Senator Bovey: 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.

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.

Senator Moncion: 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?

[English]

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Will Senator Marshall take a question? Thank you for your speech, always very insightful.

Would you not agree that a common first step for every corporation and investment is the acquisition of shares, and this is exactly what’s going on here? We’re acquiring $2 billion in shares for a Crown corporation, a subsidiary that is wholly owned by Canada Development Investment Corporation at this time, and after the acquisition of shares, we will put a CEO and a board of directors in place, we will put the structure in place. There is a technical backgrounder that is very detailed as to the objectives and values.

As I mentioned in my speech, in my experience — I was saying 20 years of auditing, and I always think I’m 40, but I’m 60, and 1984 is a long time ago — the top challenge with mergers and acquisitions was integrating the acquisition, getting the values: Do they have our values? Our values will be different.

This is a new Crown corporation. We’re acquiring the shares. We have a clean slate, as I said in my speech, and going forward, we can build on it, get the right CEO and board of governors. Wouldn’t you agree with that? Wouldn’t you agree that a common first step is the acquisition of shares? How else could it be done?

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Would Senator Plett take another question?

Senator Bellemare: I have a supplementary question. As you know, Senator Gold, I introduced Bill S-244, which received support from major employer and union associations for its proposal to add an advisory council to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

I introduced the bill and I made representations. Do you think the government will introduce this bill in the context of its reform?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I move that the motion be amended by adding the following new paragraph before the final paragraph.

Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by adding the following new paragraph before the final paragraph:

“That the committee to which Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, may have been referred, if that has happened, be authorized to meet today, even though the Senate may then be sitting, with rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto;”.

Senator Batters: I was also quite shocked to see the response that you received from Finance Minister Freeland when you questioned her about this non-existent corporation last week at the Senate Finance Committee. As Blacklock’s reported, you asked her:

. . . $2 billion with no explanation within the bill over how the $2 billion is going to be controlled. The company is not even created. What are you going to buy shares in? There is no company yet.

Minister Freeland replied that the green transition is essential. Blacklock’s reported: “The finance minister did not explain why the measure was not detailed in a separate bill.”

Senator Marshall, I’m recalling the early days of the COVID pandemic. The Trudeau government used one of their early pieces of legislation to create what I called at the time the “giant government corporation” — the ability to buy massive corporations to use them for government purposes. At that point, they were able to create a corporation. Why didn’t they do a similar thing with this?

Senator Downe: I think it undermines Canadians’ confidence in the tax system when, over 10 years ago, in one bank in Liechtenstein, there were accounts of 106 Canadians. Again, money was owing. Again, no one was charged.

Two years later, there was one bank in Switzerland with over 1,700 Canadians. Again, no one charged, and no one convicted — contrary to every other country in the world who were charging people recovering money.

Do you think there is a double standard in Canada? You referenced this briefly in your speech. Canadians receive a T4 slip and pay their taxes. The Canada Revenue Agency does an excellent job on domestic tax evasion. But if you can lawyer up and hire accountants, your chances of being prosecuted are nil to none. Would you agree with that statement?

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]

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures), and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Loffreda, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the second reading of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.

Senator Dupuis: 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?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received certificates from the Registrar General of Canada showing that the following persons, respectively, have been summoned to the Senate:

Sharon Burey

Rebecca Louise Patterson

Hon. Sharon Burey, of Windsor, Ontario, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Rosemary Moodie.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I am compelled to rise again today to speak to Bill C-32, with specific reference to Division 3 of Part 4, that being the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act. My focus today will be on how the pre-study process commits an injustice to First Nations.

I have witnessed that with pre-studies we, as senators, cannot and do not attend to our matters as thoroughly as we should, and, therefore, are unable to apply proper sober second thought. Yet, as stated by other senators, pre-studies have become a normalized part of procedure, which creates problems.

As a senator who is First Nations, I am concerned about how this rush has breached my right of privilege. The interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament entitled A Matter of Privilege: A Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21st century states that:

. . . in the late 20th and now in the 21st century discourse about parliamentary privilege centres on how privilege should function in a rights-based legal system exemplified here in Canada by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and where the public expects increased transparency and accountability for the decisions made by parliamentarians.

The report cites the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid:

Parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context is the sum of the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

Colleagues, my work and function rests with Indigenous peoples across Canada, including grassroots, leadership and specific interest groups. Part of my function is to bring their voices, which have been largely and historically unheard in this arena, to the Senate floor and into our committees. It is extremely difficult to do this with pre-studies.

In the artificially fabricated rush to deal with Bill C-32 via multiple pre-studies, I have been unable to ensure that the interested groups I represent have been empowered to be heard on relevant matters that are of critical importance. This has resulted from an inability to procure timely translation of their documents into French and an inability for them to bring proposed amendments forward due to the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel being stretched too thin. This issue, which is of absolutely no fault of the Law Clerk’s office, as they provide a crucial service, has previously affected my work in the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Of great concern in such instances is that this issue has already impeded me from being able to best demonstrate to my colleagues, who are charged with making decisions that have direct bearing on First Nations’ lives and well-being, the impacts of the cumulative effects of resource extraction on Indigenous lives as well as on reconciliation efforts.

I’ll be interested to see how French translation will be handled with these new committee studies. Why are some bills allowed amendments and others are not? This is differential treatment.

Honourable senators, in this specific situation with Bill C-32, Grand Chief Garrison Settee of the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, or MKO, only heard about this bill very late in the process. He immediately presented a written submission to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

On December 1, 2022, MKO also requested to be invited to appear before the Indigenous Peoples Committee and the Energy Committee with regard to Part 4 of Division 3 of Bill C-32. To date, MKO has not received correspondence from either committee on the decision about their request to appear. More importantly, they have not been informed if or how their critical submission was taken into account.

Colleagues, MKO has championed thoughtful and determined efforts to uphold First Nations’ rights to enforce and adjudicate First Nations laws enacted pursuant to the First Nation Land Management Act and of bylaws enacted pursuant to the Indian Act. The MKO is underscoring that the intent behind Parliament establishing these law-making regimes further to the inherent right of self-government is to move towards establishing the third level of government in the nation-to-nation relationship that the federal government speaks about.

However, these law-making regimes in First Nations communities are currently being rendered inactive by the policies and inaction of the Government of Canada and of the RCMP. The result, Grand Chief Settee says, are “stranded regimes” of unenforceable First Nation laws and bylaws.

What are the results of these stranded regimes? MKO Grand Chief Settee wanted to share critical information with all honourable senators about the real-life experiences of MKO First Nations in their struggle to apply enforcement of the self‑governing law-making authorities of First Nations enacted through previous legislation, Bill C-49 in 1999 and Bill C-428 in 2015. Why do these uncertainties persist, despite legislation that was supposed to correct these injustices?

These real-life experiences impacted all communities that were then forced to scramble to best protect their people. This included lockdowns; social distancing; maximum number of patients in a dwelling, business or facility; trespass by prohibited persons during bans on non-resident travel; and health checks of persons entering the community — all protections afforded to other Canadians.

Honourable senators, one example that I previously read into the record recounts that the chief and council, First Nation safety officers and the pandemic response coordinator of the Misipawistik Cree Nation were abandoned by RCMP, who refused to enforce the COVID-19 emergency law enacted under the Misipawistik Land Code during the midst of a major outbreak of COVID-19 in the community.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada has gone on record to say that PPSC has no mandate to prosecute offences under First Nation land code laws under the First Nation Land Management Act.

The First Nations Land Management Act was enacted to recognize the inherent right of self-government and the nation‑to‑nation relationship by providing the option to replace parts of the Indian Act. Where is this recognition of self‑government when First Nations laws enacted further to a land code to protect the health and lives of First Nations during a declared global pandemic are then not recognized, respected, enforced and prosecuted? Requests for help in an emergency situation must be acted upon in a timely manner. Such requests cannot wait idly for the Attorney General’s blessing — something that could take literally months to occur.

Colleagues, I concur with the statements by Senator Patterson that our pre-study of Bill C-32 has served only to rush legislation. I appreciate the senator’s view that:

. . . with Indigenous or grassroots organizations that often already face capacity issues, we need to give as much notice as possible to prospective witnesses. We need to slow down and make sure we are properly reviewing legislation, taking the time to hear from as many people and as many different perspectives as possible.

I acknowledge and concur with the statements made by Senator Francis that:

. . . we are responsible for ensuring that the voices of historically marginalized, under-represented and oppressed individuals and groups are heard and acted on.

I also share the view of Senator Francis that:

I further hope that the members of the Committee on National Finance have an opportunity to hear directly from MKO and perhaps others in relation to the proposed Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act.

As requested by Senator Loffreda at the National Finance Committee, I, too, am looking forward to comments from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on the concerns about Bill C-32 raised by MKO, to which the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance advised as being, “Duly noted.”

Honourable senators, the two amendments identified and submitted by MKO refer to two other acts of Parliament that are not included in Bill C-32 but directly impact the ability of enforceability by the First Nations land code laws. These two acts that impact the enforcement and prosecution of First Nations laws enacted pursuant to a land code include the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10, and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s. 121.

I believe that it was a serious oversight that these two statutes were not amended when this Framework Agreement was enacted in 1999. The problems with enforcement and prosecution were known in 1999 when Bill C-45 was first enacted, but they were thought of as being part of an ongoing, longer term discussion that never took place. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illuminated the effects of the failure to enforce and prosecute.

Honourable senators, when I speak about the gaps created by legislation we pass, this is but one example. Because of this legislation, which is, once again, being rushed through this place, we are unable to do our fulsome research on the impact this legislation has on First Nations impacted by the bill. It also precludes us from identifying what recourse we have to best speak for the people for whom we have responsibilities. How can we practice reconciliation under such conditions?

It makes it very difficult to come up with solutions to help First Nations navigate the injustices created by siloed legislation. We must acknowledge the reality that we are seeing that pre‑studies only add to the silencing of First Nations’ voices. We must do better, and we must demand better. Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, today I wish to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-32.

I was a little surprised by the debate we had on the Growth Fund. I may have been a little surprised, but not entirely. I do want to share some of my concerns about the Canada growth fund, but I would rather put it into context.

When I first looked at Bill C-32, I saw a number of very good measures in it and I thought it was very important that they pass. Consider, for example, the measures for students and for home ownership.

My interest for the Canada growth fund only grew after reading the bill, because I had looked at the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which was introduced in the U.S. last fall. That legislation provides for a set of measures aimed at reducing the impact of inflation on Americans, but also measures to stimulate American investment, promote the green transition and increase productivity while generating growth that will help reduce the deficit. The Inflation Reduction Act seeks to address a whole range of challenges.

At the same time, the legislation provides nearly $400 billion to companies in the form of tax credits and loans. I saw more tax credits than loans, but the Department of Finance saw more loans than tax credits. It depends how you interpret the American legislation.

In a nutshell, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act contains a package of measures to stimulate business investment in the context of the transition to a greener economy. It is worth nearly $400 billion, not including the leverage effects that these measures are trying to achieve.

I understand that following the enactment of this U.S. legislation, the Government of Canada felt the need to take action, and that the bill before us includes a measure known as the Canada growth fund. When the minister appeared before the committee — I wasn’t there, but I read the testimony — it was obvious that she was making a case for the urgent creation of a fund of up to $15 billion, which had been announced. She put it in this bill in order to immediately start making potential investments in businesses.

It is true that this raises many questions because the bill is relatively succinct and provides for $2 billion in shares held by the government, which will look to the Canada Development Investment Corporation to potentially make investments and oversee the transition.

Many senators obviously asked questions in committee. Senator Marshall asked some very interesting questions, as did Senator Gignac, Senator Loffreda, Senator Galvez, Senator Moncion and Senator Cardozo, who were all interested in this fund and in the lack of information — let’s be honest — that was made available to us.

That said, we do learn a little more when we read the technical document for the Canada growth fund and the government’s objectives for this measure.

I will read some excerpts. You will see that my goal is not so much to defend this measure as to try to suggest some elements the government could use in the next version of the bill, where there will be more information on the institution being created. I think this is a good opportunity to tell the government to include these elements in the next version. That’s why I’m quoting from the fund’s objectives:

Because Canada’s economic prosperity has traditionally been built on natural resources and other emissions-intensive industries, a substantial transformation of our industrial base will be required to meet our climate targets and ensure long‑term prosperity for Canadians and the Canadian economy. Canada needs to build the technology, infrastructure, and businesses to reduce our carbon reliance, but this will not occur without rapidly increasing—and then sustaining—private investment in activities and sectors that will strengthen Canada’s position as a leading low-carbon economy.

It goes on:

The CGF is designed to invest in a manner that mitigates these risks that currently limit private investment, and unlock the domestic and foreign capital that Canada needs now.

Those are the objectives the fund seeks to achieve, in terms of the transition, on a rather broad scale.

The debate also made it clear that the situation is urgent. We also see in the newspapers that there are companies that started making investments, risky investments, that may decide to go invest in the United States without too many penalties being imposed. The fund therefore helps to somewhat defend the Canadian strategy and to say to companies that the government will also help them with technology and the more at-risk sectors, or at least that is how I see it.

The argument itself is not all that convincing, but the technical backgrounder lets us see the magnitude and complexity of the issue. In the technical backgrounder, we learn what risks the fund is trying to mitigate for businesses. We’re not talking about small risks. These are big risks.

First, there’s demand risk, which is associated with the uncertainty around end market pricing. There’s also policy risk, which is related to uncertainty around climate regulations, such as a carbon price or clean fuel standards. Then there’s regulatory risk, which is a big one that has to do with what the provinces can do with respect to project assessments and permitting approvals for construction projects. Finally, there’s execution risk from building first-of-a-kind commercialized products and companies.

All of this is lingo to say that our companies are facing major risks. In this sense, the government will use this fund to find financial instruments that will allow it to receive returns on its investments and mitigate all various forms of risks at the business level.

This is what the government wants to do, but for the moment there’s not much in the legislation that describes this measure, except for the information in the technical document.

In my opinion, the government should have introduced targets in the bill. It would have been quite simple to propose concrete greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Those targets, as well as the elements and criteria to define them, are also found in the technical document, on the last page. There are several of them, I won’t read them all, but the document could have stated that the first objective is to quickly and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help reach Canada’s climate targets.

The bill should also include potential performance metrics, such as annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions through the fund’s investment in technology improvement projects and the fund’s investment in businesses.

That said, I think we should give it the benefit of the doubt and wait for the next government bill. We have to tell the government that we want to see three things in its bill: results-based objectives, targets to achieve concrete results, and much broader governance than what was planned and described in committee.

In committee, the department mentioned that it had provided for governance by experts, finance experts who will be able to adopt the best instruments to lower investment risks for companies. Unfortunately, I’m not sure whether this is enough.

We heard some very interesting ideas from witnesses about the fund’s governance. I’m thinking of Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour. He is a trade unionist who came to present elements of a report produced by the Alberta Federation of Labour entitled Skate to where the puck is going. In its report, the Alberta Federation of Labour provides for transition elements and an industrial strategy for Alberta. Mr. McGowan told the committee that the Canada growth fund lacks vision, and that the government should have one. Interestingly enough, he suggested that the Canada growth fund should be managed in a bicameral structure. I will read a excerpt of what he said in English, because I think it is clearer:

[English]

I’ve shared the report with the clerk, so I would encourage you to take a look at the seven pathways we identified. The one thing about the growth fund that I want to emphasize and I mentioned it in passing in my opening remarks has to do with governance. We’re suggesting that instead of simply creating an arm’s-length organization that is run by investment managers that we have a bicameral structure where we have a stakeholder board on the top that will help provide direction and then an operational board that would handle investments.

We actually have a bicameral structure like that for our big pension plans in Alberta. I acted of the chair of what we call the sponsor board to set general policy and then we had an operations board.

[Translation]

What we’re suggesting to the government is that, in the next version of the bill, which should be arriving soon, there should be a governance structure of this nature to ensure that the projects that are chosen will facilitate a more macroeconomic transition rather than small, specialized projects.

Something else occurred to me when I compared the present situation to the experience in Quebec. Indeed, Quebec had a green fund. There was legislation, that has since been changed, there was a somewhat bicameral structure and results-based objectives. However, it takes time before there is any clarity in all this because it is a relatively complex issue. In my opinion, there’s something missing in Canada to be able to make this highly necessary transition. We have the money, we know what we need to do, but there is no cooperation between the key economic players. Every government wants to do things in accordance with what the government in place decides.

In my opinion, the macroeconomic problem would require the creation not just of a fund, but of a Canadian prosperity council. Let’s institutionalize a council of the provinces, the federal government, as well as representatives from the economy, namely businesses and the workforce.

It is a colossal challenge. If we created this type of council, we could give it the necessary vision to spend the money we have all around. There’s money in Quebec; we’re going to get some. This is what I hope for from the government: results-based objectives, a bicameral governance and a prosperity council.

Thank you very much.

[English]