Moved second reading of Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.

He said: I rise to speak to Bill C-235 this afternoon. I do so with mixed emotions. As we heard in the remarks of Senator Gagné earlier today, we are moving forward with the bill and I am sponsoring a bill which, in the House of Commons, was led by Honourable Jim Carr who passed away yesterday after a heroic battle with cancer.

I did not know Mr. Carr well, but I greatly admired him — a view that was widely held in both this place and the other place. Indeed, Mr. Carr continued his work as a parliamentarian right up to the last day of his life. I hope this bill will be both his legacy and a meaningful contribution to strengthening a sustainable economy in the Prairie provinces of Canada.

In remarks that appeared in The Globe and Mail obituary with respect to Mr. Carr, the last sentence is a quote from him which reads, “How could we not be humbled by the greatness of this magnificent country?”

I have largely thrown away my previously prepared remarks, not feeling that they were particularly appropriate in light of Mr. Carr’s death. They were very bureaucratic, I thought. Indeed, I lay awake much of last night trying to reconstruct a set of remarks for today. It is remarkable that, at 3 a.m., you would think that you’ve produced a magnificent speech in your head. However, thinking about it at 7:30 in the morning, in the harsh light of day, you think you might have lost your mind.

In any event, I’m going to go forward with that speech, and will do my best to deliver something that I hope is meaningful, somewhat personal and, hopefully, uplifting. Wish me luck.

I will speak only briefly about Bill C-235 itself. The bill is straightforward. It is a framework bill which tries to do two things. First, it requires ministers of the federal government, a group of six or so, to work together under the leadership of the minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie region to develop a framework for cooperating with provincial, municipal and Indigenous leaders and the private sector, as well as organizations that represent employers and employees, to better coordinate the implementation of federal programs in the Prairie provinces that will help to build a green and sustainable economy in the Prairies.

The second part of the bill requires organizing a wide range of consultations with these groups in order that the plan will be better coordinated and responsive to the needs of Prairie people. The proof will be in the pudding, of course, in relation to these consultations and negotiations, but I’m hopeful that through this process — assuming the bill is adopted — the federal programs will become more responsive to the needs of Prairie communities.

I do want to speak a bit about the Prairie economy, and about the identity and commitment of Prairie people. In these remarks I will ramble a bit, but I will bookend the remarks with two stories that seem appropriate both to the Prairies and, I hope, to celebrate Jim Carr’s love of the Prairies and his own commitment.

Years ago, when I was a young lawyer, I was driving my car to court somewhere and I was listening to a segment of “Morningside” with Peter Gzowski. Interestingly enough, the theme that morning was the subtle beauty of the Prairies. The beauty on the Prairies, I think it’s fair to say, is subtle.

A premier of Saskatchewan used to say regularly to people from British Columbia, “You have not even started your mountain removal project. In Saskatchewan, we’ve finished ours.” It was kind of a defence mechanism, if I could call it that.

Mr. Gzowski had three commentators on the show, one artist from Winnipeg, a poet from Edmonton and a writer from Saskatchewan; I think it was Sharon Butala. They offered their perspectives on what was certainly subtle in the beauty of the Prairies, and I got all of that. Unlike his normal engagement, Mr. Gzowski intervened in the radio program to say that he wanted to describe his first experience and encounter with the Prairies. He then began telling a story of travelling by train across eastern Saskatchewan one blustery January day.

He did not share this on the radio but in fact he was travelling from Toronto to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to take up the position of the editor of the Moose Jaw Times Herald newspaper. He described riding in the train that day. In the coach section, there was another fellow with him, and he said the two of them stared out the window of the train, looking at the bleak, overcast, windswept, snowy environment, a bitterly cold one. After about an hour of riding in silence, he said to the other fellow, “So, what do you think?”

I have to be careful in my response here, honourable senators.

The person replied, “Biggest expanse of blank-all I’ve ever seen.”

I listened to that story with a chuckle but decided to write to Mr. Gzowski about a different experience that I’d had. It’s the only letter I’ve ever written in this context in my life. This was something that happened to me when I was 17 years old and riding the train from Windsor, Ontario, back to Saskatoon to start university. I had worked on a car-assembly line for the summer to make money for university. I was on my own, not very worldly, insecure and lonely.

On the second day of the journey, I awoke and looked out of the window. It was early morning and we were in southeast Manitoba. If I had looked hard, I might have been able to see young Senator Harder or maybe young Senator Plett. I didn’t actually see them, but what I did see was miles and miles of amber waves of grain, swaying in the summer breeze, golden in the light of an early morning sun. Even today, it is moving to me. And I thought, “I’m home.” I actually started to cry. I don’t usually tell people that part. Apparently, Mr. Gzowski read the letter on “Morningside,” although I never heard it, but I did feel a bit of redemption for my love of the Prairies and my hope for the future of the Prairies.

Beneath the superficiality of Mr. Gzowski’s story and beneath the ice and snow, there is a marvellous region of Canada, a region of opportunity and potential. Much has been achieved through the hard work of those who settled the land and who have come there since, but there is still much opportunity and much potential.

Now, it’s important to note that much of that opportunity and potential came from removing opportunity and potential from Indigenous peoples. Whether it was denial of culture, religion or removal from lands to postage stamp reserves, often at the margins of Saskatchewan’s most productive land, or just outright discrimination, we have a lot to do to recreate that world of opportunity that was denied to Indigenous people for so long.

One part of this bill focuses exactly on this. We have road maps for this work, as you know. Hopefully, they will be successful. If there is time, I will return to this point.

I want to talk next about Saskatchewan’s economy for a few minutes. I know this is a Prairie initiative, but I want to respect the fact that there are some things about which I know essentially nothing. I will limit my remarks to Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan’s economy and its links to sustainability offer almost limitless potential. In the north, we have an abundance of materials, including critical materials that will be needed for zero-emission vehicles and so many other energy systems. We have the largest supply of uranium reserves in the world. We have the largest-known reserves of potash in the world. A senior executive at one of the potash companies told me 40 years ago that Saskatchewan had enough known reserves of potash to meet world demand for the next 2,000 years. Maybe we’re down to 1,960, but there’s still a lot of potash.

My main focus, though, with respect to these remarks and the Saskatchewan economy will be about agriculture. I think there is a certain criticalness to this aspect of the talk. There are various reasons, but this one is as follows: A couple of weeks ago, Senator Black, the chair of the Agriculture Committee, took us to the Canadian Agriculture Museum here in Ottawa. We learned a lot. One of the things we learned — and I think I knew this intuitively — is that the vast majority of arable land in Canada — that is, land capable of being used for farming — resides on the Prairies. In fact, if I remember correctly, 47% of the arable land in this country is in Saskatchewan. That’s pretty remarkable.

Let me say this at once, something not widely known is that farmers are great stewards of the land. It is obviously in their interests to do so since their future livelihoods, and the livelihoods of their sons and daughters who might decide to carry on farming, depend on sustainability and productivity into the future. I want to immediately debunk the idea that farmers, or Saskatchewan people in general, are not committed to environmental stewardship. In fact, although I don’t know the most recent polling, when polls were done on the level of Canadians’ commitment to the environment, the people of Saskatchewan came out first year after year.

Let me tell you a small story — a tiny story, really — that reinforces for me a commitment to environmental stewardship.

My former father-in-law farmed in western Saskatchewan. He was a successful farmer and business person. He was attentive to the world around him. In his younger years, he’d been a hunter and did not have a particular opposition to those who hunted during hunting season. But at the end of goose-hunting season, every fall, usually November, year after year, he would go out with his truck and a small motorboat and seek out small lakes and ponds and dugouts to rescue Canada geese who had been shot by hunters but had only been injured. If these geese were left on their own, unable to fly and perhaps unable to recover, they would freeze to death — a slow, horrible death — as the ice in these ponds closed in on them.

Let me tell you, it’s not easy to rescue a Canada goose. No matter how smart they are, they cannot tell the difference between somebody who is trying to save them and somebody who wants to cook them for dinner, and they are mighty strong. But, every autumn, he persevered. Indeed, at one point, he had rescued 24 Canada geese and nursed them back to health so that they could be released again into the wild. I thought that was a pretty great unpublished commitment to the natural environment.

Now, I have a bit more about agriculture and the evolution of agriculture in Saskatchewan. There has, in fact, been a revolution in farming practices on the Prairies. Land use is now governed by science and technology. Guided by university researchers, farmers now use their land in much more extensive ways than in generations past, achieving two or three remarkable things at the same time. First, the land is more productive and generates more income for farmers. In fact, I’m told that due to research findings at the University of Saskatchewan, which created opportunities for more intensive use of farmland and making it healthier, it increased the revenue to Saskatchewan farmers by $1 billion per year. That was done through healthy and more sustainable practices, creating a sustainable environment.

Farmers now do little or no tilling. They use cover crops and crop rotation, and they bring the soil back to good health through these practices. And it sequesters carbon. At the Agriculture Committee, we heard evidence that of all the farmland in this country, Prairie farmland has made a spectacular contribution over the last 20 years to carbon sequestration and more is possible.

Any of these changes would have been challenging for farmers and for the rural economy of my province, but there is also no shortage of opportunities. As it became clear that, guided by science, farmers could and should and did expand the repertoire of crops, wise and committed entrepreneurs appeared.

I will give one example. A young trade policy adviser with the government of Saskatchewan, who used to work for me, saw the potential for a dramatic expansion of the production and export marketing of pulse crops into the Middle East. Murad Al-Katib, a young man of Turkish ancestry but living in the small town of Davidson, Saskatchewan, established a company to do just that. Working with scientists, farmers and the supply chain, he has built a world-class business in seeing the processing and marketing of pulse crops to parts of the world that rely heavily on them for nutrition.

It’s one of many amazing stories of opportunity. It is also done in ways that, at the farming end, make sustainable use of farmland for future generations.

When I hear that people are dismissive of the commitment of farmers to climate change or are uncaring about the environment, I have two thoughts: First, it’s wrong; and second, it’s not really just a generalized communication or critique that is fired off to an unknown recipient. In Saskatchewan, we are so close to the farming community that it feels like an insult to each of us individually.

I concede that more needs to be done — and will be — but constructive engagement between Ottawa, the provinces, organizations and others will make possible and significant positive change. Mr. Carr’s bill will help in that regard, even if perhaps only modestly.

Let me also talk about one other dimension of Saskatchewan that I think is relevant to agriculture. Over time, we are going to see a moderation of oil and gas production. It’s fair to say it will not be eliminated; even the Minister of Natural Resources has said that, however much progress we made with respect to other forms of energy and transportation, we will need to buy products from oil and gas side of the equation that can produce what we need, societally.

Agricultural production, then, provides a remarkable opportunity for us. First, there is trade revenue internationally. It is good for our economy now and will be even better in the future, both in terms of sustainable production and the opportunity to add value to what we grow now and export. It’s good for the Canadian dollar, helping us keep costs down. Hopefully, when we have to import things, we don’t have to pay $15 for a pineapple.

Second, one of the great challenges of the future worldwide will be food security. Our agricultural potential has the remarkable ability to address food security. We will do a very good thing in this world by sustainably producing what the world needs to feed itself. My friend Mr. Al-Katib is a perfect example of that.

I want to turn next, and finally, to a few thoughts about federal-provincial relations and the Constitution. I know that this is top-of-mind for some, and fair enough, but I would like to at least put the Saskatchewan engagement on these questions in a bit of a larger context. First, as you all know, Saskatchewan only became a province in 1905. As well, in the conventional ways of thinking about it, it did not come to be the owner of subsurface minerals until the 1930s, pursuant to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements. In fact, at that point, Saskatchewan and Alberta were finally made whole as provinces for the first time.

Moving forward in time, you will recall having heard about the conflict in Alberta in the early 1980s regarding the National Energy Program. In Saskatchewan, perhaps, you may have heard about the challenges with respect to natural resource extraction and management in the 1970s. I want to speak particularly about that and how it was handled in Saskatchewan, as well as federal‑provincial relations writ large over the last 40 to 50 years.

In the 1970s, Saskatchewan sought to regulate the rate at which potash, oil and gas were being extracted and sold in the international markets. Particularly, it was intended to slow production and have oil and gas, and potash, sold at higher prices, generating higher royalties for the province. It was — it needs to be acknowledged — an interference in the business model and the business plan of the companies that were operating.

However, it’s also worth thinking about this point: The oil and gas, and potash, being extracted belonged to the citizens of Saskatchewan. You can see a public purpose argument in trying to make sure that there was — what is the language of economists, Senator Marshall — a “fair rent” for those.

During that period of crisis, as I would call it, the companies argued that the conservation regime was an unconstitutional provincial task. This position was supported by Ottawa. The Province of Saskatchewan was taken to court, and they were successful. This required Saskatchewan to pay back losses to the companies in the amount of approximately $1.5 billion. For a province like Saskatchewan, particularly in those days, it was an enormous amount of money that the provincial budget would have to absorb. I don’t know what the provincial budget was at the time, but I’m guessing it was $3 billion or $4 billion. It was a lot of money.

What did the Premier of Saskatchewan do? He complained publicly, of course, and bought a few potash companies. But on the constitutional front, Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Lougheed, who had issues of his own with Ottawa, went to Ottawa and worked out a new regime that was responsive to provincial interests. What they didn’t do was pass a law declaring provincial interests. They got to work to solve the problem.

For decades, that has been the Saskatchewan way.

Let me offer two other aspects of the same approach, although not quite directly related to federal-provincial relations in terms of resources but pretty darn important nonetheless. The point I’m trying to make is that Saskatchewan always has been and continues to be a good partner in this federation.

In 1980, there was a logjam in first ministers’ negotiations regarding how the Constitution would be patriated to Canada and how it would be amended. Ottawa and some provinces took one position, which was unilateral authority for Ottawa, and a number of other provinces took different positions. The matter went to the Supreme Court on a constitutional reference.

Saskatchewan crafted a new position, essentially that there may be a law that authorizes unilateral patriation, but constitutional conventions, which aren’t laws but are almost laws, call for a more engaged process. The Supreme Court of Canada took exactly this position, and its decision unblocked the logjam and produced a modern Constitution for Canada in Canada. Anybody who is deeply connected with the history of constitutional law in Canada credits Saskatchewan with identifying the solution to that problem.

A second example occurred in 1995. You will recall that the referendum on Quebec secession narrowly failed that year. I think it’s fair to say that Ottawa did not have a clear plan forward for a significant period of time. The premiers at the time — led by premiers Romanow and McKenna — stitched together a provincial plan to extend an olive branch to Quebec to encourage Quebecers to stay within the federation.

At a meeting of premiers, convened in Calgary, a unanimous so-called “Calgary declaration” was issued — unanimous with the exception of then-Premier Bouchard, who had a different idea — to extend that olive branch. That included premiers Klein and Harris. Further, and not much known at the same time, then‑Premier Romanow convened a group of advisers to help him think his way and the province’s way through to try to be helpful on the national unity dialogue. He brought together Michel Bélanger; John McCallum, then the chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada; former Premier Blakeney; and in particular, former Premier Lougheed. I attended those meetings, and I thought Mr. Lougheed gave Mr. Romanow the very best advice.

Subsequently, the Government of Canada passed the Clarity Act that set out rules going, forward should there be a future referendum on secession. The bill contemplated a requirement of a clear question and a clear majority answering “yes” to that question. What the bill didn’t say is what the consequences of the outcome would be. That matter was also sent to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Only a few provinces intervened; Saskatchewan was one.

I was instructed by the premier at the time to put together the greatest constitutional minds available in Saskatchewan to help craft the best, most constructive intervention that we could make. Let me tell you, there were some great constitutional minds in Saskatchewan at the time. I have a list, but I won’t read them off. They would be embarrassed.

The real question, when you think about it, is: Does a vote on secession count for nothing, as probably it would in the United States, or does it trigger the departure from Canada by one region or province? It is a harsh set of options. Some viewpoints were that it leads to secession. Others were that it means nothing.

This was an important case. Chief Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada has told me that this was by far the most important case she decided in her legal career.

Saskatchewan crafted a position to the effect that if there is a “yes” vote on a clear question by a substantial majority, the consequences are that it triggers good faith negotiations on whether to secede, and if that is to proceed, what the terms of that will be. That’s the position adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in a long but powerful judgment.

The point here is that Saskatchewan has punched above its weight in federal-provincial relations constructively in this country for decades, and there is no reason why we will stop.

Notwithstanding that there is a significant amount of tension within the federation on issues of federal and provincial jurisdiction these days, and some might say this bill contributes to it, I would say the opposite. It calls for the provinces, the federal government and the whole collection of entities that have interest in the Prairie economy to work together. This bill would be, in a small way, an opportunity to achieve constructive federal-provincial relations.

The good news is that I’m now coming to the end of my remarks. I want to tell you a story. I probably do this too much. There is a guy who flew into New York City from some international location. He arrived at the airport, and he was in the baggage area. He saw a golden telephone. He asked people, “What is with this golden telephone?” Someone said, “It’s a direct line to God.” He said, “How much does it cost?” The person said, “It’s $500 a minute.”

He carried on in his journey and flew to Toronto. Apologies to the people from Toronto. He gets to the baggage area, and there is another golden telephone. He says, “What is this all about?” They said, “It’s a direct line to God.” He said, “Well, how much for a call?” They said, “It’s $100 a minute.” He said, “Oh, that’s interesting.”

He carried on in his travels to Saskatoon. He arrived in the baggage area, and there is a golden telephone. He said, “What’s the story?” They said, “It’s a direct line to God.” He said, “How much is it?” They said, “It’s 25 cents.” He said, “I don’t get that. It’s $500, $100.” “Well,” they said, “it’s because it’s a local call.”

I feel that way about Saskatchewan. I hope you feel that way about your place. You might be asking for golden telephones in the baggage area of your town or city. For me — a bit of an exaggeration — Saskatchewan is heaven. I hope this is the case for you as well where you are.

My point here is that through working together using mainly ploughshares, occasionally swords when it’s necessary to fight, we can build a great and sustainable economy and country. Mr. Carr’s bill does a bit of this. I like to think of it as a love letter from him to the Prairies.

I hope you will support Bill C-235 and help to have these golden telephones be local calls everywhere. Thank you.

Will the senator take a question?

Yes.

Senator Cotter, there are a lot of unresolved issues here for rights holders in this bill. How will the lived experiences of rights holders in the Prairie provinces be meaningfully addressed when you see Alberta and Saskatchewan, with Manitoba not far behind, ignoring the rights holders in the acts that they are bringing forward? How do you see that being addressed in this bill?

As you will see in the bill, Senator McCallum, there is a requirement of consultation and dialogue with Indigenous leadership in the Prairies. That’s a mandate imposed upon the minister who coordinates this work, and, I presume, the other ministers who will have a role here.

Maybe I could answer this with an example of what I think is an opportunity lost in the past, but may be there in the future.

When you think about economic opportunity — let me focus on that first — the opportunities for Indigenous people, but particularly First Nations, have been badly circumscribed by treaties, treaty lands and reserves. I think you and I are on the same wavelength there. In fact, a lot of those, if you look at the maps — Saskatchewan is, perhaps, the worst case — are not just being put on small, postage stamp-sized reserves, but also at the margins of a productive economy in the province, at least in the days when agriculture seemed like the story. So Indigenous people and communities never had a chance to get off the ground.

The place where those conversations have been the richest have been in relation to traditional territories. Not the postage stamp-sized reserves, but the areas where First Nations tended to live traditionally, which often covered vast areas.

One of the ways of trying to build an economy is to create opportunities for Indigenous people and communities to tap into those resources. It’s tricky if you’re a provincial government because usually tapping into those resources — which conventionally provincial governments have understood to be theirs or belonging to all the people — are a source of revenue to run the programs of the province. What you need is a partnership with the province and the Government of Canada because in the Constitution Indians and land reserved for Indians are the constitutional responsibility of Ottawa. It’s possible for the Government of Canada to support those developments, sometimes with support for equity, but also support for sharing the constraints or the opportunity costs for the provinces.

Ottawa has not always been open to that. I don’t know where this will go. I am hoping that imaginative ideas to unlock that potential that was taken away will occur. There are people a lot smarter than me coming up with these ideas, but I think there is a remarkable amount of potential to do that if the goodwill is there.

Provinces are vulnerable in some respects. Sometimes when oil revenues and others are really good, it looks pretty good, but provinces are vulnerable to having to give up large amounts of their tax base. But partnerships with the Government of Canada, which has a fiduciary obligation here and was the mechanism for taking away that opportunity, I think there is a duty that rests with Canada.

I hope that is at least partly helpful.

I want to go back to your statement about the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement that was done unilaterally without First Nations input. That is now a huge conversation and area of concern for First Nations, and they are going to be bringing it forward. Underneath that lies the Doctrine of Discovery and how it plays into the Constitution.

Is there any way that this portion of the bill could be sent to the Indigenous Peoples Committee to study? That is huge, and I think we need to settle that before you go any further.

Ever so briefly, I think the point you make is a matter of legitimate concern, but the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement is a recent Prairie-Alberta-Saskatchewan event that actually creates the same question across the country: Who are the owners of subsurface resources, not just in Alberta and Saskatchewan but more broadly across the country? I think that question, if it were to be studied, would need to be studied on a national basis, and this bill isn’t the right fit for it, with the greatest of respect.

May I ask a question of Senator Cotter?

Yes, of course.

Senator Cotter, I note your expressed hope in your remarks, in speaking to this bill today, that it be a legacy for the bill’s sponsor, the late Jim Carr — someone whom we all respect and who died, unfortunately, before the bill could be dealt with in the Senate, although he lived to see it receive third reading in the House of Commons.

In that connection, creating what I think you called a legacy for the late Prairie MP, I would like to ask you this: Is it your hope and intention, as I’ve heard widely discussed, in sponsoring this bill soon after it being received in the Senate that the bill be rushed through committee, including hearing witnesses and clause by clause, then third reading this week in the chamber, three days before we recess for our scheduled Christmas break?

Thank you, Senator Patterson. As you know, I’m not the architect in coordinating how things take place in this chamber.

With respect to the bill, I think there will be some good dialogue if we can get it to committee on an expeditious basis. The story of the bill is really not today or tomorrow or Thursday. The story will be, if we pass the bill, what the Government of Canada will do in the coming 12 months to create a pathway to a sustainable economy in the Prairies. That will be the time when the dialogue will be the richest, in my respectful view, and getting that under way soon is fairly important.

Thank you for that answer. Senator Cotter, you’ve spoken eloquently as a senator from Saskatchewan in favour of the bill. Can you explain why the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba expressed opposition to the bill in committee in the other place?

Thank you for the question. I’m not a mind reader, but let me say that one of the reasons I tried to talk a bit about the constructive constitutional role the provinces have played — and Saskatchewan has played a big role, though not the only, by far — is because there are some tensions around whether this can be a trap for provinces, perhaps. I don’t think it is. I think what we have faced in the country of late is reluctance to have meaningful dialogue to build the country together. That is certainly the feeling I have vis-à-vis some of the Prairie provinces, and I would include my own province in that.

There is no mechanism by which this bill can take away rights of provinces. In fact, that’s a principle of Canadian law. I’m hopeful that the provinces are reluctant because of the level of tension and rhetoric but not because there isn’t something to be gained here. I think the first few conversations will show that to be the case.

I understand the tension. My own province has reluctance in terms of its relationship with the Government of Canada. That is borne out in some of the evidence. However, in working together, the opportunities are so meaningful for us. Some of these areas — agriculture is a good example — are joint areas of jurisdiction. It seems to make sense that we would engage in dialogue to move that forward.

Senator Wallin, did you have a question in there?

I think I got a question out of that, Senator Wallin. Thank you.

You chose an extremely good example. My sense of the fertilizer reduction issue is that Ottawa didn’t know enough when it came forward with that proposal. Dialogue would improve that. Federal programs are being developed and will get rolled out. We have to do everything we can to ensure those programs are responsive to what farmers, small business people and the resource industry really need and can move forward with.

I worry about the situation where nobody will talk to them, Ottawa does something, and then the people who wouldn’t talk to them say, “You did the wrong thing.” With the greatest of respect, that’s not the best way to build a country; rather, it’s Ottawa consulting and the recipient consultees genuinely sharing their views so that the programs can be constructed and adapted to the best possible set of goals.

Senator Cotter, I think you’ve discerned that I’m concerned about the process and ensuring this important bill gets the scrutiny it deserves.

As you know, the Province of Alberta was in the middle of a leadership vote when the bill was considered at committee in the other place, so the committee did not hear from one of the three Prairie provinces. I’m sure you will be following the process of the bill and perhaps participating in committee as sponsor. If an important issue is raised in committee, as sponsor, are you open to considering amendments to this bill?

I don’t have a definitive answer to that. I have received advice that, because of Mr. Carr’s passing, if the bill does get amended, it would create real problems on its return to the other place. As you know, I’m a 30 handicap in terms of the rules of this place and the other place. But if you were to say to me, “Senator Cotter, are you open to an amendment that would jeopardize the bill?” I would be very reluctant to that.

I think the point would be that if this bill has defects and someone has a brilliant idea about how to make it better, I’m open to that. I’m not willing to make a commitment as sponsor. And it’s not solely my decision, as you can understand; the committee will decide.

Just a note: With Jim Carr’s passing, the bill would die if it were amended, so we would either pass it or defeat it.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-235. This is probably one of the more difficult speeches I’ve made in my time here in the Senate — not because of the subject matter but because I am tasked with taking, at least in part, the opposite position to that the sponsor of the bill has taken. I do this, quite frankly, with a bit of a heavy heart.

Jim Carr was a friend and a colleague. He is from Manitoba. I have known Jim for many years.

This bill was introduced by the late Honourable Jim Carr in February of this year, and it just recently completed its journey through the other place. I have some difficulties with it, and I need to address those difficulties today.

Before I go any further, colleagues, I do want to take this opportunity to offer my very sincerest condolences to Jim’s wife, Colleen, his family and loved ones. This is a difficult time for them. I know I speak on behalf of all senators when I say our hearts and prayers are with them during this time. I pray that they know the comfort of God’s arms around them during their time of bereavement.

Jim and I travelled back and forth from Winnipeg to Ottawa — not every week, especially in the last year or two, when Jim’s health was failing; he wasn’t on every flight, but we travelled back and forth many times. There were many opportunities for us to visit on these flights. I always cherished those times and will miss them. I was on a flight only two weeks ago with Jim coming from Winnipeg to Ottawa, and we had a good conversation.

Four weeks ago, Jim and I had lunch together in West Block. Jim invited me to lunch. In our discussions, one of the things Jim wanted to discuss was Bill C-235. Jim did not ask me to support this legislation. He asked me to see if I could help move the bill forward to committee and to third reading. He did not ask me to vote for the bill. He did not ask me not to point out flaws in the bill as I see them. I committed to doing that. I plan on doing that today.

I will always remember and treasure that meeting. We discussed many private and personal issues, including Jim’s failing health. We also discussed the vacation that he and his family were planning over the holidays, so yesterday was a shock. I was told not to talk about myself going to Mexico, because that was the topic of some conversation a few years ago. Jim was going to go to Mexico. We shared our mutual love for the country.

I did not, as I said, commit to supporting this bill; I committed to not standing in the way of it, and I intend to keep that promise to our colleague. I did say to Jim that, “In the Senate, many times the sponsor that you choose has a lot of influence.” I asked Jim, “Who is your sponsor of the bill in the Senate?” He told me it was Senator Cotter. I told Jim he had chosen wisely, and I believe that.

Last week, colleagues, just as a point of interest — it addresses some of the questions that have been asked already, at least in part — before we received the news of Jim’s passing, the Senate leadership agreed to prioritize the consideration of this bill. It was appropriate to do so then and remains appropriate to do so today.

I’ve known Jim Carr since well before his election to federal politics, when he was involved in provincial politics. Even though we were political adversaries, I considered him a friend. I would not be doing my job if I did not point out what I think are the flaws in this, or any other, legislation; Jim did that all of his life, and he would have expected the same of each and every one of us. He would have expected us to give the bill a proper examination and to ensure that it receives the sober second thought characteristic of this chamber.

As Senator Cotter outlined, the purpose of Bill C-235 is for the federal government to develop a framework for local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors to build a green economy in the Prairie provinces. This is a noble endeavour, but I would argue that it is both unnecessary and unwelcome.

Efforts by provincial and municipal governments in the three Prairie provinces to green their economies are already well under way. The federal government, as is so often the case, is late to the party again on this one. This is not just an observation and a concern. It was reflected in the testimony given at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Cliff Cullen, Manitoba Minister of Economic Development, Investment and Trade, testified before the committee and said the following:

The Province of Manitoba does not support Bill C-235 and views it as an unnecessary piece of legislation that lacked consultation with the provinces.

Again, notice the words “lack consultation.”

The Bill has not been brought forward in a timely manner and does not recognize the progress that has been made within the green economy by the provinces, businesses and entrepreneurs.

The province of Manitoba is concerned that Bill C-235 if passed would create unnecessary bureaucracy and a top‑down approach that would delay moving forward the green economy, delay decisions on research and development, and stifle innovation that is already occurring.

The Saskatchewan Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Honourable Bronwyn Eyre, also testified, putting it this way:

This bill would require federal ministers “to develop a framework for...the implementation of federal programs”, which to us in Saskatchewan sounds pretty top-down, pretty definitive language, and what we call here “assertive federalism”.

It really goes to another deeper tendency on display from this government, which we see again and again, which is to veer into sections 92 and 92A and the exclusive jurisdiction that provinces have over property and civil rights and over natural resources.

When asked if she thought the bill was unnecessary, the minister was clear and said:

I don’t think the bill is necessary. I think we are already doing significant things in Canada, in western Canada and in Saskatchewan around emissions, and I’ve referenced some of them. The emissions from our potash sector are 50% lower than those in any other jurisdiction in the world. We have high environmental standards. We have high human rights standards. We have high labour standards. . . .

These concerns were echoed by Ms. Cathy Heron, the President of Alberta Municipalities, when she said:

The language in this section speaks to the creation of a green economy in Canada’s prairie provinces. This seems to suggest that prairie provinces do not currently have a green economy. . . . We are very much already heading down this path . . . .

Other stakeholders were not only concerned that the bill failed to recognize the progress already being made to green the Prairie economy, but noted that the bill may actually impede these efforts. Ms. Justine Ness, President and Chief Operating Officer of Safety First, a company which works closely with the energy sector, said:

I fear that Bill C-235 in its current form will effectively harm the resource industry in Canada even further and rob the world of the energy securities it so desperately needs.

Bill C-235 seems to be a classic federal overreach, trying to dictate and influence these three western provinces. . . .

Ms. Catherine Brownlee, president of Alberta Enterprise Group said:

. . . Alberta businesses are on the cutting edge of technological innovation, emissions reduction, and green innovation. Given that Alberta is already a leader in this field, it does cause us to wonder as business leaders what the positive impact would be of another Ottawa-based framework, as proposed in this bill.

Honourable senators, this is a common complaint on the part of provinces. The federal government has a habit of repeatedly inserting itself into provincial affairs without consultation and this bill is going to result in more of the same.

When Saskatchewan MP Michael Kram asked MP Carr if he had consulted with the premier of any province or any provincial cabinet ministers in Saskatchewan, MP Carr admitted that, no, he had not.

MP Brian Masse pursued this line of questioning further, asking:

Other than Saskatchewan, is there any provincial support for it, any premiers or provincial explicit support from ministers?

The answer was no. What about an endorsement from First Nations? No. He asked if there were petitioners calling for this kind of a framework. No.

At committee, Ray Orb, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities was asked:

Did you have any consultations with the federal government before this bill was brought forward to the committee and the House of Commons?

He answered, “No . . . we didn’t have any contact with Mr. Carr. . . . he did not consult with us on this bill.”

Honourable senators, apparently the plan is to pass the bill requiring a framework to be put in place and then the consultations will happen later in the course of developing that framework, but I would note two things. First of all, the bill allows only 12 months for a framework to be put in place. That is far from sufficient time for proper consultations, especially when you consider that those consultations must include:

. . . provincial government representatives responsible for transportation, environment and employment, and with municipalities, Indigenous governing bodies, the private sector and representatives of employers and employees in that sector.

In addition, the minister responsible for economic development in the Prairie provinces must collaborate with six other ministers, including the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources. This is no small task. There is no way that 12 months will allow sufficient time for those consultations.

Second, promising to consult on the content of a framework when there is no agreement that the framework should even exist in the first place is putting the cart before the horse. It is not the way to develop sweeping public policy initiatives, which this framework would yield if it is successful. Colleagues, it is the Senate’s role to stand up for the rights of regions. I can tell you unequivocally that the regions that will be directly affected by this bill do not want and do not support this bill.

The intent behind this bill is noble, but it is redundant because the provinces are already making great strides toward the greening of their economies, and it is overreaching because it does not have the concurrence of every province that will be impacted by it. However, as I said earlier, although I have pointed out the many difficulties in this bill, I will not oppose it proceeding to committee. As a matter of fact, I will support it proceeding to committee because that is, indeed, where the Senate does it very best work. Do I wish we had more time? Without question.

It is the duty and role of both the committee and this chamber to consider the bill on its merits, so I support it going to second reading and look forward to personally participating at committee on this bill. I hope you support the same. Thank you, honourable senators.

Senator Plett, I asked this question of Senator Cotter and he suggested my question was beyond his ken, or maybe beyond his pay grade, but you’re a part of Senate leadership, and you’ve told us that Senate leadership has agreed to prioritize consideration of this bill in the Senate. We will, no doubt, refer it to committee today, and I will vote in support of sending it to committee.

Was that agreement to prioritize sending the bill to committee also to rush through the committee process and all stages in the Senate for third reading in only three days, including all that to happen this week before our scheduled break for Christmas?

I will have to answer that in a few different ways, Senator Patterson. Yes, there was agreement to prioritizing this bill as well as other Commons bills. As was mentioned in the motion, we would do the Commons public bills — all of them — prioritize them and move three of them to committee.

No, it was not agreed that we would rush, so I hope we don’t rush. I hope we have extensive committee meetings. However, we are limited on how many days we have. I trust that the chair and the steering committee of whatever committee this goes to will get on it very quickly and make sure we have two, three, or, if we need it, four meetings over the next two days to study this bill. That may sound a little unrealistic, but, yes, Senator Patterson, from what I understand, we had an agreement that there would be a third reading vote before we rise for Christmas.

Senator Plett, thank you for clarifying that for this important bill, which you’ve said raises important issues , there is indeed a plan to rush the bill — if I may characterize it that way — in only three days, including today. You said in your speech that you wished we had more time. Well, we do have more time, Senator Plett, if the committee takes the time to hear witnesses, including the Province of Alberta, which was not able to participate in the hearing in the other place. What is the rush to get this bill through committee and all stages this week before our Christmas break?

Committees are masters of their own domain and their own area. I will be part of the committee studies and I will state my opinion there, as will others at that committee. If the committee should, for some reason, ask for more time, it would obviously have to be considered. We did exactly that with Bill C-11, Senator Patterson. That did not exactly go as the government had hoped it would go. Without question, I have a little more sympathy for this for personal reasons.

We are in a difficult situation, Senator Patterson. I said it at the start of my speech, and I will not sugar-coat that. I gave my word to a dying colleague that I would not stand in the way of this moving forward. I did not promise him support for the bill, but said that I would not stand in the way.

I believe we had fair and open discussions at our leadership meetings. I have sometimes said these are in camera meetings that we had at leadership. I’ve never entirely accepted that, so I want to be a little careful. I’m sure you have had discussions with the leader of your caucus. He took part in that, as did I, as well as Senator Cordy, Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Gold. Our chiefs of staff were there. There were a lot of people, so there are many who can call me out on this if it isn’t true. It was my opinion that we had unanimous agreement that we would do exactly what we’re doing now.

Now, we can call that rushing. It would certainly not be the first time that a committee has not had enough meeting times — as per what the committee would like — but we will see where this goes. I firmly believe, Senator Patterson, that the provinces are also masters of their own domain. I do not anticipate, quite frankly, that if the three Prairie provinces get together and say “no,” that this is going to go somewhere.

Colleagues, with all respect, if somebody were pushing something on Ontario or Quebec, I think, maybe, it would be handled a little differently than when they push something on the Western provinces.

However, having said that, MP Carr was a proud Manitoban, and this bill is coming out of Manitoba. It was not initiated by the federal government, even though they may have put their power behind it at the end. It was initiated out of Manitoba.

Would Senator Plett take a question?

Yes.

I’ll ask my question in French, if that’s okay. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons on February 7, 2022. We just got it, and we have two days to study it. This past week, the work of many committees was significantly scaled back. Can you tell us why? In light of the thoughtful comments you made in your critique of the bill, regardless of the leaders’ agreement, why shouldn’t the Senate take all the time it needs to study this bill properly?

Let me say this: The decisions that were made were, of course, made while MP Carr was still alive. We knew how ill he was. This was something that Jim Carr wanted desperately to see happen before he passed away; that didn’t happen.

The Prime Minister put some of his strength behind that, which is one of the reasons. I don’t think it went unnoticed that the government reordered government business, and reordered a motion — the government is certainly behind this. I am not wanting to point fingers, but I think we’re all adults, and we can read between the lines as to what happened.

As far as the rush for the bill is concerned, let me tell you, Senator Moncion, I’m planning on voting against the bill — maybe on division. I don’t plan on supporting this bill the way I see it. I plan on asking questions at committee. I actually think four hours of committee study is sufficient — we have testimony from the other place that we can look at. It is certainly not unprecedented that the Senate deals with some very important legislation in four or six hours of committee study. It’s not an extensive bill. It’s not like Bill C-11. It’s a fairly simplistic bill, if you will, so I’m not sure that we would be serving any useful purpose by extending two committee meetings, if they are two hours each, to four. I’m not sure. When we get to committee, I guess we will be able to determine that.

Would Senator Plett take another question?

Yes.

Senator Plett, I’m curious as to your understanding of this bill. If I understand correctly, the bill gives a federal minister the task of developing, with the help of other federal ministers, a framework to, and I quote subclause 3(1):

coordinate local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs across various sectors, with the objective of building a green economy in the Prairie provinces.

Is it your understanding that the bill only targets coordination and cooperation in implementing federal programs? We’re not talking about getting the approval of the provinces but about a task given to a federal minister in cooperation with other federal ministers to develop a framework to “coordinate local cooperation and engagement in the implementation of federal programs.” Is that your understanding of Bill C-235?

No, Senator Dupuis, I think your understanding is pretty clear. It’s definitely the federal government getting involved in helping develop a green plan for the Prairies.

The Prairie provinces are saying, “We are doing that, and we are doing it much better than the federal government could do.” As the Province of Quebec very regularly says, “We can run our programs better than the federal government can run our programs.”

In my opinion, the issue here is not whether this is a laudable goal; it probably is. The provinces are saying, “We are well on the way to doing that. We don’t want interference from the federal body. We can govern ourselves on this, and that’s what we want. We don’t want you putting your nose in. To us, this would be Big Brother taking over.”

I really think the only difference here is not a difference of opinion in what should happen in the Prairie provinces. This is a difference of opinion in that I, as a Manitoban, don’t particularly want the federal government — whatever federal government that is — coming in and dictating on an issue that, I believe, Manitobans are better capable of handling themselves.

Senator Plett, as a Manitoban, may I ask my fellow Manitoban a question along the lines of Senator Dupuis’s question?

In trying to achieve a green economy, the ultimate goal, I believe, is for the future of the planet. Yes, this bill asks my region, the West, and gives the minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada a mandate and framework to consult — not tell — the provincial First Nations, Métis and municipal governments, as well as businesses and civil society, to prepare for the changes we need in order to meet our net-zero emissions by 2050. If that’s the case and our provinces are ahead of others, isn’t there a responsibility to share that so we can come up with a national framework?

I do happen to believe it’s a laudable goal for the future of the West. I’d like to know if you agree with me on that laudable goal, and that consultation and developing a framework isn’t necessarily about the federal government telling the regions what to do; maybe it’s about the regions informing the federal government what to do.

Well, without question, I would like to tell the government what to do — they just aren’t listening.

Senator Bovey, you may well be right; I don’t think this is a national program when you pick three provinces and title the act “An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies.” A national program would be an act respecting a green economy in Canada. So why don’t we do that? Then it should be a federal project.

They are asking to come in and dialogue with Manitobans, Saskatchewanians and Albertans in helping us develop a green economy when natural gas in Alberta, for example — and Saskatchewan has the greenest development of potash in the entire world. This was not done by the federal government. This was done by the Province of Saskatchewan.

I don’t disagree with you at all that Saskatchewan and Alberta have made fine strides in those aspects of the work. But surely, because we’re a nation of regions, each region is going to approach the green economy from a different perspective given what they do and where they are and what their climates are, et cetera.

I fail to see why this bill that the Honourable Jim Carr put forward doesn’t open up that discussion, with our region, to me, being a very important part of a national discussion, and if we’re doing things better than other parts of the country because of where we are, wonderful. Perhaps there is a way that we can all push it a little bit further. When our kids and grandchildren — don’t you agree? — when they make buildings out of LEGO, they need all the pieces of LEGO to create that building. I’m contending that this particular bill is part of that building.

Thank you, Senator Bovey. I’m not opposed to the federal government coming and asking Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Alberta, “What can we do to help?” That’s not what they are doing. They don’t need a bill to come and offer their help and their advice. They can just simply offer it.

The premiers have been begging the Prime Minister for a first ministers’ meeting on health. They have been begging, and he hasn’t accepted. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister, if he wants to put his weight behind this bill, go to Manitoba, go to Saskatchewan, go to Alberta, meet with the three premiers and say, “What can I do to help?” instead of, “Here is what I’m going to do”? That’s the difference, Senator Bovey.

In this case, it was MP Carr. I say that respectfully because MP Carr had every right to present a private member’s bill. I have a problem when the Prime Minister puts his weight behind it, but it’s not the first government where a prime minister has put his weight behind private members’ bills, and it probably won’t be the last. But it’s when you get the feeling that the federal government is trying to tell us when we know far better than they do.

Will the senator take another question?

Certainly.

First Nations are also masters of their own domain. How will First Nations’ leaders and advocates be informed in order to be prepared to present, and how will the committee ensure that they hear from Indigenous peoples?

Senator McCallum, thank you for that question. I’m not on the steering committee whatever committee it goes to. If it goes to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, I’m not on the steering committee. If it goes to the Energy Committee, I’m not on the steering committee. The steering committee would need to determine who the witnesses are.

I think you will appreciate, Senator McCallum, I have here, for the last number of months, especially on Bill C-11 and some other bills, advocated for better consultation by the federal government with the Indigenous community. And so I continue to do that. How the committee will deal with that, I’m sorry, I can’t answer that until we get it to committee and see who the witnesses are, what lists they have, because I haven’t seen that.

Senator Plett, thank you for expressing your support that committees of the Senate are masters of their own destiny, which is a principle I fully support. It’s a hallmark of the work of the Senate.

You referred to the Prime Minister throwing his weight behind the bill. I would like to ask you, considering the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches — the fundamental underpinnings of our Westminster system — if you believe it’s appropriate for the timing of third reading of any bill, including this bill, be set by members of the executive branch, cabinet ministers or even the Prime Minister.

Well, let me answer that in two ways. Number one, in the other place, we very regularly have time allocation, so it’s clearly being done. They do it all the time. They have done it for 150 years, Senator Patterson.

We have not had time allocation; we have had negotiations. This was done not by the executive branch but by five elected leaders in their respective caucuses. They decided the timelines here. In my opinion, they were unanimous in that decision.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)