Senator Plett: Leader, the new directive issued by the Trudeau government does, in fact, refer to prayers only in a historical context and asserts that public prayers in past ceremonies were not sensitive or inclusive. Sadly, this directive is yet another example of Prime Minister Trudeau having no moral compass, always seeking to divide Canadians. He is not worth the cost to our unity, leader.

Leader, if your government is proud of this, and if they can defend this and have nothing to hide, why did the NDP and Liberal coalition MPs shut down a committee to study this new directive on Tuesday this week?

Senator Plett: I have a brief follow-up question. You’re right, Senator Gold; you called us all at noon. We let our critic know, but, clearly, in light of time, we didn’t let everybody know, although you told me very clearly you would be addressing it in the chamber, so everybody would know before we got to a vote. I thank you for that.

My question is — and you answered part of it — you said they sought a three-month extension. Did they get a three-month extension?

Senator Plett: You and I did speak about this earlier, and I appreciate that. I don’t want my standing to ask you a question to be seen as an intention to delay things. I think we have shown that we are supportive, certainly, of the intent of this legislation, both in this place and in the other.

You’re absolutely right; not only did Senator Dennis Patterson ask that question in this chamber, but at our leaders’ meetings we have asked this question a number of times: Why could we not seek an extension? Why are we being asked to rush? We were constantly reminded we needed to rush, and so we did that.

You say they acted responsibly. I would suggest that being responsible would at least include telling us that they are trying, but they didn’t.

So why would they not have told us? Why would you not have told us? I accept that you maybe didn’t know. Why would the government not have told you, “We’re trying to seek an extension”?

And how much of an extension did they get? If this bill does not pass today, how much of an extension did they get? What is the deadline?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, would you take a question?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading as a critic of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Please allow me, colleagues, to offer a quick summary of Bill C-226. I will not be long.

This bill requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to prevent environmental racism and advance environmental justice.

Following consultations or cooperation with anyone interested, the national strategy must include measures such as possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs, and compensation to families and communities. Within two years of the day the act comes into force, it calls upon the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to prepare a report setting out the national strategy to be tabled in both houses.

Let me be clear, colleagues — I firmly believe that all Canadians should live in a healthy environment and we should work to combat racism in all its forms. However, I disagree with the approach proposed by Bill C-226 of using a national strategy to attain such goals.

From the very beginning, Bill C-226 fails to establish a reasonable scope for the consultation process. The legislation calls on the minister to consult or cooperate with “any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities,” which includes other ministers and representatives of government in Canada and Indigenous communities — but provides no definition of what constitutes an “interested” person, body, organization or community, leaving the scope of consultation wide open.

This is unwieldy and unworkable. Without a precise scope, you cannot have an effective consultation process. Regardless of the goal of any national strategy being developed, the scope of consultations must have clear parameters in order to give concise direction to the strategy or framework.

For example, in the Forty-second Parliament, Conservative MP Todd Doherty presented Bill C-211, An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2018. That bill specifically identified the various ministers, representatives and stakeholders who needed to be consulted in order to build a framework on post‑traumatic stress disorder. Federal ministers were named right in the bill, along with provincial and territorial representatives, representatives from the medical community and patients’ groups. This approach ensured that the bill was set up for the best possible chance of success.

When you compare the consultation clause from Bill C-211 with the one in the bill before us today, there is a stark, striking difference.

With Bill C-226, you are left to wonder where the consultation will begin and end — and whom it will involve. It is extremely broad and ambiguous. It is left wide open, allowing the minister to pick and choose who they consult with. They can tailor the consultations to fit what they want to hear and see in the national strategy while ignoring other important voices.

Considering this government’s terrible track record regarding consulting, this is a very real concern. Will they prioritize consulting close friends of the government instead of listening to people on the ground? The parameters are unclear, which leaves the consultation process open to manipulation.

Bill C-226 goes on to propose a series of possible measures which could be taken as part of the national strategy. The first of these is suggesting possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs.

Again, like the consultation clause in the bill, this is very broad and open to interpretation. I am concerned that this national strategy could end up being ineffective in combating environmental racism and instead just add more layers of red tape to an already complicated regulatory process in this country. During these difficult economic times, we need more stability, not more bureaucracy.

Another optional measure proposed in the bill is providing compensation for individuals or communities in order to advance environmental justice and address environmental racism. But do we have any parameters around the compensation? No. Do we have any indication on how it will be developed? No. Do we even have conditions of admissibility of whom would qualify? Again, no. It seems to give a blank cheque to the minister to decide how they want to compensate individuals and communities.

I have never been in favour of giving a blank cheque to a government — any government, quite frankly — and even less so the current government. But Bill C-226 certainly leans in that direction and leaves the door wide open. It is, yet again, a case of having a very broad and general piece of legislation.

Finally, honourable senators, I must voice my concern about this government’s inability to achieve little, if anything, from national strategies. Indeed, I remind you that in 2017, the federal government launched the National Housing Strategy, a 10-year, $72 billion plan to address key issues in the Canadian housing landscape. One only needs to look at the current housing market to see the failure of the Trudeau government on this front. We now have a housing market that is much less affordable and much less accessible for first-time buyers. The National Housing Strategy has cost Canadians billions of dollars to date, and the results are simply not there.

How can we trust this government to come up with a reasonable and effective national strategy? I am concerned that the only result will be spending more money with nothing to show for it. That is why I highly doubt the Trudeau government’s ability to deliver on a national strategy respecting environmental racism and environmental justice. As Bill C-226 states, the minister will have two years to prepare a report setting out the strategy. Knowing how this government operates, the two years of consultation will not be done with the best interest of taxpayers’ money in mind.

Furthermore, honourable senators, it will take five years after the strategy is tabled in Parliament to measure its effectiveness. During that time, the government might think it is working towards the goal of ensuring all Canadians live in a healthy environment and combating systemic racism, when they are doing little more than pouring money into an ineffective strategy that yields few results. In my opinion, Bill C-226 raises too many questions and uncertainties for Canadians.

I am not the only one, honourable senators. During a study on Bill C-226 in the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee in the other place, Ellis Ross, who is currently a member of the legislative assembly representing the riding of Skeena in British Columbia and who was previously the chief councillor for the Haisla Nation, agreed that the bill is much too broad and could be interpreted in many ways. Furthermore, he also said:

. . . Where does this end in terms of financial costs? Everything I’ve seen in terms of government policy always ends up on the ratepayer, the taxpayer, or it actually chases investment out of provinces. . . .

Honourable senators, Mr. Ross is right. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who will foot the bill. Canada cannot afford costlier initiatives that have the potential to scare away future investments in our country. I wish the committee in the other place had taken more time to study the bill and listen to various points of view from coast to coast to coast so that we would have a better understanding of what we have in front of us today because at the end of the day we need to make sure that national strategies do not ignore provincial and local issues while also not overstepping its federal jurisdiction.

Colleagues, I cannot support a bill where there are so many open-ended questions. As Conservatives, we sincerely believe all Canadians should live in a healthy environment and that racism needs to be combated in all its forms. I do not believe this bill will have the expected outcome and could instead be costly, while not serving Canadians’ best interests. This bill is too broad, lacks definitions and could bring even more uncertainties to too many industries that are looking for stability. Furthermore, I don’t believe the current government has demonstrated the ability to lead such an initiative to consult with the people it needs to consult with.

Honourable senators, even though I oppose this bill the way it is right now, I have always maintained that bills should get a thorough vetting at committees. And so I do oppose the bill, but I support it going to the committee for a thorough examination — and I’m looking at the chair — and would support that it proceeds. I will support this on division. Thank you, colleagues.