Hon. Robert Black: Will my colleague take a question?

Senator Dalphond: With pleasure.

Hon. Robert Black: My question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Gold, on February 15, 2024, the Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, or CAHRC, released a new report which outlines that Canada’s agricultural sector is facing a looming crisis with over 100,000 job vacancies projected by 2030. This shortage threatens local food security, economic growth and sustainability of our agricultural sector.

The report emphasizes a crucial role of temporary foreign workers in bridging the gap and also highlights the necessity for long-term solutions to attract and retain workers domestically.

Senator Gold, given the gravity of this situation, can you provide insight into the government’s plans to address the workforce challenges outlined by the CAHRC report and ensure the future viability of our agricultural sector?

Hon. Robert Black: Senator Wells, will you take a question?

Senator Wells: Yes, Senator Black.

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

I am pleased to advise that we held seven meetings. We heard from 24 witnesses and received 21 written briefs. I would like to add that, in comparison, the other place only held five committee meetings on this bill.

As an overview of what happened during those seven meetings throughout our study, I offer the following:

Three amendments were proposed, and only one was adopted during clause-by-clause consideration. The amendment adopted — put forth by Senator Dalphond — limits the bill to grain drying equipment only by excluding the heating and cooling of barns, greenhouses and other structures.

Upon presentation of this amendment, a point of order was raised by my Canadian Senators Group colleague Senator Burey, deeming that amending Bill C-234 in this manner was destructive to its original principles and goals, and was, therefore, out of scope. After debate on the point of order, I, as chair, ruled in favour of the point of order. However, the chair’s ruling was defeated in a vote of 5 yeas; 7 nays; and 2 abstentions. The amendment was then debated, voted upon and adopted: 7 yeas; 6 nays; and 1 abstention.

The report also now includes four observations, with a fifth observation being withdrawn, as it was very similar to one that was approved.

Honourable colleagues, I will now remove my committee chair hat, and assume my perspective as a senator appointed to this chamber because of my agricultural background. As you know, I take every chance that I can to highlight this very important industry, and so now I am wearing my proverbial farm hat.

I will begin by saying that presenting this report is a challenging task for me. I’m highly disappointed — as the chair and as a lifelong “agvocate” — that I must table this report, and now have to speak against it.

Colleagues, as I have said, there were two parts to this bill — farm heating and cooling, and grain drying — and now there is one. The amendment adopted in this report by our colleague from the metropolis of Montreal effectively removes half the bill by excluding the heating and cooling of buildings and structures.

I believe, as does the industry, that this amendment changes the initial intent of the bill, which was to provide carbon tax relief for farmers. The bill, as it now stands, establishes an unjust precedent within our industry. Our farmers work tirelessly to produce food that feeds our nation and the world, and they are facing increasingly challenging circumstances.

We heard over and over again in committee how much the industry needs this carbon tax relief, especially as we move into the colder months when farmers will be required to heat their barns, greenhouses, et cetera. Climate change, labour shortages, trade disruptions and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have taken a toll on our agricultural sector. Additionally, agricultural commodities are already facing a rise in costs of production for things like inputs, supplies, machinery and transportation.

As a nation, I believe that we must do everything in our power to support our farms and ensure they can continue to thrive in the face of these significant challenges. Removing the heating and cooling of barns and other structures does the opposite of this.

While some alternative, greener options may be available for the heating and cooling of barns, the current challenges faced by the industry do not allow for producers to have the capital to afford these greener options, as they require astronomical investments usually amortized over 20 or more years.

The transition to more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices in agriculture is a goal we all share, including the industry. However, we must also understand that this transition requires time and significant investment to build the necessary infrastructure, and to scale up emerging alternative technologies.

Moreover, witnesses during the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry proceedings underlined that emerging technologies, which would provide alternatives, are at least eight years away from commercial viability. Let me repeat that — alternatives are at least eight years away from commercial viability.

Bill C-234 includes a sunset clause to re-evaluate its context in eight years, ensuring justification for such an exemption. As a side note, colleagues, one of the other amendments voted down by committee aimed to reduce this sunset clause to three years, even though we heard loud and clear in committee that three years wasn’t long enough for such technology to become viable.

The industry clearly supported the eight-year sunset clause amended to the bill in the other place. In the absence of viable alternatives for heating and cooling, the amendment, which removed half the bill, doesn’t just impact farmers’ and ranchers’ competitiveness — it jeopardizes their future efficiency and sustainability by forcing them to bear tens of thousands of dollars in carbon taxes. The net result is limited available capital for farmers to invest in their operations and continue lowering their carbon footprint through, for example, innovation.

The carbon tax both delays and prevents investments in critical efficiencies that would improve the sector’s environmental performance.

As I said previously, we are only weeks away from winter, when farmers across this country will begin adding more heat to their barns, greenhouses and other structures. This is a crucial period in the agriculture sector because of the coming cold weather. During this time, drying crops properly at the correct humidity level is required to prevent commodities from spoiling.

Furthermore, heating barns for broiler chickens, egg layers, young dairy calves, hogs and more is necessary to keep farm animals healthy through winter — so it is an animal welfare issue as well. Yet this amended bill removes the heating and cooling of these structures from a carbon tax exemption, essentially eliminating half the bill.

Colleagues, this is not the first time a bill with similar intent has been presented in Canada. Numerous attempts have been made in both chambers to provide relief for farmers from the carbon tax, underscoring the importance of this issue to our nation — and significant concerns regarding it. In fact, this is the second bill to pass the other place and come to our esteemed chamber of sober second thought, and this may very well be the second time the industry will fail to benefit from these measures, even though their duly elected officials voted for and passed similar bills twice.

I have heard, colleagues — and I expect you have all heard as well — from hundreds of Canadians, consumers, farmers, producers and numerous others in the last week or so who are extremely disappointed with this report, and that the bill has been gutted and its basic intent removed.

Representatives from the Canadian Cattle Association said:

On behalf of Canada’s 60,000 beef farms and feedlots, including the 7,500 seed stock breeders, we request your support for Canadian agriculture by voting against the proposed amendments and allowing the bill, in its original form, to be tabled at third reading and passed into law without delay.

A representative from Grain Growers of Canada, which represents over 65,000 producers, said:

I am asking for you to reject the proposed amendment from the committee which would exempt the heating and cooling of buildings. This would not only further delay this crucial piece of legislation, especially as we approach the winter season, but it also does not acknowledge the current technological realities.

Larry Davis, a cash crop farmer in Ontario, said:

Not only does this amendment change the intent of the bill which had received multi-party support in the house, it also jeopardizes the bill’s passage by adding considerable delays and sending it back to the house.

Honourable colleagues, this is a small fraction of what I have heard from people across our great country over the past week. It’s evident that our agricultural sector has been greatly let down by this report. Further, they have been let down by our honourable colleagues who never attended one meeting of the committee to hear from witnesses about the need for this exemption, but instead were parachuted into the committee for clause-by-clause consideration only.

Farmers, ranchers and processors must maintain their competitiveness within Canada’s economy. The carbon tax disproportionately affects them, despite their role as stewards of the land and an essential part of this nation.

Moreover, the sector plays a crucial role in preserving Canada’s environment and the fight against climate change. In fact, many farmers have been actively employing various carbon‑sequestration methods to enhance farmland productivity, protect the land and continue to produce the great food we all get to eat 365 days a year. Yet we continue to look only at the sector’s carbon footprint and not the contributions that farmers and producers make to return and sequester carbon and contribute to climate change mitigation.

In the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, we have heard testimony that many in the agricultural sector are already actively engaged in the fight against climate change. For example, Paul Maurice, a farmer in Tiny, Ontario, said:

We run a 35,000-bird broiler operation. We also cash crop 900 acres of corn, soybeans, cereal grain and hay in Simcoe County, Ontario. I acknowledge that we are all part of the problem but we, in the agricultural sector, are doing our best to be part of the solution and not the culprit, as many would have us believe. The best management practices that we implement in our operations far outweigh the carbon footprint that so many believe we create. The sequestration of carbon within our crops, and subsequently into our soils, seems to be a story that is put aside. As farmers, we are always looking for production efficiencies to remain competitive in our domestic and global agricultural marketplace.

As I’ve mentioned, farmers are finding carbon-reducing strategies and innovative new ways to produce food for Canada and the world. For example, carbon waste is being used to generate biofuels through the construction of things like anaerobic digesters. This innovation is being used by dairy farmers and others across the country, yet they are not being recognized for these innovations.

Farmers are progressive, determined and interested in engaging in innovative new technologies for the advancement of the industry. Farmers understand the importance of innovation and progressiveness in their fight against climate change. But this cannot be supported by limiting their fiscal capacities and forcing them to bear the burden of an unfair tax on their livelihoods.

Bill C-234, in its original state, offers a practical solution that would provide relief for farmers without compromising our environmental goals. This exemption would have had a significant positive impact on Canadian agriculture. It would have helped reduce input costs for farmers, thereby making it easier for them to invest in new technologies and infrastructure that will improve their efficiency and competitiveness — and lower their carbon footprint. It would also have encouraged the growth and development of the agriculture sector, which is essential for our country’s economic and social well-being, especially as our population continues to grow. We need farmers to be able to grow, innovate and expand to continue to feed Canadians and the world.

Furthermore, the exemption in the original bill would have been in line with this government’s commitment to support small businesses and rural communities. By exempting fuels used for farming, the government would be acknowledging the unique challenges faced by these groups and seen to be taking steps to address them. However, the current report before us, which removes exemptions for the heating and cooling of buildings, structures and greenhouses, threatens to undermine these objectives.

The bottom line is that it’s farmers who are being pinched. It’s farmers who are going into this winter and will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole while trying to keep their farms and families afloat to feed you, me, our families and the world.

If a business owner’s bottom line is affected, he or she will do all they can to cut costs to prevent bankruptcy. How can we expect our farmers to see their costs increase and their bottom lines threatened without them passing along those cost increases to the consumer? Except farmers can’t do that, because they are price takers, not price makers.

Colleagues, I am sure you heard the announcement last week by the Prime Minister that they are doubling the pollution price rebate rural top-up rate and implementing a three-year pause to the federal carbon price on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. As a senator who raises issues and concerns related to rural communities, I was very happy to hear this announcement and know it will help many rural Canadians as they struggle to pay their bills, heat their homes and put food on their tables.

Yet our farmers — who, of course, are also located in rural areas — will not receive this benefit when heating and cooling their farming facilities.

This would have been, and still is, a critical exemption that farmers need now that would help them survive and continue to feed us all.

Why are we burdening ranchers and growers with taxes, sometimes reaching tens of thousands of dollars — in some cases much more — and limiting their ability to adopt technology in the future? Why are we hindering our national food security and food sovereignty? Why are we causing farmers this grief and further delay?

Colleagues, having said all this, as a senator that many of my honourable colleagues come to with questions about agriculture, I turn to you now and respectfully request that you vote down this report. Vote it down for our farmers. Vote it down for your local producers. Vote it down to ensure that the increased costs don’t cause our food to continue to skyrocket and cost more. Whatever your reason, I ask that you vote this report down, return the bill to its original state and return it unamended to the other place post-haste so our farmers don’t have the burden of this carbon tax now.

With that, I’ll take off my agriculture hat and say thank you to the Library of Parliament analysts, the clerk and all the committee staff for their help.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise today in the Senate Chamber to speak about a valuable part of many Canadian communities: our libraries.

Here, in Ontario, Public Library Week is October 16 to 20, and I am honoured to rise today to speak on the importance of our libraries.

For generations, libraries have served as rural hubs for access to information and technology. In modern times, they are places for gathering by bringing people together to educate, to inform and to grow our abilities — not just as individuals, but as a collective.

I’m proud to continue to support rural communities here — in the Red Chamber — and a significant part of that is supporting the institutions that connect us all.

Libraries continue to work diligently to support Canadians from all walks of life. They teach us, foster community engagement and provide access to the greater world around us. I think it’s important, colleagues, that we remain diligent in our support of these valuable gathering places.

According to the provincial pre-budget submission by the Federation of Ontario Public Libraries and the Ontario Library Association, many rural locations struggle to pay for or are unable to afford many high-quality resources available in larger cities. This particularly affects those in smaller, rural, remote and First Nation communities.

People living in communities of less than 5,000 have access to less than half the e-books and less than one third of the online databases as those living in areas like Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal — despite accessing them twice as often per capita as people in large urban communities.

For nearly 25 years, funding to libraries at the provincial level has nearly stagnated, creating a reliance on federal and municipal funding in the face of increasing costs and inflation.

We must continue to advocate for the maintenance and growth of these valuable spaces that guarantee every Canadian access to information, knowledge and community engagement.

I thank our many librarians throughout Ontario, and from coast to coast to coast, for their diligent work supporting Canadians — offering valuable learning opportunities and support for people throughout this country.

I hope that my honourable colleagues will join me in celebrating the many benefits that libraries give to Canadians, especially those in rural communities, and that here — in the Red Chamber — we can continue to speak about the value of these highly regarded institutions.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Robert Black rose pursuant to notice of September 26, 2023:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the ongoing concerns with respect to Canadian agricultural, wetland, and forest land reallotments, as well as potential food, economic, and social insecurities as a result of reduced capacity for farming, pasture, forestry, and food production both domestically and internationally.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to my Inquiry No. 16, calling the attention of the Senate to ongoing concerns regarding Canadian agricultural, wetland and forest land reallotments, as well as potential food, economic and social insecurities as a result of reduced capacity for farming, pasture, forestry and food production — both domestically and internationally.

Colleagues, this is a critical issue that affects people all over the world: land-use management for food security and agricultural use.

In a world grappling with the challenges of feeding a growing population, Canada has the unique opportunity and responsibility to not only sustainably feed its own people but contribute to the global effort to eradicate hunger.

As we navigate the complexities of supply chains, the rising cost of food and the pressing need for housing, it is crucial that we take decisive action to ensure the optimal use of our land resources.

Canada continues to be an agricultural production powerhouse, with vast stretches of fertile land capable of producing abundant crops and sustaining livestock. In recent years, however, we have witnessed significant changes in our agricultural landscape. Urbanization, industrialization and changing climate patterns have impacted our traditional agricultural regions, highlighting the need to lay the groundwork for a thoughtful and strategic pan-Canadian approach to land-use management.

First of all, fellow senators, let us consider the issue of food security. While Canada has enjoyed a relatively stable food supply, we must not become complacent. Food costs are rising. Population numbers are increasing, placing demand on our agricultural industry. This increasing global population combined with unpredictable weather patterns and the degradation of arable land post significant challenges to food production worldwide. As a nation, we must seize the opportunity to ensure and enhance our food security and become a global leader in sustainable agriculture. Removing land from agriculture will only decrease food security.

To achieve this, we must prioritize the protection of agricultural land and promote its efficient use. Preserving our prime agricultural areas from growing urban development is essential. We need to implement strong land-use policies and zoning regulations to ensure the protection of our agricultural heritage while providing the necessary framework for sustainable growth and fulfilling the needs of our own increasing population.

Honourable colleagues, I am not the only one concerned about the removal of prime agricultural lands, wetlands and forest lands for development. In a May 30 viewpoint, Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Peggy Brekveld says:

We understand — and support — the need to increase the housing supply in Ontario, but we also want to ensure that housing is developed without encroaching on Ontario’s farmland, which is our most precious natural resource.

Across Canada, colleagues, we are losing our arable, fruitful agricultural land due to a variety of factors, but urban development has been a serious concern for the industry for many years. In fact, in our Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry soil study, we’ve heard time and again that when topsoil is destroyed, it’s basically gone forever because it can take thousands and thousands of years to build back up. With a growing population and growing economy, removing arable farmland for development is a cost we just cannot afford.

I want to acknowledge that land-use planning falls under the provincial jurisdiction in Canada. However, from an agricultural perspective, it is imperative that we protect our farmlands and production capabilities. We need to cohesively collaborate among federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments to address the challenges we face in securing our food supply both domestically and globally. This cross-jurisdictional collaboration will also help with future land-use planning, development and urban sprawl.

As we acknowledge the importance of respecting our various jurisdictions, we must also recognize the interdependence of our provinces and territories in ensuring a robust and sustainable agricultural sector. We must foster cooperation, share best practices and implement cohesive policies that address the varying agricultural needs and challenges across this nation. This collaborative approach will ensure that our collective efforts are aligned, reinforcing the protection of our farmlands, wetlands and forest lands while securing our food production capacities for future generations and still ensuring growth and development for a rising population.

Furthermore, we need a comprehensive agricultural policy that takes into account the diverse agricultural landscapes and production capacities across Canada. Our nation encompasses a range of climatic conditions, soil types and farming practices, from the orchards of British Columbia to the fertile plains of the Prairies to the dairy farms of Quebec and the potato farms in P.E.I. Recognizing these unique regional characteristics, the federal government can play a pivotal role in coordinating efforts to maximize the potential of our agricultural sector, while at the same time preserving our natural resources and meeting the needs of our growing and increasing population.

Moreover, the adoption of innovative farming practices that maximize yields while minimizing environmental impact would aid in food security, and the increase in yields equals more productive land. Embracing technological advancements such as precision agriculture, hydroponics and vertical farming can significantly increase productivity while reducing resource consumption. By investing in research development and implementation, we can ensure our farmers will adopt these practices and thus empower them to produce more food with fewer resources.

However, sustainable agricultural practices alone are not enough to ensure food security. We must also address the challenges presented by the intricate web of supply chains. Canada is a vast country, and the efficient movement of goods from farm to table is crucial. We must invest in infrastructure and transportation networks that facilitate the timely and cost‑effective delivery of agricultural products to consumers. By bolstering our supply chains, we can reduce waste, minimize spoilage and ensure that fresh and nutritious food reaches every corner of our nation. Additionally, we need to consider the rising cost of food, which has become a significant concern for many Canadians.

A combination of factors, including inflation, transportation costs and global market forces, among other factors, have contributed to the escalating prices of essential food items. As legislators, it is our duty to address this issue and alleviate the burden on Canadian households. One way of addressing the rising cost of food is by enhancing local food production. By supporting small-scale and urban farming initiatives, we can reduce our reliance on imported goods and services and create a more resilient food system. Encouraging community gardens and rooftop farms and promoting farmers’ markets can help strengthen local economies, foster social cooperation and provide affordable fresh produce for all Canadians.

Furthermore, we must work towards eliminating barriers in the supply chain that contribute to higher food prices. By reducing unnecessary regulations, promoting fair competition and encouraging cooperation among stakeholders, we can create a more efficient and transparent system that benefits both producers and consumers.

While prioritizing food security, I understand that we must also recognize and act upon the need for housing in our rapidly growing urban centres. As our population expands, and cities become denser, we face the challenge of balancing the demand for housing with the need to preserve agricultural land. We must adopt innovative land-use strategies that promote densification, mixed-use development and sustainable urban planning. Vertical housing is feasible as opposed to creating more urban sprawl that affects farmland across the country. By creating vibrant and livable communities, we can strike a balance between housing needs and the preservation of agricultural land. However, this can only be done when land-use planning takes into account food security, land fertility and other things — and only when all levels of government are involved in decisions and discussions.

In conclusion, colleagues, Canada has a pivotal role to play in securing global food supplies while meeting the needs of its own citizens. By effectively managing our land resources, protecting prime agricultural areas and embracing sustainable farming practices, we can enhance our food security and contribute to the feeding of the world. Simultaneously, we must address the challenges posed by complex supply chains, rising food costs and the need for housing. Through collaborative efforts, innovation and strategic policy interventions, I am confident we can forge a path towards a prosperous, sustainable and food-secure future in Canada and around the world.

We must do all we can to stop the removal of farmable, arable land for urban development, and I hope this inquiry will spark further discussion here in the chamber, among my honourable colleagues, in the other place and among all levels of government. After all, as described by the Honourable Senator Gold in a response to my question on May 9, 2023, on urban land sprawl:

 . . . the government recognizes the vital importance of a resilient agricultural and agri-food sector, including the need to preserve and protect farmland.

It’s time, colleagues, for the government to put up and start recognizing this need indeed.

Thank you, honourable colleagues, for your attention and dedication to this vital matter that will affect you and me, our families, our children, our grandchildren and our great‑grandchildren if we don’t do something now. Together, let us rise to the occasion and shape a brighter future for our nation and the world before we lose more agricultural land to ill-conceived plans regarding land-use planning across this country.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Burey, debate adjourned.)

(At 4:59 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, October 17, 2023, at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Robert Black, pursuant to notice of September 20, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on the status of soil health in Canada be extended from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2024; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate its report relating to this study, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Robert Black, pursuant to notice of September 27, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, February 10, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry be extended from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2025; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Robert Black: My question today is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, I continue to be concerned about many ongoing issues that continue to create undue hardship in the agricultural sector. Recently, I met with Green Energy Trading Corporation to learn more about their attempts to positively impact sustainability efforts through the conversion of on-farm organic waste to renewable natural gas. That occurs using biodigesters, which are proven to be effective in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction of reliance on commercial fertilizers. Moreover, digesters create additional revenue, improve manure management and increase overall soil health.

Unfortunately, biodigesters are very costly, and, as we’ve heard in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee meetings, purchasing farm equipment is a multi-year investment. New sustainable innovations are not always feasible options, especially for small-scale farm operations, and the issue is that dairy farmers can’t secure financial loans to install biodigesters without using their farmland as equity. This creates yet another barrier to participate in sustainable agriculture programs and diversify their operations. Yet credits are not being extended to those who are actively trying to work on alternative solutions to help Canada meet our climate change goals.

Senator Gold, my question to you is this: Instead of taxing this important industry, will your government extend the clean technology investment tax credit to Canadian farmers who are actively trying to work on viable alternatives, such as biodigesters, to help Canada meet our climate change targets? Thank you.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, a significant portion of my time as a senator has been dedicated to “AGvocating” for the interests of farmers, processors and producers throughout the country.

Over the past several months, I have spoken with many passionate farmers, producers and advocacy groups about concerns over the ongoing negotiations regarding the U.K.’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. I share their concerns. With accession to the CPTPP, the United Kingdom will have unprecedented access to Canadian markets for pork and beef, while Canadian producers will be unable to send our high-quality products to the British markets. As a trading nation, this sets an unfair advantage for foreign markets. While the U.K. engages in some level of trade protectionism to control its domestic markets, Canada is putting its valuable food systems at risk by allowing foreign products to enter our market at an unfair disadvantage for our farmers. Equal opportunity is crucial for our producers to continue to export their products.

The Canadian Cattle Association and the Canadian Pork Council, as well as the Canadian Meat Council, have actively spoken about the implications that the U.K.’s accession without renegotiation will bring, and the falsehoods being adopted to justify non-tariff barriers to U.K. markets. Their main concern, colleagues, is the failure to accept Canada’s meat inspection system, which is widely recognized around the world as one of the finest. The U.K. does not accept Canada’s food safety and animal health systems and measures, and those non-tariff barriers limit access to the U.K. market. In addition, there is a lack of reciprocal tariff measures, which have allowed British beef and pork full access to the Canadian market without full reciprocity.

I urge my colleagues and the government to consider the implications created by the U.K.’s accession. I believe it is high time we address the non-tariff barriers that restrict global access to our high-quality food products. Canada continues to work diligently to put food on our plates — not just here at home, but around the world as well — and we must continue to protect our valuable food systems.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, February 10, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry be extended from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2025; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Robert Black: Thank you very much, colleague. You said that many farms are conglomerates. However, 95% of all farms in Canada are considered family farms; I want to clarify that.

How does the government respond to other sectors — like steel or forest products — that may come out of the woodwork to request similar trade protection? How does the government handle that?

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you, senator, for your question. With respect to how other sectors might react, I think the government needs to respond on a case-by-case basis. We can’t just use one sector to help others. The priority must be to help and meet the needs of consumers, the needs of Canadians. If a sector requires government support, it’s up to that sector to demand it from the government. No sector should always have to pay to support other sectors.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I give notice that, two days hence:

I will call the attention of the Senate to the ongoing concerns with respect to Canadian agricultural, wetland, and forest land reallotments, as well as potential food, economic, and social insecurities as a result of reduced capacity for farming, pasture, forestry, and food production both domestically and internationally.

[Translation]

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on the status of soil health in Canada be extended from December 31, 2023, to December 31, 2024; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate its report relating to this study, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Robert Black: Honourable senators, I rise today to raise an issue of concern for rural and agricultural communities in Canada.

[English]

Canada’s fairs and exhibitions are the backbone of many rural communities. They provide a great opportunity to learn about the hard work of farmers, processors, community members, organizations and entrepreneurs alike, and to celebrate them and the ingenuity of Canadians.

These vital events, however, are under threat again. Newly proposed regulations with regard to livestock traceability requirements expand far beyond a reasonable level and will inevitably challenge farmers, ranchers and the volunteers who work hard to participate in and host fairs and exhibitions across the country.

The proposed policy change from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requires farmers to ensure a valid premises identification number as well as to register livestock accordingly.

Now, colleagues, this is not the problem because farmers are happy to follow industry standards and protect their assets with identification and have been doing so for years.

However, the problem is that agricultural societies and the fairs they organize would be burdened with the responsibility of collecting, tagging and reporting animal movement information during their fair dates.

Training and programming for fair and exhibition operators is insufficient, according to key organizations like the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions as well as the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies.

It would require each agricultural society to train volunteers on the process, which would include checking the identification and ear tag on each individual animal and then inputting the data for each farm animal at the fair or event into the responsible administrators’ online database. This is not only an expense that fairs cannot bear but it is also not feasible for the shrinking number of volunteers all organizations are facing these days.

Further, the proposed regulations will apply to any event that involves the listed animals that are held on an agricultural society fairground, not just their fair. If an ag society rents or loans their premises for a 4-H show, calf rally or livestock show, the ag society will be responsible for collecting and reporting the animal movement, as explained above. Losing the opportunities and facilities to host 4-H livestock programs and achievement days could have a significant negative effect on the 4-H program and the youth who participate in 4-H programs in Ontario and across Canada.

As you know, colleagues, 4-H is near and dear to my heart, and I would not be here today if it were not for that program.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, it is important to note that farmers are not opposed to these measures.

[English]

The concern lies with the extensive burden this would place on fair volunteers, already strained by labour shortages and regulatory hurdles.

I hope the Canadian government will fix the problem that may unintentionally cause an end to many fairs and exhibitions, and I hope that we can find a way to fix this. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Robert Black: Thank you, senator. Will you take a question?

Senator Omidvar: Yes, of course.

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is focused on ensuring it’s well positioned to provide a meaningful and well-rounded report on soil health to support Canadian farmers, producers and the world.

With food security, land use, biodiversity and environmental and agricultural health in mind, the committee looks to have a fulsome and in-depth perspective on soil health that will be as beneficial as the previous Senate report has been for nearly 40 years.

In order to do this, the committee finds that it is essential to meet with global counterparts in Rome as a greater opportunity to engage with experts on soil health from around the world. This fact-finding mission originates from an invitation extended to the Agriculture Committee from the deputy director of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, or UN FAO, to meet many international experts with the organization, which would be impossible to coordinate in a virtual method.

This will involve roundtable discussions as well as a mix of formal and informal meetings that will highlight the importance of global coordination on soil health programs and projects.

Honourable senators, as you know, I’m not one to lay idle, and I keep my schedule booked solid with meetings while also adhering to my responsibilities here in the chamber and in committee. This fact-finding mission will be no different. So to my colleagues travelling with me, we can look forward to a very busy schedule, packed full of meetings, tours and a soil conference as well.

Our Agriculture Committee has had consistent and meaningful discussions around this budgeted option. We understand that this is a large expenditure for Canadians. Soil health, however, is a global problem, and while the committee is working to travel throughout Canada to better understand soil health here, an international perspective will have vast benefits as well. We can learn from other experts, beyond Canada, and from our largest trading partners and allies. As I’ve alluded to earlier, we will also be attending the Global Soil Partnership Plenary Assembly where we’ll engage in meaningful discussions with leading stakeholders and experts on soil from around the world, who can, without a doubt, contribute to our understanding of soil health here in Canada.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, if it’s the will of the chamber, I hope that we can pass the report today so that our diligent committee support staff can begin making arrangements for this travel, expected to take place in mid-July. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Robert Black: My question is for the Honourable Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

Senator Gold, earlier in the chamber I mentioned the great entrepreneurship and charity of organizations like Dairy Distillery. Not only are they supporting and growing Canada’s economy, they are giving back in times of need and pitching in to support the greening of Canada. Despite their hard work, the company continues to be inhibited by red tape and the lack of governmental support in expanding their work.

As a result, Dairy Distillery has begun construction on an ethanol production facility using dairy permeate to produce some of the greenest ethanol in North America. For every tonne of permeate they process into ethanol, they displace 1.2 tonnes of carbon. They’ve identified 50,000 tonnes of available permeate in Eastern Canada that, if converted to ethanol, would offset 60,000 tonnes of carbon a year.

[Translation]

The thing is, they’ll be building their plant in the state of Michigan.

[English]

This Canadian company has had little government support or any level of regulatory assistance, and could only financially succeed in the United States with support from programs like the Inflation Reduction Act.

[Translation]

If Canada can’t be competitive for its small businesses, we will lose Canadian businesses to the United States.

[English]

My question, Senator Gold, is: How will the Canadian government continue to support Canadian businesses that are competing with companies in the U.S. being supported by the American Inflation Reduction Act, and what will your government do to reduce regulatory red tape that forces Canadian companies out of the country, taking innovative progress and countless jobs with them? Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Robert Black, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Thursday, June 1, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

ELEVENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, to examine and report on the status of soil health in Canada, respectfully requests supplementary funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

The original budget application submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee were printed in the Journals of the Senate on February 16, 2023. On February 16, 2023, the Senate approved the release of $36,220 to the committee and on May 16, 2023, the Senate approved an additional release of $128,620 to the committee.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 2(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT BLACK

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, Appendix A, p. 1758.)

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).