Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The next CRTC regional commissioners will definitely be high-calibre, talented individuals who represent their communities. These appointments will occur in a timely manner to ensure that the CRTC continues to be an independent regulator that makes sound decisions. As always, Governor-in-Council appointments, including CRTC appointments, are subject to cabinet confidence.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. We all know that Canada’s population is aging, and that immigration is now driving most of our population growth and labour force stability. It is concerning that the worker-to-retiree ratio of 7 to 1 from 50 years ago has dropped to 3 to 1 now. While I cannot speak to the specific consultations, the new immigration levels have taken this reality into consideration and will permit the government to bring in the skills and talent needed to fill labour gaps and to ensure our ongoing prosperity.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: My question is for Senator Gold.

On October 26, 2022, more than 12 months ago, I asked you a question about Yves Bourque, a Canadian Paralympic athlete and a victim of thalidomide, who has been forced to deal with the extremely cumbersome, even inhumane, administration of the Canadian Thalidomide Survivors Support Program, a program that the government has entrusted to the firm Epiq.

Since then, my team and I have discussed Mr. Bourque’s case with the former minister of health, Jean-Yves Duclos, and his team, and more recently, with the team of his successor, Mark Holland. I was assured that follow-up had been done with Epiq, and the former minister even publicly stated that he had put pressure on Epiq to get things moving more quickly. However, nothing has changed.

Can the government assure us that additional measures will be taken to ensure that this program can be better administered immediately and to ensure accountability to address these unacceptable delays?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): No, that is not correct, Senator Plett, despite the litany of things that you have cobbled together in your question.

Senators are entitled to view their role as they see fit. This government is focusing on policy, not politics — certainly in this chamber. The government and the Prime Minister are engaged in the important work of governing this country and guiding this country’s policies — both domestic and foreign — through these difficult times, and shall continue to do so.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, as you know, the shady “ArriveScam” contract is under RCMP investigation. NDP and Liberal coalition MPs recently shut down a committee that was about to hear from the RCMP Commissioner regarding a different Liberal scandal: the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Yesterday, a senior government official compared the Prime Minister’s green slush fund to the sponsorship scandal, and last week, we heard confirmation that the carbon tax is a form of punishment for those not voting Liberal.

What does Prime Minister Trudeau do amidst all this? He skips Question Period. He’s not worth the cost, leader. He provides no serious leadership, and has zero interest in accountability. Isn’t that right, leader?

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Senator Gold, Bill S-5 was a significant step forward in enhancing Canada’s environmental health protections, and this government should be proud of that. But — and, sadly, there is a “but” — as we learned during the study of this bill, Canada does not have the capacity to be able to provide the essential, robust and comprehensive biomonitoring, biobanking, ongoing longitudinal cohort studies and toxicogenomic research needed to support the goals of this legislation. Can you please provide us with the plans that the government has to rapidly develop these needed scientific capabilities?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I’m disappointed to learn that no progress has been made on this file. Thalidomide had devastatingly tragic results for a whole generation of children. It is only by chance that I escaped it myself.

I need to consult the current minister to better understand the progress that, I hope, is being made. I’ll undertake to do that.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, on October 16, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard spoke to a committee of the other place about the poor state of access to information after eight years of the Trudeau government. The commissioner said:

. . . some government institutions now routinely violate this law on a daily basis and . . . there is no or little indication that the government intends to act to rectify the situation. . . .

Leader, you told us last year that transparency, accountability and openness are guiding principles of your government. How can that be when the NDP-Liberal government breaks our transparency laws every day?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): You’re right to underline the importance of openness and transparency. These are goals that are — and should be — the guiding principles of a government in a democratic society. They are essential to our democracy, and they are principles to which this government is committed.

It should be recalled that this government — as I’m advised, and I think I’m correct — was the first in over 30 years to introduce major reforms to the Access to Information Act, and has invested significant additional funds to improve access to information. As I recall from some years ago, in reviewing the legislation at committee — of which I was a member and heard that testimony — improving access to information is a complicated problem that has a lot to do with human resources, retention and the like. This is an explanation, not a justification, and more needs to be done.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. This government’s commitment to moving forward with legislation and to regulate, in an appropriate way, the use of firearms that are used to cause harm and to cause death while protecting the rights of law‑abiding Canadians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike — and in cases of Indigenous rights holders, their rights to use firearms — is clear and will continue.

The extension was for the benefit of those Canadians to give them more time in order to comply. It’s out of respect for gun owners in Canada. That is something for which the government will continue to do.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of November 1, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, a senior official from Natural Resources Canada recently revealed the truth behind the Prime Minister’s 2019 election promise to plant 2 billion trees over 10 years. Appearing before a House committee on October 17, the official confirmed the 2 Billion Trees program will not actually plant 2 billion trees. She said the program is still called 2 Billion Trees, “. . . to rally interest among Canadians.”

Leader, your government often talks about misinformation. Isn’t that what you’ve engaged in here? After eight long years of this Prime Minister, why should Canadians believe anything he has to say about this particular promise?

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

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the twelfth report of our Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry which amends Bill C-234, an Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

As we’re all very well aware, federalism must be one of the more difficult if not the most difficult form of government. We are a very large and diverse country — a country that is also, perhaps more than any other, challenged by the global crisis of climate change.

Crafting legislation, especially taxation and rebate policy, with these two challenges alone is incredibly difficult. It’s tough to have the legislation or the taxation mechanisms address the issues, change behaviour and be cognizant of all the differences that we share.

Reviewing the legislation and listening to the debate, a former member of our National Finance Committee, I needed to go back and look at the file on climate taxation. It’s not an easy file for those with PhDs in economics, whom I am not, let alone the average Canadian, whom I consider myself to be.

Having once occupied a seat with ministers of finance, as they are meeting tomorrow, and at what is now called the Council of the Federation, I can only imagine the challenging conversations that they are going to have.

The approach to climate change, taxation and climate change and rebate policy varies across the whole country.

Originally, the relief for farmers on fuel taxation was modelled after the program in British Columbia. That became evident at the committee hearings. A legislative oversight omitted the fuel used in grain drying and used largely by poultry farmers. Those are two very salient points. They prompted Bill C-234. The bill, as drafted and passed by the House of Commons, equitably addresses those two points and provides a time limit for the measure.

Honourable senators, I’d be remiss if I did not also flag that in addition to sober second thought, we represent our regions. Western Canada — where a good many of these farmers are located and where there are very specific differences in climate taxation programs that exist — is missing senators from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.

Dear colleagues, this does not denigrate any of the individuals sitting in this chamber today. It’s recognition that there are voices that we are not hearing.

Honourable senators, I note that much focus is put on aggregate expenses and aggregate benefits, and we see numbers from analysts that are based on averages, national or provincial. It’s a very urban and centralized way of thinking about this particular issue. It’s exactly to counter such aggregation and to identify weak spots of the current carbon pricing regime that is the purpose of the bill.

It’s quite evident from what I’ve read and heard from the committee study and from speaking with farmers that there’s a gap between the desired reduction in carbon emissions through technological innovation and adjustment and what is readily available. Let’s give the farmers the time they claim they need to fix it, to be an honest and participating partner in finding climate solutions that are realistic.

Honourable senators, this bill corrects an oversight. Some farmers that this bill addresses were left out.

I was deeply moved by the tributes today to a very honourable public servant. I was also reminded of the prayer that you’ve often heard me reference in the Yukon legislature, where we pray to the Creator that we may make only sound, fair and wise decisions on behalf of the people we represent.

It’s the fairness that strikes me about this bill over and over again. It’s fair to include the farmers who were left out and to correct this oversight.

I don’t see it as a purposeful omission, and I would not reference it as a drafting error in the original bill. I recognize that Bill C-234 corrects an oversight. It’s not the first time we’ve been asked to do this. Over and over at National Finance, when we were dealing with the difficult situation of the pandemic and the benefits to reach Canadians, we corrected bills repeatedly because people were left out. First it was the artists and the artistic community.

This is a similar situation. I believe it has been somewhat usurped by events of the past week and discussions of other situations that go on in our country. We must focus our efforts on this bill itself. That’s why I believe we should not accept the recommendations that were put forward in the Agriculture Committee report, but to reject the report and allow for fulsome, thorough third reading debate that enables a fair discussion of all amendments and points of view throughout the chamber so that we can hear from everyone.

I believe we have a chance, with a full discussion of Bill C-234, to fix an oversight. It will not cause an extraordinary burden on federal coffers to enact Bill C-234. Let’s remember that natural gas and propane are the cleanest burning fuels. Will allowing this rebate and passing Bill C-234 make a tremendous difference to Canada reaching the climate change goals? I don’t think so. It will correct an oversight and be fair to all concerned.

I believe that we should adopt the bill as we received it and send a message to inform the House of Commons that it is adopted without amendment.

I will encourage all senators to hear from one another, as I understand we will — perhaps not today — be expressing our views on the Agriculture report. I encourage senators to hear what I have said in terms of fairness, to take a look. Again, by rejecting this report and adopting and having a fulsome, fair, thorough and extensive debate on Bill C-234 as we received it, we can do our best work for Canadians and for the whole country. Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, after eight long years, the NDP-Liberal government has played political games on the backs of licensed and responsible firearms owners. The latest example of this is another two-year extension of the amnesty for owners of firearms that the Trudeau cabinet banned in 2020. The amnesty is now set to expire on October 30, 2025, a few days after the next election is scheduled to take place. What a coincidence, leader.

Canadians can see this for what it is: A failed government willing to try anything to save itself. Are Canadians actually expected to think that your government picked this date randomly?

Hon. Michèle Audette moved third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as amended.

(On motion of Senator Audette, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government has been very clear from the beginning that the 2 billion trees target would be achieved through various programs and various departments. The government continues to use every tool that is at its disposal.

My understanding is that the government has supported the planting of over 110 million trees since 2021 alone and has commitments to plant 374 million trees in addition.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I’m rising to speak against the adoption of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry report and amendment to Bill C-234 and in defence of an unamended bill.

I want to explain why I think the amended bill harms Canadian farm-gate incomes, food security and our efforts to fight climate change.

For my first five years in the Senate, I was a member of the Agriculture Committee. I love that committee totally. I was and continue to be inspired by the producers and processors whom I met through our work. Being on the committee took me back to my youth, when I raised cattle and worked for my cousin after school, on weekends and in the summer, helping in every aspect of his wheat, soybean and corn operation.

Farmers are innovative. To survive, they have to be solution-oriented Jills or Jacks of all trade. Today, Canada’s agricultural sector is even more innovative simply as a way to survive, but they have to do so very carefully because all of the external risks they constantly face.

When I tuned into the Agriculture Committee meeting two weeks ago, I was surprised to see so many new faces. I quickly realized that the attendance of these new members was part of a coordinated effort to push back on Bill C-234. I have the highest regard for my colleagues, but because they came with a single narrow focus, they were likely unaware of the important study on soil health that the committee has been undertaking. The committee members are, as the T-shirt says, “loyal to the soil,” and the topic of soil health is directly related to Bill C-234.

It was evident in the debate in committee that led to the tabling of the report that of the two amendments proposed, the one proposed by Senator Dalphond that made it into the report removed the heating of barns or greenhouses from the list of activities that would be exempted from the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. In other words, if the bill passes with this amendment, barn or greenhouse heating will be subjected to the carbon pricing regime.

I will speak to that specific amendment later, but first I want to speak to how efforts to amend this bill miss a much larger problem or opportunity. Three years ago, I started to really dig into the issue of soil health — pardon the pun. Well before the Agriculture Committee started to study this issue, I became amazed by the powerful role that our agricultural soils could play in helping us to sequester atmospheric carbon into our soil. This field of research is commonly referred to as regenerative agriculture.

The power and potential of regenerative agriculture was so inspiring that it became the focus of my office during the spring and summer of 2020. All of the evidence we heard showed the huge potential that regenerative agriculture could unlock for farmers. We spoke to leading researchers across North America, companies that were developing the new technologies to measure soil carbon affordably and accurately and farmers who had first‑hand experience in implementing regenerative agricultural practices. I was really excited to have found a powerful strategy for sequestering atmospheric greenhouse gases while increasing soil productivity, reducing input costs for farmers and creating new farm-gate revenues thanks to the sale of carbon credits.

This excitement was short-lived. I engaged with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and realized that the systems and incentives designed to support and reward farmers for sequestering carbon are deeply flawed.

As an example, the farmers who were early practitioners and early adopters of soil carbon sequestration are not allowed to receive any of the financial benefits for being trailblazers in this space. Remarkably, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials who came to the Agriculture Committee — AGFO — restated this decision to not reward early adopters when they testified before the committee in our soil study.

Colleagues, this is why we need to pass an unamended Bill C-234.

To simplify the question, how does it make any sense to punish farmers for the carbon-based fuels they must use to produce our food, when the market-based incentives to reward them for the carbon they sequester are blocked or ignored? If we are to achieve our net-zero targets by 2050, we cannot just limit our production of greenhouse gases. We must also begin to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Farmers can play an incredibly powerful role in that process.

For instance, we found evidence that agriculture can be a net carbon sink, having the potential to sequester between 11% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions — which is more than what the sector produces — and up to 82% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

Senators Black and Cotter travelled to Glasgow in the summer of 2022 for the World Soil Congress. What they found is that Canada is a global laggard in the public policy area of soil carbon sequestration. There are excellent policy examples to follow that are delivering reliable results to farmers and governments in countries like Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States.

These incentive plans are needed because, globally, it is recognized that farmers are constantly managing risks and variables that are completely outside of their control. Between global trade challenges such as China’s canola ban, our ban on Russian fertilizer, increasingly severe weather events in terms of droughts and overly wet springs or falls, and agricultural stabilization programs that delay relief for 18 months or more, our farmers are going through a lot.

Farming is a very risky business. In my youth, some years I made more money per hour than my cousin netted per hour from his entire farming operation. Sadly, this reality still exists today. A recent study from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture showed that total farm debt in Canada rose to $138 billion in 2022, up 15% in just two years. Meanwhile, the operating expenses for farmers also increased 21.2% last year alone. As a result, it is now more difficult for our producers to acquire and even maintain essential equipment. When you consider the fact that farmers currently don’t have the right to repair their own equipment — something that has been a money-saving essential in the past — the costs rise even further.

Colleagues, I think you will agree that these are very tough times. However, our farmers continue to innovate, not because of an abundance of incentives and opportunities but, rather, in spite of their absence. An unamended Bill C-234 will free up cash flow and capital that will allow farmers to invest in innovative alternatives.

I find it deeply concerning when I hear the argument that this amendment will somehow push farmers and other companies to innovate faster as they search for alternative heating solutions. Specifically, the amendment undermines the existing efforts of our farmers, who are already trying to do as much as they can with very little financial support. I am concerned that this amendment not only goes against the intention of the original bill but jeopardizes ongoing practices to improve soil health and fight climate change.

It also does not consider the conditions needed to produce low‑cost, efficient alternative solutions that farmers can adopt at scale. Colleagues, as you know, I used to be an entrepreneur. I have successfully commercialized products and sold them globally. I can tell you from experience that it takes much longer for new, innovative products to enter Canadian markets than it does elsewhere. Governments across all levels need to address regulatory stagnation and enable the conditions needed to catalyze private sector efforts in scaling public policy solutions.

Let me bring these points to life. In August, my team and I visited agricultural businesses across Nova Scotia’s Annapolis Valley. One business was run by Luke teStroete, a third-generation chicken farmer. His state-of-the-art facility was truly impressive. It includes measures that are crucial to maximizing animal health, fighting avian influenza and reducing energy consumption. It included everything from specialized lighting, ventilation and energy-efficient trucks to an entirely digitized farm management system.

However, his next big planned investment in solar power was being delayed because of limitations in Nova Scotia for selling power back to the grid. This investment would help him to reduce his propane use, which is his only option right now for his operation. He is therefore advocating heavily for feed-in tariff rates to be changed to allow for his innovative, climate-friendly investment, but he’s being prevented.

So I ask again: How can we justify penalizing farmers for the emissions they are already working to reduce when we are not creating the conditions to allow them to make innovative, climate-forward investments on the farm?

Rather than amending Bill C-234, let’s focus on delivering an agile regulatory system across different levels of government that catalyzes, rather than prevents, the implementation of affordable existing technologies that both reduce atmospheric carbon and farm costs. We cannot allow our farmers, such as Luke, to continue paying higher costs with no support.

Colleagues, helping farmers to innovate, using carrots and not sticks, will be important to keep in mind as we reflect on how to address the critical challenge of rising food security needs.

The Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph has predicted that, at our current rate of population growth, our species will have to deliver more food in the next 35 years than in the previous 10,000 years combined. It’s a frightful challenge, especially when we consider the extent to which we currently take our farmers for granted and the fast pace at which we are planting the last crop on our most productive farmland. In Ontario, for example, the current rate at which homes, malls and roads are being planted on our farmland is removing over 300 acres every single day of our most productive farmland. This is incredibly alarming.

I’d like to leave you with one last thought before I wrap up. You may recall the debate over Bill C-208 in the Forty-third Parliament in June 2021. It was an act to amend the Income Tax Act that would allow for the equitable intergenerational transfer of a small business, family farm or fishing operation.

After some considerable debate, we chose not to amend that bill, which had, similarly to Bill C-234, achieved cross-party support in the House of Commons. We heard warnings from the Department of Finance Canada that delivering fairness to intergenerational transfers of farm, fishing or small business operations would unleash a wave of tax evasion and cost untold billions.

In the end, because we held fast, the government chose to work with stakeholders to develop some simple safeguards that were put in place in Budget 2023. I’m proud of the fact that the Senate held firm, accepted that bill unamended and, consequently, caused the government to work with stakeholders to find an equitable solution. I can only hope that we will choose the same path here.

Colleagues, let me summarize why I’m asking you to reject this amendment at the report stage and move to approve an unamended Bill C-234. The amendment will nominally reduce farmers’ use of fossil fuels. Additionally, it risks driving them to convert from natural gas or propane to diesel because, for them, it is not subject to carbon tax. Passing this bill unamended will free up financial resources farmers need at a time of enormous financial strain — and capital to invest in innovative alternatives to meaningfully address the climate crisis. We cannot continue to punish farmers for the carbon they use to produce our food when incentives to reward them for sequestering carbon and other greenhouse gases are absent. This is especially important at a time when they are carrying an enormous debt load and other expenses that have risen across their businesses.

Colleagues, we have an opportunity to do the right thing for Canada’s food producers, helping them to increase farm gate incomes while sequestering greenhouse gases to achieve climate objectives. Our food security, our ability to respond to the climate crisis and the resilience of Canada’s agricultural sector depend on our rejecting this report and passing Bill C-234 unamended. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak against the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with regards to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Honourable senators, farming has a special place in my heart. I mentioned in a previous debate that I met Dr. Robert Glenn in 1972, when I worked with him as a dental assistant. He took me under his wing and became a surrogate father to me.

While working as a dentist, he was also a farmer and would talk to me about farming. I asked him why he continued to farm when so much could be against him, such as the weather, the costs and the time. I soon understood, despite the time and work ethic required and the possibility that he might not have made any money by the end of the season, the love he had for farming. He said, “My girl, it’s in your blood.”

So when I see farmers, I see that.

If we divide the earth into four quarters, three quarters would represent water — the oceans, lakes and rivers. The remaining quarter would represent the land. Half of that land, one eighth of the earth, is too hostile to support us. That leaves one eighth of the earth for us to live on. I urge you to remember that as we’re having this debate.

In October 2023, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs stated:

Energy-efficient barns traditionally were barns that were well insulated. The primary cost factors in poultry farming were considered to be feed costs and chick costs, not energy costs. But now farmers are facing a situation where energy costs may double in the next few years.

“We really started to focus on energy costs about three years ago, particularly when we had threats of rolling blackouts in the summer months,” comments Bill Revington . . .

— who is general manager of farm operations for a large commercial poultry producer.

The 2022 Independent Auditor’s Report entitled Carbon Pricing — Environment and Climate Change Canada, under the subheading “Supporting burdened groups,” states that “Some groups remain disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing.” The report notes that these groups include “ . . . low-income households; Indigenous peoples; northern and remote communities; emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries; and small- and medium-sized enterprises.”

The federal government implemented measures to mitigate the burden of the federal backstop on the groups that would be disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing. However, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada found that small- and medium-sized enterprises were still disproportionately burdened.

One of the principles used to guide the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution was that carbon-pricing policies should use some of the revenue from carbon pricing to avoid a disproportionate burden on certain groups. Environment and Climate Change Canada made efforts to identify groups that could be disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing and included small- and medium-sized enterprises. Without mitigating measures, these burdens could include an increase in the cost of living, potential employment losses and increases in operating costs for some trade-exposed industries. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada stated that the relative effects of carbon-pricing systems on burdened groups and Indigenous peoples will not be assessed until the next interim review of the benchmark in 2026. That’s a long time to leave our farmers in limbo.

To support certain organizations, $218 million of the fuel charge proceeds was allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada to be delivered through the Climate Action Incentive Fund over two years. The fund was created to help organizations make energy-efficient improvements and retrofits to reduce energy use, costs and carbon pollution, with funding delivered through three separate funding streams. Eligible recipients include small- and medium-sized enterprises as well as municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.

In the 2019-20 fiscal year, none of the funds allocated to the Climate Action Incentive Fund had been spent. In the 2020-21 fiscal year, 44%, which amounted to $95 million, of the allocated funds had been spent. The department told the Office of the Auditor General of Canada that modifications aimed to address these issues were not implemented because the Climate Action Incentive Fund was sunsetting. The department had not addressed the burden from carbon pricing faced by small- and medium-sized enterprises.

The recommendation made by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada was to address the disproportionate burden that carbon pricing may have on certain groups and Indigenous peoples. Environment and Climate Change Canada should work with provinces and territories to assess the burden of carbon-pricing systems on certain groups and report publicly on measures implemented in jurisdictions to mitigate the burden of carbon pricing on these groups.

Honourable senators, the cost of producing food and the land on which it is produced is increasingly at odds with the tighter and tighter concentration and distribution of economic power. Urban sprawl and land rezoned for residential subdivisions have the ability to reduce the farmland available to feed Canadians. Why would people allow the land that is the basis of a central food source to be flipped into housing, causing farmers to lose their businesses?

As Jeff Rubin explained in an autumn 2013 article in The Globe and Mail:

The price of farmland in Canada has outpaced both residential and commercial real estate, gaining an average of 12 per cent over the last five years. In some hotspots, such as southwestern Ontario, the price-per-acre has been going up by as much as 50 per cent a year. Even pension plans and hedge funds have become players in the pursuit of prime agricultural land, interest that is only sending prices that much higher.

The pressure to rezone is a reality for many farms.

The EU’s common agricultural policy, or CAP, launched in 1962 and it is a partnership between agriculture and society, and between Europe and its farmers. Its main aims are to improve agricultural productivity so that consumers have a stable supply of affordable food, and to ensure that EU farmers can make a reasonable living. Fifty years after CAP was implemented, the EU recognized the need to address the following challenges: food security — at the global level, food production will have to double in order to feed a world population of 9 billion people in 2050; climate change and sustainable management of natural resources; looking after the countryside across the EU and keeping the rural economy alive; providing training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers; providing specialist advice and assistance in preparing conservation plans; and paying farmers for the ecological goods and services they provide, such as clean water and habitats for wildlife.

Honourable senators, don’t you think we owe it to all types of food production in Canada to do the same? This is not only an issue of carbon pricing; it is also one of food security and sovereignty.

As I said, I am speaking against the report, and ask that you pass Bill C-234 as soon as possible. Thank you.