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.

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 —

Hon. Patricia Bovey: Thank you, Senator Boehm.

Colleagues, I am speaking later than I thought I would be this evening, but this is a truly important issue, I think, for the country of Canada. The Senate’s Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee’s report that was tabled in this house in June 2019 — entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy — is an important one. It is unfortunate that it was tabled just before we rose for the summer, and then there was an election, and then there was COVID. So here we are, picking up our steps. It would have been nice if we had been able to do this earlier.

When I suggested that the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee study cultural diplomacy, I truly believed then that cultural soft power was essential in developing Canada’s international profile; I still do. A builder for economic trade and growth, cultural diplomacy is important in building trust for international negotiations and collaborations. Culture portrays who we are — our national values, roots and diversities. Conveying Canadian messages and realities abroad, culture tells others what Canada is, where we come from and our courage in where we’re going. That is critically important. Our international partners must understand our cultures, ethics and history.

Cultural diplomacy’s integral importance to international trade and foreign relations has been much studied and written about. Today, I still agree with the U.K.’s 2007 Cultural Diplomacy report by Kirsten Bound, Rachel Briggs, John Holden and Samuel Jones. It stated that “. . . more than ever before, culture has a vital role to play in international relations.”

The report went on to say that culture is:

. . . the means by which we come to understand others, and an aspect of life with innate worth that we enjoy and seek out. Cultural exchange gives us the chance to appreciate points of commonality and, where there are differences, to understand the motivations and humanity that underlie them. . . . these attributes make culture a critical forum for negotiation and a medium of exchange in finding shared solutions.

The value of cultural activity comes precisely from its independence, its freedom and the fact that it represents and connects people . . . .

Our report was unanimously passed by our committee, chaired by former Senator Andreychuk. Again, I thank members of that 2017-2019 committee, especially Senator Oh and Senator Ataullahjan who embraced it ardently from the outset. We examined the issue, as well as its impacts and benefits, from a 360-degree perspective: artists, arts organizations, foreign trade and trade missions, business, Canadian embassies and, comparatively, what was being done elsewhere — all underlined the importance of culture on the foreign stage as a means of strengthening the profile of Canada abroad.

We heard from Canadian and foreign diplomats; Canadian and international funding agencies; artists of all disciplines; educators; academics; arts organizations; business leaders; and staff from Global Affairs Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts and Canadian Heritage. We heard emphatically that artists’ works in all disciplines significantly enhance Canada’s international role by connecting many international dimensions, defending our national values and highlighting Canada’s economic and social position abroad.

We also heard how Canada’s business overseas increases with cultural understanding. Citing the impressive tangible economic benefits — and more — of Canada’s former Trade Routes program, witnesses underlined the critical need for support to enable artists to take their work and knowledge of Canada abroad. It was clear that we must retool our cultural diplomacy approaches.

Simon Brault, the CEO of Canada Council for the Arts, said during his testimony that we were:

. . . ten years behind where we were and where we could be as a result of the cuts by former governments.

That’s “governments” plural. I fear we are now even further behind.

[Translation]

I sincerely hope that culture will once again be an important aspect of Canada’s foreign policy. I encourage the cultural attachés and staff who have a knowledge and understanding of art to give Canadian art more exposure in all of our Canadian embassies, on the international scene, in theatres, at book fairs, in art galleries and at museums, other cultural centres and festivals.

[English]

I also hope Canadian artists and arts organizations will again be part of international trade missions.

The Creative Export Strategy announced by the Department of Canadian Heritage in 2018 was heartening. A strategy aimed to help Canada’s creative industries gain opportunities in new markets around the world, its announced $125 million budget was to support three key pillars: boost export funding in existing Canadian Heritage programs; increase and strengthen the presence of Canadian creative industries abroad; and create a new creative export funding program, as well as build the relationships needed to make business deals. Open to all media, including design; for-profit organizations and not-for-profit organizations; and First Nations, Inuit and Métis councils, governments or organizations, it was obvious from the outset of the first grant run that the monies fell far short of demand.

The impact of cultural diplomacy was stressed in all of my international discussions in Europe, South America, Mexico, the U.S., the U.K. and, this morning, in a meeting with parliamentarians from the Welsh Parliament. As well, over the years, with all of the meetings I had with the Arctic Circle and circumpolar organizations, Indigenous languages and cultures were consistently highlighted as critically important.

Colleagues, culture is essential in all of our international relationships. It is empowering to see Canadian artists’ works in places like Canada House in London or our embassy in Paris. Art from every province and territory is installed in Canada House on Trafalgar Square.

My antennae have also been focused on intellectual property and copyright in our trade agreements: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA; the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA; and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. I am pleased that the government insisted on protecting Canada’s culture and intellectual property in these negotiations, championed particularly by former international trade minister Jim Carr, who is a former Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra oboist and Manitoba Arts Council CEO.

Encouraging provincial collaboration, our eight recommendations gave cultural diplomacy responsibility to Global Affairs Canada, Canadian Heritage and the Canada Council for the Arts — with Global Affairs Canada taking the lead. Global Affairs Canada has real estate around the world, with staff and local connections on the ground. Heritage Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts have arts, culture and heritage expertise. We don’t have a Goethe Institute, a British Council or a Japan Foundation, but we do have this opportunity to showcase our stellar creators and ideas.

We need articulated goals, cultural training for overseas embassy staff, short- and long-term monitoring mechanisms and learning through Canadian studies abroad.

The specific recommendations included that cultural diplomacy in Canada’s international relations take an increasingly important role, showcasing the innovation and excellence of Canadian artists and the strength and diversity of culture in Canada, expressing the multicultural backgrounds of Canadians; that the arts and culture sector be part of all Canadian trade missions; and that Canadian embassies present and assist Canadian artists and organizations abroad. Furthermore, it ensured that all Canadian missions have either a cultural attaché or trained staff knowledgeable and able to support Canada’s cultural work and international collaborations.

I still endorse each and every one of the eight recommendations.

[Translation]

The first steps that were taken after the report was published were encouraging, but they were cut short by COVID-19. Canada lost a lot of cultural power in the early 2000s. We need to get it back. Given the current international conflicts, cultural diplomacy is even more important.

[English]

As is often said, “At times of international political difficulty, culture can keep doors open.” UNESCO calls for, “dialogue based on music and the arts, a vector for strengthening mutual understanding and interaction and for building a culture of peace and respect for cultural diversity.”

Our report’s release did bring some positive changes. Canada Council for the Arts opened a special funding stream for international activities. Global Affairs Canada launched a preliminary training program.

Organizations were ready. Recently, Mary Reid of Woodstock’s Art Gallery presented artist John Hartman’s portraits of Canadian authors at Canada House in London, England. William Huffman showed Cape Dorset art in Warsaw and Korea.

At the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE, last summer in Birmingham, a unanimous vote of all 780 international parliamentarians supported Arctic security. Arts and culture were part of those discussions, as they were at every OSCE meeting I attended during my time as senator.

In November, Canada’s First Nations delegates to COP 27 expertly showcased First Nations’ cultural approaches to climate change solutions. You know, too, that work is well advanced for the participation in Ghana’s Pan African Heritage Museum.

Three years ago, at my first meeting at that museum’s international curatorial council, I was surprised to learn that Canada was thought of as being part of the U.S. That misconception now dispelled, Canada’s content steering committee for our virtual and real participations, chaired by B.C. artist and poet Chantal Gibson, is seen as a leading model.

Our cultural diplomacy report was the catalyst for Global Affairs Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts funding, enabling the hiring of six regional Black curators.

[Translation]

These recent activities are encouraging but rare since the cultural diplomacy policy hasn’t been officially adopted. It isn’t known or understood and hasn’t been fully implemented by Global Affairs Canada, even though I have received a lot of encouragement from some ambassadors and officials. There are many people who, like me, believe that cultural diplomacy needs more visibility within the department itself in order to be as effective as it could and should be. The result would be transformative for Canada as a whole, and for its culture and place in the world.

[English]

As a senator, and from my prior professional experience in presenting Canadian arts abroad in Europe, Asia, the U.K. and the U.S., I can attest that a strong cultural diplomacy presence will benefit Canada at home and abroad, our creators and cultural organizations. The financial returns for Canada will be significant, as they were before the program was cut, and it will feed our tourism.

Now more than ever, we need our allies to know us, and as part of UNESCO, we have a responsibility to assist in preserving culture from war and climate desecration. Cultural diplomacy is the appropriate vehicle.

In discussing cultural diplomacy, Simon Mark wrote that its:

. . . potential power rests on its intersection with national culture, national values, national identity, and national pride . . . . [It] can show a state’s personality in a way that connects with people . . . . The power of a cultural performance, or a film, or a scholarship to connect should not be underestimated.

I close with a personal story.

In the 1990s, I visited a wonderful, small U.K. bookshop in Durham, its floors piled high with books, overflowing shelves and three big, round tables down the middle filled with Canadian authors. A Canadian book festival? “No,” said the owner. “The tables are for the world’s best writers. Do you have a problem that they are all Canadian?”

A former Japanese ambassador to Canada told me on his departure that Canada has the best writers. He took many Canadian authors’ works back to Japan with him to have them translated. Canada should have done those translations, or could have.

Of course, Alice Munro received the Nobel Prize in Literature; Margaret Atwood is celebrated globally; and the film of Mariam Toews’ award-winning book, Women Talking, won an Oscar this year. A Canadian from Vancouver Island, Aaron Watkin, was recently appointed Artistic Director Designate of the English National Ballet, and Naomi Woo — daughter of our Senator Woo — given her many invitations, is about to move to Europe to pursue her conducting career there.

Colleagues, our voices are respected beyond our borders, though without the support I believe they are due.

We shouldn’t hide our creators who tell the world who we are. Canada’s profile abroad is largely its culture. As it was for decades before culture’s cut as a fourth pillar of diplomacy, our government’s investment will be far less than the resulting multifold, positive economic profile returns. Through cultural diplomacy, pride in our internationally acclaimed creators will become our brand — a brand which should be known as Canadian, not American.

Please endorse the tabling of this report so we can get a response from the government to ensure that work can begin concretely and that training can continue effectively. Thank you.