---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 14, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 12:01 p.m. [ET] to study 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 afternoon everyone. I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, our witnesses — both in person and online — and those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Rob Black, senator from Ontario, and I chair this committee.

I would like to start by asking our committee members to introduce themselves.

Senator Plett: Good morning, Senator Don Plett, and I’m from Manitoba.

[Translation]

Senator Cormier: René Cormier, from New Brunswick.

[English]

Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Good afternoon.

Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, senator from Saskatchewan, Treaty 4 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Marc Gold, from Quebec.

Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc, from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Oh: Victor Oh, senator for Ontario.

Senator Jaffer: Senator Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.

Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan.

The Chair: Today, the committee is meeting again on Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. Our witnesses today on panel number one are: from Cameco Corporation, Dale Austin, Chief, Government Relations, and he is with us in person; and from the Alberta Beef Producers, Melanie Wowk, Chair, and Brad Dubeau, Director General, both by video conference.

I’ll introduce panel two now: from Sturgeon County, Alberta, Mayor Alanna Hnatiw, by video conference; from the Manitoba Métis Federation, David Chartrand, President, by video conference; from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Ray Orb, President; and from the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, Paul McLauchlin, President, Rural Municipalities of Alberta, by video conference as well.

We’ll hear opening remarks from Mr. Austin followed by Ms. Wowk. You’ll each have five minutes for your opening remarks, and I’ll signal when you have one minute left by going like this. When we get close to your time, if we need to, I’ll put both hands up. With that, the floor is yours, Mr. Austin.

Dale Austin, Chief, Government Relations, Cameco Corporation: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, senators. It is my pleasure to appear at committee today on behalf of Cameco Corporation to provide input on your study on Bill C-235. Before I begin, I would like to offer condolences to the parliamentary colleagues, friends and family of the sponsor of this bill, the Honourable Jim Carr. Cameco had the great privilege to work closely with Minister Carr during his time both as Minister of Natural Resources and Special Representative for the Prairies. His dedication to public service, his commitment to Winnipeg and the Prairies and his desire for a better Canada will be missed.

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

Cameco is a proud and important part of Canada’s nuclear and critical minerals supply chains that deliver reliable, emissions-free electricity to Ontario, New Brunswick and around the world. Canada’s uranium and nuclear fuel sectors already play a significant role in underpinning green, low-carbon economies and are positioned to lead the transition to net-zero emissions by providing highly skilled, well-paying jobs, engaging suppliers in a wide range of skilled trades and expertise and stimulating innovation in a variety of nuclear disciplines, including small modular reactors. Cameco is well positioned to provide input and support to the development of a framework for a green Prairie economy that considers all forms of low-carbon energy and the role that they will play in electricity generation and in industrial and transportation-related emissions reductions.

As the committee considers what building a green economy in the Prairies might entail, we must also recognize that Indigenous partnerships and Indigenous businesses will play a major role. As you may be aware, Cameco is one of the largest employers of Indigenous peoples in Canada. About half our workforce at our mines and mills in northern Saskatchewan are residents from within that region. But beyond employment, over 80% of the services used at Cameco’s mines and mills in northern Saskatchewan, totalling more than $4 billion since 2004, are procured from northern Indigenous businesses. Our success depends on the long-term, positive partnerships and mutual trust that we have built with the First Nations and Métis communities where we operate, particularly in northern Saskatchewan. A green economy in the Prairies will also require Indigenous partnerships and strong Indigenous businesses along the entire value chain to maximize future success.

A significant number of economic, energy, environmental and national security policies being pursued by the Government of Canada, including the contents of this bill, are focused on achieving net-zero emissions. It is Cameco’s view that there is no path to net zero without nuclear energy. We are pleased to see nuclear energy mentioned in the content of the framework. I might, however, disagree with its characterization as a new source of energy. Access to significant amounts of reliable, emissions-free baseload electricity is the foundation for any green economy. Current use of nuclear energy worldwide helps the planet avoid some two and a half billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year. Cameco is very proud of our contribution to global greenhouse gas reduction efforts from our home base in Saskatoon. Saskatchewan uranium facilitates the generation of clean, carbon-free baseload electricity that will power the transition to a low-carbon economy.

That said, there are mixed signals coming from the federal government regarding the use of nuclear technologies to achieve climate goals and to support the transition to a green economy. The Government of Canada’s climate policy framework clearly includes nuclear energy in its clean, low-carbon technology definition. However, recent decisions that excluded nuclear technologies from the tax reduction for zero-emission technology manufacturers and Canada’s Green Bond Framework send mixed signals to markets and investors. Nuclear energy is a clean, carbon-free source of electricity. We ask that as the framework for a green Prairie economy is being developed, governments take a technology-agnostic approach and consider all emission reduction technologies on a level playing field for inclusion in government programs and investments. The most effective path to a low-carbon economy will require the targeted, fit-for-purpose use of all zero-emission energy technologies.

Canada’s and the Prairies’s resource wealth has long been a major driver of our financial health and social and economic wealth. Canada’s economic prosperity is, to a significant extent, linked to our ability to responsibly and sustainably develop and export our abundant natural resources and the value-added products that are derived from them. We support the intent of Bill C-235. We ask that as the framework is being developed, all zero-emission technologies, including nuclear, are given the same consideration.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Austin.

Melanie Wowk, Chair, Alberta Beef Producers: Thank you. Good day. My name is Melanie Wowk. I am a livestock veterinarian and rancher from Beauvallon, Alberta. My children will be the fifth generation on the land that we ranch and are members of the Métis Nation of Alberta.

I’m here today as the chair of the Alberta Beef Producers, and an Alberta Beef Producers’ general manager, Brad Dubeau, is also here with us today.

Before I begin, I would like to express my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of the Honourable Jim Carr. His consistent advocacy for farmers, ranchers and the Prairies did not go unnoticed.

Thank you to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for the chance to speak on behalf of the Alberta Beef Producers. In October we spoke with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology on Bill C-235. We are pleased to see the committee’s amendments to include the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in the framework development and reports to Parliament.

Our hope for this legislation is that we believe that for it to be truly effective at achieving a green economy is for it not to disadvantage beef producers. Therefore, we believe that further edits would strengthen the bill, such as acknowledging and prioritizing Prairie ecosystems and including provinces and agriculture industry consultations to ensure flexible implementation.

Beef producers are definitely stewards of the land and are at the forefront of a green economy. We invest and work diligently to ensure our rangelands are healthy. After all, healthy land provides forage for our cattle in perpetuity. Our businesses, the environment and all Canadians benefit from our unique, symbiotic relationship with the ecosystems that we manage.

For example, take the Prairie grasslands. Well-managed grasslands are woefully undervalued for their ecological goods and services. In addition to wildlife habitat and water purification, grasslands are a champion of carbon storage. It is estimated globally that grasslands store approximately 34% of the terrestrial stock of carbon. Canadian grasslands sequester carbon emissions equivalent to 3.62 million cars per year. Also, what’s great about grasslands is that the carbon they store is below ground — about 97% — and this safeguards it from disturbances, such as fire.

Unfortunately, the moment that these grasslands are tilled or cultivated land to grow grain or are developed for housing, up to 50% of that carbon is lost, and it is lost immediately. Sadly, grassland loss is happening very quickly.

According to the Nature Conservancy of Canada, over the last 25 years, we have lost an average of 148,000 acres of grassland. In Alberta, 85% of our species at risk are found on the grasslands, and over 1,000 plant, animal and insect species make their home on Canadian rangelands. We have lost over 74% of this habitat.

Talking specifically about climate change, Nature United has studied and concluded that stopping the loss of native prairie is the number one solution we have for natural climate solutions. Unfortunately, even subtle missteps in policy direction can exacerbate the problem by providing competitive advantages for other land use options.

As an example, cow/calf producers currently have limited access to business risk management tools compared to other sectors, and the programs we do have, such as AgriStability, provide little to no support for producers that focus on grazing systems. Similarly, grasslands are not prioritized in legislation, even legislation that focuses on the Prairies. It is widely acknowledged that forested lands offer much in sequestration, but so do grasslands. We must not overlook native prairie.

As mentioned, we were pleased to see the addition of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to both framework development and reports to Parliament. The Prairies are extremely diverse. Our industry reflects that diversity with different management practices and approaches to local realities, and these management practices are constantly changing as producers strive to be more efficient and more effective. I can safely say that we have seen evolution in range management, animal health and genetics in my time as a rancher alone. Why? Because ranchers have a passion for the animals, the land and what they do. They are constantly looking for improvements.

Since 1992, Alberta Beef Producers has officially recognized leaders of environmentally sustainable cattle production with the Environmental Stewardship Award. Beef producers are a clear avenue to a greener economy, and to succeed, we need green policies that reflect local reality.

Thank you, chair and standing committee members.

The Chair: Thank you very much to our first two witnesses.

We’ll proceed with questions now. Before asking and answering questions, I would like to remind members and witnesses in the room to refrain from leaning too close into the microphone, or remove your earpiece if you do. This will avoid any sound feedback and affect the folks that are supporting us.

As has been our previous practice, I would like to remind each senator that you’ll have four minutes today for your questions and answers. At one minute — the last minute — I’ll put my hand up, and when it’s down, please wrap up. Both hands will go up then.

Senator Plett: My first question will be for the Alberta Beef Producers, and you can already put me down for a second round, chair, because I don’t think I’ll get to Mr. Austin in the first round. Maybe I will.

To the Alberta Beef Producers, 50 out of 61 Prairie MPs voted against this bill in the House. That is an overwhelming vote of non-confidence. Certainly not a non-confidence vote to Jim Carr, the sponsor of this bill, nor his intentions, but in the government’s ability to implement this bill and create a framework that helps rather than harms provincial economies.

Are you at all concerned that if the federal government cannot find agreement with the provinces — and we have been hearing nothing but criticism from the provinces — or industry on how to proceed that they will just move forward unilaterally, as they did with the carbon tax and as they are threatening to do with the implementation of cutting back on fertilizers?

Ms. Wowk: I believe the concern, especially from our industry, was that we just wanted a seat at the table and that we need to have our voice in the consultations regarding this bill.

There is always the concern that beef producers, especially at the cow/calf level, will have policies implemented that affect the way they are able to produce their product. I think that is probably where the concern is coming from.

Often, it is not acknowledged what our sector does for the greening of the Prairies and the importance of the prairie grasslands. That’s what we’re here to do today. We are continually striving to do that. We are willing to work with the federal and provincial governments to continue to improve our practices.

Senator Plett: Well, thank you very much for that answer, but, again, my question is: The government doesn’t have a great track record of consultation. They seem to implement bills first and promise to consult later.

In your view, what would a successful consultation look like? Would it be coming to you after the bill has been approved, or coming to you and asking for some input? Were you at all consulted about the government’s carbon tax or their initiative to reduce nitrogen emissions? That, clearly, would be a concern to you.

If no, are you expecting that these consultations will be any different? If yes, do you feel like you were heard and your views incorporated into the government’s policy decision?

Ms. Wowk: Sitting here today, I believe we have been heard. We were very excited to be asked first to speak to the House of Commons and now to yourselves, so, yes, we feel that we are being heard and that our views are being expressed.

It is always a concern that bills will be passed without full consultation. I believe that there were consultations in regard to nitrogen emissions. Of course, often it’s going to affect the way that we are able to produce our food, and sometimes we do feel like we are not heard.

We are a small voice. We’re only 2% of the voting population, so to be able to sit here and speak with you today, hopefully, that will amplify our message.

Senator Plett: Well, of course, speaking to us here is not being initiated by the government; it’s being initiated by a committee of independent senators.

Ms. Wowk: Yes, and we also had the opportunity to speak to the House.

Senator Klyne: I have a question for Cameco first and then a question for anybody on the panel who wants to answer.

In your opening remarks, Mr. Austin, you had mentioned there was no path to zero emissions without nuclear energy, and I would add to that carbon capture utilization and storage technology. On nuclear energy, the small modular reactors have been a point of a lot of discussion over the last year and in previous years, for those who were trying to follow that.

Has Cameco been involved in productive discussions with any of the provinces and/or federal development agencies in regard to small modular reactors? I ask, given that you are a key supplier.

Mr. Austin: Thank you for the question, senator.

Cameco is actively engaged with developers of small modular reactor technologies, which are those companies that are looking to have their designs approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and then potentially deployed in Canada. We have MOUs with a number of those companies.

The decisions to deploy will be made by utilities, such as Ontario Power Generation, NB Power and SaskPower, et cetera. We are actively engaged with those utilities in terms of what their plans are for the deployment of small modular reactors. But it is simply a discussion among experts in the field, to put it that way; Cameco will not have any role in determining whether those utilities decide to deploy small modular reactors.

Senator Klyne: I expect that Manitoba has its hydro, so they may not be considering those. I’m not sure what Alberta is doing. But do you see this particular bill that we’re studying right now having some opportunity to draw in stakeholders in regard to consultations, collaborations and furthering that agenda along?

Mr. Austin: I believe so. As the bill is written, certainly any opportunity that brings together industry, Indigenous, oversight organizations, governments and labour to have a conversation about what a green economy looks like — we believe that’s a good opportunity to have a discussion.

The interesting thing about small modular reactors, as I said in my remarks, is that they will be fit for purpose; different technologies will be used for different purposes. In Saskatchewan and Ontario, the small modular reactors will be used to deliver power to the grid. In places like Alberta, they are really looking at a different type of small modular reactor design that will produce heat in addition to electricity for industrial purposes.

There is a lot of space in the small modular reactor discussion for different provinces to be engaged, even those provinces that may have other types of low-carbon electricity.

Senator Klyne: My experience with large projects like that is that the federal government won’t do it alone and the provinces can’t do it alone, so there needs to be some collaboration here.

I will go on a second round. Thank you.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

My colleague has asked the majority of the questions that were similar to what I was thinking about today. Looking at this over the past few days and listening to some of the testimony and conversations in the Senate, I’m thinking about efficiencies, duplications and redundancies, but I’m also thinking about whether this will improve the consultations between the federal government and the provinces when it comes to resource development. You just responded, “Yes, this is an important step.”

So as we’re looking at that and the potential for improving the consultation with the provinces when it comes to resource development, what do you believe are gaps that it might be really highlighting that we have seen in the past that will be filled as a result of this collaboration and consultation?

Mr. Austin: Thank you for the question.

My hope with this bill, in particular, regarding a green economy in the Prairies is that when those consultations occur we look at all technologies and ways to improve our resource development economy. It’s significantly important for the Prairies.

Senator Klyne was asking about consultation and carbon capture, storage and utilization. We have a tremendous competitive advantage in Canada in resource development, and we need to capitalize on that. Part of doing so is understanding how we can use innovation and technology deployment to make sure resource development economic activities continue in this country. We shouldn’t be looking for ways to sideline things that we’re very good at; we should be looking at ways to improve what we do so that we can be seen as a viable provider to the world of those technologies, with the lowest environmental impact possible.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

To be as blunt or candid as I could, then, listening to what you just said, do we need this legislation? Is it good to enshrine this in legislation to make sure it’s done? What you are talking about is really good practices. Do we need legislation to make it happen?

Mr. Austin: It needs to happen. We believe this legislation will, obviously, give it some legal standing for these types of consultations to occur. That’s not to say that they are not already occurring; they are. They are happening in multiple places around the country.

The challenge is — and we say this all the time about projects all the time — one project, one process. It’s similar in terms of consultations: Is there a way that we can put a finer point on where these discussions are going to occur? How are they going to happen? How do we know that all of the appropriate players are at the table? As my colleagues from the beef producers said, how do we make sure that we’re all at the table so that when these conversations are happening, we know that this is the place that they are happening?

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you both for being here.

My first question is to Mr. Austin. I was listening to you very carefully, and you mentioned consultation with Indigenous groups a number of times. I’m sure you have read the bill many times, and it does say in the consultation portion to be in consultation with “Indigenous governing bodies.” It has a definition for that. Is that enough, or were you thinking of more?

Mr. Austin: For the purposes of the bill, it is probably enough to recognize the Indigenous governing bodies, and they are defined as such in the bill.

As we all know, as consultations begin as to the substance — not of the legislation — that is going to determine whether there is a green economy on the Prairies, that list of consultation parties will shrink and grow depending on the area. For the purposes of the bill, I think it’s satisfactory. That’s not to say there will be many types of individual consultations that occur with Indigenous businesses, business organizations and groups that are not necessarily governing bodies.

Senator Jaffer: I have a question for you, Ms. Wowk. In the consultation, it talks about the private sector and representatives of employers in the sector. Do you think that consultation is enough? Do we need to specifically have a consultation with producers and farmers?

Ms. Wowk: It’s imperative that you have consultations with producers, farmers and those all along the supply chain, including cow/calf producers, the feedlot sector and the processing sector. We are all different, with different needs, even within the province. When you start looking at our practices across the country, they are very different depending on the land and the environment we’re dealing with.

So it’s imperative that you have producers from different areas and different parts of the supply chain involved in consultations regarding this bill.

Senator Jaffer: If I’m wrong, correct me, but I got the impression from you that you were satisfied with all of the consultations you have had so far; is that correct?

Ms. Wowk: We were very happy to be brought to the table initially. It was a bit of a surprise for us to be asked here, as a province, so we feel that we have been recognized in the addition of agriculture to this discussion. It’s very important.

We would love to constantly be shouting from the rooftops and have people hear us, but this is a great first step for sure.

Senator Jaffer: I was very impressed with what you said. What impressed me is you were saying to count you in because you have a big role to play in the success of a green economy. Why would you say that?

Ms. Wowk: I say that because grazing species are incredibly important on the Prairies. They are an important part of maintaining our prairie ecosystem and the huge carbon sink that we are adding to and maintaining, and I think that message is often lost.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you.

Senator Cotter: Thank you, Ms. Wowk and Mr. Austin, for joining us today.

The conversation about the importance of the grasslands to the ecosystem — not only for successful and sustainable production in your line of work but also for the health of soil — is an important topic for us. Indeed, under the leadership of Senator Black, we are conducting a soil health study. It seems imperative that we hear from you on that topic as much as on this one. I hope when you get the next invitation from our committee to come and speak on that topic that you will.

Your point about the inclusion of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada is a critically important one, given the significance of agriculture to the Prairie economy.

I have a couple of questions for Mr. Austin. First, this bill is focused on a sustainable Prairie economy. On the subject of energy, in an optimistic scenario, can you say the degree to which nuclear energy could contribute to a clean, green, sustainable Prairie economy? I know you’re a worldwide company, and perhaps the most successful in the world in your field, but specific to the Prairies, what’s your sense of the future of nuclear energy?

Mr. Austin: There is a tremendous opportunity for a green Prairie economy as it relates to nuclear energy. We’re seeing a significant resurgence in the potential for nuclear energy around the world. That means that there’s significant potential in Saskatchewan, in particular, where we mine that uranium, the highest-grade uranium deposit in the world in the Athabasca Basin. It’s not just Cameco. Other companies are exploring and looking to develop that resource as well. So there is a tremendous opportunity, obviously, in uranium mining.

Should SaskPower decide to deploy small modular reactors — and they’re certainly looking at that possibility right now — there are parts of the nuclear supply chain that could, in fact, be stood up in Saskatchewan to support the delivery of nuclear power into the Saskatchewan grid.

As you know, senator, Cameco operates all along the nuclear fuel supply chain. We see potential opportunities for that to start occurring in Saskatchewan as well.

Senator Cotter: It is perhaps not well known, but your engagement with Indigenous communities, businesses and the like is world class. We hear from time to time that the Government of Canada isn’t the most gifted in consultation and engagement. Can you just reflect a little bit on the two or three principles that have guided Cameco in its success there that we can learn from going forward?

Mr. Austin: We talk to people quite often about our approach to Indigenous partnerships and partnership agreements. The main thing is that there’s no silver bullet. It’s a long process and it takes time to develop trust and relationships with partner communities and the leadership in those communities. It’s about making the effort.

We talk about community engagement, business development, community investment, environmental stewardship and workforce development. Those are the pillars of how we engage with our partner communities.

We recognize that we could not exist, our mines could not operate in northern Saskatchewan without the support of our Indigenous partners. They’re a significant part of our workforce. Indigenous-owned businesses supply our mine sites and do environmental monitoring on our behalf. It is a requirement for us, and we spend a lot of time and effort to build and maintain those relationships.

Senator Cotter: Thanks very much.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much to our guests for being with us today and helping us study this bill. I’m going to ask you my question in French. It’s a fairly specific one about the terms used in this bill, in section 3.

My question occurred to me as I listened to you because both of you — and I thank you for this — have very clearly laid out your development process towards a green economy in sectors and fields of expertise that are very different from each other, with specific challenges, but also opportunities and solutions.

This bill describes a desire for coordination and mobilization, and therefore a certain form of organization. How important is it to avoid holding consultations only to identify solutions in silos, but rather to ensure that things are done in a coordinated and collaborative, way despite the vast differences between sectors? Mr. Austin, perhaps you would like to answer first.

Mr. Austin: Thank you for the question. I will answer in English.

[English]

Collaboration and consultation is a challenging process. When I look at the contents of this bill, particularly with a focus on the Prairie provinces, to be able to bring the appropriate players, depending on the conversation, it won’t be the same players in every conversation. There will be different conversations, but they can occur under the auspices of this bill. We believe it is an opportunity, particularly with the focus on the Prairie economy, which frankly does not get the type of attention that it deserves.

As always, it will be challenging to define the right people at the right time to discuss the right topic, but we believe that is something that we should put some effort into.

Obviously, Cameco’s issues are very different from the Alberta Beef Producers’ issues, but my sense, based on the testimony today, is that we have a similar idea about how to approach consultations, discussions and the people in the room, despite the fact that our issues are very different.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Wowk: I will answer in English, because my French is quite rusty.

Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Wowk: As far as the Prairie provinces go, I think beef producers in general have very similar issues. Recently, we all went through a drought together a few years ago in which the federal and provincial governments banded together to help us. Having consultation from all the provinces is important, but I think you will find you’ll get a similar answer from all of us. Although it can be different from the north end to the south end of the province, in reality, what we’re trying to get across is we need to maintain the cow-calf industry, maintain the feeders and the prairie grasslands.

Senator Gold: Thank you, witnesses. Thank you for your contribution to the local economy and for the work you do to help us get to a more sustainable economy. Thank you also for your presence here today, of course.

The bill that’s before us speaks of, as we’ve discussed this morning, cooperation, coordination and so on, with a range of stakeholders, including the private sector.

Would you agree with me that one of the main achievements of this bill would be to create incentives for collaboration with stakeholders, including organizations such as yours and like-minded stakeholders to make sure that your concerns are at the table? Given the importance of a transition to a green economy, not only for the Prairies but for our country and the world, would you agree this bill creates incentives for the kinds of conversations and collaborations, some of which are already ongoing? That it’s a positive step in the right direction?

Ms. Wowk: Yes, incentives are very important. That is why we were so glad to be brought into this discussion, because we often feel that our incentives for our industry are lagging behind the crop sector and behind the dairy sector. We have an important message to put forward. Having incentives to continue to do that and to continue to improve is extremely important for our sector.

Mr. Austin: I take issue with the word “incentive” and clarify it as “opportunities” to enter into discussions. One of the issues that we face as an industry is that it’s very challenging — and we’re seeing it with this bill — to change legislation once it has been proposed. If this bill allows those conversations and those types of discussions to happen early on in the process so that we can avoid bad legislation being put forward in the first place, or legislation that had the opportunity to be approved early on, then I think that’s helpful.

Similarly, for example, take government funding programs and how they’re applied, who is eligible, what the process is, what the application process is — all of those conversations up front early on smooth the transition later. I think that would be extremely helpful.

Senator Gold: Thank you for clarifying that. I’m not wedded to the word. What I was trying to get you, shamelessly, to say on record was that you think this bill is a step in the right direction and that you welcome the opportunity that it provides for structuring conversations, different though they may be, as the issues are different.

Mr. Austin: It certainly could be. Based on the way it’s written, it covers the right type of ground. As always, the details are important, but any opportunity where we can get together with other industry colleagues — with labour, with Indigenous organizations — to talk about the Prairie economy, which Cameco is a large part of, we think there’s merit in that.

Senator Gold: Thank you very much.

Senator Oh: Thank you, Mr. Austin for being here, as well as Ms. Wowk with the Alberta beef sector. Nice to see you both. I had the pleasure of meeting your CEO, Tim Gitzel, recently in Astana at the Kazakhstan Canada Business Council meeting. We had an extensive conversation.

You mentioned earlier that your company was not consulted on this particular bill. Bill C-235 requires extensive consultation across wide sectors of the economy and must include collaboration with seven different departments of the federal government, and there are only 12 months to do it. Do you think 12 months is enough time to consult everybody and carry out this extensive consultation, and that the most important thing is to pass the bill first before consultation?

Mr. Austin: I agree that 12 months is a very short timeline, but we believe that those timelines need to be written into legislation. Part of the challenge that we face as a natural resource developer in Canada is that the consultation processes continue to take longer and longer periods of time. There need to be some limits put on consultations. When there are no limits in the legislation, they can go on indefinitely and that makes it challenging, frankly, to enter into natural resource projects.

Will it be challenging? No doubt, it will be challenging. Can it be done? I would certainly hope that within a full calendar year, the consultations can be concluded and the framework could be put in place.

Senator Oh: Do you have any idea why your company, as a worldwide company with extensive green energy technology, was not consulted?

Mr. Austin: We, like the Alberta Beef Producers, had the opportunity to present in front of the Industry Committee of the House of Commons. We took that opportunity. They heard very similar messages to the one that I’m delivering to you today.

Were we consulted? Yes, to the extent that we appeared at committee and answered questions. But beyond that opportunity, no, we were not consulted.

Senator Oh: No further?

Mr. Austin: No.

Senator Cormier: My question is for both witnesses.

[Translation]

My question is along the same lines as Senator Petitclerc’s. We are hearing two important words in this discussion: “collaboration” and “consultation.” I would like to point out that these two great qualities were possessed by Jim Carr. They served him well during his mandate.

We realize, as we read the bill and listen to you, that many stakeholders will have to be consulted and many people will have to be brought to the table. We know that the balance of power is not always equal between the various players. We also know that there are often conflicting views on how best to achieve this green economy.

Do you have any concerns about this potential imbalance in terms of consultation?

What winning conditions do you think are required in order to achieve a good balance in ensuring that all stakeholders are heard?

If you were tasked by the government to implement this consultation, what would be your first three major actions to ensure that this balance is properly taken into account?

[English]

Mr. Austin: Thank you for the question. The way I view the bill, perhaps incorrectly, is that it provides an umbrella under which different types of consultations can occur. I would not want to enter into a consultation that tried to encapsulate the Prairie economy across a number of provinces all at the same time. I think, frankly, that would be an impossible task.

Under the umbrella of this legislation, to have consultations on specific parts of the Prairie economy, whether it’s beef, energy or other parts, where you can bring together the right players to have that conversation, I think that is certainly possible. A one-time consultation about a Prairie economy and what is appropriate is a very challenging task.

Ms. Wowk: I have to agree. There are a lot of different moving parts in regard to the Prairie economy. Obviously, we all see the little portion of what we contribute — actually, I shouldn’t say little portion, because beef is a huge part of the economy in Alberta. But I agree, it’s something that we need to bring everybody to the table for. I’ve learned a lot about energy speaking with these committees. As I said, it’s just great that we’ve all been brought together to be able to speak in regard to our own issues.

Senator Cormier: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We are moving onto round two. We have only two questioners. We have a limited amount of time if we want to make sure we finish at 1 o’clock and get our full panel in for the next hour. Senator Plett, can we limit it to two or three minutes, please?

Senator Plett: Chair, you may limit me to whatever you decide with the gavel, but I do want to get these questions in.

Mr. Austin, both of you have intimated that a Senate committee calling you in to testify on a bill is consultation by the government. You haven’t said that, but you have certainly indicated that you’re so happy that we are consulting with you. Well, we aren’t the ones that are going to consult with you on this bill; it’s the government that has to do the consulting. Let’s not muddy the waters there and try to pretend that this is a consultation process; it’s not.

Fifty of 61 members of the House of Commons from the Prairies voted against this bill. Every government in the Prairies has testified against this bill, including the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan last night.

Mr. Austin, do you not believe that the provincial governments are doing a good job of greening the economy that we need a private member’s bill? Clearly, the federal government wasn’t even that concerned about it. It was at the behest of a private member’s bill that did this, and now Big Brother is going to get in there and do this. You yourself said 12 months is a short period of time. You said it’s impossible to negotiate or consult on all parts of it. What part is good? Nuclear is probably an area that’s fairly green, so I’m sure you’re quite happy about this legislation.

But how about Saskatchewan, which has the greenest extraction of potash in the world? How about Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are creating energy with oil and gas? Where do you think you were consulted in this? How should the provinces be consulted? Being asked to come to committee and being asked whether they agree with the bill or not? You’ve lost me in your promotion of saying you’re so happy that you’ve been brought to the table. The government hasn’t brought you to the table; a Senate committee has.

Mr. Austin: I would say, senator, “happy to be brought to the table” is an exaggeration. We were invited. We’re happy to be here to provide our views to the Senate and to this committee about Bill C-235.

Cameco believes that more opportunity to consult that will potentially result in better legislation is a good opportunity. I believe that the Government of Saskatchewan is doing a good job of greening the economy. Decisions that they’re making are good decisions in terms of lowering emissions. Uranium extraction, potash extraction, we are very good at this. We are very good at resource extraction. If this bill will provide another opportunity for us to demonstrate that to the world and collaborate so that we can continue to deliver natural resource products in the most environmentally sustainable way to the planet, then we believe that we should do that.

Senator Plett: Will this bill do that?

The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett, and thank you to our witness.

Senator Klyne, you have three minutes.

Senator Klyne: Well, I’m going to use some of that up for making a comment regarding meaningful consultation with Indigenous people and communities and the Indigenous conclusion in northern development and labour and suppliers and contractors. That came through legislation whereby regulatory and permitting processes would be streamlined subject to a mandate of 50% of Northerners representing the developers’ labour force. It’s one of those things that what gets measured gets done. Very similar to when the Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation was created, subject to a mandate of their workforce representing 50% Aboriginal people.

That all said, indeed Cameco has delivered above and beyond on this mandate and being a great corporate representative on that front. I dare say, had it not been for that legislation, the developments in the North, this may not have happened.

I’m sorry I gave up that time. Maybe I’ll have to go to round three. You mention one of the things you were pleased to see in this bill was the consultation and collaboration. You named a myriad of stakeholders. Something that “Big Brother” has done is through NRCan with the Regional Energy and Resource Tables, whereby they are consulting with federal-provincial-territorial and wanting to identify two to four key economic growth opportunities in each province and territory. Those will evolve where they will include municipal governments, workers and labour reps, industry and business leaders, also academic and specific sector experts. What they will be doing then with those stakeholders around the table is developing joint action plans focusing on tangible steps to align resources and investments and to streamline those processes.

Maybe you can comment through the clerk in writing, or we can come back to this in the next round. All of the provinces and territories that have been there — there are three yet to come, which would be Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nunavut — I’m just wondering if you’ve been in any consultation with those provinces and that territory with regard to nuclear energy and being at the tables.

Mr. Austin: Yes, we have. I’ve been part of those conversations. We see tremendous merit in the regional economic tables as well. Talked earlier about one project, one process. The Regional Economic Tables, what they’re trying to achieve and what this bill is trying to achieve for the Prairies, there’s a lot of overlap there.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That concludes our questions for this panel. Mr. Austin, Ms. Wowk and Mr. Dubeau, thanks very much for your participation. Your assistance has greatly added to our discussion and our debate. You’re welcome to continue staying on. We’d ask you to mute your microphone and turn off your camera, but you’re welcome to stay on and carry on listening.

We will ask the witnesses from the next panel to turn on your cameras and microphones. For this next panel, we will hear opening remarks from Mayor Hnatiw, followed by Mr. Chartrand, Mr. Orb and then Mr. McLauchlin. You’ll each have five minutes for your opening remarks. Again, I will signal at the one-minute mark. Because we have a number of witnesses and there will be lots of questions, don’t feel you have to either use your minutes for questions or use your time for statements.

The floor is yours, mayor.

Alanna Hnatiw, Mayor, Sturgeon County, Alberta: Thank you. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the late Honourable Jim Carr’s private member’s bill.

My name is Alanna Hnatiw, and I’m the mayor of Sturgeon County, a rural municipality in the Edmonton Metro Region. I am also chair of the Edmonton Region Hydrogen HUB, Canada’s first and largest hydrogen hub, which is an alliance of government, Indigenous, academic and economic development leaders. The Edmonton region is also home to Canada’s largest hydrocarbon processing cluster in Alberta’s industrial heartland. As well, the Edmonton region holds 35% of Alberta’s class 1 soil and 1.7 million acres of prime agricultural land.

I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for the opportunity to share our thoughts as it studies Bill C-235.

Sturgeon County’s leadership role in the Edmonton Region Hydrogen HUB project has driven the identification of opportunities and benefits that will provide a pathway forward for Albertans to initiate the Canadian net-zero economy in the future.

Approximately 85% of Alberta’s land mass found in rural municipalities is home to the public infrastructure used by the oil and gas, forestry and agriculture industries. Rural municipalities also host most renewable energy projects in Alberta and have significant experience with both the local challenges and opportunities of transitioning to a green economy.

Achieving the targets set by the federal government to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, reducing emissions by 40% to 50% from 2005 levels by 2030 is a challenging undertaking. However, the development of a hydrogen economy is a critical step to both supporting the energy evolution, creating sustainable jobs and ensuring an adequate supply of clean, affordable and secure energy to meet our demands today and into the future.

We are also working together to implement cost-effective solutions for rural and Indigenous communities for the broad adoption of hydrogen and other clean fuels to demonstrate actions to significantly reduce emissions. For individual rural communities, a green approach will have varying levels of importance and support, but we do know that federal action in positioning local economies to continue to support rural jobs and a broader economic development is crucial. If developed in a way that respects the diversity and challenges of Alberta’s rural communities, it has the potential to be quite effective. The Edmonton Region Hydrogen HUB is an example of how government, Indigenous, academic and economic development leaders are already working together to advance the Edmonton region’s hydrogen economy and ensure long-term economic competitiveness as the world shifts toward a low-carbon future to address climate change.

The division established by this group is one where buses, trains, heavy trucks, home heating and farm equipment all run on zero-emission hydrogen fuel as part of a new clean energy system, establishing these Edmonton region partners as global competitors and leaders in the production and export of low-carbon hydrogen.

Rural municipalities play a vital role in protecting, enhancing and utilizing Alberta’s natural infrastructure, hosting renewable energy projects and working with other levels of government and stakeholders to balance economic growth and environmental protection. Whether it’s land use planning decisions, initiatives such as the regional agriculture master plan to support the conservation of highly productive agricultural land or economic development campaigns, rural municipalities are leaders in balancing ongoing support for more traditional rural sectors such as oil and gas, forestry and agriculture, with adapting to ensure their services and infrastructure meet the needs of emerging industries and energy types. To create an action plan that actually works and balancing the ongoing economic priorities, it is crucial that government work with rural municipalities.

An important part of a greener economy is digital infrastructure. The lack of broadband is a barrier to the utilization of new technology in agriculture and other sectors. Spectrum setting by the telecoms limits the competition, drives up costs and limits the availability of broadband and cell service to the Prairies. The best way to derail such a framework is to create actions that undermine or contradict work already occurring at the local level.

If this bill passes and a framework is developed, Sturgeon County stresses the importance of collaboration with municipalities. We are positioned to host as much engagement as possible, as well-informed policies will be useful in determining whether agriculture land is used to farm the soil, to provide food, fuel and fibre, or farm the sun through conversion to solar and loss of productive land.

Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

David Chartrand, President, Manitoba Métis Federation: I will pay close attention to your hands as they go up and down.

First, thank you for allowing us to speak here today. When speaking of the Prairies, the Red River Métis automatically come to mind. Let me start off, as everyone else has, with my condolences to the late Jim Carr, to his family and to all parliamentarians who serve us as Canadians and as Manitobans. No matter what province we come from, we know how important it is for senators and parliamentarians to work together. Even though you fight each other, you are still friends when you leave the building. I’m sure it affected all of you to see someone like Mr. Carr leave so quickly. It surprised me when I got the message.

I was privileged to meet Mr. Carr, who comes from the Red River homeland of our people in Treaty 1 territory. Mr. Carr approached us regarding this bill and we had many discussions back and forth with him on this bill. I expressed my clear support to it, based on the principle of the bill.

During his question, Senator Cotter raised the importance of all these departments coming together. From my experience — I have been in leadership now for 25 years as president and prior to that, I was an activist on the board — in the Indigenous world and from fighting to find our place in Confederation, most governments operate in silos, as do departments. You go through a nightmare, going from one department to another department, and so on, just to draw them all together. I really like that component of the bill, where all departments have to come together by virtue of legislation ordering them to come together to work on something as vital as the Prairies.

Green is the future. There is no question about that. I think everybody here has grandchildren. If not, you will eventually have grandchildren. Today, the young generation is afraid. They are talking about the future and what it will look like. We’re seeing more storms, more disasters, more floods, and so on. Our temperature in the summer is getting hotter in Manitoba than it ever was. Things are changing and we can see it. Our elders are telling us.

As Métis, we’re born into the green. That is part of who we are, namely, people who try to ensure the environment that existed yesterday — or today — is also here tomorrow. That has not changed in the ideology of our Métis government. We are progressing. We are building a greenhouse in the spring. We’re going to plant 2 million trees a year. Following that, we’ll build another greenhouse and plant 4 million trees a year. That’s our ongoing commitment to make sure that we’re doing our part. We’re also making seven greenhouses to enable vegetation-growing right across the province. We’re tackling it.

We also started something which people sometimes do not support. We’re back in the business — and, this was our bread and butter in the 1800s — of the fur trade. We’re back into catch trapping. We invested $1 million to start buying fur again. That’s important. Many people fought against it because it was unpopular. At the same time, they didn’t realize the effect it was causing to the economy — not only to nature but also to us as Indigenous people. They took away one third of our economy away without replacing it. We now see the danger. The beaver population is skyrocketing. Farmers can tell you every day what’s happening to them. We’re trying to get back to industry. Our artisans and our beaders — everybody needs the fur and the hide.

For over two decades, I have been working deep in the boreal forest, cleaning both the rivers and the creeks. Fish are floating everywhere by the thousands. People don’t know this, but beavers keep making houses and stopping the water from moving. If the water doesn’t move, there is no oxygen and fish can’t breathe. As a result, they’re floating dead in the water, not long after they spawn. We have been doing that for over two decades. We got awards for it. Nobody told us — either federally or provincially — that we needed to do it.

It’s important to recognize this. My Métis government takes this seriously. We have one of the strongest conservation strategies built into our hunting laws in Manitoba. We are ensuring that we are doing our part. We can go on and on about the stuff we’re doing. We put new solar panels around our buildings now, we’re reorganizing all of our infrastructure for more efficiency in our heating systems inside all of our buildings and we’re capitalizing on opportunities.

I have to finish now — I saw the second-hand pop up. I spoke as fast as I could to bring as much as I can to you. The national Red River Métis live all over the Prairies and not just in Manitoba.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ray Orb, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities: I’m the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, or SARM. I was born and raised and live in the small community of Cupar, northeast of Regina, Saskatchewan, with a population of 625 people.

I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for the opportunity to share our association’s thoughts as it studies Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

Our membership is made up of Saskatchewan’s rural municipal governments, and SARM has been the voice of rural Saskatchewan for over 100 years.

Today, I will share the perspective of those we represent by sharing our thoughts on how the bill being proposed would impact our livelihood in rural Saskatchewan.

SARM has considered the proposed legislation and does not support it. Upon review, we determined it will not further the best interests of rural Saskatchewan. The bill proposes a consultation framework be built to facilitate the building of a green economy across all Prairie provinces. It assumes the interests of all those residing in the provinces are the same. That simply is not going to work. Issues facing rural Saskatchewan are unique to us.

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

When rural Saskatchewan has a problem or requires federal or provincial collaboration, we like to work with government directly. We don’t want to be trapped in a bureaucratic framework that attempts to treat everyone the same.

Some of our unique issues include making sure our key resources aren’t stifled by trade agreements, taxes and world politics, while also ensuring access to efficient rail, road, broadband and cellular infrastructure. Issues like these facing rural Saskatchewan are not shared by those living in Calgary, Winnipeg or even Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. In rural Saskatchewan, we are making excellent headway on our own solutions for a greener economy and don’t require a federal framework.

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

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

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

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

In closing, on behalf of Saskatchewan’s RMs and rural Saskatchewan, we thank the standing committee for the opportunity to lend our voice to this important conversation. I look forward to continuing dialogue together to further the interests of all Canadians.

Just in closing, I would like to recognize and offer our condolences on the passing of Jim Carr. SARM had a very good working relationship with Mr. Carr and we will miss his expertise and the interest that he showed in SARM. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. McLauchlin.

Paul McLauchlin, President, Rural Municipalities of Alberta: Thank you for having me today. I’m Paul McLauchlin, President of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta. Proud to be here today. I’m the Reeve of Ponoka County. I’m on my fifth term. I’m excited to have this conversation, and thank you for having us before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, as it relates to Bill C-235.

I had the pleasure of working with the late Jim Carr, and he was a great friend of rural Alberta. Tons of energy, and his passion I think is echoed in this private member’s bill that we’re talking about today.

The good folks I represent, represent 69 municipalities, 85% of the land base in the province of Alberta. The fact is that we actually have some of the largest infrastructure under our governance, and that assists in the agricultural, forestry and oil and gas industries.

We also have a vast majority of renewable projects and, in fact, Alberta is excelling at that. So we have great experience in the local challenges related to transitioning to a green economy.

Now, we recognize this bill seeks to have the federal government evolve a framework that will position rural communities across Alberta and the Prairies to remain sustainable into the future. For individual rural municipalities, a green approach will have different levels of importance and support, and I think that was echoed by the previous speaker.

But we do know that federal action in positioning local economies to continue to support rural jobs and a broader economic development is crucial. We are a country of trade, interprovincial trade, and I’ll discuss that a little later on.

And developing the way that we have to deal with the diversity of the folks I represent in Alberta. Alberta is different from south to north, east to west, and we have different views, different ideas and different goals as a community. That variety is quite huge, but at the same time what we all want to do is protect and utilize Alberta’s amazing natural infrastructure also by hosting renewable projects and working with other levels of government and stakeholders to balance the development and environmental protection as well.

We are not only home to many of the issues and opportunities that this bill would require to develop an action plan around, but we already have some tools in place and the powers to shape them, whether it’s land use planning decisions, property tax incentives or economic development campaigns. Rural municipalities are already at the forefront of balancing this ongoing discussion of the more traditional rural sectors such as oil and gas, forestry and agriculture and adapting those for the future economies and these emerging economies related to energy types.

Vulcan County — the good folks in the south — located in southern Alberta, has one of the largest wind farms and, not only that, is also home to the largest solar farm being developed, a capacity of 400 megawatts. At the same time, agriculture remains the main industry in Vulcan County: 444,000 acres of farmland are still in production. At the same time, oil and gas development was being depleted in Vulcan County. They, in many ways, have been saved by renewable industries coming in and replacing that tax base and providing a mechanism for that community to flourish.

Really, the way to look at this whole entire conversation — and you folks know — is local. Local is where governance is felt, and I think opportunities to engage and have those discussions are important. I heard the prior panels talking about the amazing things we’re already doing. I think there is a tremendous opportunity here to actually leverage what we’re doing already to make a more favourable future. Whether it’s natural infrastructure, looking at agriculture and ways to have agriculture to increase biodiversity, energy and to provide protection to future climate issues, I think is paramount.

I come from beautiful Alberta. We have had 5 of the 10 largest insurance claims as it relates to weather-based disaster. We are highly sensitive to the disasters that are coming in the future, but we can use the landscape and build together.

The one final piece I want to talk about and the reason why I think it’s important that the federal government is having this conversation is net zeroing our grid. This carbon future requires interprovincial trade. We need to move energy from one province to another. We need to move goods and services externally, and to do so, in order for us to meet net zero or this low-carbon future, we need to be able to move commodities and move energy back and forth. It’s critically important that those relationships be built.

I’m excited to talk about this. The other piece I should tell you is that although it’s fascinating to be president and a politician, I’m actually an environmental scientist and I make a living by dealing with all the issues that we can talk about today, so I’m glad to be here today. Rural Alberta has solutions to the future. They were in the past, and I’m excited to have this conversation with you folks today. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

As in the previous panel, I would like to remind each senator that you have four minutes for questions and answers and that does include the answers. I’ll be diligent on those four minutes. With that, we’ll turn it over.

Senator Plett: In light of the time, I guess I’ll be able to ask only one of the witnesses a question. I appreciate your diligence.

I will ask Mr. Chartrand, a fellow Manitoban, my question. Mr. Chartrand, as I always have, congratulations for all you do in moving your agenda and your community forward. You do a great job in the province of Manitoba and in the Prairies.

Mr. Chartrand, you said you support the bill. I support the concept of the bill myself. I support what MP Carr wanted to do, and commend him for it. But in your view, Mr. Chartrand, developing a framework to coordinate local cooperation engagement and the implementation of federal programs across various sectors with the objective of building a green economy in the Prairie provinces, is this not something the government is already doing without a framework? And if so, why do we need a framework? Would that not be a bit of an indictment on this government that it needs a private member’s bill to push it into collaboratively working with the provinces and, indeed, the Indigenous communities? You said you have consulted with Mr. Carr, but this will require the government to consult. Are the provincial governments consulting with you now?

Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for the question, Senator Plett.

Let me say this: no. This is where the problem lies in Manitoba. We have a different premier, a different attitude. But clearly, there is a big grey area there with the province. I think that lack of respect for the law and the Constitution of this land, ensuring consultation does take place would have speeded up — I’ll give you an example. Lake St. Martin, you know it well. I speak for it, but not until consultations are done. Because I’m worried not about tomorrow, but about 10 or 20 years from now. What does it do to the fish species? What does it do to the aquatic species that could invade each lake? We have all these issues. But the province is the one that has been delaying this consultation. It’s unfortunate that they are because they are holding us up. There are so many examples of — if you do proper consultations — like Enbridge. I just said goodbye to Mr. Monaco yesterday. He’s retiring as president of Enbridge. The consultations we were able to do together have left us as partners to this day, and we have a long-term relationship agreement for 50 years. When we start talking about the future, consultation is the way to go.

Senator Plett, do you remember when the UN declaration came about and people were afraid it would create a lack of jobs, kill industry and all these things? It’s not. Right after I heard your issues and other people’s issues, I said publicly that this is not a veto; this is just telling us that we need to talk. We need to get to the table because it’s to the benefit of everyone, including government, industry and Indigenous governments.

From my perspective, a gap occurs there. I don’t know why it still lingers within provincial governments, why they fail to consult with the Métis. They don’t want to recognize my rights. It’s unfortunate, but the law is the law. I have to follow it, like anybody else.

At the end of the day, I think we will succeed in the long run. As I said, we have a new premier in Manitoba now. The premier and I have a good relationship and I hope it will change how we develop the future together when it comes to natural resources.

To me, this bill is like a chain off the UN declaration bill. It has the same ideology behind it. We have a very good relationship with the municipalities in Manitoba right now. I just opened a big building in Dauphin, yesterday. Municipalities were there in droves, and I have a very good relationship with many of them.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all the people who have testified this morning. It has been very interesting.

So far, what have you found in your coordination efforts with the federal and provincial governments on climate change and moving toward a green economy? Please highlight one challenge.

Can I start with you, Mr. Chartrand?

Mr. Chartrand: Thank you very much for the question. I just gave a good example of a failure of one government versus another. Lake St. Martin, of course, had the flood of the century, again. It caused enormous damage, probably in the billions of dollars when you look at the full effect of what happened.

Right now, the challenge we face is that we have a relationship with Canada — they are respecting the Constitution and the law — but we can’t get the province at the same table. That is a big issue. It is stopping us from building this diversion that should happen. Some reserves were completely flooded out, and also our Métis villages, communities and industry. Fishing was affected.

We can’t get the province to come to the table right now. As I said, we have a new premier, so the possibility is there. It shows you the gap that exists. Five years now we’ve fought back and forth and the diversion has not been built. It won’t be built until there are consultations. If necessary, I will use the courts. I don’t want to use them, but I will use them if I have to.

Senator Jaffer: Mayor, would you like to give an example of one of the challenges in the coordination?

Ms. Hnatiw: In my experience with hydrogen, I have had more direct involvement with the provincial government. In terms of the federal government, the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada is there, but it definitely needs more detail and more direct dialogue with provincial governments, municipal governments and industry.

This is a highly competitive energy evolution, globally speaking. It requires current and detailed interaction between all the major players to chart a sequenced approach to the transition of our energy future, as well as the diversification of agriculture.

I support this bill in the fact that there is a request for further consultation throughout different federal ministries. The looping back, checking in, accountability and feedback are important to find out whether the legislation is working and, if not, how to be prepared to change it. We do see legislation that isn’t working, and it’s difficult to go back and fix that.

What I like about this bill is that there is a built-in timeline of checking back to make sure it’s having the effects that were planned and that unintended consequences are not visited on the energy, agriculture and forestry sectors. Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate that.

If I understand this legislation correctly, going back and forth a few times, there is a 12-month time limit after the act comes into force to table a report in Parliament, outlining the framework for the greening of the economy in the Prairie provinces. In this time, the minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces must consult with the provincial government representatives, Indigenous governing bodies and the private sector, with representation from employers and employees in those sectors. That is a lot of groups. Listening to the testimony here today and yesterday, that is a lot of divergent views and interests.

Do you think 12 months will do the job? Will it be enough to stitch together an effective framework?

Mr. Chartrand, I would like to direct this question to you initially, although if there is time, I’d be happy to pass the question to our other witnesses as well.

Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for that question. I’ll give you an example. Just before I left Winnipeg yesterday, we had a leadership council meeting — myself, along with the First Nations and the provincial government — to discuss the future of child welfare. The collaboration of getting us together in a room instead of meeting individually, meeting the First Nations individually and then the minister and then all of us together later, takes time. But if we get together at the onset, where the province comes to the table, we come as a government to the table, and First Nations and municipalities come to the table, then action happens. If you do things in silos, it will take forever versus if you get the team together now and begin a practice of how it should incorporate.

That’s why I was so pleased with the segment in this bill where it forces all the departments to come together. With my years of experience — I have spent 30 years fighting with government — that is the biggest challenge I have ever faced: government, after minister, after minister, after minister, before I can get an answer.

Now it sets the framework. Some people would say 12 months is not enough and some would say it’s too long. From my perspective, if we could all get to the table, knowing we have all have a mandate and responsibility, we can definitely achieve this in 12 months.

Mr. Orb: If I may, I would like to respond to this. Respecting Mr. Carr for presenting this bill, of course, I think in some ways it’s another example of a bill that’s creating division in our country. The Prairies — as far as I’m concerned, being from Saskatchewan — feel that we’re being targeted a bit. We have lots of examples of what we’re doing to create a green economy already.

In the previous panel, there was a gentleman who talked about nuclear energy. That’s an example of something that’s already happening in Saskatchewan. We’re already being consulted by SaskPower, who delivers the electricity in this province. First Nations are a part of that consultation and municipalities are there. The province has picked two sites for small modular reactors.

That’s why we’re saying we don’t need another bill. We’re already doing these things. We recognize that farmers are sequestering carbon by doing the beneficial practices, and ranchers too. They are doing a lot of good stewardship, especially with species at risk, but they are not being recognized for that. So I think instead of legislation that says that, let’s recognize people who are already contributing toward the green economy.

Senator Cormier: My question is for Mayor Alanna Hnatiw, and I will ask my question in French.

[Translation]

Mayor, in your presentation, you mentioned the issue of access to digital technologies to ensure the success of the consultations and collaboration that the bill seeks to achieve.

We know the federal government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians have access to high-speed internet by 2030. In fact, I believe your area was provided with high-speed internet in the spring of 2022.

My question for you is as follows: in order to ensure the successful implementation of this bill, should the federal government accelerate high-speed internet access before 2030? Also, what are the ongoing challenges in your regions with respect to internet services?

[English]

Ms. Hnatiw: Thank you for the question.

The decarbonization of agriculture definitely will rely on access to digitalization technologies so as to reduce inputs required in farming, as well as just to be able to gather information and educate farmers and small business owners.

Affordable access to internet and cellular service is important for rural communities in every sector that they do business. This is a barrier that we see. As well, large industries looking to invest expect that we have relevant and developed telecommunications available for them to do their business in any sector. That is clearly not the case.

We’ve had businesses move out to Sturgeon County with the absolute assumption that they can use their GIS or GPS services on their heavy equipment, only to find out that we don’t have broadband and internet services to support their management in their offices; they are stunned by that, when they can see the lights of downtown Edmonton, but if they move a half hour out to a rural community, they walk back 10 years in time, if not further.

This bill speaks to the infrastructure that will enable the evolution of the economy in the Prairie provinces. The infrastructure of telecommunications is vital to this, across sectors.

Senator Cotter: Thanks to each of the four of you. This has been a fascinating presentation. It would be delightful if it could go on, from my point of view, for some hours.

I want to just make an observation that, Mr. Chartrand, you made and roll it into my sense or interpretation of the bill, and work my way to asking a question of you, Mr. Orb, and you, Mr. McLauchlin.

I should say, Mr. Orb, that your remarks regarding agriculture and the rural communities of Saskatchewan correspond, to some degree, with a speech I gave yesterday, although if you had given it, it would have been better.

Mr. Chartrand observed the siloed nature of the federal government in his experience; I said yesterday that had been mine when I was a provincial official years ago.

My sense implicitly is that Mr. Carr was looking to make a statement with this bill that federal departments that have a role to play in the economy of the Prairies need to get their act together better and coordinate better among themselves. That’s the first point.

The second point is that the Government of Canada does have some legitimate place in the economy of the West, and it has exercised that authority by adopting a series of policy positions, some of them favourable to Canadians in the Prairies and some not so favourable. This was intended, as I read it, as a way that Ottawa would do better in rolling out those programs, implementing them, which is actually the language of the bill.

My impression, Mr. Orb, is that what Mr. Carr was after was not a one-size-fits-all but, really, the opposite. That there would be local cooperation in terms of making those federal programs as adaptable as possible to the needs of rural Saskatchewan or rural Alberta, or some other parts of the Prairie economy.

I’m interested, if that were the model, that is, those programs that are already blessed — and I have bundles of material with piles of initiatives that are ready to go, and some have already gone — if there were a dialogue that was relevant to the local or rural Saskatchewan community in terms of how this program should unfold, would that still be problematic for you?

Mr. McLauchlin might have a comment on that as well.

Mr. Orb: Thanks for the question.

On behalf of SARM, we’re stating that agriculture and the industries within the rural municipalities, they stand out because they contribute a lot not only to our national GDP but to our province as well. They’re really important to us. There is a difference.

Importantly, the consultations, we believe, should be done before bills are brought forward. We had no information at all about this bill. We basically read about this. The issue at risk is when bills are presented and passed — obviously, they’re at the Senate level — there can be amendments made both at the House of Commons, and at some point they could be made at the Senate as well. We take issue with those too.

When I was speaking about divisiveness, lo and behold, our province is coming forward with its own legislation to deal with resources. It’s called The Saskatchewan First Act. It will be debated in the new year, and I’m thinking by spring it will be passed. It pits us, in some ways, against the federal government, and maybe against our province. It’s not helpful. It’s better to consult beforehand. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McLauchlin, if you wanted to quickly respond, as per Senator Cotter’s request.

Mr. McLauchlin: I will be extremely quick.

Definitely, my conversation with Minister Carr was to that point exactly. The federal government can do better. They can work locally and make those connections.

I would agree 100% that the intent of this was to change that focus. No offence to you good folks in Ottawa, but you live in a bubble. We live in a bubble too. This is to break those bubbles. I think that was the intent. That is why my organization is in favour of this. We want to tell our story. Ray has done a phenomenal job of telling the story, and Mr. Chartrand and Ms. Hnatiw. We have a story to tell in the Prairies, and we want to teach you what we’re doing, the amazing things we’re doing, and how we can work together. Thank you.

Senator Klyne: Welcome to our panel guests. Thank you for your remarks and your answers.

My question is for Mr. Chartrand. Tansi, David.

The Manitoba Métis Federation has taken substantial and significant strides in housing, in property management, providing opportunities for education and training, creating jobs, businesses and wealth for your citizens, not to mention the many other accomplishments through your established departments and affiliates of the Manitoba Métis Federation.

All of this was done largely through a reactive basis on your part, taking an independent approach to things and cutting through the silos, knocking down boardroom doors, developing and building partnerships with senior levels of government and captains of industry. I just cannot mention how many accomplishments have been made on that reactive basis.

Do you think the framework of this bill and the requirement of consultation, collaboration and inclusion of stakeholders, particularly the Métis of Manitoba, will take your efforts to another level? It’s very proactive. It plays right into your wheelhouse.

Mr. Chartrand: Thank you for the question.

Clearly, the Manitoba Métis Federation, the Red River Métis, of course, makes it very clear. We have over a thousand employees in my government. You can see there is a massive amount of people employed working in different sectors and fields, a lot of it in business.

As I said to the UN delegation when it came out, I said this is not a veto. This gives us a template for what all of us have to do to get together to make it work. This is the same thing with this particular bill. This is not a veto. This is a blueprint that tells us how to get to work. We shouldn’t be afraid of it. We should embrace it.

I know that Mr. Orb says that everyone is involved in Saskatchewan. He never mentions the Métis once. Again, from my perspective, we are not First Nations. I have my own rights in the Constitution. I am protected under the Constitution and have section 35 rights to protect my people.

When you look at our unemployment ratio, many of our economies are gone. Our forest economy is gone. Our tourism economy is gone. The last thing we have right now, and we are trying to keep it alive, is the commercial fisheries in most of our villages, which are spread throughout Manitoba. Of course, our citizens belong throughout the Prairies. When we look at this landscape, this gives us the clear intent of how we all have to come to the table.

Senator Klyne, let me share this with you right now. Cold Lake, Manitoba — we might as well call it “Orange Lake.” The mine was shut in 1940, but no one put in any provisions or anything else to stop it or make sure they cleaned it or to control what they left. They took the water, drained it out of the lake, put the tailings underneath the ground, the water, the lake, put back the water. Now, 50 years later, we have an orange lake, and it’s contaminating the entire area.

This tells us that we need to get together the municipalities, the provincial governments, the federal government and, especially, the Indigenous governments. We have a special place in that discussion. If we look at municipalities — no disrespect to them. I’m not speaking negatively of them. They’re a very important aspect. As I said, I have a very good relationship with reeves and mayors throughout my territory. But when you look at it, they’re still under provincial jurisdiction. The province can still wipe them out or have influence and authority over them, but they cannot do this to us because we are specially designed in a separate way. We will defend our section 35 rights, no matter what.

The main players at the table will give you the comfort of assuring the future. We believe in industry. I’m a strong entrepreneur. I believe in industry. But in order for industry to work, it has to have the ability to discuss, negotiate and bring all the players to the table. That’s why I like this particular bill. It draws in all the other departments. I don’t have to force them or try to bring them to the table. They have to come to the table.

From my perspective, it’s a win-win for everyone. Everyone gets to know what is happening. I think all of us want to support industry. We have a lot of farmers and ranchers. You heard Melanie Wowk speak earlier; she’s Métis. From our perspective, it’s a win-win for everyone.

[Translation]

Senator Petitclerc: My question is for Mr. McLauchlin, but if other witnesses also wish to respond, they should do so.

What I’m hearing today and what I heard yesterday is the extent of the challenges you are facing in your respective sectors, but also the success stories, the innovations and the creativity regarding this green economy.

Are we doing well in sharing knowledge and sharing best practices?

Does this bill have the potential to provide another opportunity for greater sharing of knowledge, successes and best practices?

[English]

Mr. McLauchlin: Thank you for the question and a great question because I think we need to tell our stories. We probably aren’t doing a great job. Canadians are humble, and we don’t like to brag, and we need to brag a little bit. Mr. Orb talked about the amazing things they’re doing in Saskatchewan. Mr. Chartrand was talking about the Métis folks in Manitoba. Mayor Hnatiw is picking up the conversations related to hydrogen. Indigenous communities across Canada are involved in renewable energy, talking about landscape-level ways to address future climate change.

That is why I’m looking favourably at this bill. We need to tell our story and share our story, where we can have the opportunity to share our knowledge and experience.

What’s happened in Alberta is exactly what’s happened to me. I’m an environmental scientist; I have been for 25 years. I started in the oil and gas industry. I’ve worked on every major pipeline in Alberta; I’ve worked in six oil sands. The majority of my work right now is on wind and solar. I’ve actually leveraged my skills to work in renewables, and I work in both industries now. The transferability of those skills has been tremendous.

At the same time, what’s also occurred is my friends in an Indigenous community are picking up the mantle, much as David Chartrand was referencing, and they are starting to push for co-management and making future decisions based on stewardship of the lands. We need to share that story together, and that’s why I support the intent that I believe was behind this bill by Minister Carr — to tell our stories and move forward together and to recognize our differences. Thank you.

Ms. Hnatiw: If I may, thank you for the question. There’s an opportunity through the collaboration here to have an education and an acknowledgement of what is already taking place. Because more is taking place than what Ottawa may realize. This could be done in 12 months. We need to learn to move at the speed of relevance. If we have 12 months, we’ll take 12 months. If we have 12 years, we’ll take 12 years.

This bill also needs to determine whether this is a bill about collaboration or compliance because it is the compliance side, compliance to bad legislation, that has people concerned. If there is a surety that this is collaboration, learning, and the ability, as Mr. McLauchlin has said, to tell our story across this country and then around the world, we’ll all benefit from it. Thank you.

Mr. Orb: In response to Mr. Chartrand, I didn’t mean to leave out the Métis people, of course, because we do recognize them in Saskatchewan. Our duty to consult as municipalities is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. We have to deal with the First Nation communities or the Métis communities, as the case may be. We don’t have both in all of our communities, of course, but we recognize that they have their issues that they need to be concerned about, too.

Going back to this legislation, we already have a framework in place. I go back to Bill C-69, with which many senators will be familiar. There’s a provision in that legislation that any projects that we want to put forward — in our country, I guess — require a duty to consult. That’s why I’m saying there is repetition with this bill. However, telling the story about how we do work together — there are lots of good stories out there. We have been working with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Mr. McLauchlin and I are involved with that association. There’s a good venue there for people to learn and to share information and to find it there as well.

Mr. Chartrand: Mr. Chair, I would just say a couple things. First, what does the Prairie provinces have? We have natural resources. We don’t have people. The majority of people are in Ontario and Quebec, but we do have natural resources in abundance. It will depend on this country and the world what route we take or choose in the Prairies to play our role to make not only a greener country but a greener world.

The Manitoba Métis Federation of Red River has now removed our borderlines. Our member citizens are joined throughout Saskatchewan and Alberta. We have thousands and thousands of people who get our citizenship from my government in Manitoba. I’m not just based in Manitoba anymore. I’m a national government for my people of the Red River.

From that perspective, we have a very important role to play in every province in the Prairies. We need to ensure that this greener legislation that we’re talking about — we all know that’s where we’re going; everyone in the world knows. This green focus is different than the Bill C-69 that you’re speaking of right now. This is a specific focus on the green investments. For example, as we said, we’re going to plant 4 million trees a year, and we’re going to do our part, but more can be done by all of us.

Green is coming. We need to get ready in the Prairies. They’re going to depend on us. We are the natural resources; there’s no question about it. We have to do our part. Having legislation like this, it gives us the blueprint where all of us will come to the table. It will allow us to talk about these issues, instead of hiding behind closed doors. That’s my support for this particular bill, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I do have a couple of questions, first to the mayor. Our deputy chair, Senator Simons, would have asked you this, I’m sure, if she had been here because she sent it our way. She’s in Edmonton this week participating in a soil health conference.

She shared with us that you’re involved in a blue hydrogen project. Can you share your thoughts on how we should work toward making a political and cultural transition away from oil refining and upgrading toward a hydrogen matrix, and how this framework might help or hinder such a move?

Ms. Hnatiw: Thank you for the question. I will first say that I do believe we should be technology-agnostic around the energy evolution. When it comes to hydrogen specifically, we should be colour-agnostic and focus more on the carbon intensity of the hydrogen whether it’s made through electrolysis or through autothermal reforming.

In the Edmonton region, we are already producing hydrogen for the basic chemical manufacturing, fertilizer, as well as refining bitumen into diesel. We do know that the energy transition is going to take some time because demand is still growing. In climates where we get to minus 35 or minus 40 degrees Celsius and we still need to produce food, fuel and fibre, we need to ensure people have the energy sources they need. We need to be able to use whatever our geology and geography give us to use. In Alberta, that’s carbon capture through sequestration of carbon in the pore space here, but in other areas, it might be through methane. Where there is hydroelectricity, there could be — as I said — the use of electrolysis creating hydrogen. It can be used as a fuel and as electricity. It has quite a broad application. It can be used to heat commercial and residential buildings as well as provide fuel or feedstock for industry.

A level of collaboration is needed to transition the electricity grid, connect these district energies and then connect this country. As Mr. McLauchlin said earlier, the ability to be able to move our commodities, energy and electricity across this country is very important.

Again, I don’t want to get stuck on colours, but with the resources that Alberta and, as I say, even Saskatchewan has — in Saskatchewan, natural gas would be the feedstock. In other places, it will be steam and other energies.

I’m not sure if that answers your question, but we are looking to decarbonize heavy industry, transportation and — as I said — agriculture and oil and gas. However, it needs to be a responsible and well-sequenced transition so that we have secure, affordable energy for our country and for the world at large. Right now, even supplying our liquid natural gas would help other countries decarbonize beyond what they’re currently at. Energy security is very important, and using the skill sets we have here is very important. We appreciate the support of provincial, federal and municipal governments as well as that of First Nations and Métis communities in sequencing a highly complex transformation in our energy system.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have one further question for Mr. McLauchlin. We’ve heard your thoughts from a Rural Municipalities of Alberta’s perspective. From your professional capacity as a biologist, is this a good bill to develop a framework? I’ll leave it at that — from your professional perspective.

Mr. McLauchlin: I appreciate being able to provide my own personal opinion. I’m never asked that, and my wife doesn’t let me do that either.

I think that conversation and dialogue are always where solutions lie. I remember in my community, there was a company that wanted to use agricultural waste to produce fuels. It sounded like a green project, except there’s actually no such thing as agricultural waste. What they would have actually done is remove all of the straw available to the livestock industry from about 100 kilometres around this plant that was perceived as green. They never thought of that. The reason they never thought of that is because they sat in their bubble.

I’ve been a professional scientist for 25 years, and there’s wisdom in crowds. I’ve never met a single person who has had a single solution on their own. But I’ve sure come up with some amazing solutions together with dialogue, working with the Métis and Indigenous communities and working with all levels of government. I work on project teams and with amazing, high-performing people, and what I thought was going to happen was different than what came on the back end. But it was always better because we talked about it. In my professional and even my political experience, there’s nothing wrong with holding people accountable to dialogue, ensuring they have talked and breaking down the silos, which was discussed earlier today.

If we want to move forward and solve these future problems, we need to do it together and not on our own.

The Chair: Would any of the other witnesses care to comment briefly?

Mr. Chartrand: One of the things I hope the Senate talks about is this: When talking about green, there’s a strong push for geothermal and the rest of it. Senator Klyne asked me a question about the development of our infrastructure — building apartment and office buildings and so on and so forth. They’re pushing us to put geothermal in our houses. The cost of geothermal is very high. We won’t see the benefit until 20 years from now. From our perspective, there’s got to be special consideration. If you want us to go down that road, there’s got to be funding set aside for that particular initiative to be developed. We will do it, but I just don’t have the luxury and resources to put geothermal everywhere in my houses’ infrastructure and wait 20 years to get my money back. We’re not that rich yet. One day when we get there, maybe I can wait. But I can’t wait now.

Perhaps the Senate can raise that issue about where the funding will come from when it deals with things such as geothermal and the rest of what the country is pushing us to do, but that we still don’t have the resources to do so.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

With that, colleagues, there appear to be no more questions. I’d like to thank our witnesses today for their participation in the meeting. As I’ve said before, your assistance in the committee’s examination of this bill is very much appreciated. With that, thank you very much.

Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall the title stand postponed?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall clause 2 carry?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: I heard on division? On division.

Shall clause 3 carry?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: I heard on division.

Shall clause 4 carry?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: On division.

Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall the title carry?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall the bill carry?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: On division.

No amendments were adopted. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?

An Hon. Senator: No.

The Chair: I’m hearing “no.”

Colleagues, is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?

Senator Tannas: Did we ask if clause 5 would carry?

The Chair: I apologize. That’s not in my notes. We did not, Senator Tannas. Thank you for that.

Colleagues, shall clause 5 carry?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

The Chair: On division. Thank you.

We have done the rest.

Colleagues, is it agreed that the bill be reported to the Senate?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

(The committee adjourned.)