Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for these important questions, senator. There is indeed a significant infrastructure gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Canada. Infrastructure investments are a key element of the government’s commitment to foster the growth of safe, healthy and prosperous Indigenous communities and to support the participation in our economy of Indigenous communities and their businesses.

Let me note that since April 2016 and as of June 30, 2023, $9.92 billion in targeted funds has been invested towards 9,457 projects that will benefit Indigenous communities. I have been assured that Indigenous Services Canada will continue to work directly with First Nations, First Nations organizations and other federal organizations to identify what further measures and investments may be required to close this infrastructure gap by 2030.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Let me begin by referring back to my intervention at the message stage on Bill S-12. On Thursday, October 26, I advised the chamber that my office was subsequently informed that for contingency purposes, the government did, indeed, seek an extension of the deadline as a responsible course of action in the event that things did not work out as part of the parliamentary process.

As you know, the court granted the extension. I was informed of this the next day, prior to the start of the sitting and our debate, and I immediately informed all leaders to that effect.

As it turns out, the existence of the motion for an extension was, in fact, part of the public record and readily accessible online to any interested person, any Canadian or, indeed, any parliamentarian, where their office could have checked the record of the case on the Supreme Court website. We did not, and I’m afraid others did not either.

That said, I’ve brought your concerns to the attention of the government. Efforts will be made in the future to ensure that this chamber is more readily made aware of legislation that may be subject to court-imposed deadlines.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Having this Liberal government is cruel and unusual punishment. Time and again, the Prime Minister shows he’s not worth the cost, and this response to the matter of victims’ rights is no exception. The NDP-Liberal government let the position of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime go vacant for 361 days. In 2018, when the position of the ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders became vacant, it was filled the very next day.

Why are victims’ rights and safe streets always an afterthought for the Trudeau government?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Let’s be clear about what the Supreme Court did and did not do. First of all, child luring and all sexual crimes are appalling and intolerable. They deserve to be punished accordingly. Those who read the decision and know how the Supreme Court addresses this know the decision was rendered on the basis of hypothetical potential case issues and not necessarily the facts of the case. In fact, the Supreme Court increased the prison sentence for the perpetrator in this case, which is an unmistakable message from the Supreme Court that these offences must be punished severely. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes:

 . . . that sentences for these crimes must account for the far‑reaching and ongoing damage sexual violence causes to children, families and society at large . . . .

I have no knowledge to suggest that the government would invoke the notwithstanding clause in this regard.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government spokesperson, last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling that many Canadians — myself included — found disappointing, disturbing and, quite frankly, disgusting. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory minimum penalties for the despicable crime of child luring are unconstitutional. Our highest court says a six-month jail sentence for a summary conviction and a one-year sentence for an indictment amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Child luring is cruel and unusual punishment. Canada’s children deserve better protection.

After the decision was handed down, Canadians were told the Minister of Justice was reviewing it closely. What is the Trudeau government going to do in response? For example, will it invoke the notwithstanding clause?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, the Trudeau government has yet to fulfill a promise — another promise — made during the 2021 federal election campaign to create a new federal transfer to the provinces and territories called the Canada Mental Health Transfer, with an initial investment of $4.5 billion over five years.

In March, after the federal budget failed yet again to put this transfer in place, the Canadian Mental Health Association said that your government was out of touch with the mental health crisis in our country.

When the previous minister of health was asked about this a year ago, he would only say that he’d continue to engage with the provinces. Leader, what is the current status of the Canada Mental Health Transfer?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, it’s getting cold outside. Even here in Ottawa, there is no denying that winter is on its way. However, yesterday, your Liberal colleagues in the House of Commons chose to further punish hard-working Canadians by voting against our motion to remove the carbon tax from all home heating in Canada. The gimmick announced by Justin Trudeau a couple of weeks ago does nothing to promote the use of cleaner forms of home heating fuel, but does leave 97% of Canadian households out in the cold. Those Canadians are struggling not only to keep the heat on this winter but also to fill up their cars to get to work, keep food on the table and keep their barns warm to produce food that the rest of us eat. Do they not matter because not enough of them voted Liberal? Is that what this is all about, Senator Gold? Is this a bribe, Senator Gold, or a threat? Which of these two is it?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. It’s neither one nor the other. The government has made fighting climate change a central element of its legislative agenda and policies. It’s hard work. It’s going to take time, and, indeed, progress is painfully slow at times. The government also makes adjustments, as it has done from the beginning, to try to mitigate the impact that a price on pollution imposes necessarily — by virtue of its nature — on Canadians. It will continue to do so and try its best to chart a responsible path forward, because we and future generations face an existential crisis in this country and on this planet. The government remains committed to addressing that crisis.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. MAID is a complicated and deeply personal subject. Every individual has his or her own history. Requesting MAID is a serious decision.

As you know, colleague, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying has reconvened to examine these issues and is continuing its work today. I look forward to its report.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, the short answer to that question is that they’re not an afterthought. The government’s approach to criminal law issues generally and criminal law reform differs from that of the Conservative Party, and the government stands on its record of introducing balanced, humane and constitutionally valid measures to keep Canadians safe.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Well, again, government spokesperson, yesterday — as Senator Housakos already pointed out — Liberal MPs, together with Bloc MPs, voted against supporting Canadians. Instead, they continue to support Prime Minister Trudeau’s carbon tax as punishment for not voting Liberal — and they had help, as I said, from the Bloc.

Yesterday, La Presse reported that the Bloc MPs have told Liberal cabinet ministers they will be patient about triggering an election, which is scheduled two years from now. They have Jagmeet Singh, and now they have a group that is sworn to breaking up our country supporting the Prime Minister.

What did the Prime Minister promise the separatist Bloc to vote with him against carbon tax relief for all Canadians and support him for another two years?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, the decision by the members in the House of Commons to vote for or against the Conservative motion was a decision that those members took. I have no knowledge of promises that were made — indeed, if any were made.

The fact is that members of Parliament, whatever their political party, have the right to express themselves. They have the right to form groups. They have the right to make collective decisions. Past governments have not been averse to making arrangements with and seeking the support of members of different political parties, even those in the Bloc, if my memory serves me correctly.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is to Senator Gold, and it relates to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I like that smile.

As you know, Canada — rather resolutely — ignores this treaty, the third of three dealing with nuclear proliferation. Beginning in just a couple of weeks, on November 27 in New York at the United Nations, there will be the second meeting of states parties to the treaty. At the first meeting last June in Vienna, no one from Canada was there even to observe — except for me, at my own expense. And now we have the second meeting of the states parties. We have country members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, sending observers, but so far, not a peep from Canada.

Senator Gold, could you please tell us if Canada is actually going to pay any attention and send observers to the second meeting of the states parties?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for your ongoing commitment and focus on the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I simply do not know what the government’s intentions are in that regard, and I imagine they’ll be become clear as the days and weeks advance.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining that support for mental health in Canada is an important and pressing issue, as is support for other dimensions of our health care system of which all aspects are feeling the strain of increased demand, increased costs and never enough resources, either provincial or federal.

The federal Minister of Health and his counterparts have regular discussions about the provinces’ priorities and capacities, and those discussions will continue.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Colleagues, I rise today to draw your attention to certain measures in the 2023 federal budget related to climate change.

On page 69, Budget 2023 states the following:

Since 2015, the federal government has taken action to build Canada’s clean economy and create good middle class jobs. This includes: Putting in place a federal carbon pricing system, which puts money back in the pockets of Canadians and gives businesses the flexibility to decide how best to reduce their emissions . . . .

The centrepiece of these measures is imposing a price on those who produce greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. This policy was implemented in 2018 with the approval of the Senate.

[English]

The logic of carbon pricing is simple: Emissions that impose an environmental cost with pollution should have a price to encourage reduction at this time of climate crisis. Carbon pricing is considered by top economists to be the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions. The yearly rising price is a powerful signal to consumers that fossil fuels will become more expensive and that decisions to adopt cleaner alternatives will result in substantial savings.

When alternative technologies exist or more efficient ones are readily available, the price on carbon provides a strong incentive to switch. The carbon price is not a punishment but an incentive to seek alternatives sooner than later and take action to reduce emissions to meet our targets. That is the reason why it is not, strictly speaking, a tax.

In their 2021 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded at paragraph 219:

. . . The levies imposed by Parts 1 and 2 of the [Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act] cannot be characterized as taxes; rather, they are regulatory charges whose purpose is to advance the . . . regulatory purpose by altering behaviour. . . .

[Translation]

In June 2021, we passed Bill C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. The bill requires the government to set national GHG emissions reduction targets, and to establish a planning, assessment and reporting process for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Unfortunately, reaching GHG reduction objectives is a major challenge. Earlier today, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Jerry DeMarco, published a report finding that Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan isn’t enough for the country to reach its emissions reduction target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.

As the chamber of detailed, non-partisan analysis, must we not reaffirm our commitment to meeting the set targets and to the carbon pricing policy recognized by a majority of economists in Canada and around the world as the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

[English]

Since the adoption of the carbon price policy, a lot of political rhetoric has emerged. Some claim that this policy has contributed significantly to inflation; others claim that this policy is responsible for the high price of food. But we, as independent senators, should not be moved by partisan lines, or by misleading arguments put forward by powerful lobbies. We should, rather, attempt to obtain all the relevant facts before reaching a conclusion.

One of these relevant facts is our inflation rate; it is currently at 3.8%, while it is at 3.7% in the U.S., 4.3% in the European Union, 4.9% in France and 6.7% in the U.K. Thus, it seems that we are doing better than many other developed countries.

On September 8, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, indicated that 0.15% of the Canadian inflation rate can be attributed to the carbon price. To put it differently, in 2023, the carbon tax accounts for an extra $0.30 on a $200 grocery bill. If you want to go back to the time of its introduction four years ago, it now accounts for an extra $1.20 on a $200 grocery bill. Renowned University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe confirms that the carbon tax is responsible for less than 1% of grocery price increases.

Another fact to consider is that the federal price on emissions is a backstop program. Respectful of our federal system of government, each province and territory can determine how to price carbon emissions to reach national targets. Currently, B.C. and Quebec are the two provinces that have put in place provincial programs to meet the reduction targets by measures adapted to their reality. To put it differently, the system was designed to provide provincial governments with flexibility on the details if they meet the scientific targets required to address the climate crisis.

[Translation]

As a result, under the existing provincial system, farmers in Quebec pay less carbon tax than those governed by the federal program. Meanwhile, other sectors of the Quebec economy may pay more.

[English]

Another feature of carbon pricing is the rebate system. Page 31 of the 2023 budget states that the federal price on pollution puts more money back in the pockets of 8 out of every 10 Canadians in the provinces where it applies. Incidentally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, agrees with that conclusion.

For the current fiscal year — 2023-24 — the Department of Finance estimates on page 207 of the budget that the proceeds from the pollution pricing framework will amount to $10.1 billion. For the same period, it estimates on page 212 that the proceeds returned will amount to $11.2 billion — which is $1.1 billion more. Quite clearly, the proceeds from the pollution pricing framework are not used to finance government operations, military procurement or social programs, but returned to Canadians.

According to the PBO, the costs of heating and curing fuels to farmers, including the carbon price, represent, on average in Canada, 0.8% of their overall expenses — estimated by Statistics Canada at over $77 billion. That percentage is 0.5% in Alberta, 0.4% in Manitoba and 0.3% in Saskatchewan.

There are, of course, some variations between the categories of farms. Without surprise, the largest share of energy costs compared to overall expenses is for greenhouses, which range between 4% and 5%. For that reason, greenhouses with glass roofs receive an 80% exemption from the carbon tax in order to impose on them a carbon price comparable to other farming enterprises in Canada. For oilseed and grain farms, heating and curing fuels represent 0.4% of their expenses, and for animal production farms, the percentage is 0.7%. Finally, under the current federal system, all farmers are also exempt from the diesel and gasoline fuel charge — used on farms for operating combines, tractors, trucks and some other machines.

Incidentally, the carbon price paid by farmers in the eight provinces and the territories in 2023-24 is estimated by the PBO at $13 million in connection with propane, and $63 million in connection with natural gas — for a grand total of $76 million. Also worth noting, 58% of this total will be paid by farmers in Ontario, 22% by those in Alberta, close to 16% by those in Saskatchewan and close to 4% by those in Manitoba. Those in the Atlantic provinces will pay about 1% of the total.

It is also worth noting that despite the April 1 increase of $15 per tonne on the carbon price — to bring it to $65 in 2023-24 — farmers using natural gas have paid, on average, less for it this year because the commodity price is down compared to last year.

[Translation]

The other thing we need to think about is the passage of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. My colleague, Senator Clément Gignac, sponsored this bill in the Senate. On June 10, 2022, at second reading, he talked about four amendments that Bill C-8 would make to the Income Tax Act. He described the fourth amendment as follows, and I quote:

Fourth, recognizing that a large number of farmers use natural gas and propane as part of their operations, Bill C-8 proposes a refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in provinces in which the federal fuel levy applies . . . .

[English]

The required steps to implement the refundable tax credit to farmers are now in place. Its operation can be summarized as follows: In each province, a pot is created where the carbon price paid by farmers is put. This amount is shared between the farmers of this province as a tax credit. The proportion allocated to each farmer is based on a percentage equal to his or her total expenses divided by the total expenses of all the farmers of the province.

The recent report from the Agriculture Committee regarding Bill C-234 contains a series of interesting observations adopted unanimously. One of them recommends that the Department of Finance work with the Canada Revenue Agency to target the refund more precisely and effectively to farms that rely on natural gas and propane. The committee also noted that if Bill C-234 is adopted, an adjustment to the credit system provided in the Income Tax Act will be necessary to avoid double compensation. Other observations deal with alternative technologies, additional support for agricultural clean technology and the fact that climate change is a major and worsening threat to the stability of Canada’s agricultural sector.

In closing, the climate crisis is causing death and suffering in Canada and around the world, as stated many times in this independent chamber. We have all breathed the smoke. Emissions continue to rise. We know what lies ahead for young people and future generations — unless we take urgent action. That is why our group, Senators for Climate Solutions, has urged us to do more. Let’s seize every opportunity to act.

Colleagues, what is the price of the air we breathe? What is the price of our grandchildren playing outside? What is the price of this miraculous earth? Let us reaffirm our support for a price on carbon and a greener economy.

To conclude, the Agriculture and Forestry Committee report should be part of the context as we proceed to a fulsome and thorough debate that will enable a fair discussion of all amendments and points of view throughout the chamber, to quote Senator Duncan.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: Inquiry No. 5, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the budget entitled A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future, tabled in the House of Commons on March 28, 2023, by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, P.C., M.P., and in the Senate on March 29, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, I’m sorry, but the time for debate has expired.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as amended.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, I’m sorry, but the time for debate has expired.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, for the third reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, as amended.