Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I too rise today to speak to Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.

But I want to start at the beginning with how we got here, and a caution that some of these stories may be disturbing.

In March of 2011, 19-year-old Eugene Ndhlovu, an immigrant from Zimbabwe and a student at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, was invited by a female friend to a Jersey Shore-themed party in Edmonton. The party was billed online as a DTF event. That stands for “down to fraternize,” except the F-word used in the advertising was not “fraternize.” Ndhlovu said he didn’t want to go, that he had too much to do the next day. But the friend insisted on his attendance and told him he could stay overnight and that she would arrange a ride to work for him in the morning.

Once at the party, Ndhlovu started to drink with the woman who had invited him and with another mutual female friend. According to the agreed statement of facts, the teenager touched that second girl on her buttock and thighs. Later the next morning, the first girl, the one who had invited him to the party, woke up and found Ndhlovu was trying to put his fingers inside her. She told him no. He tried to convince her. She said no again, so he stopped and left.

He was subsequently charged with two counts of sexual assault, the first count for attempting to put his fingers inside the first woman’s vagina and the second count for touching the other friend’s bottom and leg without her permission. The young man, who had no criminal record, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and was sentenced to six months. Those convictions should have automatically put him on the sex offender registry for life, with all the onerous and humiliating consequences that would entail.

But the trial judge in Edmonton, Madam Justice Andrea Moen, exercised her common sense and determined that placing the young man on the registry in such circumstances was unwarranted, given that he had taken responsibility for his actions and shown great remorse. She also noted that placement on the registry might make him especially vulnerable to racial profiling.

Madam Justice Andrea Moen said:

The law as it stands will now place Mr. Ndhlovu on police radar for the rest of his life anytime a sexual offence is committed by a black man of average height in his neighbourhood.

She added that putting his name on the registry would bear “. . . no connection to the object of assisting police officers in the investigation or prevention of future sex crimes. . . .”

This seems to me to have been a logical use of judicial discretion.

The sexual assault on the one woman was serious — serious enough that it led to jail time. But the second charge, the one that involved touching the second young woman on the bum and leg, was surely less so.

Indeed, one might legitimately wonder if there was some pressure on the Crown to charge Ndhlovu with two separate offences simply for the sake of putting him on the registry, especially since inclusion on the registry only became automatic in April of 2011, less than a month after the assaults took place.

The Crown appealed and won a split decision at the Court of Appeal of Alberta. It was, let me note, though, Madam Justice Ritu Khullar, who is now Alberta’s Chief Justice, who dissented and supported the ruling of the original trial judge. This split decision helped to allow for a Supreme Court appeal, and in October of 2022, Canada’s Supreme Court, in its own split decision, upheld the trial judge’s original ruling and deemed the mandatory automatic placement of sex offenders on the national registry unconstitutional.

As we have heard, the court gave the government one year to come up with a response, so now we have Bill S-12 and the political imperative to pass the bill before the clock runs down.

Under the terms of the legislation, inclusion on the sex offender registry will still be automatic for repeat offenders or those who commit sex crimes against children. But in all other cases, the defendant will have the right to challenge the registration. If the offender can demonstrate that being put on the registry would be disproportionate to the offence, then the judge can opt not to include them. As Senator Busson has just explained, the onus is reversed, and the default is to be on the list unless you can make the case that you shouldn’t be there. Then the judge will decide whether being placed on the registry is warranted, paying attention to factors including the nature and seriousness of the crime, the victim’s age and other personal characteristics, the nature of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, the accused’s own circumstances, whether or not the perpetrator has a criminal history and the opinions of expert witnesses.

Under Bill S-12, judges will at least be given back some of the autonomy and responsibility for passing judgment. Having heard all the trial testimony, they will then decide whether placement on the registry makes sense in a particular case, whether it’s proportionate and whether such registration will protect public safety while respecting the rights of the defendant.

There are certainly those who would argue that the whole idea of a sex offender registry is counterproductive, that such a blacklist is a crude American import that has no place in Canadian society. One could certainly make an argument that these lists are a kind of security theatre that do little to protect the public or reduce recidivism, but that they stoke public fears and public hysteria while making it harder for those who have served their sentences to reintegrate into the community and stay out of trouble.

In the words of the Supreme Court itself on the topic of these lists:

Despite its long existence, there is little or no concrete evidence of the extent to which it assists police in the prevention and investigation of sex offences.

There are certainly those who would say that the reverse onus test puts an unfair burden on defendants, reversing the balance of our criminal justice system, which gives the state — the Crown — the legal burden of making its case.

Yet, from a political perspective, I can understand why the government might hesitate to abolish these problematic registries, and is instead taking this far more modest step to comply with the Supreme Court’s direction. Still, once this bill is in committee, I hope that hard questions will be asked regarding the value of sex offender registries, or whether they are merely counterproductive political show.

The legislation before us also represents a fundamental and long overdue shift in the way we disempower and shame victims of sexual assault.

For too long, Canadian courts have slapped automatic publication bans on the names of sexual assault victims, without considering whether such bans are always in the interests of individual victims. The practice, which began almost 40 years ago, started as a noble one. The idea of so-called rape-shield laws was to protect sexual assault victims from public shame and public scrutiny, as well as to encourage them to come forward with charges by protecting their identities.

But sometimes victims want to be known. They don’t necessarily want to be protected in perpetuity — in a way that infantilizes them and robs them of agency and self-determination.

Let me provide you with an example of what I mean — it’s a case I wrote about back in my own days as a journalist.

In 2006, the kidnapping of a 10-year-old Saskatchewan boy shocked and horrified the country. The child had been snatched from his parents’ home in Whitewood, Saskatchewan, by notorious serial sexual predator Peter Whitmore. Whitmore took the boy to an abandoned farmhouse near Kipling, where he’d been holding another prisoner: a 14-year-old boy he’d abducted weeks earlier.

The 10-year-old was rescued after two days — thanks to an alert farmer who noticed signs that someone was living in the abandoned house. The boy had been chained to a bed, and forced to walk around naked while wearing a dog leash. Even after Whitmore was convicted, the boy’s trials didn’t end. He was so bullied in his small-town school — where the other children called him horrible homophobic names because of the sexual assault — that his parents finally had to withdraw him to homeschool him.

At the time of his abduction, his name and photograph were everywhere. But once the trial began, the court imposed a publication ban on his identity, and it became a criminal offence for any media outlet to print his name or picture. A decade later, it was still illegal for him to blog or post to Facebook about what he’d endured. The whole country knew the ghoulish details of his abduction, yet he was forbidden to talk about how he had survived, to share his story and to work through his pain.

Then, in late 2015, a Regina court finally gave Zachary Miller his name and his voice. Justice Catherine Dawson of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench granted Miller’s application to lift the ban. Miller had argued that he wanted to be known as a survivor, not a victim, and that he wanted his story to help others coping with the aftermath of abuse.

Miller, who was 20 at the time, testified:

I feel a victim under this court’s publication ban, because it has refused me the right to use my name in any form of media, which in a way has refused my rights of freedom of speech.

You may ask, “If victims can challenge bans, even if it’s expensive and time-consuming, why do we need Bill S-12?”

Well, it’s because victory isn’t assured. Take another case I wrote about: It’s the story of a young man, from the St. Paul area of Alberta, who had a sexual relationship with a female teacher when he was just 17. The teacher, who had insisted the sex was consensual, was eventually acquitted of sexual exploitation. In 2007, seven years after the trial, the young man, who was then 26, applied to have the publication ban lifted so he could finally speak out about the lasting psychological pain of being victimized by an adult he had trusted.

The Crown, to its credit, did not oppose the application, so you’d think this would have been easy. But the justice in the case refused to lift the ban, ruling that doing so — years later — would not be in the public interest. The man’s only option was an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. He did so, but the court declined to hear his case.

Thus, when misapplied, the almost unliftable publication ban revictimizes victims in the name of protecting their privacy. It’s patronizing and paternalistic. Even worse, it sends sexual assault survivors the explicit message that they have been so shamed and dishonoured — that what has happened to them is so peculiarly and uniquely disgraceful — that they must be hidden away from public view. It’s a medieval attitude to rape, informed by misogyny and homophobia, and it belongs in our past.

Bill S-12 goes some way to righting the balance. It states that a victim must be consulted before a publication ban is imposed. It also states that a court must hold a hearing for any sexual assault victim who wishes to revoke or vary their own publication ban.

But this is, again, a compromise. The request is not granted automatically. The bill states that the court must consider any material change in circumstances including the victim’s wishes. But ultimately, the court must rule not based on what the victim wants, but on whether lifting or varying the ban is “in the interests of justice.”

While the bill goes some way to re-empowering those victims who choose to speak, it also includes broader provisions to protect the privacy of those who do not wish to have their identities known. The existing law bans the publication or broadcasting of any information that would serve to identify a sexual assault victim. In this social media age, Bill S-12 widens that provision to include anyone who transmits, or otherwise makes available, information about any victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by a publication ban — a provision that would seem to cover tweets, toots, Facebook posts and even group chat gossip. I’m sure this too will be an issue of much debate in committee, as it would potentially open up to sanction not just newspaper publishers and television stations, but also lots of ordinary citizens.

Due to the Supreme Court deadline, we are under some pressure to pass this law quickly. And yet, I hope that we will allow ourselves the necessary time to study its complexities and contradictions — because these are vitally important issues that speak to our civil liberties and the safety of our communities. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the second reading of Bill S-221, An Act to amend the Governor General’s Act (retiring annuity and other benefits).

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

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, I rise today to support Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

As a member of the Senate Human Rights Committee and the Indigenous Peoples Committee, and from my many years working in the community as a social worker, I am deeply aware of the impact of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, on our most vulnerable populations.

Congratulations to Senator Ravalia for initiating Bill S-253. I would like to recognize that this bill was developed through extensive consultation with the Canada Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Research Network, also known as CanFASD, which is a collaborative interdisciplinary research network with partners across the nation, so I am very confident that this bill is informed by the most up-to-date knowledge and expertise.

Thank you, CanFASD, for your incredible work and your ongoing commitment.

Thank you to our colleagues who have spoken in support of this bill. Today, following my speech, Senator Duncan will speak to this.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is a lifelong neurological disorder that is caused when a fetus is exposed to alcohol in utero. It is the leading cause of developmental disability in Canada.

Health Canada estimates that between 1% and 5% of the population may have the disorder; however, given that it is difficult to diagnose, it often goes undetected. Some groups are more impacted by this than others. For instance, among Canada’s prison population, the number of affected people ranges from 9.8% to 23.3% for the general prison population and could be as high as 50% for Indigenous offenders.

The disorder can affect many bodily systems, but its impacts are felt primarily in the brain. Many people with FASD show no outward signs of a disability, but this may mask a range of learning difficulties and memory impairments.

Here are some examples of what people with the disorder may demonstrate: forgetting how to do something they’ve already learned; problems with social communication despite, in many cases, having strong verbal skills; trouble reading social cues and understanding others; trouble understanding abstract concepts and internalizing rules; difficulty concentrating due to impaired self-regulation, and this is made more difficult because they may find it harder to grasp abstract concepts, such as reasoning, problem solving and connecting cause and effect. People with the disorder often have disrupted school experiences, have trouble interacting with others and keeping their jobs and may encounter financial difficulties.

The impact of the social determinants of health leads to a higher risk of depression, drug and alcohol addiction, homelessness and poverty. Without adequate interventions and supports, people with FASD and their families and communities are at a greater risk of negative outcomes.

I believe prevention with a pan-Canadian approach is critical. The development of a national framework provides an opportunity to explore this further at committee.

Early intervention for women who are at risk is key to better pregnancy outcomes and also to better outcomes for children who are born with FASD. CanFASD and the Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health co-developed a made-in-Canada model based on four levels of interventions focused on prevention where each level builds on the previous one. As time doesn’t permit me to go into the details of all of their tremendous work, I will simply give you the highlights of the levels of intervention, prevention and treatment of FASD.

Briefly, the first level of intervention includes raising awareness about the risks of alcohol consumption during pregnancy and empowering women and communities with the information needed to make decisions. This can take the form of national media campaigns, developing health promotion materials and producing easy-to-understand and readily available low-risk drinking guidelines. Culturally appropriate and trauma-informed approaches are extremely important for community-based health promotion strategies, especially in the context of Indigenous communities. Increasing awareness is included as an element of the framework under Bill S-253.

The second level is a provision of safe, non-judgmental spaces for all women of child-bearing age to have discussions on reproductive health, contraception, pregnancy and substance use with their health providers. Research has pointed to the importance of “brief alcohol interventions,” which are collaborative, often informal conversations that can occur between women and their health care providers and can provide an opportunity to engage openly on alcohol use and other risk factors that may not be immediately obvious.

These interventions can be the basis for lasting change by connecting women to the supportive services they need. They are valued by health practitioners as they are seen as less stigmatizing than screening for alcohol use and as open opportunities to discuss issues related to substance use, such as mental wellness and gender-based violence.

It is critical that these conversations happen in a non‑judgmental way because the factors that lead to women drinking can be highly complex. They are often driven by a number of social determinants of health. The stigma associated with drinking during pregnancy can result in women not seeking support, so it is important that women are able to participate in these interventions and follow-up treatments without the risk of losing custody of their children.

According to research by Dr. Shimi Kang, a professor at the University of British Columbia and a recent recipient of the Governor General’s Persons Case Award, an opportunity exists in the prenatal period to help women with addiction issues as they are then more likely to engage with the health care system and are more likely to abstain or reduce their substance use during this time. However, many women face barriers such as stigma in the form of guilt or shame, fear of losing custody of their children, prejudice towards mothers with substance problems, responsibility for dependent families and lack of child care and transportation.

Two thirds of all women entering addiction treatment services report a history of sexual or physical abuse — quite a lot when you think about it — which points to the need for an assessment of abuse history among addiction patients so that their trauma-related symptoms could then be treated, resulting in better addiction outcomes and therefore reducing the risk of negative pregnancy outcomes.

Brief interventions are important because they embody the “no wrong door” approach to care, where women and girls can access resources at any juncture in their lifespan through family doctors, midwives, nurses, anti-violence support workers and social workers. This goes hand in hand with preventing intimate-partner violence.

The third and fourth levels include holistic supports for pregnant women and new mothers with alcohol abuse and other health and social problems, including supports for child development. In a study of the most effective programs for reaching pregnant women at risk, researchers noted that the provision of the following were associated with the best outcomes: access to basic needs such as food and clothing; supportive housing; child welfare support; substance use supports; trauma and violence support; women’s health services, including parenting support; cultural programs; pre- and postnatal care and peer connection.

Colleagues, these interventions are at the core of the social determinants of health. These interventions can provide a strong base for future health of children with FASD because healthy mothers are more likely to be involved in care, are more likely to adhere to treatment and have healthier attachments to their children. This healthy attachment and family cohesion is emphasized in the Towards Healthy Outcomes for Individuals with FASD model developed by the Intervention Network Action Team of the CanFASD Research Network. Children who suffer from impaired detachments are at a higher risk of negative outcomes later in life, so a sense of stability, security and high family cohesion can act as protective factors. This document also contains a wealth of effective interventions which the committee could explore in larger detail.

With so much knowledge on early intervention, why are parents and children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder still struggling? As Senator Ravalia aptly explained, provinces and territories each have different standards and resources allocated to the disorder. Although there are 73 diagnostic clinics in Canada, none are in rural areas, and they are not evenly distributed.

Diagnosis remains elusive for many due to the lack of resources dedicated to FASD. Some parents might fear obtaining a diagnosis because of the stigma associated with drinking during pregnancy.

In my home province of New Brunswick, we are fortunate to have the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Centre of Excellence, located in Dieppe. They provide a range of services including prevention, diagnosis, intervention and support services, with special attention given to mothers’ needs and trauma. They now serve over 800 families a year. And although the centre of excellence is considered the gold standard in Canada, over 300 families in my region are still waiting for diagnosis, and many more cannot even get a referral because of circumstances out of their control. All of this is to note that with more than 4,000 youth in the school system in our area estimated to have FASD, most without a diagnosis, it is clear that the resources do not meet the needs.

Colleagues, there is a tremendous amount of research on FASD, and evidence-based best practices have been implemented in various ways across Canada. There may be other questions to explore, such as the father or male partner role in this issue. At committee, I hope that special attention will be paid to the social determinants of health for mothers, children and the family, and I hope the study will be bolstered with gender-based analysis and will take into consideration the many intersecting factors that lead to FASD.

The social determinants of health are at the core of prevention and lifetime interventions, and they deeply inform the treatment models that have emerged. Bill S-253 can provide a framework on which we can build, as an act of reconciliation and public health, to guide best practices in prevention, diagnosis and intervention across Canada.

I look forward to the next step by sending Bill S-253 to committee for further study. Thank you.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ravalia, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, for the second reading of Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): With leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Carignan for the balance of his time.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

(At 6:28 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today to express my support for Bill S-253, An Act respecting a national framework for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

I will begin by expressing my sincere thanks to my friend Senator Ravalia, his team and my own staff for their work and efforts on this bill, as well as to my colleagues who have spoken on this initiative before me. They have eloquently covered the impacts and the data showing how severe the challenges are. I’m also grateful, colleagues, for your patience as I have gathered my thoughts to speak.

My understanding of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, has evolved over the almost 30 years that I have been dealing with this. In 1998, my colleague in opposition, Yukon MLA Sue Edelman, the health critic, gave notice in the Yukon Legislative Assembly of a motion that read in part:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) there are no accurate or approximate numbers of Yukoners who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects;

(2) fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are completely preventable if parents do not drink during pregnancy;

(3) there are few if any supports for families and for those who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects once they have left the education system — and this is particularly true in rural Yukon . . . .

The motion then called upon the Yukon government to provide support for early intervention and prenatal programs that prevent fetal alcohol syndrome, FAS, and fetal alcohol effects, FAE. In addition, she urged that the government:

. . . allow children who have been affected lead happy, productive lives in our society by being properly prepared for school and by giving their families ways to support these special children, then by examining the gaps in the service to youth and adults . . . by using our resources wisely by coordinating services to persons with fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects, and their families.

As honourable senators can tell, the language has changed since then. FAS and FAE are now FASD, recognizing the wide-ranging symptoms and conditions associated with FASD.

When in government with the opportunity to act upon the motion, I raised this issue at the national level. With the support of then-Alberta premier Ralph Klein and at our Yukon government’s request, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission conducted a comprehensive review of Yukon’s alcohol and drug addiction services and program delivery. Our government initiatives included taking a more aggressive and proactive approach in the Yukon’s FAS/FAE strategy, one which recognized prevention as the only cure. We continued our work with our southern and western neighbours, initiating the Prairie Northern Conference on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Honourable senators, a quarter of a century later, I find myself in the same discussions, albeit with changed terminology. Sadly, the statistics, such as we know them, remain the same, continuing or rising in this entirely preventable situation. Politicians, even those with a long history of good work, taking a great deal of time, might have thrown up their hands in despair. Thankfully, we have not and we are not giving up. The bill before us is an example of our commitment.

There has been progress over the past 25 years, and I would like to share some of the improvements we’ve seen. Specifically, in the Yukon, the story of progress is encouraging. In 2019, the Yukon government established the Yukon FASD Action Plan. Progress on the action plan was considerably slowed during the pandemic.

In January 2021, as part of a government-to-government relationship, the Council of Yukon First Nations, or CYFN, hired a coordinator for the FASD action plan. This individual works very closely with the director of the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, FASSY. The director recently provided me with an update on their activities. The FASD action plan committees that have been established so far are awareness, prevention, diagnostic and, of course, the interagency committee. The knowledge exchange committee is anticipated to be developed as things progress. The groups are still looking to put together the family support committee, comprised of those who care for people with FASD, and an evaluation committee will also be established.

FASSY and CYFN will also be putting more pregnancy tests out in the communities and in Whitehorse. They are free of charge and available in bars and in the Yukon University buildings. The Yukon University has established campuses in most locations and communities in the Yukon. Information will also be publicly available in the form of posters at doctors’ offices.

As the CYFN coordinator stated to me, “Blatant advertising will eventually drill the message of abstinence during pregnancy is best.”

Honourable senators, this express message is included in another bill before us, Bill S-254, introduced by our colleague Senator Brazeau. Thank you, Senators Brazeau, Miville-Dechêne and others who have recognized Yukon’s initiatives with regard to warning labels on alcohol. I will leave my further remarks on that issue to another day.

Honourable senators, Yukon was also the first jurisdiction in Canada to respond in a fulsome way to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The Yukon strategy entitled Changing the Story to Upholding Dignity and Justice: Yukon’s Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and Two-spirit+ People Strategy from 2020 specifically mentioned FASD:

. . . it will take coordinated efforts to implement this Strategy. Women, girls, and Two-spirit+ individuals living with FASD or other disabilities will be fully included and considered.

The coordinator also shared with me that in the last six months the number of clientele that FASSY has been assisting went from 69 to 84 persons. Her educated guess is that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If they can manage to take the stigma off of FASD and educate people about it, the numbers should only go higher as people are made aware of their services.

Yukon has also dedicated funding — put the money where their mouth is — to FASD. The 2021 budget documents note that the FASSY received close to $800,000 in funding, which included funding to the interagency committee.

Nationally, since these discussions in the Yukon — some more than 20 years ago — the Canada FASD Research Network, CanFASD, begun in 2013, has grown in strength. The network’s initial intention was to increase the amount of FASD research within the provinces and territories of the Canada Northwest FASD Partnership.

The results significantly exceeded strategic goals, and, today, CanFASD operates across Canada. They support all stakeholders, finding innovative and practical ways to help persons with FASD, their families and their caregivers and assisting governments at all levels as well as practitioners and educational institutions in creating and disseminating evidence-based research and knowledge.

Another example of action was noted by our colleague Senator Colin Deacon: the Nova Scotia-based Strongest Families Institute. They offer their support services in the Yukon as well. They are truly a coast-to-coast-to-coast initiative.

Senators, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the volunteer efforts of FASSY and one volunteer in particular: Judy Pakozdy. This person has championed the cause of FASD for years, raising awareness in the Yukon and working with, supporting and showing up for those affected. A clear and direct individual, she has personally paid for newspaper advertising to raise awareness and urged governments to action. The ads were published as we gathered on the ninth day of the ninth month, FASD Awareness Day. She spoke to me at public events in a very clear way. She said, “We don’t need more words. We don’t need more plans. We need money and we need action.”

The bill is the action we in the Senate can provide in response to Judy’s plea. The money? That is not so simple. The Senate does not get to introduce a money item or demand that the government spend money, as we all know.

Today, I want to speak to the action.

The bill before us calls for a national strategy, a framework to coordinate our efforts to fight FASD. As Senator Ravalia, the sponsor, said in his speech to us, it will include measures to standardize guidelines, improve diagnostic and data reporting tools, expand knowledge bases, facilitate information exchanges and increase public and professional awareness, among other things. The bill is our specific action that we here in the Senate can provide in response to Ms. Pakozdy’s plea. Senator Ravalia’s bill is a major step in the right direction, and, perhaps, the longest and strongest step the Senate of Canada could take.

Today, I would like to strongly encourage senators to take this step, to walk together, to support the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, community and call upon the government for a national framework. Thank you. Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh.

Hon. David M. Wells moved second reading of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which was introduced in the other place by member of Parliament Ben Lobb on February 7, 2022.

This bill was recently passed through the other place with the support of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, along with a few Liberal MPs. It is truly a cross-party effort and is a much-needed piece of legislation.

The objective of this bill is quite simple, and that is to create additional on-farm exemptions from the carbon tax for critical farming practices such as grain drying, heating and cooling livestock barns and greenhouses, steam flaking and irrigation.

When the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA for short, was adopted in June 2018, the bill imposed a fuel charge on fossil fuels like gasoline and natural gas. The fuel charge is applicable in all provinces and territories which do not have their own federally approved carbon pricing systems. This currently includes Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Yukon and Nunavut. On July 1 of this year, the Atlantic provinces will be added to that list as well.

Under the GGPPA, gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers in eligible farming machinery such as trucks and tractors is already exempt from the carbon tax. In addition, the act provides an exemption for up to 80% of the carbon tax for natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.

But what the current legislation does not include is an exemption for natural gas or propane used for on-farm activities such as grain dryers and heating barns. This was a critical oversight which Bill C-234 seeks to correct.

Colleagues, as we all know, natural gas is a transition fuel. As Liberal MP Kody Blois, member for Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia, said in the other place:

 . . . at the time the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was developed, it seems as though there was not necessarily a lot of thought given to grain drying and, particularly, to barn heating for livestock. That is exactly what this bill tries to do. It would extend to what a number of policy-makers feel was a small oversight at the time of the original drafting of the legislation that brought the carbon price into force.

As senators know, the purpose of the carbon tax is to provide an economic incentive through a price signal to encourage people to shift their energy consumption from fossil fuels to other sustainable energy options. However, when it comes to agriculture, this poses a number of problems.

The first is that farmers have no viable sources of alternative energy for their agricultural practices. This is widely recognized, as noted by New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Alistair MacGregor at the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. He noted that:

We realize that a price on carbon is there to incentivize a change in behaviour, but it doesn’t work very well if there aren’t commercially viable alternatives available.

This is the first fundamental reality which underscores the importance of Bill C-234: The law currently penalizes farmers for something over which they have no control. They cannot shift their energy use away from fossil fuels because alternatives are not yet available. This makes the current situation punitive and fundamentally unfair.

It is recognized, however, that the current lack of renewable energy options for farmers could change. Research and development is already under way to develop renewable energy sources for farm production including biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind power. Although these options have not yet reached the stage of development where they are workable options to replace the farm use of fossil fuels, that day will come.

For this reason, the bill includes an eight-year sunset clause. On the eighth anniversary of Bill C-234 coming into force, the changes made to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by this bill will be automatically repealed, reverting the legislation to its current state. If, however, the government of the day believes they should not be repealed, then the legislation allows both houses of Parliament to debate and vote on a proposed extension. This would remove the need to relitigate a similar piece of legislation if at the time it’s found that an exemption from the carbon tax on farm fuels is still needed.

The second reason the carbon tax imposes significant problems on farms is because farmers are price takers, not price makers. This is a long-standing and well-understood reality. Farmers must sell their production at the prevailing market price, and they have no control over that price. If their expenses are increased, they cannot pass those on. They must simply absorb them. This is the reality that farmers face today because of the lack of sufficient agriculture exemptions in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Bloc Québécois Member of Parliament Yves Perron put it this way:

Without an alternative, if we impose a tax on these processes at this time, it would simply increase production costs and reduce farmers’ profit margins since they have no other options.

This, colleagues, is the current reality on farms which are located in federal backstop provinces and territories. Farmers and ranchers require propane or natural gas to dry their grain, irrigate their land and heat or cool their barns and greenhouses in order to feed Canadians and drive our export market. Yet, they are unable to pass the cost of the carbon tax on to consumers and are left to absorb the additional expense.

In April 2022, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the cost of the carbon tax on natural gas and the propane used in the agricultural sector in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario would cost agricultural producers $235 million from 2020-21 to 2024-25. Over the next 10 years, this total will reach $1.1 billion. This has been corroborated by studies completed by numerous agricultural organizations.

The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan calculated the carbon tax at $50 per tonne to cost farmers between $13,000 to $17,000 annually, the equivalent of a 12% decrease in net income. At $170 per tonne, they estimated the carbon tax will cost a grain farmer $12.52 per acre by 2030.

The Keystone Agricultural Producers reported that Manitoba producers paid $1.7 million in carbon taxes related to drying grain in 2019. Examples include a producer growing 250 acres of corn spending $33,664 on propane to dry their crop with the carbon tax adding another $1,043 to their fuel bill, and a chicken farmer heating a barn from October 24, 2019, to January 21, 2020, spending $5,935 on natural gas with the carbon tax adding another $1,300 to their fuel bill or 22.16%.

The Grain Farmers of Ontario have noted that, under the current legislation, the tax credit returns less than 20% of the carbon tax cost. They estimate when the carbon tax reaches $170 per tonne some farmers could pay between $50,000 and $70,000 just in carbon taxes.

The Canadian Canola Growers Association calculated that the carbon tax would cost their industry $52.1 million in 2022 at $50 per tonne, and $277.9 million in 2030 at $170 per tonne. The cumulative cost of the carbon tax to the industry from 2022 to 2030 would be $1.429 billion.

Colleagues, input costs are the greatest expenses on Canadian farms. Farmers and ranchers are already judicious in their use of natural gas and propane on farms. Carbon surcharges on these fuels only serve to reduce the financial resources available for producers to invest in efficiencies that mitigate costs and reduce emissions, such as a more efficient grain dryer, precision agriculture equipment, solar panels, LED lighting, heat exchangers for barns or anaerobic digesters, to name a few.

Remember colleagues, in southern Alberta in particular, where farms are plentiful, it can get to minus 40 in the winter and plus 40 in the summer. It can be used not only for heating but also for cooling, especially when livestock are involved.

It is a well-known fact that farmers have a record of being environmental stewards and innovators. They have adopted new technologies and proven their ability to continually lessen their environmental footprint while increasing production and maintaining their competitiveness, without a carbon price incentivizing them to do so. However, without the changes introduced by Bill C-234, the carbon tax will extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the agriculture sector reducing the ability of farmers to invest in the capital-intensive innovations and technologies that drive sustainability and productivity gains.

This was an unintentional impact of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, and Bill C-234 seeks to rectify this oversight.

This is not the first time the Senate has had an opportunity to address this unintentional impact. In 2018, the carbon tax was brought in under Part 5 of the Budget Implementation Act, in Bill C-74. It was the Senate that was able to conduct a more in‑depth study in how this affected agriculture. Unfortunately, this was not addressed as the legislation was pushed through the Finance Committee very quickly in the context of an omnibus bill.

Subsequently, our House and Senate colleagues similarly sought to correct this omission through Bill C-206, which was put forth by MP Philip Lawrence. As some of you may recall, it was also attempted by our former colleague the Honourable Diane Griffin. Her bill sought to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to modify the definitions of “eligible farming machinery” and “qualifying farming fuel.”

Colleagues, here we are today with an opportunity to correct a lapse in the law that is now affecting the core of our agriculture system and, essentially, our food supply. Canada’s farmers sit at the heart of an agri-food system which contributes nearly $140 billion to our economy annually and provides one in nine Canadian jobs. Agriculture is an international success story in terms of productivity and innovation, but requires a policy environment that enables our farms to thrive.

This bill is not about whether you like the carbon tax. Although Conservatives are opposed to the carbon tax in principle, the NDP, Bloc Québécois and the Green Party fully support it. Yet all these parties voted in favour of this bill, along with a number of Liberal members including the chair of the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, the committee that studied this bill.

This bill is not about politics, it is about Canadian farmers. It’s not about removing the carbon tax or diminishing its effectiveness. It’s about making sure the carbon tax is equitably applied and does not harm our agriculture industry.

Colleagues, the scope of this bill is narrow and targeted. It expands the existing list of “eligible farming machinery” to include property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure used for raising or housing livestock or for growing crops and drying grain. Secondly, it expands the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include marketable natural gas and propane.

These are reasonable, moderate and necessary changes, and are badly needed and broadly supported across the agricultural sector. Here’s what agriculture organizations from across the country have had to say about the need and value of Bill C-234.

The Agriculture Carbon Alliance, known as the ACA, is a coalition of 15 national farm organizations representing more than 190,000 farm businesses. I was shocked that there were that many farm businesses in Canada. Agriculture Carbon Alliance members include members of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Cattle Association, Grain Growers of Canada, Canadian Pork Council, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Turkey Farmers of Canada, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, Canadian Forage and Grassland Association, National Sheep Network, National Cattle Feeders’ Association, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Canadian Seed Growers’ Association and Mushrooms Canada.

The Agriculture Carbon Alliance said:

As a national coalition of industry-wide farm organizations, we are focused on prioritising practical solutions to ensure our farmers and ranchers can remain competitive and utilize the tools available to them where no alternative fuel sources exist. . . . This Bill will provide economic relief for our members, freeing up the working capital they need to implement environmental innovations on farm.

By adopting policies that enable producers to remain competitive, they will be able to further their investments in the sustainability of their operations, which will augment the sector’s potential to further lower emissions and sequester carbon.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated:

Producers across Canada are working every day to improve the sustainability of their operations. This continuous improvement is reliant on the commercialization of new viable on-farm technologies that come with significant capital expenses. This proposed legislation helps ensure farmers have the capital needed to make those investments and continue to realize the sector’s potential as climate solutions-providers.

The Chicken Farmers of Canada stated:

Canadian chicken farmers constantly advance our operations in order to improve bird health and welfare, and to ameliorate environmental stewardship and sustainability on the farm. Through the implementation of good production practices, chicken farmers are taking steps to ensure that our sector is environmentally sustainable for decades to come. We look to our partners in government and in the House of Commons to provide legislative and financial support for farmers so we can keep feeding Canadians.

The Canadian Pork Council stated:

Having barn heating costs subject to the carbon price is especially challenging for producers given that they are responsible for the welfare of their animals. In Canada’s climate, producers have no choice but to manage the temperatures in barns to ensure the care of our animals.

The Grain Growers of Canada:

Canada’s grain farmers welcome the introduction of this bill and appreciate the exemptions included for critical on-farm activities — including grain drying. Through this relief from the carbon tax, our farmer members would have additional capital to invest in innovative technologies and sustainable practices that reduce emissions.

Canadian Hatching Egg Producers stated:

Canada’s hatching egg farmers represent an important segment of the poultry industry. Our farmers work hard to be at the forefront of innovation for sustainability while striving for efficiency at every opportunity. Bill C-234 will provide necessary support on farms to help alleviate financial pressures and ensure capital is available to reinvest in our farm operations . . . .

Canadian Canola Growers Association:

Canola farmers are committed to a sustainable future and have established production goals to support that commitment. I have made investments on my farm to retrofit my natural gas grain dryer, making it more energy efficient. While this is an important step, farmers today simply do not have viable fuel alternatives available for drying grain, which is why Bill C-234 is so important.

That’s from Mike Ammeter, Chair of the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association:

Beef farmers and ranchers are continuously looking at ways to environmentally improve operations and further contribute positively to Canada’s climate change objectives.

Colleagues, you see a trend in all of these. They want to take these savings and make their systems better. He went on to say:

Bill C-234 will provide the much needed exemptions for critical farming practices including heating and cooling of livestock barns and steam flaking.

The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada said:

Canadian fruit and vegetable growers are committed to being a part of global climate solutions and the sustainability of their operations. We believe the support for farmers found in Bill C-234, will incentivize continued innovation, and recognizes that farmers need a range of feasible fuel and energy options. Ultimately, this will benefit the entire food value chain, including Canadian consumers.

Colleagues, Bill C-234 is critically necessary for Canadian farmers who are essential to our food supply and security and also builds on the multi-party support that Bill C-206 received in 2020 and 2021. I ask for your support, colleagues, for this legislation at second reading, and look forward to hearing directly from stakeholders at committee. Thank you.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Thank you, Senator Wells, for your speech. You make some important points about the unique nature of agriculture in relation to the use of fossil fuels. The value of a carbon tax is greatest when it has few exemptions. My question with respect to the issue of agriculture being price takers is that prices go up and they go down, of course. Sometimes world prices go up to a point where there are windfall profits for farms, and sometimes they go down to the point where farms are at jeopardy of going bankrupt.

The traditional remedy for these kinds of problems in economics is price and income support. Why don’t we look to that kind of protection, if I can put it that way, rather than fiddling with a carbon tax and creating a carve out that might distort incentives away from our combined and collective goal of reducing carbon emissions?

Senator Wells: Thank you for that question, Senator Woo — it’s a good one. I don’t look at this as a carve out. This is an expansion to the exemptions that were provided in an earlier act. I think there was an oversight and, in fact, the chair of the House Agriculture Committee noted that, that this was an oversight. In fact, he supported this bill in the House.

This is also part of a program for farmers. I don’t think they want subsidies. Perhaps they will take them, but I think they just want a business that works for them and, where eligible, expenses at times when there are alternative fuels or alternative processes, they will use those. Right now, there are no alternative fuels or processes besides natural gas and propane, which are both, as you know, considered transition fuels.

They want to get better, but that’s why there’s a sunset clause on this. It would have to be considered to be renewed; it’s not ongoing. It automatically cancels after eight years.

Canadian farmers, growers and ranchers want to get better. They’re part of the solution in the environmental debate. I think this exemption simply expands where an oversight occurred in the earlier legislation.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: I certainly would, Senator Quinn.

Hon. Denise Batters: Thank you for sponsoring this bill, Senator Wells. It’s such an important bill for people in my province of Saskatchewan and farmers all across Canada.

Canadian farmers are stewards of the land; they are extremely innovative in environmentally friendly practices, and they have been for decades. This is partly a result of their desire to preserve the land, but another part of the reason is to keep costs low. I was looking back at a 2020 tweet that I put out about grain drying and agriculture, and I used the example of Kenton Possberg from Humboldt, Saskatchewan, who had sent me his grain drying bill — his SaskEnergy bill. For the carbon tax, he was billed almost $3,000 for one month of grain drying his crop; GST was added to that amount. I have heard that this was not even that exorbitant of a figure compared to some other farmers’ experiences. That was a few years ago.

Despite their promises to cap the carbon tax, the Trudeau government’s carbon tax has continued to increase, and it will continue to do so. The cost now is even much higher than at that point.

I also want to mention that food inflation has led to higher prices at the grocery store for all Canadians. At a time when so many Canadians are struggling to put food on their table and food bank usage is at an all-time high, Canada’s farmers need this carbon tax exemption in this bill in order to help their farming operations be more viable.

I would like you to explain further so that all Canadians understand how this impacts them, as well as how Canadian consumers need this exemption to make food costs at their grocery stores much more affordable.

Senator Wells: Thank you for your question, Senator Batters. If I make this an argument over the ills or gains of the carbon tax, then I will quickly lose the argument in this room.

Yes, obviously, providing farmers with a better margin on their work would be better for the farmer. Senator Woo mentioned that prices increase and prices decrease; that is true. It seems that for our plates, right now, the prices are increasing. I don’t know if the farmer benefits from those increased prices because the prices are increasing for the farmer, as well as for growers and ranchers — when I mention one, I mean them all.

This is simply for on-farm equipment like barns — where cattle have to live in the winter and the summer — for drying grain, as well as for all of the necessary things for which there is currently no alternative machinery and no alternative fuel. That is the essence of the bill. It is to provide that, and to provide time for the farmer, rancher and grower to come up to speed by purchasing, developing and innovating technology. This “carve‑out,” as Senator Woo so incorrectly puts it, gives them time to do it.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Wells agree to take a question?

Senator Wells: Absolutely.

Hon. Brent Cotter: Senator Wells, will you take one more question from me?

Senator Wells: I will, Senator Cotter.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Will Senator Wells take another question?

Senator Wells: Absolutely, Senator Gagné.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise today in the chamber of sober second thought to speak to Bill C-234, an Act to Amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, sponsored by Senator Wells. Thank you, Senator Wells, for your remarks and for answering all those questions.

Bill C-234 is an essential piece of legislation aiming to support our farmers. As an AGvocate, I am proud to stand here before you, and I will continue to do so going forward, to support our Canadian agricultural industry.

Before I dive into the specifics of the bill, I want to take a moment to emphasize the importance of Canadian agriculture. Our farmers work tirelessly to produce the food that feeds our nation and the world and they are facing increasingly challenging circumstances. Climate change, labour shortages, trade disruptions and the lasting effects of COVID-19 pandemic have taken a toll on our agricultural sector. As a nation, we must do everything in our power to support our farmers to ensure they can continue to thrive in the face of those significant challenges.

That brings me to Bill C-234.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to provide relief to farmers who are struggling under the burden of the carbon tax that was implemented in 2019. It imposes a price on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint and meet our international climate change commitments. However, the tax has been a source of frustration and financial hardship for many Canadians, especially those in the agricultural sector who are already facing high costs and ever-narrowing profit margins.

Previous speeches and evidence provided in the other place regarding the carbon tax have highlighted the negative effects and impacts it has had on Canadian farmers. A 2020 report by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food suggests that the tax is increasing input costs for farmers, reducing their competitiveness and discouraging investment in new technology and infrastructure. The report also noted that the carbon tax is disproportionately affecting farmers in certain regions of the country, such as the Prairies, where the cost of transportation is higher, and the weather and temperatures are more diverse.

Another study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that the carbon tax is costing farmers an average of $14,000 per year. That is a significant burden for many farming businesses that are already struggling to make ends meet. That study also found that the carbon tax is hindering the growth and development of the agricultural sector, which is a crucial component of our Canadian economy.

It is clear that the carbon tax is having a negative impact on Canadian farmers and that something needs to be done to address the issue. Bill C-234 offers a practical solution that would provide relief to farmers without compromising our environmental goals. The bill proposes to exempt fuels used for farming from the carbon tax for necessities like barn heating and grain drying. This exemption would have a significantly positive impact on Canadian agriculture. It would reduce input costs for farmers, making it easier for them to invest in new technology and infrastructure that will improve their efficiency and competitiveness over time.

It would also encourage the growth and development of the agricultural sector, which is an essential component of our country’s economic and social well-being.

Furthermore, the exemption would be in line with the government’s commitment to support small businesses and rural communities. By exempting fuels used in farming, the government would be acknowledging the unique challenges faced by those groups and be seen to be taking steps to address them.

There has also been discussion about the potential impact of the exemption on Canada’s climate change goals. However, this bill strikes an appropriate balance, in my mind, between supporting farmers and protecting our environment. It also includes measures to ensure that the exemption is being used appropriately by specifically naming which practices on the farm are to be included.

Furthermore, honourable senators, the bill was amended, and a sunset clause was added in the other place, as has been previously noted. Acknowledging that technological advancements will help the industry evolve further, the amended bill includes measures to ensure that the exemption will expire in eight years.

Colleagues, we all know that, with great innovation, Canada and the world might some day no longer be dependent upon fossil fuels, but until that time comes, they cannot pass the price of carbon onto those who put food on our tables.

As the MP for Huron—Bruce in the other place noted in the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee hearings, farmers are price-takers, not price-makers; they are subject to the impacts of the market, the same as everyone else. Farmers and processors must remain competitive in Canada’s economy, and the carbon tax disproportionately affects them as stewards of the land and an essential part of this country.

As well, the sector plays a crucial role in the maintenance of Canada’s environment. Many farmers actively use carbon sequestration methods already to improve their farmlands. We are hearing about that during the Senate Agriculture Committee soil study. And yet we continue to look at the carbon footprint of the sector only, not to the contributions that farmers and producers make to return and sequester that carbon and contribute to climate change mitigation.

I would also like to mention that this is not the first time we have seen this bill. As we have heard, there were similar ones in the past. Many attempts have been made in both our chambers to provide relief for farmers from the carbon tax. Bill S-215 was tabled by our colleague the now-retired Honourable Diane Griffin here in the chamber in 2019, as we heard. That bill would have given provisions to the commercial drying as well, and it would have extended broadly to farmers and the entire sector.

In a 2021 brief submitted to the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Grain Farmers of Ontario noted that in Ontario, combined crop propane and natural gas drying costs were $120 million in 2019, almost double a typical year’s cost of $63 million. In 2021, the carbon tax added an estimated 22% to the cost of drying grain, and this will continue to rise dramatically to 2030, when the cost of the carbon tax alone will reach 92% of the current value of the fuel used to dry the crop.

Another similar bill, Bill C-206, was introduced in the other place in 2020 by MP Philip Lawrence from Northumberland—Peterborough South, who stated in his chamber that the carbon tax is not neutral for farmers.

While that comment has been and can be disputed — and is highly debated — what is not in dispute for the agricultural sector is that it is not revenue-neutral. Their prices are not set by themselves but rather by companies, governments and international markets. They cannot just push that cost along. It is coming directly out of the pockets of our farmers, and that is money they could be using to reinvest in their farms, invest in clean technologies and help support their families.

That is the idea behind Bill C-234.

In the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, we are hearing testimony that many in the agricultural sector are already participants in the fight against climate change. They are finding carbon-reducing strategies and innovative and new ways to produce food for Canada and for the world.

For example, carbon waste is being used to generate biofuels through the construction of things like biodigesters — anaerobic digesters. Farmers are progressive, determined and interested in engaging in innovative and new technologies for the advancement of the industry.

This bill, honourable colleagues, represents a consensus of interests. Advocates from across the agriculture sector understand the need for this bill. The bill provides a great opportunity to improve and change fiscal policy that has hindered Canadian farmers and producers to date.

However, the bill is not perfect. Recently, I received a letter from the Ontario Agri Business Association that notes that many farmers in different provinces will be affected disproportionately by Bill C-234. For example:

 . . . approximately two-thirds of the corn grown in the province (by volume) is dried at commercial grain elevators . . . .

As Bill C-234 is currently structured, it has the unintended result of creating a significant cost of production imbalance amongst Ontario farmers due to the proposed exemption being exclusive to those farm operations that have on-farm drying capacity and no carbon tax relief for those farmers that make the business decision to dry their grain at one of the 357 commercial elevators located throughout the province.

Colleagues, the quote continues:

When grain is dried at commercial elevators in Ontario it is still owned by the farmer who produced it.

The commercial elevator provides the farmer an invoice for the propane or natural gas used to dry their grain to an agreed upon moisture level, prior to it being placed in storage or utilized by an end user.

The administrative process is very similar to when a farmer is invoiced for either natural gas or propane by the fuel supply company prior to it being utilized to dry grain on‑farm.

This is far different for those from Alberta, the letter goes on to note, where a significantly higher portion of farmers have on‑farm drying capacities.

Honourable colleagues, I would also like to bring attention to a concern discussed in the other place that I know will be and has been touched on throughout debate on this bill. If Bill C-234 passes, then farmers may be able to double-dip due to provisions in Bill C-8, the Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act passed in June 2022. The concern was raised that farmers would be able to benefit from the climate action incentive payment as well as from exemptions provided by Bill C-234.

Honourable senators, discussion took place in the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee on this issue — a committee that holds a government majority with 6 out of the 12 seats. So if the government had any concerns about potential double-dipping, they had plenty of time and opportunity to amend the bill by their democratically elected majority on the committee. However, no action was taken beyond the discussion. With Bill C-234 now in our chamber, it is our opportunity to show support for our farmers so that the industry can continue to do what they do best: feed Canada and feed the world.

I want to be clear: The bill is not perfect, but I believe we need to work diligently to pass this bill as soon as possible before we rise for the summer recess. Our farmers need this relief now for this coming fall’s harvest and for future planning. If it is necessary, amendments can be made at a later time to make it better, as has been noted. Maybe they will even consider extending this provision to other sectors within agriculture, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Although Bill C-234 has space for improvement, honourable senators, we cannot overlook the opportunity this gives Canada’s agricultural industry. This bill has been supported by elected members from every party in the other place while acknowledging that it’s a building block upon which all of us as advocates can continue to improve in order to provide financial relief for farmers who are continually facing mounting pressures and increased costs.

To conclude, honourable senators, farmers understand the importance of innovation and progressiveness in their fight against climate change, but this cannot be done by limiting their fiscal capacity and forcing them to bear the burden of unfair tax on their livelihoods.

I’d like to thank my honourable colleagues for listening to me today and for continuing to support Canadian agriculture. I do hope you’ll join me in supporting this bill and passing it through all stages in this place as quickly as possible. It remains essential to the continued growth of Canada’s agricultural sector and to the Canadian economy.

Farmers want to continue to feed Canada and the world. Let’s not tie their hands while they do it. Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Boyer, calling the attention of the Senate to the positive contributions and impacts that Métis, Inuit, and First Nations have made to Canada, and the world.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, this inquiry stands adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Petitclerc. After my intervention today, I ask for leave that it remain adjourned in her name.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: So ordered.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11 on the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I would like to thank our colleague Senator Woo for introducing this inquiry and for encouraging us to speak about the experiences of the Chinese community.

The Chinese community has been instrumental in the development and character of Canada. Shamefully, Chinese racism is on the rise in Canada. I hear so many upsetting stories from individuals in British Columbia.

Honourable senators, Canada has a dark history of discrimination and mistreatment towards the Chinese community, as demonstrated by numerous federal policies and their impact, including the Chinese head tax of 1885, the Chinese Exclusion Act from 1923 to 1947, the historical denial of voting rights and the targeted attacks against Chinese and Japanese communities during the Vancouver anti-Asian riots in 1907. In February, Senator Woo eloquently described the impact of these policies and experiences on Chinese Canadians, the hurt, the humiliation and the fear they caused, along with the legacies of those policies and their continued impact on the community.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought forward some of the thinly veiled resentments that have continued to simmer in society. It saddens me to know that targeted racism towards Chinese Canadians was clearly seen in my home province of British Columbia. Evidence of this shameful reality can be found in a comprehensive 500-page report by B.C.’s Human Rights Commissioner released earlier this year. The report confirmed:

Targeted anti-Asian racism and discriminatory acts have increased in frequency and severity throughout communities in BC and across Canada during COVID-19.

Honourable senators, the following facts should alarm and upset us all. The Vancouver Police Department reported that between 2019 and 2020, there was a 717% increase in hate incidents targeting Asian residents. These incidents included racial slurs, racist graffiti, verbal threats, stalking and physical assaults. Accordingly, a poll of Asian British Columbians conducted in April 2021 found that 87% of respondents believed that anti-Asian racism has gotten worse since the start of the pandemic, and 64% of respondents felt it had gotten a lot worse. It is also important to note that many of these attacks go unreported.

As for the victims who bravely share their experiences, it is heartbreaking to hear their stories of verbal and physical attacks. This includes seniors like Judy Cheung, who was punched in the face by a stranger as she left a Vancouver grocery store in 2021. In her seventies, she now feels that she must carry around an umbrella to protect herself whenever she goes out.

Senators, this is not acceptable. No community or individual should experience such fear in Canada. However, I do have hope. I know from my personal experiences how compassionate and how accepting this country of Canada is.

I would now like to take this opportunity to speak about the invaluable contributions Chinese Canadians have made to my province of B.C. Historically, Chinese workers have been integral to building the Canadian Pacific Railway and have played a vital role in industrializing the economy as skilled and semi-skilled individuals who laboured in British Columbian sawmills and canneries and also became small business owners.

In more recent times, Chinese Canadians have made significant contributions to science, medicine, public service, art, literature and filmmaking in Canada. I, for one, know, based on my personal experiences — as I have spent a lot of time in hospitals — that hospitals in Vancouver and surrounding areas would not be resourced as well without Chinese Canadians’ contributions, especially during the pandemic.

By highlighting the incredible achievements of notable Chinese Canadians from British Columbia, I hope to broaden our understanding of their generous contributions. I’ll start with our former colleague Vivienne Poy, an Ontario senator.

Senator Poy was appointed to the Senate of Canada in 1998 by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. She was the first Canadian of Chinese descent to be appointed to the Senate and spent much of her 14-year tenure devoted to gender issues, multiculturalism, immigration and human rights and was the sponsor of the bill that recognized May as Asian Heritage Month across Canada.

Outside the Senate, Vivienne is an accomplished businesswoman, author and philanthropist. With a PhD in History from the University of Toronto, she has authored numerous books and enlightened us about topics such as Sino‑Canadian relations and Chinese immigration to Canada, bravely writing about the personal struggles of her own family as well. Since retirement, Vivienne has continued her work with organizations that aim to improve the lives of women and girls in developing countries.

Vivienne, when I came to the Senate, you were a great help to me, and I always valued our warm friendship.

In British Columbia, a man who has provided great service is David Lam, who also understood both the struggles of working against deep-seated prejudice and the hope and promise of opportunity in this country. David Lam was the twenty-fifth Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, from 1988 to 1995, and was the first Chinese Canadian to be appointed as a viceregal in Canada. He once described his responsibility as lieutenant governor as being a “healer of wounds, a matchmaker of sorts between people of different views, and one who offers encouragement and inspiration.”

Lieutenant Governor Lam emigrated to Canada with his family in 1967 and became one of Vancouver’s leading land developers, eventually starting his own company. He was instrumental in bringing Hong Kong investors to Vancouver. He was a firm believer in giving back to his country, along with the power of education and cultural awareness. In 1983, he established the David and Dorothy Lam Foundation and the Floribunda Philanthropic Society. The two charities donated millions of dollars a year to British Columbian community projects, such as the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen Classical Chinese Garden.

He also provided funding for numerous initiatives in collaboration with universities in British Columbia, including the Institute of Dispute Resolution and the David Lam Auditorium at the University of Victoria and the David Lam Centre for International Communication at Simon Fraser University.

Like Lieutenant Governor Lam, Milton Wong balanced a successful business career with a strong sense of social responsibility. He made tremendous contributions to his community in Vancouver across various fields such as finance, arts and culture, sustainability, multiculturalism and academia. Specifically, he founded The Laurier Institution, a non-profit organization dedicated to the study of diversity in Canada.

Mr. Wong always went out of his way to encourage younger people or budding politicians to become active in politics and community. He was with me when I had tough times in politics and rejoiced with me when I was appointed to the Senate. He was a true mentor to many people, and I will always remember what he did for me.

Lastly, I would like to mention my friend Edith Nee, a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal.

Among her many roles, she was a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and director of the B.C. Press Council. Edith has dedicated her career to adjudicating issues related to immigration, refugees, residential schools, press ethics and freedom.