of references this evening to some of those areas.
It’s basically impossible to know, because the bill is very general, but there is mention of certain areas that would directly get into that problem or quandary.
We have to ask ourselves the “why” of building a green economy on the Prairies. I don’t know; maybe it could be in the Maritimes, Quebec or Ontario. However, I would posit it would have something to do with the fact that there’s a lot of energy in the Prairies that is being produced, harnessed and, in the mind of the author of the bill, transitioned.
So it absolutely raises concerns, as I said at the top, about not only traditional drivers of our economy in the province but areas over which we have exclusive jurisdiction, namely, energy and natural resources. Forestry comes into that. Those are where the concerns really lie in terms of what the subtext is of this bill, where it’s going and what it intends to accomplish.
The Chair: Thank you. We’re moving to round four.
Ms. Eyre: Sorry, could I ask one thing? What is the time frame of the meeting? I was told one hour. Are we going to 7:30 my time?
The Chair: We’re going to 7:30 your time, yes.
Ms. Eyre: Okay, good enough.
The Chair: Do you really want dinner?
Senator Plett: Minister, it’s going to be 8:30 here and we haven’t had dinner either, so I feel for you.
I’m going to ask a question of both witnesses. An issue that we on the Conservative side of the Senate have raised numerous times is the lack of consultation. I want to touch upon that one more time. We’ve spoken about it a fair amount today.
When the Honourable Jim Carr testified at the House of Commons standing committee, he noted that he had done no consultations with the provinces, had no endorsements from First Nations and, to my knowledge, had spoken to only one municipality, Edmonton, where his former colleague is currently the mayor.
I’m concerned that the plan is to pass this bill with next to zero consultation on the undertaking that consultations will happen later in the development of the framework. That seems to me to be a recipe for failure.
I will ask this of Mr. Kapoor first and then the minister. Also, since we don’t have many questioners, chair, I’m hoping you will allow them the opportunity to answer this: Would you not agree that promising to consult on the content of the framework, when there is no agreement that the framework should even exist in the first place, is putting the cart before the horse?
Mr. Kapoor and then the minister.
Mr. Kapoor: This is a bill that was proposed by the late MP Carr, and I’m not aware of what consultations might or might not have happened. I think this bill went through committee and was read.
In terms of what MP Carr has done, I can’t comment. I think we are prepared to implement this part of the —
Senator Plett: You are here representing the government, sir. The question is simple: Do you agree that this would be putting the cart before the horse?
It’s a simple question. I cited what Mr. Carr had done, but it’s the government that will implement this. No consultations have taken place. Is that not a recipe for disaster?
Mr. Kapoor: If this bill is passed, the government will undertake whatever consultations are necessary for it to be successful.
Senator Plett: After the fact. Minister, would you want to answer that question, please?
Ms. Eyre: I would be very concerned at this stage, I have to say, about the meaning of the word “consultation.” I think it’s fair to say there was consternation in Saskatchewan when we heard of this bill. We didn’t know it was coming. Again, as I said at the beginning, it’s a bill to build something on the Prairies, namely a green economy, but nobody asked the Prairies. That is an issue.
Where that goes from here, in terms of talking to the Prairies, I guess, remains to be seen, but as we have pointed out a number of times this evening on so many fronts, it is precisely the lack of consultation that has been of grave concern to us in Saskatchewan and, I believe, to other provinces. A province such as Quebec, for example, would likely feel similarly about a similar bill related to building something similar in Quebec in terms of provincial jurisdiction. They’re certainly very good at — and I mean that with full admiration — defending and speaking up for provincial jurisdiction and everything that means in its essence. Yes, there is concern.
Senator Plett: You are absolutely right, minister. Thank you very much for that answer.
Senator Cotter: Minister Eyre, I wasn’t going to prolong your attendance with us, but you did answer a question to Senator Black that gave me some significant pause. This bill contemplates the implementation of federal programs through a framework. If there is a constitutional concern, it seems to me that it has to be that some of those federal programs are themselves unconstitutional.
We make it a practice in the Senate of taking seriously the question of whether we are adopting unconstitutional laws, so I’d really like to dig into this question, knowing that you have a stable of outstanding constitutional lawyers, most of whom I know. Can you be more helpful in terms of what federal programs this bill might advance that would be unconstitutional interferences with provincial jurisdiction?
Ms. Eyre: Certainly, as you’ll know, of course, the position of the province and of other provinces was that, at its root, the carbon tax was an infringement of provincial jurisdiction. We know where that went, at least in the one case, where “peace, order and good governance” were used, and depending on your view of that, either it’s a negative trump card or a positive one on precisely that jurisdiction.
We are increasingly seeing some attention being paid to the fact that where federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction collide, perhaps federal paramountcy can’t be used as a hammer in every case. We take some hope in that, and we hope that develops in terms of jurisprudence.
I would say Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, is very clearly problematic. We saw that at the Court of Appeal. The judge said, in the spring, that the act has taken a “wrecking ball” to provincial jurisdiction. That would be certainly one that has an impact on the economy of this province and its ability to advance and get those proverbial products to market. As I say, the carbon tax and, certainly, the federal Clean Fuel Standard and the Clean Electricity Regulations that are coming and others are problematic because of their impacts on provincial jurisdictional areas.
We enumerate those core areas in The Saskatchewan First Act around production as well because if you can’t use fossil-fuel-generated anything for power in a province where it is literally impossible to transition that quickly to hydro or solar or wind or anything else by 2035, you have a problem.
Absolutely, we feel that some of those areas are infringed upon by federal regulation and what that means. We would question that they are really federal when it circles back to the energy sector, for example. It’s certainly something one could talk about for hours and hours, but there are grave concerns there.
Senator Cotter: Thank you very much for joining us. I know we’ve tested the limits of your availability, and it’s much appreciated that you joined us.
Senator Gold: Thank you both, minister and Dr. Kapoor, for appearing. I didn’t hear this in your answer, minister — and this is just a comment before my question, which is to you, Dr. Kapoor. I didn’t hear any example of programs that are contemplated within this framework which would be unconstitutional as an overreach of federal jurisdiction, for the record.
Dr. Kapoor, Senator Plett asked you a question about costing. You began an answer, but it was cut somewhat short. Might I invite you to elaborate a little bit more about what costs would be associated with this act, separate and apart from whatever programs might emerge from the framework that will be developed through the consultation process?
We want to understand what we’re voting for. Are we voting for a lot of money, or are we simply voting for a process that would be largely staff-driven, both at the federal level and with the counterparts in the provinces with whom you would be consulting and other groups?
Mr. Kapoor: Within the next 12 months, to develop the consultation framework, we will work within our existing resources and with our existing staff time to develop the framework. We’re not seeing any incremental cost in developing the framework and presenting it to the ministers for approval. There will be no incremental costs for the next 12 months. Then the government will develop programs. Those are separate and above and beyond the development of the consultation framework.
Senator Gold: Great. Thank you for your answer. Again, thank you to the witnesses for the time you’ve given us.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you so much, minister, for your time and generosity and commitment. I have just a simple question that kind of popped into my head.
I understand the concerns and the critiques, and I do realize that they are legitimate. I also understand that, with this framework, there is no guarantee of success. We don’t know the level of success this kind of a framework could have, but we also don’t know that it will not be successful. Really, it’s asking everyone to sit together and try to organize.
I have a very simple question, and I apologize if I’m putting you on the spot. If this bill becomes law, is it your belief that you will sit at that table?
Ms. Eyre: I guess it depends. I don’t mean to be glib when I say it depends on the context. If the bill passes and the collaboration process is then undertaken, you’re asking if I will sit down and speak to relevant ministers about the position of Saskatchewan? Absolutely. I feel it’s a very important effort. I feel it’s important to be here tonight with all of you. I believe that dialogue is important. So, yes, a cautionary yes, in terms of, I suppose, the skepticism that I’ve signalled a little bit this evening. Of course, conversations are important. This one is no exception.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much.
The Chair: With that, colleagues, I see no more questions. I do want to thank our witnesses this evening, Minister Eyre, Dr. Kapoor and Mr. Whitson, who got off lucky. Thank you for your participation in our meeting. Your assistance as we examine this issue and the bill is very much appreciated.
I also want to thank my colleagues around the table, committee members, for your active participation and thoughtful questions.
I also thank, as I always do, the folks behind us, our interpreters and the folks managing the sound booth and the video. Thank you for all your help as well.
I do want to wish our witnesses happy holidays and a happy 2023.
Colleagues, we will continue to study this bill tomorrow from 12 to 2 and from 2:30 to 4:30. There being no other business, honourable senators, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)