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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Not really, as there are just eight seconds left. Is Senator Dalphond asking for extra time?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, I would like to add my voice to the second reading debate on Bill C-234. Let me first thank the sponsor, Senator Wells, for making the case for this bill, and the critic, Senator Dalphond, for his insightful critique.

I would have preferred to take some time to digest Senator Dalphond’s speech before delivering my own, but I know that there is some pressure to send this bill to committee tonight, along with a group of Senate public bills.

I would also like to thank the many Canadians who have written to senators to voice their views on this bill, especially Canadian farmers who are very much the subject of Bill C-234. I join with my colleagues in expressing my gratitude to and admiration for all who work in the agriculture and agri-food sector, which not only puts food on our tables but also generates enormous wealth for our country and is a vital part of Canada’s historical and cultural identity.

But farmers are not the only subject of the bill, and it would be a mistake for us to frame the policy question before us as one that is purely about the welfare of farmers. If it were simply about the welfare of farmers, the case for supporting the bill would be strong. It is important to recognize, however, that the bill is as much about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting our international commitments as it is about the price of natural gas and propane on farms. After all, colleagues, we are discussing amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which this chamber passed in 2018. This is not, in fact, a bill on farm support.

I should not have to remind colleagues about the existential threat to Canadians and, indeed, to all of God’s creatures from global warming due to the centuries-long increase in greenhouse gases, principally from industrialized countries.

A recent article in the journal Nature points out that a warm, dry spring has meant an early start to the fire season in Canada with the area burned so far — more than 4 million hectares of forest — already exceeding the amount razed during the entire 2021 extreme fire season.

This bill is an interesting case study in public policy analysis because of the different policy objectives that are implicated in Bill C-234 and the choice of public policy tools that one could apply to address market failures, such as greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions, on the one hand, and the volatility of farm income and commodity prices on the other.

I commend this bill to students of public policy and law because it has a richness in helping them think about how to design sound public policy for conflicting objectives including, in this case, the dual problem of GHG emissions and volatility in farm incomes.

On the face of it, the bill seeks to expand the exemptions to farm fuel carbon pricing to include natural gas and propane for a period of at least eight years. In practice, however, what the bill does is remove a carefully designed market price signal for farmers to use less natural gas and propane in order to reduce GHG emissions.

The argument in favour of the exemption is the relative paucity of alternatives to natural gas and propane for the heating of farm buildings, especially grain dryers. Proponents of the bill have taken the most direct route to addressing this problem, which is to expand the exemptions. However, the most direct route may not be the best one, especially when there are conflicting policy objectives and if the direct solution, such as what Bill C-234 is proposing, undermines the mechanism behind the original policy.

In this case, the original policy of a charge on covered fuels is to induce a change in behaviour on the part of users, as well as to stimulate innovation towards the use of energy sources that are less polluting. Furthermore, the use of a price signal, such as a fuel charge, is technology-agnostic and transparent, as opposed to command-and-control type regulations that tend to encourage evasion and which allow for a non-transparent pass-through of price increases and markups.

To the extent that we agree on the need to incentivize investments in lower-carbon farming methods, the better solution to the problem of limited energy options for crop drying is not an exemption for those energy sources, but one which provides relief for farmers while preserving a price incentive to reduce the use of natural gas and propane and for investment in technologies that facilitate this change.

This is, in fact, what the government has already put in place by way of a refundable tax credit which aims to return fuel charge proceeds directly to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions, recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations. This measure does not reimburse farmers for exactly the amount incurred on natural gas and propane, since that would undo the whole point of a fuel charge on those fuels in the first place. Instead, it reimburses farms according to size as a proxy for the amount of natural gas and propane used. It does so while maintaining the price signal to encourage farms to reduce their use of those fuels.

Again, that is a sensible approach that tries to preserve two potentially conflicting policy objectives: creating a price incentive to reduce the use of GHG-intensive fuels and addressing the current lack of alternative energy sources for grain drying and the like. Even if the wholesale shift to lower-carbon-emitting energy sources, such as biomass, is not possible for some farming operations, the existence of a price signal will create the incentive for farmers to invest in energy-saving measures related to building design, insulation and the use of higher-efficiency furnaces, which Senator Dalphond touched on nicely.

Perhaps farmers are already making these investments. That would be terrific. And perhaps a price incentive will not be sufficient for them to make major energy-efficiency investments, but you can be sure that an exemption for eight years would encourage procrastination and delay. You can be just as sure that when the eight years are up, the temptation for farmers to seek an extension to the exemption will be as great as the political pressure to accede to it.

Proponents of the bill tend to frame it in the context of the price and income volatility that farmers face that makes a fuel charge on natural gas and propane even more difficult for them to manage. As the argument goes, farmers are price takers for the commodities sold on the world market, and therefore they cannot pass on higher input costs, such as a surcharge on fuel. But it is important to remember that price and income instability is a structural challenge in Canadian farming and that policy-makers working with farmers have, over the years, designed many assistance programs to assess those structural challenges.

The best of those programs seek to reduce business risk and stabilize incomes without reducing competition, distorting production, discouraging innovation and penalizing consumers. One example is a program to advance payment to farmers through interest-free loans that help them optimize the timing of delivery to take advantage of the best prices without incurring a financial penalty.

Colleagues, if our concern is a new kind of price volatility and income instability problem in the farming sector, the solution is not to tamper with a carbon-pricing scheme, which distorts that policy objective, but to look at broader business-risk-management programs that are specific to the problem. That is, of course, a basic rule in the design of good public policy, but it is often neglected by lawmakers who are more interested in the politics of a quick fix and the emotive appeal of helping farmers.

An argument has been advanced that the exemption of natural gas and propane will allow farms to use those savings to invest in green technology. I don’t accept that argument, because money is fungible and any savings can be used for a variety of purposes, only one of which is an investment in green technology. In any case, the exemption of natural gas and propane from the fuel charge removes the price incentive to invest in those alternatives; indeed, with the increase in the carbon price to $170 per tonne by 2030, that incentive becomes stronger over time.

Even if you are of the view that the price right now is not sufficient to stimulate investment in lower-carbon-emissions production methods, there is the option of direct support to farmers, such as the Agricultural Green Technology Program currently offered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

In any case, the suggestion that natural gas and propane fuel charges under the GHG pollution-pricing scheme will be debilitating for farmers is misleading. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada conducted an analysis of the cost of drying grains based on data from provincial governments and other sources. That analysis highlights that the contribution of the federal carbon price to the cost of drying grain in 2019 ranged from between 0.05% to 0.38% of an average farm’s net operating costs, equivalent to $210 to $774 that year.

The reason why those numbers are so small is because grain-drying costs make up a very small percentage of farm operating expenses. Assuming no carbon price, the figure, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, is 0.4% in Alberta, 1.7% in Saskatchewan and 1.2% in Manitoba.

Another way to look at this issue is to consider the price of natural gas relative to grain and oilseed prices. If you look at a 20-year time series of natural gas prices and compare them with the price of grains, what you will find is a steadily declining ratio between the two. Looking back 20 years, and taking 2007 as the year when the ratio between natural gas prices and grain prices is one, you will see that the ratio was as high as 2.6 in 2003. By March 2023, this year, the ratio had fallen to just 0.5%. The same is true of oilseeds.

In other words, the cost of natural gas relative to the prices of grains and oilseeds has declined massively over the last 20 years.

There are a number of other problems with Bill C-234, some of which likely derive from the fact that private members’ bills do not have the benefit of the legal drafting finesse of the Department of Justice or the oversight of central agencies and other government departments in avoiding loopholes and unintended consequences. Senator Dalphond has touched upon a number of them already. I will just point out one more, which is in the definition of “farm buildings.” There could be some ambiguity as to what constitutes “farm buildings,” particularly when farms use a common source of heating — natural gas, for example — for the barn, the dryer and the family home, and the complications arise in separating which parts of the costs are allocated to farming operations versus the maintenance of a family home.

Colleagues, Bill C-234 would mean that virtually all on-farm fuels are not subject to a carbon price. That is a massive exemption for a policy tool that works best when exemptions are kept to a minimum. Such a sweeping carve-out for farming simply puts a bigger onus on the rest of the Canadian economy to find reductions in their carbon emissions in order to reach our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

To summarize, what we are debating today is not whether we should provide relief to farmers who rely upon natural gas and propane for on-farm activities such as the drying of grain. The question, rather, is the best mix of policy instruments to address this challenge, recognizing that there are other policy objectives that have to be considered at the same time. The government has acknowledged this challenge facing farmers and responded with Bill C-8 in December 2021, with the tax credit to return fuel charges to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions, which both Senator Dalphond and I have discussed.

As legislators, we should not be looking for the easiest solution to a problem, but, rather, the best solution. If we agree that greenhouse gas pollution pricing is a valid policy response to the problem of global warming and if our goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 is valid, we should do everything we can to preserve the integrity of that policy.

Along with Senator Dalphond, I cannot help but suspect that the most ardent advocates of Bill C-234 do not share that commitment and that they would be happy for all GHG pricing, especially in backstop jurisdictions, to be eliminated altogether. I would not be surprised if the passing of this bill emboldens critics of carbon pricing to push for wider exemptions. In any case, other carbon-intensive industries that have abatement challenges would surely be in a position to argue for so-called “equitable” treatment if the entire agricultural sector is exempt from carbon pricing on essentially all on-farm fuels because of Bill C-234.

This bill, therefore, is not only a suboptimal way to address a legitimate problem faced by some farmers; it is also a dangerous precedent that could undermine Canada’s commitment to reducing GHGs and achieving our collective goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

Thank you.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Is there time for a question?

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Honourable senators, I had a question, but, with five seconds left, I do not have time to ask it. I have no prepared notes, but, as always, Senators Woo and Dalphond raise very interesting points. They should be addressed so that colleagues have a clearer picture of what is going on.

I completely reject Senator Woo’s comments about what the motives might be of people who favour this bill. In my part of Canada, the farmers do not have any natural gas to assist them. The fact that the price of natural gas has gone down substantially has been a theme of both speeches we heard tonight. The farmers in Prince Edward Island have limited resources of energy. We have some solar and some wind, and the rest is oil and propane that is imported, so the costs are completely different.

Senator Dalphond raised a number of interesting points. I might start off by talking about some of his suggestions for the Rules Committee to consider, which I think are very interesting. Senator Dalphond also highlighted the prosperity of farmers, and he gave a very good argument for supply management and the benefits of supply management. It would be the hope of all of us that all farmers would have the same income and stability that other Canadians have, and supply management provides that.

However, there is a large group of farmers who do not benefit from supply management. For potato farmers in Prince Edward Island, the local joke is that you may as well roll the dice in Las Vegas as throw the seeds in the field because you don’t know what the crop will be, what the weather will be and what the price will be. It’s a high-risk business. The additional cost of the measures proposed by the government is unfair on a regional basis. As a regional chamber, we should keep that in mind, with the lack of natural gas.

The other thing we should recall, colleagues, is how this bill got here. This is a bill proposed by a Conservative MP. They don’t have a majority in the House of Commons. A number of Liberal MPs had to recognize the importance of this and support it to pass it. It’s interesting that the two senators who spoke tonight are from cities. They support farmers, but they think their position is more important than farmers’ success and prosperity. The Liberal MPs who voted for this bill took a high risk. Unlike in this chamber, MPs who deviate from the party line are subject to a range of punishments, I would call them — restrictions on what they can do, speaking time and committees. So they were very good representatives of their regions. They recognized the concerns expressed by the farming community, and they supported this legislation. That’s how it ended up here. I’m surprised senators tonight have embraced the views of the Liberal cabinet as opposed to those MPs who spoke and voted in an independent manner, which is what we’re striving to do here on a regular basis.

Colleagues, there are lots of good things in this bill and lots of proposals, but I’ll conclude with these comments: We all remember when, during the pandemic, we had shortages in our country because of things we could not get because they were offshore. We see President Biden onshoring as much as he can in a whole range of industries. We have to be very careful in this country. If the food supply system is threatened and if farmers go out of business, if they’re gone, they’re not coming back. We do not want to be dependent in this country on food coming from other countries. We want food security in our country. The only way to do that is to have successful, prosperous farmers in our country. This bill would help achieve that.

Thank you, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Plett. I will slow down.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 8, 2023.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): When you speak French, half the time we are not getting the translation before you move on. We simply cannot keep up. The other way is going okay, but I want to understand what you’re saying. So we need either for you, Your Honour, to slow down or for them to speed up.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved:

That the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Health.

She said: Honourable senators, I know the hour is late, but this is a really important study that shines the light on a particularly dark place — suicide. Before I give you the substance of the findings of our report, please let me take a minute to thank all the witnesses who shared their lived and living experience on suicide with us.

Stigma around suicide and mental health persists, and without discussing these topics, there is little hope for improvement. I would like, in particular, to thank our colleagues Senator Stan Kutcher and Senator Patrick Brazeau for their insight and perspectives on our study.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began its study on the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention in September 2022, holding five meetings of testimony and hearing from 23 witnesses. The Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention was published in 2016 after a period of consultation following the adoption, in 2012, of the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act.

While the framework establishes an idealistic vision of “a Canada where suicide is prevented and everyone lives with hope and resilience,” the committee heard that there has been little change to the overall Canadian suicide rate since its implementation. In fact, the overall annual rate has remained largely steady for the past two decades, fluctuating between 11 in 100,000 and 12 in 100,000.

The committee asked the question, “Where are we after seven years?” The title of our report is Doing What Works. It could easily have been called Doing What Doesn’t Work because the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is failing by the only metric that really counts — lives saved.

Since the framework was established, the suicide rate in Canada has not meaningfully changed. There was the slightest of decreases in 2020, which witnesses attributed to pandemic‑related supports. It has otherwise remained stubbornly steady, and we wanted to know why.

One cannot fault the framework for not having lofty ideals and aspirations, laudable language and praiseworthy goals. It aims to prevent suicide through partnership, collaboration and innovation. It aims to do so while respecting the diversity of cultures and communities that are touched by this issue. It speaks of building hope and resilience and of leveraging partnerships. All of this is, as we found, heartwarming and inspiring but ultimately ineffectual. The evidence we heard is that fine words have no effect on health outcomes for people in crisis.

The committee makes 10 recommendations, and I will not go through all 10 of them. I will simply highlight four in the hope that you will turn your attention to this report.

First, we need to go where the problem actually is. It is not in the general population but, rather, in specific sections of it, primarily men and boys who are First Nation, Métis and Inuit. Senator Brazeau was particularly compelling as a witness on this point.

Second, we need to invest in programming that works, backed by evidence that it works, not touchy-feely good ideas or best practices. Senator Kutcher has emphasized the need to review the efficacy and impact of revenue-generating programs for suicide prevention.

Third, we need to focus on means intervention, which, in simple words, means that we need to restrict easy access to those methods of suicide which may make it easier to succeed, such as installing barriers to bridges and preventing easy access to medication, et cetera.

Fourth, and significantly, we need to aggressively collect and disaggregate data to follow the evidence. In short, doing what works as opposed to spinning windmills in the air is what is important. This is about lives and saving them, and this report puts out significant recommendations which could do so, particularly in light of the fact that the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is due to be reviewed.

Thank you, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Omidvar, would you take a question?

Senator Omidvar: Of course.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Omidvar, I was surprised to see in your report that it seemed to be a revelation to your committee that men’s suicide deaths are 75% of the Canadian total.

Thirteen years ago, in 2010, I produced a TV commercial in memory of my late husband to raise awareness about mental illness and suicide prevention, and among the facts noted in that 2010 ad was that men die by suicide three times as often as women. I and many other mental health advocates in Canada have spoken nationally about this topic for more than a decade.

The short section of your report about boys and men starts with this sentence:

The committee received less testimony regarding boys and men, and recognizes that this population should be considered in further depth in future studies on suicide prevention in Canada.

Senator Omidvar, your committee, as you mentioned, had only five meetings with witnesses on this topic. Why didn’t you have more meetings to receive that type of key evidence about men?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Batters, and thank you for your continued advocacy on this matter. I have not watched the particular TV ad that you did, but I will undertake to do so.

Our committee has a work plan, and we dedicated five meetings to discuss the report. We felt that even though we recognized the shortcomings of not hearing more witnesses on the suicide rate of boys and men, we did point it out in our study, and our recommendation reflects the findings of the committee.

Thank you.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I note this item is at day 15. I’m not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11 on the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act — this inquiry was initiated by my colleague Senator Yuen Pau Woo.

First, I would like to share my appreciation for Senator Woo’s initiative in leading this important and timely conversation in the Red Chamber which, as you all know, had a pivotal role in highlighting the profoundly damaging legislation, the Chinese Immigration Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act. Some of our honourable colleagues have already spoken about the Chinese Exclusion Act’s detrimental effects on the Chinese‑Canadian community. I was profoundly touched by the allyship expressed in their speeches regarding this inquiry, such as from Senator Jaffer and Senator McCallum.

Unfortunately, this act’s cruelty is unimaginable to many in this chamber. We know too well that our country’s history is marred with periods of exclusionary and reprehensible actions. Nevertheless, allow me to remind you of the act’s discriminative measures.

In practice, the Chinese Immigration Act prohibited Chinese immigration. As a result, families were torn apart, opportunities were lost and autonomous life was destroyed. Canadians of Chinese descent were also deprived of full citizenship in their home and native land. However, this community never succumbed despite the systemic challenges. Chinese Canadians steadily dismantled and overcame hurdles through incredible resilience and determination.

In 1947, freedom of movement was reclaimed and the right to citizenship was re-established. In 1948, we slowly started to gain the right to vote. In further years, we reconnected with our parents and rebuilt our families. Most importantly, we thrived and contributed to Canada’s economic and social development.

I have no doubt, honourable colleagues, that Canada would not be the great country it is today if not for the resilience of the Chinese-Canadian community and countless other minority communities. Unfortunately, even with all of the time that has passed, lessons can be forgotten and society can regress. Seventy-five years ago, systemic inequality brought about a rise of anti-Chinese racism. Today, following the pandemic and geopolitical issues, the Asian community in Canada finds itself as the target once again.

Over the course of the last three years, an unfortunate sentiment has been shared with me repeatedly. In not so many terms, parallels are felt between our modern day and what took place 100 years ago. Uninvolved individuals of the Asian community feel cornered by politics. They find themselves stranded between their love for their millenary cultural heritage and pointed political language.

I would be remiss if I didn’t caution my parliamentary colleagues, yet again, to take special care to differentiate between our Chinese-Canadian community and those they criticize. Even more distressing is when such critiques are misunderstood by some in the public and taken to an extreme, ultimately being manifested in the form of violence and hate. During the pandemic, for example, we witnessed repeated cases of rhetoric turning into violence in the streets of our great country.

As I have mentioned in the past, I experienced an episode of anti-Asian hate just a few steps outside of Parliament Hill, and I constantly endure hateful comments directed at me in social media channels. That, however, is a sad price that we — parliamentarians — pay for being public figures. Nevertheless, private citizens have not signed up for such harsh criticism and hate. Political critiques are being misinterpreted as judgment toward individuals, and it pains me to hear that many feel personally attacked by the language used by our politicians.

Colleagues, I do believe that we are conscientious by nature here in Canada. Let us remember this great quality and speak accordingly when voicing our political opinion. Just like how our words can be a force for good, they can also be a force for wrong.

The success of Chinese Canadians comes despite the never-ending — and seemingly worsening — anti-Asian racism. Our stories of resilience are many: Take, for example, Lieutenant-Commander William King Lowd Lore who, despite being denied enlistment in the Royal Canadian Navy multiple times, went on to make history as the first officer of Chinese descent in any of the Commonwealth navies.

On another positive note, it is evident that there has been some evolution. I stand here today as an ethnic Chinese senator from Ontario, speaking on an inquiry started by an ethnic Chinese senator from British Columbia, which speaks volumes about how far we have come since 1923.

Indeed, there is still work to be done, and striving for equality and cultural appreciation should be our ceaseless goal. Nevertheless, I am proud to know that despite our past faults, Canada remains a beacon of hope and a haven of multiculturalism and inclusion in today’s world. Thank you, xie xie and meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On Motion No. 90 by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett:

That the Standing Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to examine and report on foreign influence in the electoral process in Canada; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than June 30, 2023.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate postponed until the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I see that I am at the end of my time on this as well. So with the leave of the Senate I would like to reset the clock for the balance of my time.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond, pursuant to notice of June 8, 2023, moved:

That the Senate acknowledge that Russian political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza — recipient of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize, a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and a friend of the Parliament of Canada — is an internationally recognized champion for human rights and democracy, whose wrongful imprisonment for dissenting against the unjust war in Ukraine is emblematic of thousands of political prisoners in Russia and around the world; and

That the Senate resolve to bestow the title “honorary Canadian citizen” on Vladimir Kara-Murza and call for his immediate release.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to co-propose that the Senate join with the House of Commons’ unanimous vote last week to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Russian political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza. Thank you to Senators Housakos, Omidvar, Miville-Dechêne and Patterson (Ontario) for your collaborative efforts towards this goal.

As this motion states, Vladimir Kara-Murza is an internationally recognized champion for human rights and democracy. He is a recipient of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize and a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in Montreal. Mr. Kara-Murza’s wrongful imprisonment for dissenting against the unjust war in Ukraine is emblematic of thousands of political prisoners in Russia and around the world.

After surviving two assassination attempts, Mr. Kara-Murza is currently serving a 25-year sentence in Russia imposed further to a mockery of a trial held after he courageously returned to his homeland last year.

Senators, the Parliament of Canada must stand with such a hero and a friend of Canada. Mr. Kara-Murza visited our Parliament twice. In 2016, he appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee to urge the adoption of the Sergei Magnitsky Law named after another victim of the Putin regime, which became law in 2017.

In 2019, Mr. Kara-Murza assisted the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, alongside the Honourable Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, in relation to the human rights situation in Russia.

Vladimir’s spouse Evgenia Kara-Murza is the Advocacy Coordinator of the Free Russia Foundation. She assisted the same House committee last October in relation to a study of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. She told MPs that 19,335 people have been arbitrarily detained in Russia since February 2022, the beginning of the war in Ukraine.

That same week Ms. Kara-Murza was a guest of this chamber. Many of us had the great honour of speaking with her. This year, senators have spoken of Vladimir Kara-Murza’s situation in this chamber, including Senators Boehm, McPhedran and Gold.

[Translation]

Last April, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, condemned the guilty verdict of Vladimir Kara‑Murza. She stated, and I quote:

Mr. Kara-Murza stands as a symbol of the courageous and principled defence of democratic values and human rights. Russia’s attempts to silence people of conscience only makes their voices more powerful.

At the beginning of the month, Senator Omidvar co-led a press conference with the Honourable Irwin Cotler and a group of parliamentarians, including Senator Miville-Dechêne and myself, to establish the basis for this motion. If Mr. Kara-Murza is aware of our efforts, he must know that his friends, the Honourable Irwin Cotler, Bill Browder, Brandon Silver and many others tirelessly defended his cause until today.

I also want to mention a letter of support for this initiative by the League for Human Rights, an agency of B’nai Brith Canada. I will quote an excerpt from this letter:

Kara-Murza is a beacon of hope for a population that is increasingly oppressed by Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime, which seeks to crush any dissidence while continuing its criminal war against its neighbour, Ukraine.

Honourable senators, honorary Canadian citizenship is an honour rarely bestowed by Parliament. It is done through a motion of the House of Commons and the Senate. Among the few who have received this honour in the past are heroes of humanity, such as Raoul Wallenberg, Nelson Mandela and Malala Yousafzai.

[English]

On June 8, last Thursday, Conservative MP Tom Kmiec rose and found unanimous consent of elected members of Parliament to a motion to confer honorary citizenship on Vladimir Kara‑Murza and to call on the Russian Federation to set him free.

By adopting the motion before us, the Senate of Canada will join the other place in showing the world that the Parliament of Canada stands up for our friends and for political prisoners around the world. With this motion, let us speak with a united voice for freedom and justice for Vladimir Kara-Murza. Let us send a powerful message to dissenters against tyranny who are imprisoned worldwide, “In Canada, you are not forgotten.”

Last year, Mr. Kara-Murza’s spouse, Evgenia, received the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize on her husband’s behalf, which was awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In a statement she read on his behalf, Mr. Kara-Murza dedicated the prize to the many thousands of Russians jailed for speaking out against the war who chose not to remain “. . . silent in the face of this atrocity, even at the cost of personal freedom.”

He added:

. . . I look forward to . . . when a peaceful, democratic and Putin-free Russia returns to this Assembly and to this Council; and when we can finally start building that whole, free and peaceful Europe we all want to see. Even today, in the darkest of hours, I firmly believe that time will come.

Senators, with this motion, let us make those brave words of an honorary Canadian citizen. Let us honour Vladimir Kara-Murza, a star of hope in the Russian sky, and stand with him in the hour of his struggle. I invite senators to adopt this motion. Thank you, meegwetch.

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

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I’m also very proud and happy to rise and lend my name and the support of the Conservative caucus to this initiative by Senator Dalphond. I’m very happy to see that we have a renewed sense of enthusiasm for human rights here in the Senate of Canada in a collegial way. I’m pleased to work with Senators Dalphond, Omidvar and Miville-Dechêne, and everyone else who obviously recognizes the plight of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

We all recognize that he is a politician, a journalist, an advocate for democracy and freedom, he is a recipient of The Civil Courage Prize, a fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and he has been recognized by Amnesty International for his work for human rights and fighting against authoritarianism. More importantly, he is a son, a husband and a father. At the end of the day, he is in prison and his life was put at risk, facing a couple of assassination attempts for the simple fact of doing what we should be doing and are doing here on a regular basis: getting on our feet and calling into question a government when they overreach, calling into question public policy in a democracy, criticizing his government, calling into question an outrageous war, a crisis against humanity and what is being done in Ukraine by this brutal regime and a bully.

Of course, we lend our support in recognition and highlighting the challenges of Vladimir Kara-Murza. It would be an honour for Canada to have this gentleman be bestowed the right of honorary citizenship.

I also want to point out that even though it is noble that we are taking this action — and, of course, the House of Commons has been working at this for a number of months — I ask: Why is it taking so long? I applaud the work of Irwin Cotler, a great former parliamentarian and defender of human rights, and Bill Browder. However, it should not have taken an intervention on the part of Bill Browder and Irwin Cotler to shame our government into recognizing that this should not be taking months. The great parliamentarian who stood up on principle here is member of Parliament Tom Kmiec, who moved this motion in the House of Commons in early April. He moved this motion, seconded by member of Parliament James Bezan, because, at the end of the day, colleagues — and I have said this before — human rights should not be a partisan issue. Human rights should be a core value and principle of what we are all about as a Canadian society. We should stand up for these values on a regular basis because that is what Canada is all about. It’s about freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Never more than in 2023 is democracy facing precarious times. Democracies are being challenged around the world and many times we are letting this happen at our own peril and our own fault because we’ve become a bit transactional when it comes to our values. Once upon a time, we had Canadians dying on the shores of Europe for freedom and liberty but today we’re willing to sell drones to a country that is murdering people in Artsakh or shutting down corridors in Lachin and not allowing food and medicine to go to people. We’re allowing governments, again for transactional reasons, to abstain from votes in recognizing what is going on with the Uighur people or we are going to turn a blind eye to all of the people in prison and all those fighting for democracy in Cuba because, you know what, there are a couple of companies in Canada sending planeloads of Canadians to beaches for cheap. When we do that for a few million dollars or a few hundreds of millions of dollars, we really trade away who we are as nations.

When Tom Kmiec and James Bezan move a motion to bestow the right of honorary citizenship on Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza in the House of Commons committee and it is supported by the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québecois, it should be an automatic reflex from the executive branch. They should not be amending it, colleagues, which they did in April, basically suggesting that they put out a message of condemnation and solidarity. Why the backpedalling on such an obvious motion? It’s obvious to all of us in this place. Why is the government vacillating? Why are they hesitating in calling this out, especially after all of the effort we put into supporting the cause in Ukraine?

It took three months. It took the intervention of Irwin Cotler and Bill Browder to step up to the government and say, “This is not a partisan issue, guys. This is an issue about humanity and human rights.”

I applaud them for stepping out and doing it, but we have to be vigilant and ask ourselves why what is going on with Vladimir Kara-Murza is more important than what’s going on with the Uighur people. I remind people in this chamber that this very chamber voted against a motion to recognize what is going with the Uighur people as genocide.

We also have an executive branch of government ignoring motions in the House of Commons calling on the government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist group. Again, in this new-found enthusiasm to support human rights, last week Senator Omidvar had a fantastic motion on behalf of the Senate calling for the IRGC to be listed. We unanimously supported that motion — except for the government. Right? We had the government on division, not supporting the motion.

Will Senator Dalphond, Senator Omidvar, former Minister Cotler and Bill Browder call on the government leader in this chamber to get up and unanimously support this legitimate call for Vladimir Kara-Murza to receive honorary citizenship? At the end of the day, Parliament speaks on behalf of the will of the people, especially the House of Commons because they are elected. The government has to step up and respect the will of the people. So when you have whatever variety of motions as we have seen now, time and again, with the will of Parliament, it does not matter if we’re calling for the listing of the IRGC, or if we’re recognizing what is going on with the Uighur people as a genocide, or if it’s a simple motion calling for a public inquiry; they get majority support in the House of Commons but the government says, “Well, it is not binding on us.”

That calls into question, Senator Dalphond, all of these motions. Why are we doing all of this? We’re not doing it just to be an echo chamber or doing it to put out a communique to say, “Look how noble we are.” That’s great. Nobility is a fantastic thing, but if it isn’t followed with some action and some tangible support from the Crown and from our executive branch, it is all in vain. At the end of the day, when we move these motions, unless we have some kind of certainty that they will be followed up, we now have a tangible motion by MP Kmiec that was unanimously supported a few days ago in the House of Commons. I hope it will be unanimously supported, and not on division, in this chamber. You cannot get a more unanimous parliamentary call. I hope that the government will do this in an expeditious fashion.

Colleagues, it is not the first time that governments have stood up and given honorary citizenship to great human rights activists. It has happened before. Perhaps it hasn’t happened in the last eight years, but it has happened before. It happened in 2014, when Malala Yousafzai was given honorary citizenship; the Aga Khan, in 2010, was given honorary citizenship; the Dalai Lama, in 2006; Nelson Mandela, in 2001, and none other than Raoul Wallenberg in 1985.

I hope that this motion will pass unanimously and I hope that this renewed sense of enthusiasm for human rights is not a one-off. Furthermore, I hope that when it comes to human rights we put our partisan politics aside and work in unison.

Last week, when I was speaking to Benedict Rogers, Executive Director of Hong Kong Watch, he asked me, “What is going on with your country’s action on foreign interference?” By the way, colleagues, Russia is one of the primary culprits when it comes to foreign interference. It is one of the primary culprits when they put into place cyberattacks on our country; when they try to manipulate our social media. Right now, we have oligarchs that we know are running mining operations in my home province of Quebec and our Minister of Foreign Affairs has not taken action to shut them down yet. It was in the news a few months ago. We have asked questions about it in the House. I would like to see some action from our government to go after the Russian regime in a tangible way, put into place Magnitsky sanctions and give honorary citizenship to worthy individuals like Vladimir Kara-Murza but go through the further steps required and ban all the oligarchs coming into Canada and using this place as an ATM. 

The point that I am trying to make is when Benedict Rogers was here last week he said, “Why is it only in Ottawa that issues like the Uighur genocide or foreign interference is a partisan issue? In Washington, London, Paris, Australia and in every other Western democracy, they are trying to deal with foreign interference and trying to find out how Western democracies can find their way back to becoming defenders of human rights in a tangible way rather than being transactional in our foreign policy.” He said, “The only place that I have visited where it seems to be a partisan issue,” — and had I no answer because there is no explanation. There is no way that I can say with a straight face that our government, no matter what stripe it is, is in favour of authoritarian regimes. It is clear to me that they are either trying to be transactional and putting economic interests ahead of human rights or they’re being incompetent or ambivalent. Either way, it has to stop.

Colleagues, I know I’ve gone on a bit too long, given the time, but it’s an issue that’s important for me and I think it’s an important issue for Vladimir Kara-Murza and an important issue for all the political prisoners across this country. It doesn’t matter if they are in Turkey, in China, in Russia or in Iran; we have an obligation to be a voice for what’s just and what’s right. Thank you.