Hon. Michèle Audette: [Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

In preparation, I did my homework so I could understand this definition and where it comes from. According to Robert Bullard, the father of environmental justice, I have come to understand that it means the following, and I quote:

Any policy, practice or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (where intended or unintended) individuals, groups or communities based on race.

As I continued my research, I read Elizabeth May’s speech on this bill at second reading and I also came to understand the following, and I quote:

One of the things I know from cleaning up the Sydney tar ponds with Clotilda is that we can recognize as a reality that toxic chemicals do not discriminate. They do not pay attention to the colour of our skin when they lodge in our body, when they pass through placenta to children, when they cause cancer and when they cause birth defects. They do not care about the colour of our skin. However, the public policy that puts indigenous peoples and communities of colour far more frequently at risk of being exposed to toxic chemicals does notice skin colour. It does notice whether we are marginalized or not. It does notice whether we have money or not.

First Peoples have been experiencing environmental racism ever since the Doctrine of Discovery emerged from the papal bull Romanus Pontifex issued in 1455.

According to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, this doctrine, which relates to the older concept of terra nullius, has enshrined the principle whereby any Christian monarch who discovers non-Christian lands has the right to proclaim them his own, because they belong to no one.

It took the Vatican 568 years to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery. I’m sure my colleagues will agree that this is one more step towards reconciliation — an important step.

However, today, in 2023, the pillaging of land and resources, the lack of access to or the isolation of reserves are still real. The damage and harmful impacts have continued to this day.

Environmental racism is also the cause of the community impoverishment, and the loss of our culture and our customs. This environmental racism has also diminished our food sources.

Environmental racism also plays a role in the creation of mining projects without the participation or consent of communities, and it pollutes the environment of these communities, their fauna, their flora and their waterways.

My home in Matimekush-Lac-John, Schefferville, has the biggest 18 holes in the world. However, I’m not talking about golf holes, but mining holes. In this very community, Conrad André, in an article published on June 8, 2022 on Radio‑Canada’s Internet site, asked the following question, and I quote:

How is it that IOC makes billions, but there is not one single Innu millionaire here?

In that very community, Mathieu André, an Innu born 50 kilometres northwest of Schefferville, discovered the first iron deposit near Knob Lake in the 1930s.

This discovery led in part to the iron rush in the border region of Labrador and Quebec. Mathieu André is now in Caribou country, but his son Luc says that after his father’s discovery, Labrador Mining was able to develop the land, promising the people and the Innus a percentage of the profits it would make from the deposits.

However, he said, and I quote:

We never got anything. We met the mining company and we were told that if they had to give something to one person, they would have to give to everyone.

[English]

In Ontario, Aamjiwnaang First Nation is surrounded by 50 industrial plants within a 24-kilometre radius of its territory. Their people are disproportionately exposed to toxic substances such as sulphur dioxide, benzene, mercury and others. A 30‑year‑old chair of the local environment committee, Janelle Nahmabin, says she has grown increasingly frustrated at seeing her community shoulder the health risks of industries operating in the area:

Quite frankly, we’ve been here for a millennia — forever. For us to have to continuously be the ones accommodating, I’m done with that. I’m done with having to compromise our health, our mental well-being, our safety, for everybody else.

She also adds that asthma and other breathing problems, along with rashes, headaches and high cancer rates, are among the most prevalent health issues on the reserve.

Shelburne, Nova Scotia, according to a CBC interview with Louise Delisle, a resident of Shelburne, the community’s history with cancer, disease and death are connected to the dumping ground for industrial and sometimes even medical waste just around the corner. Ms. Delisle said:

The majority of the black men in the community have died from cancer . . . There’s a community of widows in Shelburne. That’s what it is.

We also find a map compiled by the Environmental Noxiousness, Racial Inequities and Community Health Project showing dozens of waste disposal sites in close proximity to communities, either Black communities or Indigenous populations. The map also encompasses dozens of stories similar to Shelburne’s story, where we can find a dump and slaughterhouse built near Halifax’s Africville in the late 1700s, a paper mill’s effluent pond next to the Pictou Landing First Nation and yet more landfills built in the Black community of Lincolnville in Guysborough County.

Dr. Ingrid Waldron, who also co-produced the film There’s Something in the Water, says:

It’s not only about health and stress. It’s about lack of power, that you’ve placed certain industries in certain communities without consulting with them. You’ve taken away their power, you’ve taken away their voice, and you’ve placed it in communities that are not only racialized but that are also poor.

[Translation]

The Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, which has been singled out for releasing above-acceptable levels of 23 contaminants, is now planning to expand a buffer zone. A total of 200 homes will be demolished and the people who live there will have to relocate — families, children, Quebecers and many others. Why is this happening? Because the smelter is exempted from Quebec’s airborne arsenic emission standard, as it was in operation long before these environmental standards came into effect.

Need I remind everyone that the concentration of arsenic in young children’s fingernails is four times higher in this region? Need I remind everyone that in 1940, again in the same region, no one could swim in Osisko Lake, between Noranda and Rouyn? In 1979, the Quebec government was warned of the dangers the Horne smelter posed to children in the Notre-Dame district, who had two to three times higher levels of arsenic in their hair.

[English]

The same issues have been raised in Canadian Family Physician, the official journal of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, last August. The abstract to this article reads as follows:

You are a family physician doing a locum in northwestern Ontario. Your next patient is a 6-year-old child who presents with chronic fatigue and paresthesia in their extremities. Upon physical examination, you also discover bilateral hearing impairment. You recall reading in the news that, years ago, 10,000 kg of mercury were dumped into the Wabigoon River, thereby polluting downstream water and poisoning the fish that sustain communities such as . . . (Grassy Narrows) First Nation. In addition to other investigations, you conduct a 24-h urine mercury test for the patient and ascertain that they have abnormal mercury levels. How do you treat this patient? How do you respond to this issue at the community level? To what extent do you consider how the environment, history, and economic factors contributed to this patient’s presentation?

This is despite the fact we know that Indigenous communities are often the most impacted when the worst happens, like the two oil spills in Alberta last year which were identified months before First Nations were notified.

[Translation]

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples of the world, and it must be implemented in Canada.

A national strategy to assess and prevent environmental racism must absolutely be rooted in that declaration and carry the voices of the original stewards of these lands.

[English]

Other interesting solutions are put forward by the authors of the article in Canadian Family Physician, which the strategy should take into account:

First, as health care providers and Canadians, we need to educate ourselves about the true history of Canada. Second, we should become aware that environmental racism exists in our country, and as per the CanMEDS-Family Medicine Indigenous Health Supplement, we must “challenge the systems that we work in to make changes to racist processes and policy.” We know racialized communities are disproportionately affected by environmental hazards and we know this has profound health implications. If we want to address health from a proactive and preventive standpoint, we must advocate for sustainable change and listen to the voices of those who are affected.

[Translation]

A national strategy must also include provisions related to education, public input in environmental decision making, self‑determination for communities in matters related to water, food production, housing distribution, energy, transportation and the creation of an environmental bill of rights.

Simply put, environmental racism is very much a reality in Canada. As the United Nations has declared, a healthy environment is a human right. Let’s give ourselves the means to counter environmental racism and move towards environmental justice.

I say to you once again, we cannot change history, but we can and we must change our present, to adopt a more responsible attitude in an effort to fix the mistakes of the past and to write a new chapter together.

Thank you, senator, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. Of course I support this bill. Together, I know we have the power to change things, big and small.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Bernard, debate adjourned.)

[English]

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. 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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you.

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Jaffer, I must deal with this technical issue.

Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock and, pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until eight o’clock when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?

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

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan, pursuant to notice of April 26, 2023, moved:

That, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the Government to the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, entitled Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons, tabled in the Senate on June 16, 2021 and adopted on June 23, 2021, during the Second Session of the Forty‑third Parliament, with the Minister of Public Safety being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Indigenous Services, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, as well as the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm, pursuant to notice of May 4, 2023, moved:

That the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament, be placed on the Orders of the Day under the rubric Other Business, Reports of Committees – Other, for consideration at the next sitting.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to explain and advocate for this motion, which is the first step towards the Senate finally adopting the 2019 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy.

This report was tabled in the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the first session of the Forty-second Parliament but was not adopted before Parliament was dissolved that summer in advance of the federal election in October 2019.

This means that, despite the comprehensiveness of this report on an important subject and the significance placed upon it by practitioners and supporters of cultural diplomacy and Canadian studies programs, no response has been required from the Government of Canada.

Should this motion — and then, subsequently, the report — be adopted, a government response will be requested of and required by Global Affairs Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Along with me and fellow current committee members Senator Coyle, Senator Greene and Senator Housakos, colleagues who were members of the committee during the study leading to this report were Senator Ataullahjan, Senator Cordy, Senator Dean, Senator Massicotte and Senator Saint-Germain.

Former Senate colleagues who were members at that time included my predecessor as chair, Senator Raynell Andreychuk, and Senator Dennis Dawson and Senator Thanh Hai Ngo.

Several more senators contributed to the committee’s study, including current colleagues Senator MacDonald, now a member of the committee; Senator Cormier; Senator Martin; Senator Miville-Dechêne; Senator Mockler; Senator Oh and Senator Tannas. Former senators Anne Cools and Richard Neufeld also participated.

Colleagues, I recite all of these names to underline the breadth of experience and expertise from which the committee benefited during its study between 2017 and 2019 on “. . . the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters . . . .”

There is one senator I have yet to name, a committee member at the time of the study, whose unwavering advocacy for the importance of cultural diplomacy as a pillar of Canada’s foreign policy ultimately led to the committee’s study and the report we are now considering putting back on the Order Paper. That senator is, of course, our dear colleague Senator Patricia Bovey —