The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

June 13, 2023

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that on behalf and at the request of the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, Christine MacIntyre, Deputy to the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 13^th day of June, 2023, at 6:09 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Director, Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bill Assented to Tuesday, June 13, 2023:

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act (Bill S-5, Chapter 12, 2023)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Yussuff, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at second reading of Bill C-21, which makes amendments to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

The bill proposes changes to Canada’s firearms laws designed to better protect communities from gun violence, with particular emphasis on addressing gender-based violence, combatting smuggling and cracking down on ghost guns, which are untraceable firearms often built illegally on 3-D printers.

Also, crucially, the bill formalizes the national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns, enacted last year.

I’m supportive of these measures and look forward to seeing Bill C-21 progress through the remaining stages of the legislative process, but my reason for speaking today is to discuss the role of firearms in Indigenous communities and to share some thoughts that I hope will be useful to senators as our debate and study of the legislation continue.

For many Indigenous families, mine included, hunting is central to our history, culture, livelihoods and sustenance. Indigenous harvesting rights are treaty rights and were enshrined in Canada’s Constitution in 1982. Any law affecting firearms must preserve these rights. Moreover, the right to hunt and trap is deeply connected to Indigenous food security, connection to culture, rites of passage and identity formation.

With permission from my husband and my son, I want to share one of my family stories that illustrates this. My husband, his brothers, my brother, my father and other extended family members gather for a week every fall at a family hunting camp. My youngest son, Gabe, has attended the camp since he was a small boy. He has learned so many life lessons at hunting camp, including bush skills, survival on the land, tracking, his sacred relationship with animals he harvests and gun safety.

One day he went out with his dad and my father. They had smudged earlier that morning, and as the smudge passed under the guns and over the ammo, he prayed that he would become a hunter that day. His prayers were answered when he was the first to spot a deer on the cutline, and it stayed long enough for him to convince his dad that it was his time. He did exactly as he was taught. He got out of the truck slowly and with purpose. He aimed. He took a deep breath. He aimed again, and when he was completely sure that he could make the perfect shot, he fired.

When the deer fell, he walked to the animal with tears in his eyes. He put tobacco down and he thanked the deer for giving its life so that his family could eat. His dad showed him how to make the other offerings and to ensure the cleanliness of the food he was bringing home. In this moment, with humility and gratitude, he understood the complexity of our sacred right to hunt.

Allen called me, and I was in tears. We knew Gabe had entered the next stage of his life, that this was an important rite of passage in his journey.

When they arrived home, Gabe helped his dad prepare, package and freeze the meat. The next day, we hosted a feast with four elders. Gabe helped me make the deer stew, and he offered all the rest of the meat to the elders at our kitchen table — the elders who gave him teachings about becoming a man; his responsibility to his family, his community and the animals he would harvest; and his sacred relationship with the land. A few years later, when he brought his first moose back to hunting camp, he was presented with tobacco and given his first eagle feather. He had proven that he could survive in the bush, and that he was able to feed his family.

It is with so much pride that I can say all three of our sons are capable, traditional hunters, and I will never, ever go hungry. Indeed, colleagues, hunting, fishing and trapping are activities that forge stronger community bonds, provide a vehicle for the transmission of sacred teachings and foster a sense of responsibility to our community and natural world. As the late Dr. Harold Cardinal told my husband, Allen’s formidable bush skills were transferable — and one of the reasons he was a successful CEO.

Senators, my family has a variety of guns, large and small, that are specific to the animal that will be harvested. There are also family guns that have been passed down from generation to generation. My dad has gifted my grandfather’s guns to our sons as an acknowledgment of their hard work at camp, and the fact that they are such amazing traditional hunters. Every single one of these guns is legal and is stored safely.

Allen, my husband, was the co-producer of two videos about Indigenous peoples’ hunting rights and acquiring a Possession and Acquisition Licence, or PAL. Alberta Fish and Wildlife and the RCMP were partners in these video productions in an effort to build relationships between police, conservation officers and Indigenous hunters. Every Canadian — Indigenous and non‑Indigenous — who wants to purchase a firearm must apply for a PAL. There are also long-standing provisions within the licensing process that help Indigenous people acquire their PAL and, therefore, ensure that Indigenous hunting rights are preserved.

At the same time, Indigenous communities have frequently been impacted by firearms violence — often for reasons stemming from intergenerational and historic trauma. Like other Canadians, Indigenous people want and deserve to be protected from threats to community safety, such as gender-based violence and gang violence, and to have measures in place to reduce the risk of suicide.

Senators, my husband has been crystal clear: If ever one of his guns were to become prohibited, he would decommission or surrender it because the right to hunt — a sacred right given to us by the Creator, not by the government — is not tied to the use of a particular firearm, and the right to live in a safe community is also sacred.

Senators, the truth is that Bill C-21 would not change the classification of a single firearm. Last fall, the government proposed amendments during committee study in the other place that would have made some classification changes. At the time, some Indigenous communities and organizations felt that they hadn’t been sufficiently consulted on the amendments. I’m glad that the government took a pause at that point, and spent several months having conversations with Indigenous organizations and rights holders, including the Assembly of First Nations; the Métis National Council; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami; the Manitoba Métis Federation; Tribal Chiefs Ventures Inc., which represents several First Nations on Treaty 6 territory in Alberta; the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak; the Métis Nation British Columbia; the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Coordinating Committee, which deals with the harvesting rights in northern Quebec; the Native Council of Prince Edward Island; the Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick; and the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association.

From what I have heard about these discussions, several key themes emerged: First, many Indigenous people and organizations agree with the principle that certain firearms are too dangerous and not appropriate for civilian use. Second, the preservation of harvesting rights, and of the firearms used to exercise these rights, is a top priority for Indigenous communities. Third, it is important for many Indigenous people to be able to pass their firearms down from one generation to the next. Finally, it was repeatedly emphasized that Indigenous organizations and rights holders want to work with the government on matters related to regulation of firearms. Early and ongoing consultation can help maximize buy-in among members of Indigenous communities, maximize the effectiveness of the laws and minimize misinformation about what a particular law or amendment does.

The result of the extensive consultations was that the amendment introduced last fall was withdrawn. Other amendments, such as the amendments focused on combating the spread of ghost guns, were reintroduced and adopted. In its current form, Bill C-21 would enshrine the handgun freeze that has been in effect for a year; maintain the prohibition of approximately 1,500 assault-style rifles that was enacted in 2020; and establish a technical definition of assault-style firearms to be applied going forward in order to prevent newly designed or manufactured assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market.

For hunters, the bottom line is if there is a long gun that you are using for hunting today, you will still be able to use it when Bill C-21 passes. For all Canadians, including Indigenous people, the bill will help protect us from gun violence and make our communities safer.

Colleagues, let’s send Bill C-21 to committee and study it as soon as possible. Hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boniface, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, for the second reading of Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(On motion of Senator Woo, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Hon. Rose-May Poirier: Honourable senators, I rise here today at second reading to speak to Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council). The bill’s goal, as elaborated by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Diane Bellemare, is to set up an employment insurance council within the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, which would create a social dialogue on matters related to Employment Insurance, or EI.

As you may know, colleagues, our social safety net when a Canadian is without employment has been in place since 1940. At first, it was called the unemployment insurance — or the UIC, as we used to call it in my area, thanks to a popular 1755 song — to finally becoming Employment Insurance in 1990.

From 1940 to today — 2023 — the overhaul of the program has been limited. Instead of doing a modernization of the program, successive governments introduced numerous pilot projects to help the labour market find workers and, at the same time, help Canadians find jobs.

For example, right now, we have another pilot project to help Canadians who work in seasonal jobs survive through the “black hole.” I have talked about this issue before. The “black hole” is a period in the year where seasonal workers have no insurable hours left, but their seasonal jobs have not begun yet. Again, the reaction to help people right away has always been a pilot project, which is a short-term solution. Yet, all the while, seasonal workers are still waiting on a medium- to long-term solution.

I am certain that they are not the only ones who need a better safety net when the jobs are just not there. The labour market has evolved tremendously since 1990 with the internet. Since the 2000s, telecommunications have changed how we live and how we work. New technology has been good for some in the economy, but it has been disruptive to workers. Even just in recent months, the emergence of artificial intelligence could prove to be another major disruption in the labour market. Who knows where the artificial intelligence could be in two to five years.

All of that to show, colleagues, that the job market has evolved tremendously in the last decade, but our EI system hasn’t left the 20th century. It remains outdated, and it has become a patchwork solution that needs dire modernization.

We just need to look at the recent COVID pandemic in 2020: the program is very rigid and not as easily adaptable to sudden situations. Now that we are post-pandemic, we need to address how we protect and help unemployed Canadians.

That brings me now to Senator Bellemare’s bill. The idea of having a social dialogue within the Employment Insurance Commission sounds like a good idea. What we want is for decisions to be made based on what employers and employees need. Swing the pendulum too much on one side, and it hurts the economy. If we swing too much on the other side, it hurts the worker. It is a difficult balance.

For me, prior to being a senator, I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick for my riding from 1999 until my appointment in 2010. My experience with Employment Insurance and social support is based on meeting with constituents in a desperate situation who have nowhere else to turn. How many times have I cried with my constituents who needed money to buy food, to pay heating, to pay for their kids’ clothing, and the list goes on.

That is where I stand: with the workers who need help to support their families. The bill before us proposes a social dialogue between the most representative employers’ organizations and the most representative labour organizations. If there is to be a proper social dialogue for EI, there must be due diligence to ensure that nobody is forgotten. My concern would be that the social dialogue focuses on where there are more workers in the bigger industries and, on the other hand, on representatives of the bigger employers. It is important that people who are not necessarily in the main industries as well as those in the areas of the country where there are fewer people also have a voice. I am concerned there will be a concentration of the dialogue where there are the most workers and bigger employers.

As well, it might be important to factor in the regional aspect of our country. I’m pretty sure when I say “the black hole,” not all Canadians would think of the four-week hole for seasonal workers of not having an income, just like I am not familiar with an issue that could be in the Prairies or Western Canada. We need to make sure that every region has a voice. The fact remains that we live in a geographically wide country, with a diverse economy true to each region. Each region’s labour market will be distinct from the other.

Finally, I would caution on having too much bureaucracy. The Employment Insurance ecosystem is wide. I understand the council would be within the commission — but as long as it does not centralize the focus and the consultation within one structure. Sometimes one thing sounds good in theory until it is applied to reality, which is where my experience as a member of the legislative assembly comes into play. I have held hands with people going through the EI system. Even though it was a federal issue, and I was a provincial legislator, I was solely involved just to help out when the time was there in any way that I could.

Hearing directly from the people who are not represented by big unions and who do not work in a big industry, they cannot be left behind. It must be inclusive so that all voices are heard.

At the end of the day, honourable senators, our EI system needs a major overhaul. Employment Insurance is part of our social safety net for Canadians, by Canadians. Future governments need to take better care of it. It needs to be bold and bring about an overhaul instead of pilot projects. We have seen too many times the EI program not answering the needs of Canadian workers in a fast-evolving economy. I trust that the committee will do a great study of the bill because, now more than ever, our Employment Insurance system needs to be modernized.

While we wait for the government to present its plan to improve the EI system, I thank and congratulate Senator Bellemare for her initiative. Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Éric Forest: First of all, congratulations on your speech, which is crucial for regions where industry relies heavily on seasonal work, such as fisheries and agriculture.

With regard to the spring gap, we are repeatedly being told that consultations are ongoing and that employment insurance is going to be reformed.

Don’t you think that the danger we’re currently facing — given the scarcity of resources and the fact that we’re competing for skilled labour — is that regions like yours and mine, where workers are tied to seasonal industries, will be taken over by other, more permanent industrial sectors? Don’t you think it is urgent to stop holding consultations and reform employment insurance to take these realities into account?

Hon. Hassan Yussuff: I wonder if the senator would take a question.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-251, An Act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s call to action number 6). As Senator Kutcher pointed out, this is the eighteenth time this bill, or one like it, has been brought forward. I share his hope that this is the last time we will see this bill, or a bill like it, in Parliament — albeit, as I will explain, probably for different reasons than Senator Kutcher.

Colleagues, as you know, this bill will amend the Criminal Code to remove section 43, which reads as follows:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

In 2004, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of this section. In their decision, they described the parameters of the case as follows:

The issue in this case is the constitutionality of Parliament’s decision to carve out a sphere within which children’s parents and teachers may use minor corrective force in some circumstances without facing criminal sanction. The assault provision of the Criminal Code . . . prohibits intentional, non-consensual application of force to another. Section 43 of the Criminal Code excludes from this crime reasonable physical correction of children by their parents and teachers.

Colleagues, this continues to be the question before us today: Should parents be treated as criminals for using force to correct their child if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances?

I would note that the question is not, “Should parents be allowed to physically abuse their children?” Nor is it, “Should parents be permitted to physically assault their children?” Nobody is asking these questions. Nobody is asking for a statutory defence of child abuse, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to some of the speeches that we have heard in this chamber.

My good friend Senator Kutcher suggested that section 43 of the Criminal Code “. . . provides protection for those who use violence as a parenting tool . . . .” Senator Pate said section 43 “. . . permits a defence and justification for violence perpetrated against children . . . .” Senator Petitclerc compelled us to pass this bill because, in the words of Nelson Mandela, “We owe our children . . . a life free from violence and fear.” And Senator Moodie said that section 43 effectively allows “. . . children to experience forms of physical violence.”

Colleagues, the sharp rhetoric around this bill is disturbingly unfounded and misleading. Allow me to walk you through some of the facts.

In 2004, the Supreme Court laid down very stringent and specific parameters to the application of section 43. Having considered the testimony and evidence, the Chief Justice, on behalf of the majority of the justices, wrote the following:

. . . I conclude that the exemption from criminal sanction for corrective force that is “reasonable under the circumstances” does not offend the Charter. I say this, having carefully considered the contrary view of my colleague, Arbour J., that the defence of reasonable correction offered by s. 43 is so vague that it must be struck down as unconstitutional, leaving parents who apply corrective force to children to the mercy of the defences of necessity and “de minimis”.

Justice McLachlin continued:

I am satisfied that the substantial social consensus on what is reasonable correction, supported by comprehensive and consistent expert evidence on what is reasonable presented in this appeal, gives clear content to s. 43. I am also satisfied, with due respect to contrary views, that exempting parents and teachers from criminal sanction for reasonable correction does not violate children’s equality rights. In the end, I am satisfied that this section provides a workable, constitutional standard that protects both children and parents.

Colleagues, bear in mind that the attempt to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code was not just rejected once but three times. Three courts considered the matter, and three courts rejected it. First, it was rejected in 2000 by the trial judge, Justice McCombs. Then, two years later, it was rejected by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Then, in 2004, it was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada.

This bill has already been before Parliament 17 times, and it has never made it through the committee stage. The hubris of bringing it before Parliament for the eighteenth time after 3 rejections by the courts and 17 rejections by Parliament is a bit mind-boggling to me. Why are senators challenging what has already been settled in the highest court of the land?

There was no ambiguity in the court’s decision on section 43. In fact, the parameters it set out were very clear. I quote from the Library of Parliament’s study on this issue, dated February of this year:

The justices stated that the words “by way of correction” in section 43 mean that the use of force must be sober and reasoned, address actual behaviour and be intended to restrain, control or express symbolic disapproval. They also noted that the child must have the capacity to understand and benefit from the correction, which means that section 43 does not justify force against children under the age of two or those with certain disabilities.

The justices further clarified that the words “reasonable under the circumstances” in section 43 mean that the force must be transitory and trifling and must not harm or degrade the child. They stated that the idea is to look at the need for correction in the circumstances rather than the gravity of the child’s misbehaviour. According to the decision, reasonableness further implies that force may not be administered to teenagers, as this can induce aggressive or antisocial behaviour. Moreover, force may not involve objects, such as rulers or belts, and it may not be applied to the head.

These parameters were not dreamt up by the Supreme Court. They were lifted from the decision of the trial judge, Justice McCombs, when he said that “Corporal punishment which causes injury is child abuse,” and “Corporal punishment should never involve a slap or blow to the head.” He went on the say that:

Corporal punishment using objects such as belts, rulers, etc., is potentially harmful both physically and emotionally and should not be tolerated.

Justice McCombs also stated that “Hitting a child under two is wrong and harmful.”

Justice McCombs also noted that all of the experts agreed that spanking should be defined as:

. . . “the administrating of one or two mild to moderate ‘smacks’ with an open hand, on the buttocks or extremities which does not cause physical harm.)

Colleagues, nowhere in section 43 will you find even a hair’s breadth of room for assaulting or abusing a child. To suggest otherwise is inflammatory and misleading. The Supreme Court clearly stated that “Section 43 does not extend to an application of force that results in harm or the prospect of harm. . . .”

Child abuse of any kind is among the most abhorrent behaviour imaginable, and it is also already criminal. Those who perpetrate violence against children should feel the full force of the law, and in Canada, colleagues, they do.

Rather than protecting children, Bill S-251 will carry profound negative consequences for both children and their families if it is passed and section 43 is removed.

Former Chief Justice McLachlin warned of this in commenting on the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision. She said that the decision to not criminalize corporal punishment was:

. . . not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

This concern was shared by the Ontario Court of Appeal, who noted that:

The mutual bond of love and support between parents and their children is a crucial one and deserves great respect. Unnecessary disruptions of this bond by the state have the potential to cause significant trauma to both the parent and the child. Parents must be accorded a relatively large measure of freedom from state interference to raise their children as they see fit.

Furthermore, colleagues, we need to bear in mind that while we are discussing section 43 in the context of spanking, the impact of removing this section is much, much broader.

Consider the following quote:

The offence of assault is defined in section 265 of the Code as “the intentional application of force to another person, directly or indirectly, without the consent of that person”.

This broad definition, standing alone, would make criminal any mild or moderate forms of physical discipline, including spanking as defined in this case. Without section 43, other forms of restraint would be criminal, such as putting an unwilling child to bed, removing a reluctant child from the dinner table, removing a child from a classroom who refused to go, or placing an unwilling child in a car seat.

The fact that such commonly accepted forms of parental discipline would become criminalized without section 43 is a very significant consideration.

Colleagues, this is not some exaggerated scenario raised as a scare tactic by opponents of this bill. This is not some conspiracy theory floated by flat earthers. These are the words of the original trial judge, Justice McCombs, in his judgment on this issue.

Former chief justice Beverley McLachlin echoed these concerns in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004, stating:

The reality is that without s. 43, Canada’s broad assault law would criminalize force falling far short of what we think of as corporal punishment, like placing an unwilling child in a chair for a five-minute “time-out”. The decision not to criminalize such conduct is not grounded in devaluation of the child, but in a concern that to do so risks ruining lives and breaking up families — a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process.

While others mock this concern and dismiss it out of hand, the concern is real. Passing Bill S-251 will not protect children; it will put them and their families at risk.

Colleagues, if my count is correct, nine senators have spoken to this bill before me. While I respect the right of all senators to hold their own views, there were a couple of points raised in debate that I would like to address.

The first was the insinuation by one senator that the Bible sanctions violence against children. This is not accurate. Nowhere in the Bible will you find a defence for child abuse — none.

Biblical references to corporal punishments are not, and have never been, an admonition for or an acceptance of child abuse. In fact, as historians and sociologists studying the early church have pointed out, one of the reasons that Christianity grew exponentially during its first 300 years was due to the exceptional way that Christians treated women and children in contrast to all of the cultures around them.

Christians believe that every person — regardless of race, sex, ethnicity or ideology — is made in the image of God. Furthermore, in God’s eyes, every person carries immeasurable value — born and unborn — so much so that God was willing to pay the price for their redemption with the life of his own son. Because of this, Christians in the early church treated everyone with respect, including women and children.

Senator Dalphond pointed out that ancient Roman laws gave the father the power of life and death over his children. This is true. Abortion was commonplace. Unwanted newborn children were often left exposed to the elements to die, especially newborn girls. But the early church resoundingly rejected these attitudes and values. They treated women and children with dignity, providing a safe haven in tumultuous times.

This is true of Christianity even today, and to suggest otherwise is to misrepresent the facts. Any biblical reference to the corporal punishment of children is not an endorsement of violence or abuse. Such a thing was never contemplated by the writers of scripture and never promoted by the followers of Christ. On the contrary, Christians carry a deep sense of responsibility to protect the vulnerable and speak up for those without a voice. This is why many are unapologetic about speaking out against abortion and assisted suicide.

I recognize that some senators may struggle with this viewpoint, but the position is rooted in the firm belief that every human life has immeasurable value. I, on the other hand, struggle to understand why we are so anxious to amend the Criminal Code in order to criminalize parents who give their child one or two gentle smacks on their backside, but won’t consider amending the Criminal Code to specify that knowingly assaulting a pregnant woman or causing physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman should be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes.

The second thing I would like to respond to is the repeated assertion that the research indicates all corporal punishment is harmful. This is questionable at best and varies according to which research you choose to look at. I would say that the closer you look, the more the so-called evidence begins to break down.

For example, in one academic review, researchers examined 26 studies on this topic from the previous 50 years and found that, “Whether physical punishment compared favorably or unfavorably with other tactics depended on the type of physical punishment.” In essence, the review found that if physical punishment reflected the parameters set out by the Supreme Court, it was found to be as good or better than other forms of discipline.

A 2019 academic survey of the existing research on this issue confirmed these earlier findings. Furthermore, it noted two substantial problems with the studies that concluded all corporal punishment was harmful.

First of all, it found that those studies often did not distinguish between the outcomes of overly severe discipline and non‑abusive physical discipline. Instead, they grouped them together, which provides us with no useful comparison between the impact of corporal punishment which exceeds the current parameters of Canadian law and corporal punishment which is administered within the guidelines set by the Supreme Court.

Second, the studies which concluded that all corporal punishment was always harmful, “. . . failed to solve the chicken‑and-the-egg problem as to whether severe misbehavior causes physical discipline or vice versa.”

One of the strongest arguments against corporal punishment is that spanking is associated with later behavioural problems, such as aggression. However, studies have shown that this correlation exists with every type of corrective discipline. As one study noted:

Since all types of corrective discipline are associated with subsequent aggression, it cannot be uniquely attributed to spanking, except in the case of overly severe and predominant use of physical punishment.

Colleagues, much of the so-called evidence against spanking is based on simple correlations, ignores studies of conditional spanking and fails to compare the outcomes of spanking with outcomes of alternative disciplinary responses that parents could use instead. It does not support removing section 43 from the Criminal Code.

But what about the question of the Call to Action 6 as recommended by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Let me state categorically that the abuse suffered by First Nations children at residential schools was horrific. It should never have happened, and my remarks do not in any way diminish the horror of the traumatic experiences that the children and their families faced and in many cases are still facing.

Last Sunday, colleagues, marked 15 years since the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered an apology to residential school survivors and acknowledged the profound wrongs and unimaginable trauma experienced by Indigenous children who were torn from their homes. The legacy of residential schools remains an ugly and horrific blight in the history of our country, devastating entire families and communities.

As you know, as part of the reconciliation process that followed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 Calls to Action. The sixth Call to Action called on the government, “. . . to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.” However, I would note, colleagues, that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was not given a mandate to reach into every home in the country and dictate what is appropriate or inappropriate when it comes to non-harmful, loving discipline. In fact, for a people who suffered immeasurably because of government overreach, I would be surprised if residential school survivors endorsed a Call to Action which advocates for government overreach in the lives of other families.

The terms of reference provided to the commission were to address the harmful legacy of residential schools, not to compel sweeping revisions of Canadian law with respect to legitimate parental discretion in disciplining their children. Furthermore, colleagues, I would draw your attention to the fact that Call to Action 6 appears under the heading of “Education.” The context of this Call to Action is not to impose a philosophy of discipline upon every parent in the country, but to ensure that section 43 is not used as a shield that allows teachers to strike a child in their care.

This is in keeping with what the Supreme Court decided in 2004. In their decision, the court agreed that:

. . . corporal punishment . . . is not reasonable in the school context, teachers may use force to remove children from classrooms or to secure compliance with instructions.

I would argue that an appropriate application to Call to Action 6 would be to amend section 43 to remove the words “schoolteacher” and “pupil.” This would advance the process of reconciliation by responding to the need to address the abuses in residential schools without being overly broad in its application.

Colleagues, we live in troubled times. Many families feel like their traditional, deeply held beliefs and values are under attack. You do not have to look any further than the parent demonstrations in our very own backyard here in Ottawa this past weekend, and again this afternoon, to see evidence of this. Or you can look to the battle that the New Brunswick premier is now having with the Prime Minister, as Premier Higgs tries to defend rights while Justin Trudeau dismisses them as far right.

Colleagues, let me quote an article in today’s National Post:

Parental rights are now a “far right” political issue, according to Justin Trudeau.

It may be that the prime minister didn’t mean to disparage millions of parents by lumping them in with other far-right radicals like white supremacists and fascists, but that he did so speaks to his tendency to shoot from the lip.

It is unfortunate that, once again, Trudeau, who has often denounced partisanship while urging conciliation, uses inflammatory rhetoric which will alienate a large portion of Canadians.

Trudeau’s divisive language comes in the wake of the government of New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs making controversial changes to gender rules in the province’s schools.

The purview of the provinces. Colleagues, it is one thing to ask parents to adapt to an evolving culture by being tolerant of beliefs they do not share and showing respect to those who hold different values. But when the state begins to impose these values on those who do not hold them, it tears at the fabric of society.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been quite clear that when it comes to religion and belief, the state is to be neutral. Yet today, many Canadians are struggling to see this neutrality. They feel like their governments are becoming increasingly elitist and are progressively encroaching on jurisdiction that has traditionally belonged to the family.

As I said in my speech on this bill’s predecessor, Bill S-206, I do not often agree with former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, ever. However, I do agree with his comment that “. . . there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. . . .” I also believe that there is no place for the state in the homes of loving parents raising their children in a responsible and caring manner. Thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Plett, would you take a question from me?

Hon. Paula Simons: Would Senator Plett take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: You had not finished your question.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) moved second reading of Bill S-260, An Act respecting National Diffuse Midline Glioma Awareness Day.

She said: Honourable senators, I’m honoured to rise today as the sponsor of Bill S-260, An Act respecting National Diffuse Midline Glioma Awareness Day. This enactment designates May 17 in each and every year as national diffuse midline glioma awareness day. It is also known formerly as diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG.

I would like to acknowledge my colleague in the other house, member of Parliament Joël Godin, a true champion, for his tireless work on behalf of the families in his riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and all families across Canada who are affected by this terrible disease.

Diffuse midline glioma is an aggressive brain tumour that attacks the brain stem and slowly destroys all vital functions, even as cognitive function remains intact, rendering the affected person a prisoner in his or her own body. DIPG is the leading cause of brain tumour death in children in Canada, affecting children who are five to seven years of age. DIPGs are most common in children and are fast-growing, likely to spread and difficult to remove surgically.

The most common DIPG symptoms a child may experience are problems with walking, coordination or balance; weakness in the arms and legs; difficulty controlling facial expressions; speech impairment; problems with swallowing and chewing; and double vision or difficulty controlling eye movements. These brave children are fighting for their lives, and their families are helpless to save them.

Diffuse midline glioma is inoperable, incurable and fatal, with a 0% survival rate. Bill S-260 will bring hope to these families who have lost a child, who even in their own grief continue to fight for awareness and support for other families who are facing the same unthinkable situation and loss that they felt. They are united in their fight to find answers, research and resources to combat this terrible disease.

For over 40 years, the prognosis and treatment for diffuse midline glioma have remained unchanged. These families continue to fight despite all odds, and they need more support. With the passage of Bill S-260, increased awareness will be given to this disease, encouraging public and private investment in research, which in turn will improve prognosis and treatment, not only in Canada but around the world.

May 17 is already recognized in other countries as Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma Awareness Day. Bill S-260 would bring Canada to the same level as these other countries, designating May 17 as national diffuse midline glioma awareness day or DIPG awareness day.

Honourable senators, as I conclude, I would like to read into the record the names of the beautiful angels who have inspired this bill: Adaura Cayford, 9 years old; Alexandra Brodeur, 8 years old; Alicia Jolicœur Vella, 8 years old; Claire Sommer, 13 years old; Ellie Bonnett, 4 years old; Florence Gagné, 5 years old; Gabriel Rey, 12 years old; Gordie White, 4 years old; Isaac Dupré, 5 years old; Isabelle Borkowski, 4 years old; James Lavoie, 5 years old; Jordana Fiorini, 10 years old; Jordyn Chan, 6 years old; Julia De Luca, 5 years old; Justin Brouwer, 9 years old; Kara MacLellan, 4 years old; Karter Bourgeault, 5 years old; Kayge Fowler, 6 years old; Maika Lefebvre, 5 years old; Marie‑Ange Forest, 11 years old; Matthew Isaak, 10 years old; Mia Bordeleau, 4 months old; Myah Windrim, 8 years old; Naomi Nevesely, 7 years old; Nathan Froese, 8 years old; Neil Ashamock, 17 years old; Nelina MacPherson, 6 years old; Noah Mercier, 7 years old; Olivia Hirsch, 5 years old; Ronan Smyth, 13 years old; Ronny Betterley, 7 years old; Sarah Kim-Bouchard, 10 years old; Théo Daigle, 6 years old; Trinity Ellsworth, 6 years old; Tyler Palmowski, 13 years old; Victoria-Rose Bilodeau, 11 years old; and Willow Lanto, 3 years old.

Honourable senators, today I ask your support for Bill S-260 to designate May 17 as diffuse midline glioma awareness day, DIPG awareness day, in honour of these beautiful angels and in the hopes of finding new treatments and better prognosis for future children and families. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Reports of Committees, Order No. 1:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), for the adoption of the tenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island), with a recommendation), presented in the Senate on May 17, 2023.

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

Hon. Éric Forest: Would Senator Plett agree to answer a question?

[English]

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)

(Pursuant to the order adopted earlier this day, the bill was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill.)

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: I wish to pose a question to Senator Plett.

Senator Plett, I wonder if you have heard of a very famous Canadian comedian called Russell Peters, one of the most well‑known Canadian comedians. He is now in Los Angeles. He has a wonderful take on violence against children in Canadian families versus immigrant families. His tagline is, “Someone’s going to get hurt real bad.” He says it in his own way. I encourage you to listen to it. It will have you in splits. He makes the point that his immigrant friends feel very envious of his non-immigrant friends because immigrant parents appear to beat up their kids more violently or more regularly than, let’s say, others.

Comedy aside, I wonder if your research has indicated any such evidence to this point.

Hon. Margaret Dawn Anderson: Senator Plett, will you take a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Jaffer has made a declaration of private interest regarding Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, and in accordance with rule 15-7, the declaration shall be recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wells, seconded by the Honourable Senator Batters, for the second reading of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I rise to speak as critic to private member’s Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill proposes to remove farmers’ obligation to pay a price for the greenhouse gas emissions that they generate when they use propane and natural gas to heat farm buildings and to dry grains.

[Translation]

I’d like to begin by expressing my admiration and support for Canadian farmers. I know how essential agriculture is to safeguarding our ability to feed Canadians, as well as people around the world. That’s why Canada has a multitude of programs designed to support and assist all agricultural sectors.

To highlight just a few, we have supply management systems for milk, eggs, chicken and maple products. We have crop insurance programs. We offer payment guarantees for export prices. We also have financing programs for farms and farm equipment, as well as legislation to prevent the seizure of farm assets.

Recently, on March 9, 2022, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, announced the launch of the Supply Management Processing Investment Fund to increase the competitiveness of those sectors. This fund is worth $292.5 million, bringing the total amount committed to compensate and support players in various agricultural sectors to over $3 billion, for them to modernize their operations and make them more competitive following the signing of international trade agreements. Canada is investing heavily to ensure that our farmers remain competitive.

As the grandson of a farmer, I recognize the appeal of Bill C-234, which seemingly aims to leave more money in the pockets of certain farmers. However, as a grandfather, I’m also aware that we are in the midst of a global climate crisis. We must act decisively to stop climate change, which threatens both farms and biodiversity, as well as the health and well-being of so many people, not just in Canada, but around the world.

[English]

My speech will proceed in four parts: The first is the role of a critic of a bill. The second is the climate crisis and the need for a significant price on carbon emissions. The third is the origin of Bill C-234 and its evolving context. The final part is the reason this bill is not the right answer to the collective challenges we face to ensuring a better future for all, including Canadian farmers.

In the appendix on terminology of the Senate Rules, the critic of a bill is described as follows:

The lead Senator responding to the sponsor of the bill. The critic is designated by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government (if the sponsor is not a government member) or the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if the sponsor is a government member). While the critic is often the second Senator to speak to a bill this is not always the case.

In other words, the critic is the counterpart to the bill’s sponsor. For this reason, the Rules grant the critic up to 45 minutes at second reading and third reading, whereas other senators, except leaders, have only up to 15 minutes of speaking time.

It follows that the roles of a bill’s sponsor and critic are distinct. The sponsor acts as a bill’s champion. The critic’s responsibility is to provide a critical evaluation of a bill, responding to the sponsor. A critic is not a sponsor-in-waiting, and friendly critics should be avoided as far as possible.

The logic behind the role of critic is to inform debate at an early stage — after the sponsor. Independent senators should have the opportunity to consider the arguments of both the sponsor and the critic before entering into debate.

The critic should not be invested with an implied procedural veto on a private bill’s advancement. The recent case of Bill S-241 — where the critic agreed to speak only 14 months after the sponsor — is unacceptable. Private bills deserve to be voted on at second reading within a reasonable time and, if adopted, to proceed to committee for a meaningful review.

Finally, as suggested by Senator Downe in connection with Bill C-13, the roles of sponsor and critic should be considered inconsistent with chairing committee proceedings on the bill in question. During the Forty-second Parliament, Senator Runciman, the former chair of the Legal Committee, and Senator Andreychuk, the former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, upheld this principle by vacating the chair when their bills came to their committees.

In fact, members of a committee should always be able to conduct the appropriate level of analysis, including canvassing concerns and opposing arguments. When we fail to do so, the risk of a serious error is high, particularly for private bills where, most of the time, we do not benefit from the perspective and expertise of the relevant departments. The recent example of a Senate bill regarding employment benefits in Prince Edward Island should be a reminder to our committees of the need to take the time to carry out an appropriate level of analysis of all private bills.

On this, I thank Senator Ringuette who raised the flag just in time.

To conclude on this point, I invite the Rules Committee to consider rules regarding sponsors and critics.

I will now turn to my second point: the climate crisis.

Most of us in this chamber agree that greenhouse gas emissions are an existential threat to the environment, biodiversity and human life in Canada and around the world. Most of us also agree that without decisive action, the impacts of climate change will only exacerbate — think of rising sea levels; ocean acidification; forest fires; heat waves; storms; floods and droughts; loss of property and good soil; and the forced displacement of millions of vulnerable people.

In Canada, the climate is warming at more than twice the global rate. Furthermore, as pointed out during a recent conference organized by our colleague Senator Anderson, the situation is worse in our Arctic, which is warming at about three to four times the global rate.

In 2021, the national average temperature was 2.1 degrees Celsius above the 1961 to 1990 reference value. That year, the heat dome that affected British Columbia for over two weeks was responsible for 1,000 new local daily temperature records, and contributed to an early and above-average wildfire season and destruction. This extreme heat also caused over 600 deaths.

Current wildfires all across Canada are a reminder that the situation is only going to become worse. To borrow the words of Professor Mike Flannigan from the University of Alberta, these wildfires are “climate change in action.”

This is costly to Canadians. An article published on May 21 in The Globe and Mail reported that the 2016 Alberta wildfires cost nearly $9 billion.

Colleagues, nowhere are the severe consequences of climate change more tangible than in the agricultural sector. Indeed, a 2021 study led by Cornell University shows that global warming productivity is 21% lower than it could have been without climate change.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada observes that:

Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will increase reliance on irrigation and water-resource management, notably across the Prairies and the interior of British Columbia where moisture deficits are greatest, but also in regions where there has not traditionally been a need to irrigate.

The department adds that:

In many parts of the country, wetter than normal springs will present challenges such as the need to delay seeding. Flooding and other extreme events, including wildfires, may result in loss or relocation of livestock and damage to crops; and increased frequency and intensity of storms could result in power outages, affecting livestock heating and cooling systems as well as automated feeding and milking systems.

In 2018, damage to Canadian farms resulting from severe weather reached $2 billion, the fourth-highest cost on record. In 2019, Alberta crop farmers spoke of the “harvest from hell.” The publication The Western Producer reported that the estimated total value of unharvested crops was $778 million — three quarters of a billion dollars. Recent wetter-than-usual seasons have translated into the need for more grain drying in many provinces. In 2021, as sponsor of Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, Senator Galvez said:

. . . we must act now. For every year that we fail to take action, the cost of reaching the objective of 1.5 degrees Celsius goes up by $5 trillion. . . . Canada is the tenth‑highest contributor to climate change and our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world.

Against this backdrop and Canada’s undertaking in the Paris Agreement to reduce its carbon emissions, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was introduced in Parliament through a Budget Implementation Act on March 27, 2018. It came into force on June 21, 2018.

The act establishes the framework for the federal carbon pollution pricing system. The federal approach enables provinces and territories to implement their own carbon pollution pricing systems aligned with the common minimum national stringency standards that all carbon pricing systems must meet. The federal carbon pollution pricing system applies in those provinces or territories that request it or where there isn’t a system in place that meets the minimum national stringency requirements. That is why it is called a backstop system.

It is important to emphasize that, under the act, all proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system are returned to the province or territory of origin.

Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a logical way to induce behavioural changes that will lead to widespread reductions in emissions. This price seeks to incentivize individuals and businesses to make more environmentally sustainable purchasing and consumption choices, redirect their financial investments and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by substituting carbon-intensive goods for low greenhouse gas alternatives.

Generally, there are two main approaches to greenhouse gas pricing. One approach is to directly set a fixed price on emissions — for example, through a fuel charge or levy. The other approach is to set a cap on emissions but not fix the price, for example, through a cap-and-trade system. This approach caps overall emissions and enables businesses and industries to trade emission permits so that emissions reductions occur where they cost the least. There are also hybrid approaches, such as the federal carbon pricing system for heavy industry.

All of these approaches put a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Provinces and territories can choose the type of system that makes sense for their circumstances. Regardless of the approach, putting a price on carbon pollution is the most cost‑effective way to reduce emissions as it doesn’t prescribe how, but lets businesses and consumers decide how to do so in ways that work best for them. The minimum national stringency requirements that all systems must meet take into account these different approaches.

For direct pricing systems, including the federal fuel charge, the minimum carbon price was set at $20 per tonne in 2019. It gradually increased by $10 per year until 2022, where it reached $50 per tonne. Today, it sits at $65 per tonne and will increase yearly by $15 to reach $170 per tonne in 2030. This provides a strong incentive to reduce emissions and invest in clean technologies.

Incidentally, the act provides some exemptions to farmers for gasoline and fuel used in farm operations. Greenhouse operators also receive 80% relief from the fuel charge on natural gas and propane.

We know that three parties in the House of Commons — the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc — still agree with the minimum national stringency requirements set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Their policy choice follows the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was agreed to by virtually every nation in the world in the 1990s. On the website of its secretariat, you can read that putting a price on carbon can:

Spur investment and innovation in clean technology by increasing the relative cost of using carbon-intensive technology. Businesses and individuals seeking cost‑effective ways to lower their emissions will encourage the development of clean technology and channel financing towards green investments.

But we also know that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario strongly opposed a federal charge on greenhouse gas emissions. Not only have they so far refused to put in place provincial regimes adapted to their reality, but they also challenged the constitutionality of the federal scheme.

On March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the levies imposed by the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act are “constitutionally valid regulatory charges” and not, strictly speaking, a tax. This decisive judgment was not enough to convince the challenging provinces to finally put in place a complete provincial scheme to prevent the application of the federal legislation. To the contrary, they continue to call for an end to what they call the “carbon tax.”

This position has been embraced by the Conservative Party of Canada. In a recent social media post, it promised to “abolish all of the costly coalition’s carbon taxes to lower the price of gas, heat, and groceries, and make life less expensive for all Canadians.” Last week, the Leader of the Conservative Party reiterated at length his desire to cancel the carbon tax during debate on Bill C-47, the budget implementation act.

I now turn to my third point, the background to Bill C-234. After the coming into force of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, some farmer groups from the Prairies and Ontario attempted to convince the government to exempt propane and natural gas from the fuel charge through regulation. The act entitles the government to enlarge the exemptions. Their efforts failed.

In reaction, a powerful lobby called Agriculture Carbon Alliance was launched in 2020 by a gathering of various organizations seeking increased exemptions. The Agriculture Carbon Alliance claims to represent 190,000 Canadian farm businesses, including in Quebec and B.C., two provinces where the federal act does not apply. The Carbon Alliance is pushing for amendments to the federal act to create more exemptions from the federal charge on carbon, but not pushing for provincial schemes to replace it.

The first attempt to expand exemptions came on February 18, 2020, when two private bills were introduced: one in the Senate by Senator Griffin, and the other in the House of Commons by Conservative MP Philip Lawrence.

Senate Bill S-215 sought to expand not only the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include “marketable natural gas” and “propane,” but also the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include “property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure.”

In their speeches at second reading, Senators Griffin and Black said that carbon pricing impacted the competitiveness of farmers and increased the price of food consumed by Canadians. Senator Griffin stated:

. . . a dollar figure of between $13,000 and $17,000 in direct and indirect carbon taxes for a 5,000-acre farm in 2022.

That’s what she was predicting. Despite my requests, the Carbon Alliance did not provide anything to justify these numbers. Let me add that an average farm in Canada has 809 acres and not 5,000 acres.

In the other place, MP Lawrence introduced Bill C-206, which sought to expand the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include “marketable natural gas” and “propane.” But, contrary to Senator Griffin’s bill, it did not touch upon the definition of “eligible farming machinery.” It was more restricted.

Both bills died on the Order Paper with the prorogation of the first session of the Forty-third Parliament on August 18, 2020.

The second attempt was in the following session. Under the House rules, Bill C-206 was reinstated on September 23, 2020. Subsequently, it completed all stages in the House and reached first reading in the Senate, but did not progress further with the dissolution of Parliament on August 15, 2021.

In the meantime, it is important to mention that in Budget 2021, presented on April 19, 2021, the government acknowledged that “many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations” and announced its intention to “return a portion of the proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in backstop jurisdictions.”

In the current Parliament, on December 15, 2021, the government introduced Bill C-8, the Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, which was assented to on June 9, 2022. This bill provides that fuel charge proceeds paid by farmers are to be returned to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions via a refundable tax credit. Bill C-8 makes good on the earlier promise found in the 2021 budget.

As an official from the Department of Finance explained before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and as was reiterated at Bill C-234’s third reading in the House:

Through the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas in heating and drying activities in backstop provinces. This ensures that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount expected to increase as the price on carbon pollution rises.

The refundable tax credit is designed to allocate total fuel charge proceeds according to farm size, as measured using total farm expenditures. In this manner, the credit aims to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers, while also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

To summarize, Bill C-8, with its tax credit mechanism, returns fuel charge proceeds to farmers in a manner that does not undo the purpose and benefit of such a charge in the first place, which is to induce behavioural changes that will lead to widespread reductions in emissions. Simply put, Bill C-8 maintains what is known as the “price signal.”

Despite this adjustment to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the third and current attempt to expand exemptions comes in the form of Bill C-234, introduced by Conservative MP Ben Lobb on February 7, 2022.

Commenting on this introduction, he stated in an interview with local or regional media, owned by Postmedia:

. . . we’d love to have a bill to get rid of carbon tax for everybody at this time that would deal with your home heating bills and a number of different things. . . . But we wouldn’t have the support of the house.

However, on the topic of further exemptions for farmers, he was of the view that his party would have the support of the House. One may wonder if MP Lobb is a fan of Agamemnon, the Greek king who offered the Trojans the legendary horse.

The bill in its original version had no sunset clause, making the new exemptions permanent. To avoid a defeat in committee, the Conservatives offered a 10-year sunset provision with the option for the government of the day to propose postponing the expiry of the exemptions for a specified period of time by a motion in both houses. Put in a difficult position with farmers, while recognizing the pitfalls of an indefinite exemption for farmers, the NDP countered with an eight-year period, which is what we now see in Bill C-234. At third reading in the House of Commons, the government and all Liberal MPs but three, voted “no” to Bill C-234 as amended and now before us. This is what we call “multi-party support.” It’s not unanimity — far from that.

I now turn to my fourth and last point: the two main arguments raised in support of Bill C-234 — and, incidentally, its predecessors — despite Bill C-8, and why these arguments falter under careful reflection.

First is the argument that there is an urgent need to grant a financial break to farmers so they can remain competitive and feed Canadians and the rest of the world. This assertion needs nuance. As we all know, all farmers do not operate under the same conditions. In fact, a large proportion of Canadian farmers operate in supply management systems, which largely exclude competition and where the operating costs are eventually reflected in the prices paid by consumers. This is the case for milk, eggs, chicken and maple syrup.

However, grain, oilseeds and cattle and hog producers operate in systems where the price they receive is determined by the Chicago Board of Trade or elsewhere, irrespective of their production costs. Numerous representatives of these producers told me that they are not price fixers but, rather, price takers. In other words, the price for their grain or livestock is outside of their control. Therefore, while the fuel charge might represent an additional cost for grain and livestock producers, this does not automatically result in a higher cost to consumers. The price of commodities such as natural gas and propane varies according to time. Actually, the price of natural gas is cheaper than it was three years ago, despite the additional tax on carbon. The price is not going up at the end; the price is lower than it was.

But it remains true that these farmers are competing with foreign markets where carbon pricing may not exist for the time being. However, it is also true that Canadian farmers have access to various government programs to assist the financing of their exports and help them to remain competitive.

The second assertion is that farmers lack viable means to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, thus making the fuel charge punitive in nature — you may have read that in the literature you received from the Carbon Alliance. This argument also needs nuance.

Consider, for instance, the heating and cooling of buildings used for animal breeding, such as stables, hog farms, et cetera. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, farmers can implement more efficient heating systems and use a heating pump, better ventilation systems and recirculation of air. They can also improve their insulation and adopt other widely available techniques already on the market.

The vice-president of the National Farmers Union, an engineer and a lawyer told me, as he told the House Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that there are proven ways to improve efficiency in buildings with energy-efficient ventilation fans and LED lighting, as well as heat recovery technology and in-floor heating.

I have learned that in-floor heating is much more effective than heating coming from the ceiling.

Along similar lines, a recent document from the government of the State of Victoria in Australia titled “Energy use on farms,” which was last updated April 26, 2023, outlines several options for efficiency gains, such as insulating buildings, maximizing the use of natural light and ventilation in farm buildings and using light-coloured, heat-reflective paint on roofs and walls.

In addition, reliance on propane and natural gas may be reduced by using a geothermal pump. The United States Environmental Protection Agency states:

. . . geothermal heat pumps can reduce energy consumption — and corresponding emissions — up to 44% compared with air-source heat pumps and up to 72% compared with electric resistance heating with standard air‑conditioning equipment.

In my consultation with the National Farmers Union, I was told the story of a farmer who opted for a natural gas boiler instead of a geothermal heat pump for a new building on his farm because the purchase price of the gas boiler was lower. But in the long run, the heat pump would have been a better option for the environment and for his financial results considering the escalating charge on natural gas. But he would prefer to get an exemption. In fact, incentives like the charge on carbon emissions are crucial to prevent such a choice.

There has also been much discussion about grain drying, an activity that, no doubt, is essential, especially when you have a wet season. However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that there is currently no viable way for farmers to reduce energy consumption in their grain drying activities.

For example, in March 2022, Premier Ford’s government’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs published a technical fact sheet for commercial crop producers outlining the numerous ways in which they can reduce energy use in grain dryers. It notes that a grain dryer wastes as much as 40% of the energy it uses and that the type of grain dryer can make a 30% difference in energy use.

The fact sheet goes on to state that dryeration or in-bin cooling improves dryer energy use by up to 30% and that a heat recovery system, which can be added to most existing dryers, reduces fuel consumption by 20% to 40% without affecting dryer throughput. Finally, it says that many dryers can also be purchased with suction cooling, yielding a result that is similar to heat recirculation and saving 15% to 20% in fuel compared to a standard dryer.

Solutions do exist on the market, and they are coming from the government of Mr. Ford.

Moreover, colleagues, new and accessible technologies are coming to the market. Just a few weeks ago, on March 29, Minister Bibeau announced federal support for 45 new projects related to adopting more efficient grain drying technology by farmers across Canada. In fact, the current government’s approach to combatting climate change is not merely carbon pricing but, instead, a multi-faceted framework that includes substantial government investment in research, development and adoption of clean technology for the agriculture sector.

For example:

As part of the Strengthened Climate Plan and the Emissions Reduction Plan, the Government of Canada has committed over $1.5 billion to accelerate the agricultural sector’s progress on reducing emissions and to remain a global leader in sustainable agriculture.

This is including $495.7 million for the Agricultural Clean Technology Program.

This program has now supported 99 grain dryer projects across the country, “already helping hundreds of farmers to adopt clean technologies that will power their farms with cleaner energy.”

One example is a 26,000-acre family operated producer of canola, wheat and oats in Saskatchewan, which:

. . . is receiving up to $2 million to purchase and install a new grain dryer and biomass boiler that is powered by locally sourced wood waste.

That will completely negate the use of propane in the drying process on this farm.

Another example is a Manitoba company introducing a biomass grain drying system.

To sum up, in grain drying, the arrival of clean technologies is well under way. But if Bill C-234, with its eight-year exemption, becomes law, the likely downside is that it eliminates an incentive to promptly adopt clean technologies that will continue to emerge during that period. Furthermore, at the end of the proposed eight-year period, in 2031, the charge will have reached $170 per tonne of carbon emissions, and not $65, as it is currently. You could then expect one thing: more lobbying to extend the exemption.

With the introduction of tax credit under Bill C-8, the Agriculture Carbon Alliance has put forward a new argument. It alleges that the tax credit does not reallocate fuel charge proceeds in the most equitable way for some groups of farmers, especially those using propane, for whom the credit may represent only a small portion of the carbon price paid.

Despite my requests, they were unable to provide me with any evidence of their claims so far. But even assuming this is the case, the logical answer is, as proposed by the National Farmers Union, an adjustment to the rebate mechanism, not an exemption from the carbon price altogether.

I was told about some provinces’ unwillingness to ensure that farms can connect to the grid and receive sufficient electric power at a reasonable price. In my opinion, this does not justify asking the federal government to exempt farmers from the carbon price in respect of their use of propane and natural gas. Instead, farmers should use their powerful lobbies to seek the provision of proper services by provincial utilities.

Finally, if Bill C-234 were to be adopted, many negative impacts would result. An area of particular concern is the risk of double compensation that might arise. As an official from the Department of Finance said before the House standing committee:

If fuel charge relief for farmers were extended through Bill C-234, farmers in backstop jurisdictions would receive double the compensation by benefiting from the refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. Such double compensation would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces.

An additional concern is the potential impact on the way that grain drying is done. In his recent speech, Senator Black acknowledged that Bill C-234 will only apply to grain producers who conduct their own grain drying and not to those who use the services of a third-party grain dryer. From the meetings I had with various stakeholders, it appears that in Ontario, about 50% of grains are dried by third-party enterprises. Thus, the adoption of this bill will provide a strong incentive to farmers to buy their own grain dryers, even if they need to use propane or natural gas. This will be cheaper than to use the third party. This will generate more greenhouse emissions and constitute an additional subsidy to the oil and gas companies.

Another important drawback is the various possible ripple effects of adopting this bill. As the organization Environmental Defence observes:

Exempting . . . high emission activities from carbon pricing for farmers will only further encourage other sectors to demand similar treatment. This is already a problem as many industries, especially the oil and gas sector, have successfully lobbied for, and achieved, favourable treatment, which allows them to pay a much lower carbon price than others, regardless of their lack of actual degree of being energy intensive and trade exposed.

In his recent speech, Senator Black showed an openness to further amendments. He said:

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.

With the passage of Bill C-234, Environment and Climate Change Canada estimates that the decrease in coverage where the federal fuel charge applies would be approximately 2.4 megatonnes in 2023. That is 2.4 million tonnes. This is a significant amount, as Canada’s emissions in 2021 were 670 megatonnes. Any subsequent amendment will, of course, increase these numbers.

Finally, on Environment and Climate Change Canada’s website, the government has publicly committed to conduct an interim review of carbon pricing by 2026 to confirm:

. . . that benchmark criteria are sufficient to continue ensuring that pricing stringency is aligned across all carbon pollution pricing systems in Canada and that carbon pricing systems continue to meet the benchmark criteria from 2027 to 2030.

Why, then, the need to have an exemption until 2031 if a review is possible in 2026?

Colleagues, I invite you to consider all these points and concerns before making up your mind on Bill C-234.

Should you conclude that it deserves second reading, it should be subject to a thorough review by two committees — the Senate’s National Finance Committee and Agriculture and Forestry Committee. Their hearings should include comprehensive evidence from not only representatives of agriculture organizations but also from environmental organizations, economists and officials from the Department of Finance and Environment and Climate Change Canada. This is our responsibility of sober second thought in the context of a climate crisis.

On a concluding note, I wish to thank all the stakeholder groups who reached out to me or to whom I reached out. Since the sponsor’s speech on May 9, I had the opportunity to meet with about 30 representatives from over a dozen groups both supportive of and opposed to Bill C-234.

One day, a group of farmers came into my office unannounced. Apparently, they found their way into East Block. I was pleased to meet with them. I met people from Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario who are cattle ranchers, grain producers, egg farmers, chicken farmers and all types of people. I learned a lot about agriculture, and I must say that I was a bit out of place since my days as a young man living in an agricultural setting. My father had hogs and chickens on many farms, sharing the profits of the meat price with the farmers. I unloaded, on chicken farms, hundreds and thousands of small chicks that were to become chickens. I was not aware of the latest changes, but I do know a bit about farming. Many of these meetings were followed by documents. Their thoughtful insights were most helpful in preparing my remarks before you today.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you, meegwetch. Let us do the work that is asked of us.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I, Mobina Jaffer, note for the record that I believe I have a private interest that I might be affected by a matter currently before the Senate. The general nature of the interest is that my sisters and I have a poultry farm. Thank you.