Committee of the Whole - Bill C-5 (Day 2)
Ministers, welcome, especially to you, Minister Alty, on your first time here in the Senate.
Minister LeBlanc, one of the reasons that barriers to interprovincial trade have developed over time has been regional protectionism. Although economy should be top of mind, we know that our culture, our communities and our economies are all tied together. No Canadian wants to see communities suffer because jobs are moving to other areas of the country.
Minister, clarify for us today what efforts are being made, working with the provinces and territories, to find a healthy balance between protecting smaller, more vulnerable communities while growing and integrating Canada’s economy.
Mr. Chair, through you, thank you for the question. You have identified, I think, the reasons over a number of decades why, provincially, territorially and federally, a series of barriers — “barriers” is a dramatic word, but a series of policies, regulations, requirements — have built up over time — a friend of mine in New Brunswick said, “We just accumulate more snow in front of the plow” — as we try and build one Canadian economy. The regional politics and the local politics are very complex.
I have heard premiers of smaller provinces — I am sure Minister Alty — the territorial premiers, you are right. The economy of Nunavut is different than the economy of the province of Ontario. Small provinces like New Brunswick worry that in some circumstances their local economies may be affected.
What is encouraging, though, is that experts and analysis from economists, from global institutions and Canadian think tanks have all said that, done properly, the removal of these barriers and the creation of one Canadian economy, not 13 — to pick up a phrase that the Prime Minister used every day in the election campaign — will add up to 4% to Canada’s GDP. That will create jobs in communities all across the country.
To bridge from removing the interprovincial and territorial barriers to the second part of the legislation, the major projects, many of these projects will bring immediate economic benefit to some of the smaller jurisdictions. If you think of the Indigenous proponents that are suggesting a potential project at Grays Bay or if you think of the Atlantic provinces coming together with the Province of Quebec to do interesting things on an energy partnership, done properly, those national projects will also contribute economic activity.
I’m encouraged by the premiers themselves, the business communities and organizations representing workers asking all governments — every order of government — to do what the moment requires, both in terms of eliminating those interprovincial barriers but also on national projects. I see your chair is about to apply the Freeland rule.
Senator Moodie:
My question is for Mr. Southey. I want to talk a bit about environmental mitigation, if you will.
The Prime Minister seems to support carbon capture technology and sees it as part of a climate mitigation approach that would potentially be paired with resource development. Do you support this view? And perhaps you could comment on how you might view nation-building projects that attempt to use this technology as their mitigation.
Thank you, senator. As a biodiversity and nature NGO, we recognize the incredible consequences that climate change will have on our wildlife. We seek to help mitigate and alleviate climate risks and challenges as much as possible.
As my colleagues have mentioned, good process brings good results. As we look to these technologies, we just need to ensure that they are honestly living up to expectations — that they are tested, validated and effective in their aspirations. We believe carbon capture is essential in an environment of climate change. We believe much of that can be natural — that is to say, in nature — through reforestation and keeping our pristine forests robust and healthy, but it may also mean we need to look to technological solutions that could be an integral part of our development paradigm.
Senator, I would just like to add that there is no reason why carbon capture technology — especially if it’s employed on a large scale — should not be subject to the same assessment and informational proof that we would expect of other technologies, and be subject to meaningful constitutional consultation with Indigenous stakeholders and the free, prior and informed consent of those Indigenous nations.
The final thing I would like to say is that, substantively, it can only ever be a minority of the solution space in the climate change problem because the problem is driven by the use of fossil fuels and their combustion. We cannot escape that central fact.