Building a Green Prairie Economy Bill
Third Reading--Debate
December 15, 2022
Moved third reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.
He said: Honourable senators, perhaps it is the season, perhaps the sense of honour I have in serving in this place, perhaps the honour of sponsoring this bill. In any event, I am filled with a sense of joy today and, as a result, I’m going to deviate from my normally dour, humourless, serious speaking style in my remarks.
My grandfather was a good, devout, God-fearing, churchgoing man. He never used bad language in his life. One day, a friend came to him and said, “Bill, I’d like to learn a bit more about your religion.” My grandfather was always on the lookout for a convert and took the man along to the church service on Sunday. As the church service began and something occurred at the front of the church, the friend would lean over and say to my grandfather, “What does that mean,” and my grandfather would patiently explain. A little later, the friend would lean over again and say, “What does that mean,” and my grandfather would patiently explain.
About halfway through the church service, the priest went over to a lectern very much like this one, carefully removed his wristwatch and placed it on the lectern, as I am doing now. The friend leaned over to my grandfather and asked “What does that mean,” and my grandfather shook his head and replied sadly, “Not a damn thing.”
So, Your Honour, when my two hours is up — I think I get two hours — somebody should give me a signal.
In the same vein, but a little more connected to this bill, yesterday afternoon, Senator Gagné came over to chat with me briefly and confidentially. Now, Senator Gagné does not do this very often, so I had fairly high hopes. Perhaps she was coming to tell me that the Prime Minister wants to give me some kind of honour for sponsoring this bill, perhaps there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada or they need an ambassador to Ireland. So if I may riff off of some earlier remarks, visions of sugar plums danced in my head briefly.
I am revealing a confidence here, but what Senator Gagné came to ask me was how short could I keep my remarks on this bill? I apologize for revealing a confidence, senator. The answer is six minutes, at least from now.
Let me begin by thanking the leadership of the Senate for developing a pathway so that Bill C-235 could be considered in a timely and highly expeditious way — I know all too expeditious for some.
I want to express a second message of appreciation to the leaders of the groups in the Senate. I serve on the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, ably chaired by Senator Black and very well supported by Ferda Simpson and her team. We work away conscientiously and it’s a delightful collegial committee to serve on. But we do this work in relative obscurity compared to many of the other higher-profile committees of the Senate.
My brother brought this point home to me recently. He called to tell me that he and his wife were watching the deliberations of the Agriculture Committee on CPAC. He indicated that, rather than our normal situation of being on the SenVu channel, being on CPAC created national viewership, and that with he and his wife watching, the viewership had probably gone up from five to seven people. My brother is retired, but he seems to have a part‑time job making sure I don’t get too full of myself, and he’s pretty good at it.
However, this week we were blessed at the Agriculture Committee with the regular attendance of the government leader in the Senate, Senator Gold; the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Plett; and the presence of the leaders of the other three groups — Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Cordy and Senator Tannas. They took an active interest in the matters before the committee related to Bill C-235. Senators Gold and Plett particularly and constructively engaged with the committee and the dialogue with witnesses, and I want to express my appreciation to them. The Agriculture Committee is not always blessed with Senate royalty in this way.
As well, I want to extend my thanks to Senator Black and Ferda Simpson and her team for the very good work they did in making the consideration of Bill C-235 and its reaching third reading a reality today; and also to the witnesses who, on short notice, appeared before the committee earlier this week, particularly the Attorney General and Minister of Justice from my province, the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, who made herself available on short notice for a full two hours of the Senate’s considerations earlier this week.
This is a private member’s bill, sponsored in the other place by MP Jim Carr, as you know. Mr. Carr would be delighted that the bill has reached this stage in this place today. Indeed, when I spoke with him last week, he told me that only 3% of private members’ bills from the other place make it across the finish line.
I had hoped to tell him today — subject to your judgment shortly — that due to his good work, that percentage had gone up a little bit. Alas, I will never get that opportunity. I also wanted to tell him that I was honoured to have sponsored this bill.
As I mentioned at second reading, the main focus of the bill is in two parts that address greater coordination among a group of key federal departments and ministries with respect to the Prairie economy. The second part of the bill relates to greater coordination and cooperation regarding the implementation of federal programs associated with a green sustainable Prairie economy, such coordination and cooperation to take place with a range of interest holders and stakeholders in the Prairie region, most notably provinces, municipalities, Indigenous leadership, employers, worker associations and the like.
I should add, as Senator Gold highlighted in the committee’s deliberations yesterday, that the bill also contains a paragraph 5 that deals with a meaningful accountability framework that requires regular reporting by the lead minister federally to both houses of Parliament and the opportunity for periodic parliamentary scrutiny of the success of the initiative.
Although we did not have extensive discussions, my sense of Mr. Carr’s objectives for the bill were that it would generate greater internal coordination of development programs in this area — and this was needed — and greater dialogue with the interests and communities affected by these initiatives, particularly the partnerships with provinces, and this would be critical to the adoption, adjustment and ultimately the success of the federally adopted plans.
In this respect, the bill carries in that way a modest implicit critique of the government practice to date in rolling out sustainability initiatives on the prairies.
With respect to the bill itself, we did hear mixed reactions. One concern in particular was that there was not sufficient consultation with respect to the bill. I think that’s a legitimate observation, but here I would like to come to at least a small degree of defence of Mr. Carr. It will be remembered that this was a private member’s bill — not a government bill. Given the low predictability of success of private members’ bills, it’s a little bit unfair to have expected the government itself to roll up its sleeves and conduct a wide range of consultations regarding this bill.
Although Mr. Carr, even though his health was failing, spoke with many people across the Prairies about the bill, he was, after all, only one member of Parliament with limited resources — and it seems a little unfair to suggest that he should have conducted the equivalent of government consultations while the bill was under consideration, or even before presenting it.
If I may return for a moment, and finally, to the gentle, implicit critique embedded in Mr. Carr’s bill regarding the need for the government to do better on both fronts — within itself, and in engagement with the communities for whom this set of initiatives will matter — and also, as Senator Gold noted, to be accountable, there is, I think, a second message from Mr. Carr in this bill: It is the belief that the government can do better and, with this legislative directive, will do better. I am also hopeful.
Indeed, you will be familiar with the phrase, which I think is also implicit here, that Mr. Carr seeks to “fix the problem, not the blame.” Another way of saying it is that, with this bill, Mr. Carr is encouraging us to light a candle, rather than curse the darkness. That seems, to me, to be a good and apt metaphor for both this bill and, perhaps, for Mr. Carr’s life. If lighting the candle doesn’t work, there will be plenty of time to curse the darkness. But in these days and in honour of Mr. Carr — a very fine parliamentarian and human being — it strikes me that we should pursue the more optimistic road.
Thank you for your attention. I hope that you will support the bill when it comes to a vote.
Let me begin my remarks in a similar fashion to what Senator Cotter did: I will also use a church illustration — not about my grandfather, but about me. I was honoured when I was asked by a church in Alberta — that my children attend — whether I would deliver the message. Now, that might come as a surprise to many of you that I would even be asked to deliver the message at a Sunday morning service, but, nevertheless, I was. They gave me the podium at about 11:30 in the morning, and I asked, “How much time do I have to speak?” And I was told by the chair, “You have unlimited time. You can speak as long as you want. I need to tell you that at 12 p.m., we will all get up and go home, but you can continue to speak as long as you want.”
So I won’t take exception to your leaving at 1:30 p.m. or 2 p.m. while I’m rambling here. You do as you think is necessary.
Colleagues, I would like to begin my third-reading speech on Bill C-235 by once again acknowledging the heart and intent of the man behind it — my friend, and yours, the late Honourable Jim Carr. As I mentioned at second reading, Jim and I were political adversaries, but I never doubted his love for Canada, his love for the Prairies and his deep admiration for Manitoba. It was this passion that drove him to envision Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, and brought him to Ottawa in the last week of his life to cheer the bill over the finish line in the other place. He, at least, got to see that.
Jim had a heart of gold, and I believe he only envisioned good coming from this initiative. In principle, I can understand what he was trying to achieve. It was a grand effort at collaboration between the federal government, the provinces, municipalities, Indigenous peoples, industry and business to facilitate a priority close to Jim’s heart. I commend my friend for this effort and for his intent, and I have a great respect for what he wanted to achieve.
Regrettably, however, the plan has one major flaw: It cannot succeed unless the federal government implements the bill in the same spirit in which Jim authored it — a spirit of collegiality and collaboration. This is something that this government is clearly incapable of.
This fact was on clear display even at our committee meetings, colleagues. More than one witness mentioned how pleased, and even surprised, they were to be invited to speak to the bill at committee. You might see this as a compliment, but I could not help but see it as a serious indictment of the government. When witnesses from key sectors of the economy are surprised to be called to the table on issues that could potentially have a significant impact on their sector, it is telling us that this government has a terrible track record when it comes to consulting.
You have to remember that the government did not initiate this bill. This is a private member’s bill, as Senator Cotter has rightly said — a bill that will require, however, the government to consult and collaborate. If the government had been doing its job, this bill would never have been necessary. Needing a private member’s bill to spur consultations and collaboratively put together a plan on an important issue is a damning indictment of this government’s track record, and does not leave me hopeful that the bill will achieve what Jim Carr envisioned.
In many ways, I think that the way the government has treated the Prairie provinces over the last seven years set this bill up for failure. It’s the primary reason why none of the provinces want it, and this fact speaks volumes about this government’s relationship with the Prairie provinces. MP Pat Kelly put it this way in the other place:
. . . this bill will do nothing other than compel a process, which the people affected do not want, by a federal government on unwilling provinces in furtherance of objectives, which the people of the provinces affected are not in agreement, in order to report back to a federal government that does not listen and has a track record for which it can be expected it will impose further harm on the three Canadian provinces that have already been severely harmed by the government.
I’d say that’s a pretty fair summary. And if you think it is a bit harsh, you need to understand that currently the government’s flagship policies to “green” the Prairie economy are the carbon tax and the fertilizer reduction initiative — both of which are extremely damaging to the Prairie economy, and did not involve true consultations. You have to remember Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and you have to remember Bill C-48, the “no more natural resources development” bill. The Prairie governments have opposed all these initiatives — only to have them rammed down their throats in the end. That’s the federal government’s idea of consultation.
So you’ll have to forgive me if I am not as optimistic as some other senators about the federal government’s ability to implement a framework that requires true consultation and collaboration — and actually helps the Prairie economy. That’s never been their priority, and nothing suggests that this bill will suddenly now make it their priority. It was Jim Carr’s priority. Jim loved the Prairies. But nothing this government says — or does — suggests that it feels the same way.
Just consider the fact that all three Prairie provinces oppose this bill, yet the government put its weight behind it to see it pass quickly. They basically made it a government bill, given the way the Leader of the Government conducted himself. I don’t recall when the Leader of the Government in the Senate showed up in an ex officio capacity at a committee meeting on private members’ business. There were clearly some marching orders from the Prime Minister’s Office, or PMO, on this.
That, colleagues, is regrettable, not only because we did not have a true opportunity to do our due diligence, but also because it signals to the provinces what they can expect going forward: more of the same.
Colleagues, out of my respect and admiration for Jim Carr, I made a commitment to him to not stand in the way of this bill proceeding. Even though I cannot support the bill, I have fulfilled that commitment, and I would be fine to see the bill pass on division. But that, colleagues, I will leave in your hands. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.
I want to go on the record about my concern about the expedited process of this bill in the Senate — a bill that is not a government bill but has been given special privilege, a privilege that has superseded government bills on the floor — a process I have not witnessed before.
I understand that this special privilege and exception were ratified by the leaders of the four caucuses. As an unaffiliated senator, I am not part of these caucuses, so I was not party to nor aware of this deal being made, nor do I agree. Therefore, there was not unanimous agreement to this process that seeks to marginalize, exclude and silence certain segments of the Canadian population.
While I understand that this bill is being given prompt consideration as a way to honour the legacy of a dearly departed colleague, I have profound concern that this is the sole reason why we are asked to rush this bill through. I personally didn’t know our colleague, but from the tributes I have heard, I would believe that he would want his legacy to incorporate equity, diversity, inclusion, respect, relationship, integrity, trust, reconciliation and public trust. Any prompt and exceptional consideration requires rigorous examination to maintain public trust and transparency. However, this bill has spent a mere three days before the Senate.
The second-reading debate began just two days ago, and here we are today facing a final vote on a very complex bill, a bill that doesn’t require speedy passage. This process included the decision to hold only one committee meeting to hear the views of the many different rights holders and stakeholders. This study did not include a single First Nations witness to be heard on matters that greatly impact them as rights holders, impact their treaty rights, their economic rights, their human rights. But you know this, you passed Bill C-15.
As many of you will know from correspondence we have all received over the past 24 hours, First Nations were unaware of this impending legislation and of the extremely truncated timeline in the Senate. This precluded First Nations from the opportunity to register their concern with this bill. In discussion on the process being adopted by the Senate, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or AMC, had the following comment, “The lack of notice and involvement of First Nations is as ridiculous as it is disrespectful.”
This sentiment, colleagues, is telling. While it is blunt, it is a belief that I agree with wholeheartedly. It is a well-established role and function of the Senate to give voice to minority rights and interests in the review of legislation. As senators, we have a duty to promote core principles and values of our democratic system, especially given the Senate’s traditional role in acting on behalf of groups under-represented in the House of Commons, whereby the Supreme Court of Canada has noted in Reference re Senate Reform, 2014:
Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process.
However, yet again, we find ourselves enabling a process that willfully sidelines and quiets these marginalized voices from our discourse. This is especially troubling, as this is a bill that has an immediate and substantial impact on First Nations in the Prairie provinces. As senators, we hold a unique public office that requires us as parliamentarians to confront racism without reservation and to ensure the integrity of the institution.
Yesterday, honourable senators received a written submission from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs highlighting their concern with Bill C-235. Within their submission, they expressed the deficit they have been placed in by the Senate’s actions. In their words, “This has severely reduced [AMC’s] ability to properly prepare and seek to be a witness to speak to it.”
We received the same. I know that MKO had put in a submission to speak.
Let us be clear: The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs have underscored their support for the development of a green economy. However, as they rightfully maintain, this approach:
. . . must be done with First Nations, as Treaty partners with the Crown, taking a much larger role in matters that affect Treaty lands and First Nations traditional territories and the waters that run through them.
AMC has stated, colleagues, that Bill C-235 represents:
. . . the development of a framework through a legislated consultation and engagement process that maintains the status quo and does not consider current developments that impact on their inherent and Treaty rights of First Nations in Manitoba and other provinces.
Honourable senators, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs highlight a greater and more direct concern with this legislation when they write:
Bill C-235 deals with the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, all of which have Natural Resource Transfer Acts that purported to transfer control over Crown lands and natural resources within these provinces from the federal government to the provincial governments that did not have the free, prior, and informed consent of First Nations. In the AMC’s view, supporting legislation that directly affects the NRTA, Treaty lands and rights, self-determination and sovereignty of First Nations in Manitoba can be interpreted as supporting the status quo and accepting the unfinished business that has yet to be resolved.
Honourable senators, it is important to note that tomorrow the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations is having a press conference to announce a lawsuit they are initiating on the Natural Resources Transfer Acts. This lawsuit has the support of First Nations chiefs in both Manitoba and Alberta. Colleagues, with this foreknowledge, we are all now aware that this lawsuit is imminent. Moving to pass federal legislation that will interfere with that process is both reckless and against the usual practice of the Senate, especially when it involves a bill that doesn’t require speedy passage. As senators, we require clarity on this upcoming lawsuit.
Colleagues, we must consider profound legislation that we passed in this chamber, Bill C-15, legislation that will align Canadian law to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. This chamber voted in support of this bill, affirming the Senate’s intent that the articles of UNDRIP serve as guiding principles when approaching the drafting and implementation of federal legislation as it pertains to its impact on, and inclusion of, Indigenous peoples in Canada.
Bill C-235 represents a litmus test on how it respects the principles of UNDRIP. A foundational feature of UNDRIP is that it requires Canada to work with, engage and consult directly with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis. This show of respect and conciliation is sorely missing from this bill.
This lack of respect and conciliation is demonstrated clearly through the committee process of Bill C-235. First Nations have expressed that they wish to be heard as witnesses on this legislation. As they were not consulted in the development of the bill, it is critical that space be made for them to be heard during committee study. Yet, as we know, the committee examination of this bill was negligible. It took place yesterday, with just one panel of witnesses being heard. Not a single First Nations voice was heard as part of that discussion. What were the factors taken into consideration to invite some and not others?
Honourable senators, we must look inward to determine if passing Bill C-235 at this time is responsible, equitable and just. If we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge that we have not been allowed to be fulsome, diligent and, therefore, not responsible in the study of this bill.
First Nations and others who will be negatively impacted but not given the opportunity to be heard on this matter — despite a desire to do so — should be reason enough to prompt us to momentarily delay the final vote. Silencing is violent behaviour and not a good foundation for any bill.
Delaying a final vote until early in the new year will not have a deleterious effect on the bill. However, silencing First Nations when they are requesting to be heard will have a deleterious effect on Canada, including the Senate. We must then ask ourselves what the purpose was of passing previous legislation that purported to advance self-determination and establish a nation-to-nation relationship.
Colleagues, it is not too late to do the right thing and delay the troublingly swift passage of this bill. This will allow all impacted stakeholders a chance to be heard and ensure that we, senators, are dealing with legislation in a responsible, respectful way, practising sober second thought.
