SoVote

Decentralized Democracy
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gold: Senator Batters, colleagues, my job is to answer questions, and I will. It is not to try to school this chamber on the basic elements of how security information is transmitted from CSIS or other agencies through various levels. Nor is it my obligation or desire to remind you that we are still dealing with leaked material, of which we actually have no notice how nuanced it was or wasn’t — published and leaked information that has been taken seriously by this government and acted upon by this government upon its receipt.

With regard to the rest of your question, Senator Batters, the fact remains that this government is taking the steps necessary to protect Canadians from foreign interference. The actions it took in expelling the diplomat and declaring the individual persona non grata sends a strong signal not only to China but also to other countries who seek to interfere with our democratic processes.

157 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of a new senator.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

36 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gagné: Thank you.

I was raised on a farm, so I have a good idea of the challenges farmers face. I understand the complexities.

I was wondering, Senator Wells, if you are aware of the fact that Bill C-8 proposed and implemented a refundable tax credit for farm businesses operating in backstop jurisdictions starting in 2021-22.

There have been some concerns raised that with the adoption of this bill, Bill C-234, this would result in a double compensation of farmers that could result in further complexities, such as clawbacks. Therefore, I’m wondering whether you have any comments, and if you think the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance could lend its expertise or perspective on this matter.

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Gagné.

Of course, you can’t double-dip on a benefit, whether it is a rebate or an exemption. If you are rebating, you can’t be exempted. If you are exempted, you can’t get a rebate, and that is built into the system. That is a policy decision by the Canada Revenue Agency. That doesn’t need to come through legislation. The ability for them to do that — by directive of their minister — is already there.

I think it is up to the will of the chamber if this goes to committee, and if it does go to committee, where might it go? If it is a question of taxation, it may go to the National Finance Committee. If it is a question of something specific to farms, it may go to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. I don’t know; I would leave that to the will of the chamber.

But for exemptions and rebates, it is one or the other, and I think that is well recognized.

298 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker having informed the Senate that there was a senator without waiting to be introduced:

The following honourable senator was introduced; presented His Majesty’s writ of summons; took the oath prescribed by law, which was administered by the Clerk of the Senate; and was seated:

49 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the honourable senator named above had made and subscribed the Declaration of Qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.

46 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received a certificate from the Registrar General of Canada showing that Iris G. Petten has been summoned to the Senate.

41 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to allow a photographer in the Senate Chamber to photograph the introduction of a new senator.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

36 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Hon. Iris G. Petten, of St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, introduced between Hon. Marc Gold, P.C., and Hon. Fabian Manning.

22 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you, senator.

[English]

I have two questions, but I will wait for the second round for the next one.

The first question is about the — if I read the bill properly — carve-out, to use an expression, which I think is rather proper. The carve-out is good for 8 years, but it can be extended by the government afterwards if it believes that it should be extended for another 8 years or 10 years or 20 years.

Don’t you think it would be better if the bill also provided that the government could reduce the eight years, which has been provided here, if next year or two years from now there are technology advancements that make it interesting to use another technology and, instead, use something else based on solar power or wind power, other than natural gas or propane, to dry the grain, for example?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Dalphond. That is an excellent question, and, of course, any government can do anything it wants, as long as it has the will of the chambers.

This is established at eight years in this bill. Of course, the government can extend it, but a government can also repeal it or make an amendment to make it six years or make it any number of years.

I didn’t hear what you said, but any amendment can be made to any existing legislation.

238 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Quinn: Thank you so much for a very informative speech. It underscored the importance of the issue being dealt with. In regard to the people that I have been meeting with from the various associations that I have talked to, the one thing that has stood out to me — in relation to other discussions that have happened here around the agricultural industry — is food security. You alluded to food security in your speech, and it resonated with me. I’m somewhat concerned that the farming industry — as price-takers — is continuing to face challenges such that the next generation has less interest in taking over, or becoming involved in that business, which backs into the question of food security.

I would suggest that we could wait to see what other approaches could be taken, but given where we are in our particular point in history within the agricultural business — with food security and the prices that my honourable colleague just talked about — does it not make sense that this oversight be corrected through the expansion of the exemptions? I agree that this is the right language.

At some point, I will have a great discussion with Senator Woo about carve-outs — maybe over a roast beef or something.

In any case, I want to get your opinion on this question: Should we not be concerned more about food security, as well as the ability of the current generation and the next generation to enter into the business?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Quinn. That is an excellent question. It is a trend that we’re seeing. There are fewer family farms because it’s hard to make a go of it on that small scale — on the family farm scale, or even the small industrial scale. We do see, especially across the Prairies — and we see it within the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada as well — the larger companies that have economies of scale buying up smaller farms, or smaller operations, because they can have a better margin. However, it is still difficult. I cannot think of anything in the food supply chain that is decreasing in price; nothing comes to mind.

It is a really important point. If there are fewer and fewer farm operations, it becomes closer and closer to monopolistic tendencies where the consumer will have no say in the price. They will simply be in a position to take it or leave it, whether it’s the consumer or the value-added consumer companies that put value into grain or cattle.

I agree with you; it is untenable, and any time you increase the price of something that is already on dangerous ground, it doesn’t make it any better.

[Translation]

456 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Batters: I guess I was just reinforcing the point you made that farmers are price-takers, not price-makers. If they have increased costs because of the carbon tax increasing, as well as GST on the carbon tax and all of that, they have to pass that cost along in order to remain a viable operation. The cost, of course, is passed on to the consumer at the grocery store because groceries do not fall out of the sky. Groceries come from farmers, generally, at one point or another.

As a result, given that grocery store prices are continuing to increase — perhaps inflation is flattening a little bit, but it is still a very high rate — could you tell us a bit more regarding how the food that farmers produce, whether that be grain, cattle or chickens, results in higher costs at grocery stores?

Senator Wells: Thank you again, Senator Batters.

In regard to farmers, ranchers and growers being price-takers, their markets are commodity markets. For the price of hogs, wheat and all of these things, they have no say like in the grocery store. The grocery store owner might charge a specific price for a can — whatever it is — because they have the choice to do that. The farmer has no choice. Any price differential wouldn’t happen in that year; that would happen in the next year. But when you look at it, there are so many things globally that account for a price, such as droughts in different areas of the world and flooding in other areas; there are so many things. The farmer gets what the farmer gets. They do not have a great deal of choice.

It is absolutely passed on to the consumer. The consumer is the one who pays for the end product regardless — which gives even more credence to the necessity for farmers to have as much margin as they can in order to invest in things that they know they will need to invest in. It is only becoming more costly; it is not becoming less costly, especially with the price of fuel and the price of equipment — this goes directly to that — for which there are no other alternatives, both in fuel and equipment.

376 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Carignan: Leader, last week, Toronto media showed images of several hundred people lined up outside of a food bank.

Given the answer you just gave me, what do you have to say to the hundreds of people who were waiting in line at the food bank so they could feed themselves?

52 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: The public is still scared, however, and some people are happy to take those fears and exploit them. I don’t think we can try to make them go away.

That was the point of my question. Is the federal government considering strong action to positively counter or correct the fearmongering about immigration? Unfortunately, the immigrants themselves are the ones who suffer from prejudice.

67 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Plett: Well, I find it strange. He is your parliamentary secretary, and you don’t know about claims that he has made.

23 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Woo: Thank you for the explanation. An expansion of an exemption is another word for a carve out, of course, but I appreciate that that’s what you’re looking for.

Your argument that increasing or preserving the margins of farmers so they can spend surpluses on innovative and less carbon-intensive technologies has a logic to it, but the point is that you need some kind of incentive for them to do that. There’s no guarantee that farmers will use the surpluses, fungible as they are, for that particular task.

Again, there are other tools by which we can incentivize farmers to use geothermal and solar and whatever else might appear, and this is through the means of direct incentives for those technologies.

Why are we not considering these other pathways that, on the one hand, are consistent with the universality of a carbon tax, recognizes the fluctuations, incomes and prices that farmers inevitably face, but also focus on incentives for specific carbon‑reducing technologies that may be available in the years ahead?

Senator Wells: Thank you for the question, Senator Woo. I’m sure those incentives are already there for migrating to alternative sources of fuel that have carbon neutrality, like geothermal, solar and wind, but we’re not there yet. We may be there in some small-scale operations, but we’re not there on an industrial scale.

Canada, among most countries, is a world leader in industrial farming. These are industrial-scale operations that don’t yet enjoy the benefit of geothermal and all the other things that may occur in the future through innovation, investments or other technologies, but this is what we have. The carbon tax is relatively new, and the industry has not caught up to it.

One day, it would be great if these industrial processes were carbon neutral. In regard to on-farm, I still push back on your claim that this is a carve-out because the system already exists where there are exemptions. This is just adding to those exemptions. We will agree to disagree.

This is further assistance for the ranchers, growers and farmers to reach where they need to be.

365 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Plett: Now we see Michael Chong being discredited by the Trudeau government, including by your parliamentary secretary.

Will the Trudeau government stop hiding the truth about foreign interference, stop blaming Michael Chong and apologize to him, or are we going to hear the Prime Minister’s infamous excuse — that people experience things differently — for his own bad behaviour?

59 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. As the Prime Minister recently said, and I quote: “Building a world free of racism requires deliberate, continuous efforts to change perceptions.”

In that respect, the government has committed to building a more inclusive country where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. With the support of the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat, the government is continuing to take steps to combat racial discrimination and its impacts on individuals and communities across the country, including in the health care system.

The government has put in place initiatives such as Promoting Health Equity: Mental Health of Black Canadians Fund, which supports community projects designed to promote mental health in Black communities; the Addressing Racism and Discrimination in Canada’s Health Systems Program, which funds projects that fight systemic racism in our health care systems; and the Indigenous Health Equity Fund, which demonstrates Canada’s commitment to implementing Joyce’s Principle to bring in legislation on Indigenous health, address systemic inequities faced by Indigenous people and give them access to high-quality and culturally appropriate health care free from racism and discrimination.

[English]

187 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gold: Although they become fewer with each passing month, there remain far too many challenges facing Canadians, especially with the cost of groceries and inflation in several sectors.

It is concerning, and that is why the government is moving forward with Bill C-46, which will be debated at third reading tomorrow, despite a translation error. This bill will help 11 million of the most vulnerable and marginalized Canadians, who need the government to give them a hand as part of a responsible budgetary framework.

86 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/9/23 2:00:00 p.m.

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. It is one thing to stand up, as oppositions do, to demand information that is classified, would be against the law and is against the law to publicly disclose. That is the partisan prerogative of this opposition.

The fact remains that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs learned of this a week ago. Proper, prudent steps were taken to determine and evaluate the allegations that were made — again, I repeat — by leaked, not necessarily nuanced documents of a classified nature. The government, as Minister Joly also said, had a responsibility to the Canadians in China and to those here, as well as to the economic interests of those farmers and other producers whose livelihoods depend upon their continued access to markets in China, to at least assess the consequences that the government took, and properly so, in declaring this diplomat persona non grata.

The process took a week. It was done properly, in conformity with the Vienna Convention, in consultation with our allies, on whom we depend, to make sure that what happened to the two Michaels and reprisals against our farmers and producers would not be repeated.

202 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border