Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. It is the position of this government that continued immigration is key to growing our economy and strengthening our communities. The government’s position on immigration is clear. It seeks to ensure that immigration continues to grow our economy while at the same time balancing the pressures that growing immigration imposes on our housing, infrastructure and essential services.

I have been assured that the government will continue to support and embrace newcomers and ensure that they have the supports they need to integrate into our communities and are supported fully in their new lives here in Canada.

Hon. Colin Deacon: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, last week, you kindly committed to follow up with the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister about open banking. Could you also ask her about marginalized and young Canadians who wonder if they will ever own a home? Open banking would give these Canadians access to convenient and safe tools to build credit score, better manage their cash flow, qualify for a mortgage on better terms and more easily compare offers across mortgage lenders.

Currently, banks monopolize the use of their customer data. Citizens in all other G7 countries have the right to securely use and access their financial data for their benefit rather than the bank’s.

On behalf of those Canadians who do not currently have the financial ability to purchase a home, when will they get access to the many digital tools and competitive offerings that open banking will provide?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Senator Gold, I want to follow up on a question that I asked October 4 on behalf of Cliff Williams, a Nova Scotia senior who is relying on the new Canadian Dental Care Plan to access dental services.

As I stated in my last question, one third of Canadians do not have dental insurance, and one in five avoid dental services because the price is prohibitive. We know that dental care is health care. I applaud the government for its commitment to providing financial assistance to those Canadians who face barriers in accessing dental services by bringing forward the new dental care plan.

A government media release from March 31 — from which you read your answer to my question on October 4 — simply says that by the end of 2023, the Canadian Dental Care Plan will become available to uninsured Canadians under 18, persons with disabilities and seniors with an annual family income of less than $90,000.

Senator Gold, Mr. Williams’ question is a simple one: When will the benefits be available to eligible seniors? As there are only a few weeks until the end of 2023, is the government still guaranteeing that the benefits will be available before the end of the year?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for raising this issue. Canadians deserve a durable financial sector that is globally competitive and also provides them with the tools that they need to navigate in this world.

As the financial sector becomes more digitized, we would all agree that standards are necessary, and more appropriately, the standards must be modernized to ensure that Canada continues to have a stable and secure financial sector, but, at the same time, that Canadians have confidence that the financial sector operates with the highest regard for both privacy and security.

I have been informed that the Department of Finance is continuing to work on developing the next steps and moving forward with open banking.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Gold. Maybe confidence can be gained from the fact that the Globe and Mail editorial board recently endorsed the implementation of open banking, citing that pro-consumer reforms are the key to lowering prices and fees for Canadians. Thanks to the thorough and robust consultations that Finance Canada did, all that remains is political will.

Hopefully, we can find that an announcement is forthcoming. I look forward to consumer rights being enhanced and universal access to this internationally acclaimed regulatory change will be made. Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: My question is directed to Senator Gold. As you may know, Canadians hold the most positive views towards immigration of any country in the world. However, a recent survey conducted by the Environics Institute in September shows:

. . . a significant jump in the proportion of Canadians who believe the country accepts too many immigrants, marking a dramatic reversal from a year ago when public support for immigration numbers stood at an all-time high . . .

One year ago, attitudes were more positive than they had ever been. Let’s be clear, this is not about where immigrants are coming from, who they are or how they might contribute, but about the numbers that are coming.

Senator Gold, is this shift in opinion a reflection on immigration policy or is it, as is sometimes said, a failure to communicate adequately to Canadians the benefits of immigration?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, the Trudeau government has repeatedly claimed that their punishing carbon tax scheme aims to encourage Canadians to use more efficient sources of energy. We in Saskatchewan have been doing that for decades. In the early 1980s, Progressive Conservative premier Grant Devine changed our province’s heat source from heating oil to natural gas at a then cost of about $150 million — a huge investment for our small province. Now only about 0.3% of Saskatchewan homes still heat with oil. That is roughly equivalent to the number of Liberals we elect — net zero.

The Trudeau government’s supposedly national carbon tax carve-out applies only to homes heated with oil, which creates much more pollution than natural gas. Why is your government discriminating against the Saskatchewan people when we implemented cleaner energy 40 years ago?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Senator Gold, my question is obviously for you.

A recent damning report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians reveals the alarming state of federal policing. According to the report, systemic weaknesses and poor resource management are undermining its ability to effectively protect Canadians against growing threats like violent extremism and cybercrime.

At a time when Canada is likely to be the target of terrorist threats, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, appears to be bogged down by internal challenges. Governance was described as weak, and resources appear to be poorly distributed, with local police forces absorbing most of the budget to the detriment of crucial federal operations.

In this context, how does your government justify such turmoil in our national police force, a situation that undermines national interests? What immediate action does your government plan to take to rectify this situation in order to ensure that the RCMP is better equipped to deal with current and future threats to Canadian security?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Boisvenu, for raising this important issue concerning the scope of the RCMP’s responsibilities.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians did indeed just publish a report that points to and sheds light on the following issue: How can we ensure that the RCMP can continue to protect Canadians from increasingly serious foreign — and perhaps even domestic — threats, while serving the public in several provinces and territories, the way that the Sûreté du Québec does in Quebec?

This is an important question being studied within the RCMP in an effort to maximize its effectiveness and meet the needs and desire of the provinces and territories to have better control over their police forces.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for your continued advocacy on this important issue. The government is still of the view that — as you mentioned — the Canadian Dental Care Plan is expected to roll out for those categories of eligible Canadians that you mentioned.

I have been informed that by 2025, the Canadian Dental Care Plan will be fully implemented to cover all who are eligible. Once fully implemented, the Canadian Dental Care Plan will support up to 9 million uninsured Canadians.

I’m told that there will be more information forthcoming and shared in the coming weeks. Given the scale and scope of this important program, the government is taking the time necessary to finalize all elements of the plan so that it is communicated clearly to Canadians.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Batters. You have made me nostalgic for the good old days when there was a Progressive Conservative Party. But I digress.

Kudos to any government who took action and takes action to help its citizens transition to a cleaner, more sustainable economy, whether it is provincial, territorial, Indigenous or federal.

The fact remains that what you have termed the “carbon tax” — the price on pollution — continues to be and continues to be considered to be the most effective market-driven tool to create incentives for businesses and Canadians to make the change to a cleaner, more sustainable form of energy. It continues to be the centrepiece of this government’s environmental policy.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, Canada is providing financial aid to Gaza through a series of what the Trudeau government calls “trusted partners.” These are the same partners who operated in Gaza for years when Canadian aid ended up in the pockets of Hamas operatives. They include World Vision, whose manager of Gaza operations was convicted of funnelling millions of dollars of aid money and resources to Hamas. Yet here we are again sending Canadian financial aid — taxpayers’ money — to World Vision and other organizations.

My question is this: What measures have been put into place by this government to make sure that when Canadians’ hard-earned taxpayer money is sent to provide aid in Gaza or other areas of the world, that money doesn’t end up in the pockets of terrorist organizations like Hamas?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It is my understanding, senator, that the Canadian aid, which is designed to assist the people in Gaza, is directed to organizations that are monitored and audited — that are monitored; I don’t want to use a technical term misleadingly — and that measures are in place to ensure, to the best of the government’s ability, that the funds are not diverted.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is a worldwide sponsor of terrorism. Its barbarity was celebrated by Hamas to the repulsion of all decent human beings. Canada provides aid to the citizens of Gaza who themselves are victims — and in many ways hostages — of this terrorist organization, and will continue to do so in pursuit of its humanitarian principles.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, the Trudeau government recently tried to hide why it wrote off hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars, and who received the money. They finally admitted this loss relates to an unfulfilled contract with a Quebec company for COVID vaccines.

While that’s pretty bad, it is not the only example of this government hiding information about a massive loss of money. In the 2018-19 fiscal year, Export Development Canada wrote off $196 million, and the only thing that Global Affairs Canada said was that it was doing so in the best interests of Canada.

Leader, once again, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. If your government can provide basic information on one loss, why can’t they provide it on another?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I’m not sure that there is anybody in this chamber who has any greater respect for former Justice Louise Arbour than me. We were colleagues and friends, and our relationship goes back half a lifetime.

However, as I have said in this chamber on many occasions in response to this question, the design that was chosen — notwithstanding the recommendation of the jury — was the one that the veterans and their families preferred and felt better honoured their role and, indeed, their sacrifice.

It is, I think, appropriate to underline that fact as we celebrate Veterans’ Week, and as we anticipate Remembrance Day. Let’s remember what this is supposed to honour. It is supposed to honour those men and women — those Canadians — who served and sacrificed. Their views counted in this decision, as they properly should have.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): No, there are a number of other speakers on here —

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

As the government has stated, and as I have announced in this chamber, the loss to which you refer regarding the vaccines was a product of the precautions that the government took to ensure not only a safe supply of vaccines, but also the hope of developing a capacity in Canada to manufacture certain kinds of vaccines — it’s a capacity that, unfortunately, was lost in the past when previous governments made decisions that, at the time, seemed to be in the best interests of Canadians, but it left us without that capacity.

Hon. David M. Wells moved third reading of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

He said: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I would like to begin again by thanking the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for their study of this bill; the chair of that committee, the Honourable Senator Rob Black; and the vice-chair, the Honourable Senator Paula Simons, who also chaired one of the meetings. I would like to thank all committee members, both regular members and those who came in for the rigorous discussion.

There has been some commentary on the presence of the non‑regular members leading discussions on certain aspects of the bill’s study, but I want to note that no senator plays a subordinate role on a committee. Aside from voting privilege, it is the right of any senator to join a committee for the study of a bill, and they have every equal right to do so, and I welcome that, especially when their views are not in accord with mine.

As we have heard in the debate at the report stage, the committee held 10 hours of meetings, heard from 24 witnesses and received 12 briefs in addition to further debate all senators listened to at report stage on Tuesday.

Colleagues, as you know, this bill amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, also known as the carbon tax, to provide an exemption for propane and natural gas for agricultural purposes. It is a commonsense bill which I believe is worthy of the support of this chamber for a number of reasons. I will outline these for you.

First, the purpose of the carbon tax is to create an incentive for consumers to reduce their use of carbon-intensive fuels by adopting more efficient and lower-carbon options. This is a worthwhile objective; however, farmers have no viable fuel alternatives to which they can easily switch; it is either unavailable or cost-prohibitive. Where it has been neither of those, farmers, ranchers and growers have switched because it makes business sense to do so.

In my speech at report stage, you will recall that I spoke about the added installation of sun shields, increased ventilation and many other initiatives that can make their operations more efficient when it comes to their fuel costs. This means that retaining the carbon tax for propane and natural gas does not serve the purpose. This is even more clear when we note that diesel and gasoline — common fuels for heaters, coolers and grain dryers — are exempt from the carbon tax. This point was raised repeatedly at committee. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture put it this way in their brief:

. . . the fuel charge in Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is an ineffective mechanism to drive greenhouse gas emission reductions in the agricultural sector in a short to medium term outlook. With no viable alternatives to propane and natural gas for grain drying and barn heating, and high price inelasticity for energy use, the charge collected on these fuels simply takes money out of farmers’ pockets, who are already working with very tight margins.

The carbon tax is supposed to send a price signal to incentivize a transition to lower carbon-emitting fuels. However, because of the absence of such alternatives, this price signal does not work when it comes to propane and natural gas used for agricultural purposes. An exemption — and that is the focus of this bill — is warranted.

Farmers can already apply for an exemption certificate which exempts them from paying any carbon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Bill S-234 merely seeks to extend that existing exemption to propane and natural gas. This doesn’t undermine the effectiveness of the carbon tax but is a logical extension of the existing policy, especially because that propane and natural gas are considered transition fuels and thus emit less carbon in the atmosphere than diesel and gasoline.

In addition to the existing exemption on gasoline and diesel fuel, the government also introduced a rebate which acknowledged the need to provide relief from the carbon tax on propane and natural gas used for agricultural purposes.

When the rebate was announced in the Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, the government stated:

Recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, and consistent with the Budget 2021 commitment, the government proposes to return fuel charge proceeds directly to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions via a refundable tax credit, starting for the 2021-22 fuel charge year.

The public policy objective was clear: to return fuel charge proceeds derived from agricultural use of natural gas and propane directly to farming businesses. Regrettably, however, the rebate fails to achieve this objective because it is calculated according to farm size and, to quote the Department of Finance:

There is no link between propane or natural gas actual usage on a farm and the amount of credit received.

Colleagues, this means that the rebate is not actually a rebate, because it is not connected to actual carbon tax costs. Instead, it is an ad hoc refundable tax credit calculated at $1.73 per $1,000 of eligible farming expenses for all farms. Eligible farming expenses are those amounts deducted in calculating income from farming for income tax purposes, excluding any deductions arising from mandatory and optional inventory adjustments and transactions with non-arm’s length parties.

To be clear, this means that the non-rebate rebate has no connection to actual expenses incurred by farmers from the application of the carbon tax on propane and natural gas. It is not linked.

Colleagues, there has been some discussion about double‑dipping on the rebate and the exemption, and I would like to address that here. You will recall Bill C-8, sponsored in the Senate by the Honourable Clement Gignac, which addressed that rebate. Here is what we heard: Jenna Robbins, Senior Director, Strategic Planning and Policy from the Department of Finance, said the Minister of Finance sets the payment rate. If Bill C-234 were to pass, the payment rate would be set to zero. This was also mentioned at the bottom of the older Library of Parliament report that was circulated to some colleagues earlier this week.

Another measure the government could take to ensure there would be no double-dipping, in addition to the one outlined above, is a policy directive to the CRA to stop processing payments past the date on which C-234 receives Royal Assent. This was mentioned in the What We Heard Report from the Agriculture Carbon Alliance. We can expand on that: The formula in Bill C-8 has the ability to adjust the qualifying rebate days within a taxation year. Therefore, the CRA has the ability to process rebates up until the date on which C-234 becomes law. After that point, the Finance Minister can set the payment rate to zero. Eventually, the Income Tax Act would be amended to remove the vestigial provision brought in under C-8 using a legislative vehicle like a Budget Implementation Act.

Colleagues, the government’s objective was correct; many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, and the fuel charge proceeds from those fuels should be returned directly to them. Regrettably, the rebate does not accomplish this, which is why Bill C-234 is warranted and necessary. It will achieve the stated objective.

Colleagues, we should also support this bill because retaining the carbon tax on propane and natural gas not only fails to reduce carbon emissions, but also inhibits farmers’ efforts to transition to lower-carbon energy options. The reason for this is quite simple: It takes money out of the pockets of farmers, which cannot be recaptured by passing on the cost immediately or changing to a low-carbon fuel source. This means that rather than furthering the public policy purpose of the carbon tax, it works against it.

You’ll recall that I noted in my report stage speech that one medium-sized poultry operation would be paying $250,000 per year once the carbon price reaches $170 per tonne. Any payback analysis that included a yearly contribution like that would make a far more efficient capital investment decision that would actually go toward reducing emissions from barn heating and cooling and grain drying.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, reported that the carbon tax on natural gas and propane will cost farmers $978 million by 2030. This will extract almost $1 billion from the farmers’ bottom line, which significantly impacts their ability to invest in new technologies. By passing Bill C-234, we can help ensure that farmers retain this capital in their operations, giving them greater opportunity and resources to continue reinvesting in more sustainable farming practices.

Implementing Bill C-234 would be good for farmers, ranchers and growers and better for the environment because it acknowledges that propane and natural gas are lower-emitting fuels and does not disincentivize operators from using them.

Colleagues, while federal programs such as the Agricultural Clean Technology Program and tax rebate programs are aimed at providing relief to farmers from the fuel surcharges for natural gas and propane, these programs have proven difficult to access and are oversubscribed. The programs are welcomed and needed, but they reach only a small percentage of farmers.

Further, these programs only cover a portion of the actual costs expended by farmers in order to upgrade their fuel source. This means that farmers must be in a position where they need to replace their grain dryers before the program becomes economical for them. The Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry learned that a grain dryer will last for decades and is a significant capital purchase. Upgrading them just because the government will cover a portion of the cost does not mean such a move is automatically economical. Even if the government’s budget for these programs were unlimited, farmer uptake would not be.

The final reason that I would like to give you today for supporting Bill C-234 is because the carbon tax on natural gas and propane places Canadian farmers at a disadvantage in comparison to international competitors who are not subject to similar fuel charges. That means our businesses are automatically less cost-efficient than their competitors, and this additional cost is not only more expensive for farmers but also Canadian consumers.

Nicholas Rivers, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa, told the committee:

There are some exemptions to the carbon price for fuels used on farms, but these exemptions currently do not apply to fuel used for grain drying or for heating buildings. This means that grain farmers face the full carbon price on fuel used for grain drying, and do not receive output-based rebates. However, like cement and steel, grains are an internationally traded commodity, and there are legitimate concerns that the carbon price puts Canadian grain farmers at a disadvantage relative to their international peers.

Colleagues, farmers are price takers, not price makers. Thus, in order to stay competitive, they are forced to absorb the cost of the carbon tax into their operations and charge more in the following years if it is in their power to do so, and often it is not.

Here is how the government put it in their backgrounder on the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or GGPPA:

The purpose of the GGPPA is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that carbon pollution pricing applies broadly throughout Canada.

At the same time, the Government recognizes that particular groups or sectors have a need for targeted relief from the fuel charge – in particular because of the small number of alternative options they may have in the face of carbon pollution pricing.

Colleagues, exemptions are not a bug or a “carve-out.” I recall sparring with our colleague Senator Woo over this word at second reading back in June. The government’s backgrounder specifically stated that exemptions are a feature of a carbon tax system. They are necessary to ensure that the policy is targeted and effective and does not create undesirable results. Exemptions already exist for farmers and fish harvesters, along with additional targeted relief for residents of rural and small communities, users of aviation fuels in the territories, greenhouse operators, power plants that generate electricity for remote communities, Indigenous Peoples and — as we heard recently — those who heat their homes with oil.

Bill C-234 is not breaking new ground. It is one small but necessary adjustment to the existing suite of fair exemptions and, in this case, will have significant impact on the ability of farmers to compete on a level playing field with international competitors and continue to adopt more efficient technologies. Canada’s farmers, ranchers and growers have spoken with one voice on this bill, and we’ve all heard it loud and clear.

Finally, colleagues — and perhaps on a more personal note — I signed up to sponsor this bill not because I come from a farming background or even a strong farming region. I’m from Newfoundland, and there is probably a good reason the Agriculture Committee didn’t go to a place called “The Rock” for a soil study. I wanted to be the sponsor because it seemed like advocating for fairness was the right thing to do.

The debate on this bill has been vigorous, contentious, affects significant public policy and has forced me to do my homework. It has included not just honourable colleagues but sparked an important debate among farmers, ranchers, growers, public policy-makers and consumers. It is an excellent example of what the Senate does best, and it has been an honour to be a small part of it with you. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: I asked if she was asking leave, and she confirmed that she was not asking leave to withdraw the amendment. The standing vote has been deferred to 5:30. So we will have the vote at 5:30.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette:

That the report on the Statutes Repeal Act for the year 2023, tabled in the Senate on February 1, 2023, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for examination and report; and

That the committee submit its report to the Senate no later than Tuesday, December 5, 2023.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

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