Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Let me begin my remarks in a similar fashion to what Senator Cotter did: I will also use a church illustration — not about my grandfather, but about me. I was honoured when I was asked by a church in Alberta — that my children attend — whether I would deliver the message. Now, that might come as a surprise to many of you that I would even be asked to deliver the message at a Sunday morning service, but, nevertheless, I was. They gave me the podium at about 11:30 in the morning, and I asked, “How much time do I have to speak?” And I was told by the chair, “You have unlimited time. You can speak as long as you want. I need to tell you that at 12 p.m., we will all get up and go home, but you can continue to speak as long as you want.”

So I won’t take exception to your leaving at 1:30 p.m. or 2 p.m. while I’m rambling here. You do as you think is necessary.

Colleagues, I would like to begin my third-reading speech on Bill C-235 by once again acknowledging the heart and intent of the man behind it — my friend, and yours, the late Honourable Jim Carr. As I mentioned at second reading, Jim and I were political adversaries, but I never doubted his love for Canada, his love for the Prairies and his deep admiration for Manitoba. It was this passion that drove him to envision Bill C-235, An Act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies, and brought him to Ottawa in the last week of his life to cheer the bill over the finish line in the other place. He, at least, got to see that.

Jim had a heart of gold, and I believe he only envisioned good coming from this initiative. In principle, I can understand what he was trying to achieve. It was a grand effort at collaboration between the federal government, the provinces, municipalities, Indigenous peoples, industry and business to facilitate a priority close to Jim’s heart. I commend my friend for this effort and for his intent, and I have a great respect for what he wanted to achieve.

Regrettably, however, the plan has one major flaw: It cannot succeed unless the federal government implements the bill in the same spirit in which Jim authored it — a spirit of collegiality and collaboration. This is something that this government is clearly incapable of.

This fact was on clear display even at our committee meetings, colleagues. More than one witness mentioned how pleased, and even surprised, they were to be invited to speak to the bill at committee. You might see this as a compliment, but I could not help but see it as a serious indictment of the government. When witnesses from key sectors of the economy are surprised to be called to the table on issues that could potentially have a significant impact on their sector, it is telling us that this government has a terrible track record when it comes to consulting.

You have to remember that the government did not initiate this bill. This is a private member’s bill, as Senator Cotter has rightly said — a bill that will require, however, the government to consult and collaborate. If the government had been doing its job, this bill would never have been necessary. Needing a private member’s bill to spur consultations and collaboratively put together a plan on an important issue is a damning indictment of this government’s track record, and does not leave me hopeful that the bill will achieve what Jim Carr envisioned.

In many ways, I think that the way the government has treated the Prairie provinces over the last seven years set this bill up for failure. It’s the primary reason why none of the provinces want it, and this fact speaks volumes about this government’s relationship with the Prairie provinces. MP Pat Kelly put it this way in the other place:

. . . this bill will do nothing other than compel a process, which the people affected do not want, by a federal government on unwilling provinces in furtherance of objectives, which the people of the provinces affected are not in agreement, in order to report back to a federal government that does not listen and has a track record for which it can be expected it will impose further harm on the three Canadian provinces that have already been severely harmed by the government.

I’d say that’s a pretty fair summary. And if you think it is a bit harsh, you need to understand that currently the government’s flagship policies to “green” the Prairie economy are the carbon tax and the fertilizer reduction initiative — both of which are extremely damaging to the Prairie economy, and did not involve true consultations. You have to remember Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and you have to remember Bill C-48, the “no more natural resources development” bill. The Prairie governments have opposed all these initiatives — only to have them rammed down their throats in the end. That’s the federal government’s idea of consultation.

So you’ll have to forgive me if I am not as optimistic as some other senators about the federal government’s ability to implement a framework that requires true consultation and collaboration — and actually helps the Prairie economy. That’s never been their priority, and nothing suggests that this bill will suddenly now make it their priority. It was Jim Carr’s priority. Jim loved the Prairies. But nothing this government says — or does — suggests that it feels the same way.

Just consider the fact that all three Prairie provinces oppose this bill, yet the government put its weight behind it to see it pass quickly. They basically made it a government bill, given the way the Leader of the Government conducted himself. I don’t recall when the Leader of the Government in the Senate showed up in an ex officio capacity at a committee meeting on private members’ business. There were clearly some marching orders from the Prime Minister’s Office, or PMO, on this.

That, colleagues, is regrettable, not only because we did not have a true opportunity to do our due diligence, but also because it signals to the provinces what they can expect going forward: more of the same.

Colleagues, out of my respect and admiration for Jim Carr, I made a commitment to him to not stand in the way of this bill proceeding. Even though I cannot support the bill, I have fulfilled that commitment, and I would be fine to see the bill pass on division. But that, colleagues, I will leave in your hands. Thank you.