Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Petitclerc, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Claude Carignan moved second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Governor General’s Act (retiring annuity and other benefits).

He said: Honourable senators, this is a rather complex bill and I need to review my notes. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Carignan, debate adjourned.)

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo moved the adoption of the report.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question is also for the government leader.

Among the promises the Liberal government made to small businesses during the 2019 federal election campaign was a commitment to cut the cost of federal incorporation by 75%, from $200 to $50. This is a relatively small promise for a federal government to make, but it matters to entrepreneurs as every dollar counts when starting a new venture.

A recent answer to a written question on the Senate Order Paper states the government “continues to assess the impact of reducing the fee.”

Instead of saying when this fee will be cut, the answer notes that annual incorporations have increased by over 100% within the past five years.

Leader, this sounds very much as though the NDP-Liberal government has chosen to abandon this promise made by the Prime Minister to small businesses. Why?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Black, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada with the purpose of identifying ways to improve soil health, enable Canadian forest product and agricultural producers to become sustainability leaders, and improve their economic prosperity;

That in particular, the committee should examine:

(a)current soil conditions in Canada;

(b)possible federal measures that would support and enhance agricultural and forest soil health, including in relation to conservation, carbon sequestration and efforts to address the effects of climate change;

(c)the implications of soil health for human health, food security, forest and agricultural productivity and prosperity, water quality and air quality; and

(d)the role of new technologies in managing and improving soil health; and

That the committee report to the Senate no later than December 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Galvez, will you take questions?

Senator Galvez: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act.

As you know, I am a longtime supporter of the agricultural industry, and it’s what I know best. So as you can likely assume, my focus today will be the way in which Bill S-5 may impact the agricultural industry. I understand that this is the first time the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, has been amended since 1999. It is clear, as my colleague the Honourable Senator Kutcher highlighted in his earlier speech, that a great deal has changed since then. A great deal has changed about our world in general but also in the world of agriculture. Farming is smarter and more connected now than it ever has been before. As things are continuing to change, the agriculture community is ready to change with it.

That being said, I have recently learned from a few agricultural stakeholders that there are minor concerns about the inclusion of and language around a precautionary principle throughout the bill, particularly since it states that a weight-of-evidence approach and a precautionary approach should be taken.

Members of the agricultural community are concerned that it’s commonly understood that a precautionary approach is used in the absence of data. A weight-of-evidence approach, on the other hand, suggests there is evidence in place.

While the balance between the precautionary principle and weight-of-evidence approaches referenced in the bill isn’t new, as it already is in CEPA, there is a need for clarity as to how it is to be applied to the broader subset of potentially toxic substances this bill brings into CEPA consideration.

It is important to note that there is existing guidance on how the two are balanced by Environment and Climate Change Canada. However, agricultural stakeholders have highlighted the critical need to ensure the end result is as fully informed decision making as possible. And I agree with their concern that Canadian regulators should have a clear mandate to pursue additional evidence where it’s found lacking.

Ultimately, given the important role this bill will play in evaluating substances present in our environment, I believe that where there is an absence of data, there should be legislated processes and mechanisms to request more data. I am hopeful that members of this chamber will consider such a matter at committee and investigate how we can possibly strengthen this bill to ensure its success.

(1610)

Another area that members of the agricultural industry have flagged is regarding chemistries that are not yet registered as pesticides and whether or not they will fall under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA. This would be critical to receive clarification on this, so that manufacturers can be mindful of speed to market for innovation and tools that will support food producers.

Due to administrative burdens, farmers remain concerned with lost competitiveness and any further delays in getting access to new innovations. In fact, every year that Canadian farmers go without a product that’s available to our major trading partners represents an additional obstacle to their competitiveness and to Canada’s competitiveness on the world stage. Health and safety are paramount for and to farmers, but the efficiency of Canada’s regulations in addressing this priority needs to be examined closely to ensure it supports and strengthens the competitiveness of the Canadian agricultural industry.

One additional area of concern that agricultural stakeholders have raised is with respect to section k, wherein it states:

expand certain regulation-making, information-gathering and pollution prevention powers under that Act, including by adding a reference to products that may release substances into the environment;

Depending on how they are applied, there is a question about whether these powers will impact on farm activities. I am hopeful that farmers and the greater agricultural community will be consulted on this section to assess potential implications.

Finally, as Senator Kutcher highlighted, thousands of substances have been identified as needing risk assessments, and many that have been previously assessed may require re‑evaluation because of new uses, new scientific information and greater exposures than were the case at the time of the original evaluation.

This could cause delays and backlogs in the use of these substances, which could potentially lead to further issues and concerns. While I am pleased to see that the time is being taken to understand the potential risks of these substances, we must ensure it is an efficient and effective process.

All that being said, there are aspects of the bill that members of the agricultural community have voiced their support for, namely, the efforts to reduce, refine and replace animal testing. Agriculture has actively worked as a partner towards this change, but it cannot be successful without further support from government.

I heard from Syngenta Canada, a leading agriculture company offering innovative products, expert agronomic advice and support for best management practices, on their work in animal testing. They shared that the scientific community has been working to help the government make scientifically backed decisions that protect both human and environmental health with the use of fewer animal studies. To that end, Syngenta has been working with multiple agencies to develop other methods and evaluation strategies that will allow the agricultural industry, government and regulatory agencies to make better decisions. In fact, some of the methods they have developed and advocated for have already been accepted by regulatory agencies.

As a long-standing member of the agricultural community, I’ve risen on a number of occasions in the Senate Chamber to highlight the role of Canadian agriculture in relation to their efforts to protect the environment and support the fight against climate change.

Across the country, farmers are changing the way they farm by adopting more sustainable approaches, like the way they seed, till and prepare their land, as well as the control of weeds. Practices such as crop rotation and the use of cover crops to help improve soil health, slow erosion and increase soil organic matter all promote healthy crops and livestock, as well as contribute to a healthy ecosystem. All of this helps support a healthier, more sustainable environment.

The challenge for the agriculture and agri-food sector will be to mitigate greenhouse gases while adapting to the impacts of climate change without jeopardizing food security. To do so, Canadian agriculture producers and food processors will need government support in transitioning their operations to be more sustainable, and they will also require the government to continue engaging with the industry as they seek to change decades-long practices and procedures.

On that note, I would like to commend the government for its recently published discussion document on reducing emissions arising from the application of fertilizer in Canada’s agriculture sector. This document addresses one of the measures put forward in the government’s strengthened climate plan, which is a national target to reduce absolute levels of greenhouse gas emissions arising from fertilizer application by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030. This is an important measure. While many in the agriculture sector are already working to improve nutrient management and reduce emissions associated with crop production, it is important to note that fertilizers are responsible for a growing share of overall agricultural emissions.

I was pleased to see that the document discusses the 4R Nutrient Stewardship approach developed by Fertilizer Canada, as it was raised by a large number of stakeholders during the first phase of consultations as a pathway for achieving emission reductions. This is exactly the type of ongoing consultation and collaboration that is needed going forward.

I hope that the officials from Environment and Climate Change Canada, in addition to those of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, will continue to strengthen and enhance their relations with Canada’s agricultural community. As farmers and the agricultural community at large are the stewards of our land, they must be involved in the conversation around protecting our environment. Most importantly, they are willing to be partners in that conversation and those efforts to safeguard Canadian ecosystems.

Honourable colleagues, I am pleased to see that steps are being taken to update the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, especially after so much has changed since 1999, including our understanding of the environment. However, as I mentioned earlier, the agricultural community has some concerns about the language and use of some of the matters included in Bill S-5, and we all believe these issues should be investigated further by both the committee and government. Further, it is my hope that this investigation will lead to amendments to this bill in committee and, therefore, before it reaches the other place.

We are all well aware that our world continues to change. With it comes changes in industry, science and the environment. It is my hope that Bill S-5 will give Canadians a well-thought-out and integrated plan for the assessment of substances insofar as it remains committed to the risk-based approach.

It is also my hope that the public and private sectors, as well as everyday Canadians, will continue working alongside and supporting the agricultural industry as they work to adapt to a changing environment and seek to strengthen and enhance their practices. It is not enough to tell farmers what needs to be done to make their operations greener and more environmentally friendly. It must be a collaborative effort that will keep Canada’s agricultural industry strong for generations to come.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Dalphond: In my view, this country is based on the principle that a contract is the law of the parties, and the contract should be respected until amended. It was amended in 1966 to remove the tax exemptions for municipal taxes, but it was not amended to remove the other taxes, provincial and federal. Therefore, the rule of law shall apply and leave the courts to decide what is the scope of the exemptions and trust the court to make the right decisions and come to the right conclusions.

The Federal Court said that the federal Crown was right in the definition of the scope of the contract, and I don’t see why Saskatchewan is not ready to let its own courts decide if the scope of the contract is the scope that has been defined by the Federal Court.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, my question today is for the government leader in the Senate. It concerns one of the many leaks that appeared in the media detailing items that will be found in the “NDP budget” later this afternoon — the first NDP budget in Canadian history.

According to Reuters, the “NDP finance minister” will bring forward a growth fund for new and green technologies. It will be run by professionals at arm’s-length from the government. It has no clear mandate. It hopes to attract $3 of private investment for every public dollar invested, and it will contain $15 billion in taxpayers’ dollars.

Does that sound familiar, leader? Every single taxpayer should be concerned about the similarities between this new scheme and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, something I asked you about yesterday. Why on earth would you want to repeat your failed infrastructure bank?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I wanted to correct the record. I inadvertently slipped up in a response to Senator Batters’ question. I clearly should spend some more time looking for myself on the internet.

In strict terms, I’ve never actually been a member of the Operations Committee, though I’ve attended every meeting and my reports from the Senate to the committee are a standing item on the agenda. I continue to be a regular participant as invited and as appropriate.

However, from a strict membership standpoint, only ministers of the Crown can be considered members of cabinet committees. So I wanted to correct the record. Let me add, if I may, that I’m not here for trophies or for titles. I’m here to do the best I can for Canada and to serve the public to the best of my ability.

I do apologize for the error in my response. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Yes, it’s very important in every change that we make to help small businesses, even the smallest of fees will make a big difference for them.

On another matter of importance to many small businesses, is Conservative MP Larry Maguire’s Bill C-208, which reduces the taxes paid when transferring family farms or small businesses to family members. Although Bill C-208 passed last June, the Trudeau government never supported this bill and, in fact, even attempted not to implement it through a finance department press release.

In July, on the night before a committee of the other place intended to examine the government’s defiance of Parliament on this bill, Minister Freeland happened to release a statement acknowledging the law had come into force. The minister committed to bringing forward changes to Bill C-208 in November.

(1450)

Leader, here we are in April, nine months later, and we still don’t know what the NDP-Liberal government intends to do with this bill. What are your plans with respect to Bill C-208?

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Acting Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the adoption of the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, entitled Report relating to Government motion 14 (taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan), presented in the Senate on March 31, 2022.

Senator Simons: I think there is consideration, because I think it is important that we live in the provinces that we represent.

And I spoke to one constitutional law professor, Eric Adams, who is Vice Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta. I asked him if I should be concerned that eliminating the property requirement might make it easier for people not to live where they say that they do.

His question to me was, “Does the property requirement actually make them live where they say that they do?” And I had to say that, no, it didn’t, and he told me that if it is not actually a safeguard now, getting rid of it won’t functionally make any difference.

As far as the other constitutional questions, you know, I have been pretending to know something about the law these last couple of speeches. But this place is filled with actual constitutional law experts who could answer that question better than I.

[Translation]