Senator Plett: Yes.

Senator Plett Yes.

Senator Plett: 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.

Senator Plett: 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.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): 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 D. Patterson: 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?

Senator Plett: 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 D. Patterson: 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?

Senator Plett: 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.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: 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.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: 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.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, over the past months, my Conservative colleagues and I have repeatedly asked you and your government questions on the serious ongoing issues at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC.

Now, just when you think the situation couldn’t get any worse, think again, colleagues, because the Liberals have again reached a new low.

Every day that goes by is another day when human lives are destabilized due to the uncertainty brought forward by the never‑ending issues at IRCC.

Yesterday, Senator Gold, we learned via CBC that the immigration department has been assigning applications to immigration officers or placeholder codes that are inactive and no longer working within their systems — not just a couple dozen files, but 59,456 files sitting dormant to 779 former employees or inactive computers. That is unheard of, Senator Gold.

Canadians need more than words of reassurance by your government. They need leadership, and they need it now, more than ever. This has become an issue of trust, Senator Gold.

Does your government realize the seriousness of the job that they have to do?

Senator Plett: Well, as I said, that is being done on computers that aren’t active, with employees that haven’t worked for IRCC for years.

Basic government services aren’t being provided by your government. Files are falling through the cracks, and 60,000 individuals and their families are on standby in limbo because of this ordeal. Backlogs have increased rather than improved — so much so that people are having to seek judicial orders to ensure that immigration processes their applications.

Yesterday, Minister Sean Fraser said that what transpired is — listen to this — “an ordinary process” and “part of our triage strategy.” Wow.

So according to those comments, this is normal and acceptable. Is that your position, Senator Gold? Is this normal, and is it acceptable?

Senator Plett: 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 D. Patterson: 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.

Senator Plett: 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.