Senator Ringuette: Okay, then let me phrase that in a debate manner.

It seems not very often that we get such kinds of bills; my latest recollection is about 10 or 12 years ago. Yes, I believe that probably the Legal Committee is a good committee to undertake such studies. However, I must admit that, in my mind, I look at the agenda of the Legal Committee in this debate, and I would question if it’s reasonable for this chamber to decide that —

[Translation]

Senator Ringuette: May I respond to that?

Senator Ringuette: What a shame. But I suspect a colleague would also like to participate in this debate. Thank you.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Honourable senators, for a number of months now, we have been hearing the calling of these different committee reports that deal with a budget bill that we have passed in this chamber.

I find it quite unusual and quite unfortunate, but I guess that today it also provides me with the ability to speak on this particular report with respect to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Now, you will understand that I am trying to recall as many items in that budget bill that I can. And, of course, for some other reason, I’m also on my feet to stop this game that is going on by playing it. Some of you who are playing the game will understand what I’m doing.

Colleagues, it seems to me that the budget bill that we voted on and this particular report — we didn’t vote on it per se because a portion of the budget bill was sent to this committee, but we did vote on the entire budget and the vote was agreed to therefore the budget bill was passed.

Regarding the particular elements contained in the bill that was sent to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, I would presume that some of that would touch on how the public policy of our nation tries to deal with the carbon emissions that we have and with the Paris Agreement that our country and all our provinces have agreed to. Also, for your information, as of July 1 of this year, all four Atlantic provinces have embarked on the federal policy to reduce carbon emissions.

Honourable colleagues, that was quite a move for the Atlantic provinces because New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador created their own provincial emissions system. The four premiers, who were all in agreement, probably saw that their provincial system was maybe not sustainable in meeting the 2030 emissions targets that they had agreed to or maybe, for political reasons, they decided, “Let’s just dump this on the federal government.”

That is the situation with respect to the issue of the environment in the budget, and the provinces — and I will speak, in particular, for New Brunswick — once they dumped their emissions targets and carbon pricing policy to the federal government as of July 1, now, all of a sudden, they want to get out of the agreement. Okay. So it’s become a political football that New Brunswickers are beginning to be quite tired of.

That being said, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that we have a national policy — and, yes, it’s true that Quebec has their own system which seems to be quite comparable to the federal one. The Province of B.C. — quite a number of years ago, in 2008; they were way ahead of the curve on that one — created a provincial public policy that is also mirrored in the current federal government policy.

Now, colleagues, you will say, “Why, all of a sudden, Pierrette, are you telling us all this?” I am telling you all of this because of the discussion we were having last week. On Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, I did 14 hours of research daily. So today I am able to stand on my feet and talk to you about public policy with respect to the environment that was included in the last budget and in the report that we have before us.

It is also quite interesting that, for instance, because this transfer from the province to the federal policy as of July 1 of this year — which is also applicable to the other three Atlantic provinces — our citizens are not really aware of how the federal tax rebate works. So during the weekend — and this is regarding the policy on the environment and the last budget — I had to inform the citizens of my area that I was in contact with about certain provisions.

I must say it was probably one of the most interesting weekends that I have had for a long time. You see, I have been representing, in particular, these farming communities for 35 years. I know them. They know me. When I was explaining to them what was in the budget with respect to the environment and the scheme that they were part of since July 1, they were quite astonished because, for the last several years, they were being told that the carbon tax was a complete tax grab. They were never informed.

You see, honourable senators, that’s the difference between myth and facts. It’s important to get the facts on paper. They were never informed that, in the federal scheme, they would be getting a rebate currently at the rate of $1.73 for every $1,000 of their entire farming income. Wow. Because they never understood that. And nowhere, at any time, did any farmers organization that they were consulting with ever tell them that fact.

I say shame. Shame. We — in this place, at least — have to be honest with our citizens, and they have to be honest and upfront with us.

So, on Friday, I put forth quite a number of policies and challenges that they had. I asked them to go back to their accountants, go back to how they operate and tell me if they are better off financially to increase their investment in their operation by the current system under which they were not told about the refundable tax credit or about a new proposed exemption.

Colleagues, in my area, 99% of farming production is potatoes. You can ask Senator Mockler, and he will confirm that. It is the same situation in P.E.I.: 99% of the farming activities in P.E.I. are potato-based.

There is no use in the farming communities of Atlantic Canada for natural gas because we have no access.

Colleagues, that brings us back to the fundamental issues of, as I said earlier, providing our constituencies with the real facts in order for them to really respond with how the facts would impact them.

And that is just the farming community. It’s the same situation in regard to the other scheme that addresses us as consumers. It’s completely different because I — like you and our citizens — as a consumer, when we file our income tax, nowhere are we able to take all our operating expenses as a deduction. We are not a business. Therefore, there are two different schemes.

Unfortunately, maybe it was not clear in the budget and in this particular committee report, so I am taking this opportunity to maybe clarify this entire situation.

At the end of the day, the policy of the government is completely different in regard to me as an individual, the farming community as an economic sector, transformation industries like logging or others; it’s completely different in regard to carbon policy charges. When we analyze and research — and we do have a responsibility to research — if we are not capable from the outset to make that distinction —

Colleagues, I have so much more to say. Can I have five more minutes?

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: I have a question in regard to this. Is there a reason why this particular Statutes Repeal Act report would be sent to the Legal Committee, and for them to report it in such a short period of time? I know they are quite a busy committee in regard to the bills they have to deal with.

[Translation]