Senator Gold: Senator Cardozo, you’re dragging the law professor out of me, aren’t you?

One of the contributions that the Canadian Charter made to public discourse about rights is to make it clear, through section 1 of the Charter, that rights, however expansively they might be drafted in text, are not absolute in the sense that they are not subject to other countervailing rights, interests or considerations. In that regard, our Charter, like all charters, recognizes the necessity to place parameters and limits around the exercise of rights that would otherwise be unbounded.

It is a premise of our Constitution, and not only because the preamble says “peace, order and good government,” that our Constitution and our institutions exist to provide for order and liberty, freedom and justice. From my understanding of what you meant by “anarchy,” I think it is inconsistent with those. I think the Charter is there to protect those rights that need to be exercised in the context of our liberal democratic constitutional framework.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: The decision of the CBC to pursue a lawsuit against the Conservative Party, or anybody else, is a decision made by the CBC, and has nothing to do with the government.

The question of where the money came from, whether it came from ad revenue or taxpayer revenue, as you have asserted without knowledge one way or the other, is also a matter for the management of the CBC and, by extension, the board of directors of the CBC — not for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold: Unfortunately, as I said, I do not have an answer to that question.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I simply do not accept the characterization that this is patronage. You cited — as you have on many occasions — a flurry of things, which you continue to return to. I won’t answer each and every one of them.

The Prime Minister’s trip, his most recent vacation, was cleared by the former Ethics Commissioner before the fact. It is not a question of patronage, and I do take objection, frankly, and I’ll speak only for myself, to the way in which you characterize our former Governor General in this question and in others.

Senator Gold: This government engages in consultations to learn from them; they don’t make up their minds before the consultations have been completed and analyzed.

Having said that, you asked for a simple answer. What will happen after the consultations is that decisions will be taken. When they have been taken, they will be announced.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The Charter has been a fundamental transformative element in our Constitution since its enactment in 1982, and in that regard, it has had impacts that even surpassed the expectations of those who lobbied for it and worked hard to see it come to light.

It has transformed the work that we do here in the Senate. It has been an increasingly present part of our discussions and our role as we see it as senators to make sure that the Charter rights of Canadians are taken properly into account and respected in the laws that we are called upon to study and ultimately pass.

It is true that the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause is something that is a preoccupation to many of us and, indeed, this government, as the Prime Minister has announced on many occasions.

The “notwithstanding” clause is — we have to remind ourselves — part of the Charter and was part of the bargain that allowed the patriation of the Constitution to happen. It is the government’s position that it should be used appropriately, and not irresponsibly, and in that regard, this issue is currently before the courts, as you know.

I have confidence, though, that the Charter has transformed the way we Canadians see ourselves in many different ways, and I believe it is secure in that regard. It is certainly secure in this chamber.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for raising the number of challenges that farmers in this country are facing.

I’m glad you mentioned climate change amongst them because, in fact, farmers are on the front lines in dealing with climate change, whether the issue is flooding or droughts or storms. In my own region of the province where I live, my friends who are maple syrup producers did not have the easiest time this year with the tapping of their trees as a result of climate change.

The government is focused on taking environmental action throughout the country while supporting the competitiveness of farmers, who feed Canadians and, indeed, the world. That’s why the government has done a number of things. They have already exempted gas and diesel for farm use from pollution pricing. They have created a rural top-up for rebates, directly returning proceeds collected in proportion to the amount collected via the price on pollution, which translates to $100 million returned to farmers in 2021-22 and $120 million in 2022-23. Over the last two years, the government has invested $1.5 billion in programs to support farmers to reduce their emissions on farms and grow their operations. This includes a $0.5-billion program to purchase cleaner equipment, such as more energy efficient grain dryers and barn heating systems.

I could go on, but I think this demonstrates this government’s commitment.

Again, as I said on many occasions in this chamber, we are doing the right thing by our planet, by our environment and, indeed, by our farmers — who are the victims of climate change as much as any of us — while at the same time, the government is doing its best to offset the impact of these necessary measures on those, like farmers, who are paying a price.

Hon. Robert Black: My question is for Senator Gold, the Government Representative here in our chamber.

Senator Gold, as we all know, Canadian farmers are the backbone of this country. As an advocate for farmers, processors and rural Canadians, I am particularly concerned about the many ongoing issues that continue to create undue hardship on the agriculture sector. Labour shortages, climate change, ever‑changing regulations and supply chain management are just a few.

These issues share one common value, though: increased financial burdens for farmers and their families. Farmers are price-takers, not price-makers. They must continue to compete at market value and often are forced to swallow the costs of decisions beyond their control, and that is why I rise today.

Senator Gold, competition in the market for our farmers is made more difficult by your government because they are charged a tax on a tax. Recently, I received a copy of an invoice from a local farmer in Guelph, Ontario. Trish and Dean Scott reached out to me about the rising costs they are facing on their farm due to being forced to pay taxes on a tax.

Colleagues, not only are they paying the federal excise tax on their diesel and the carbon tax on fuel oil, but they are also paying Harmonized Sales Tax, or HST, on both of these taxes. Let me be clear, this is a tax on a tax — or should I say, a tax on a tax on a tax.

Senator Gold, can you please update the chamber as to why farmers — and, indeed, all Canadians — are being taxed on tax by your government? Will you share with this chamber what the Canadian government is doing to remove their tax on a tax?

Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for underlying the tragedy happening in Yemen. I wish that were the only place such things were happening.

Since 2020, the government has put into place a process whereby permits for exports of arms are not granted automatically but need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Canada continues to do that. It is the position of the government that it will continue to do that to ensure that this industry is carried on in a responsible way.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The short answer is no, I don’t have an answer.