Hon. Pamela Wallin: I thank Senator Kutcher for his work and for his remarks.

Honourable senators, the government’s decision to delay puts politics ahead of people, and it has devastating consequences for all those who have worked to see the law recognized and respected and assured for all Canadians. It is heartbreaking for those who face a life of mental illness.

This was, I will remind you, a government commitment. Making those with mental illness as a sole underlying condition was your priority. The government chose that over and above, for example, the issue of advanced requests. I’m still fighting for that. The government said this was its priority and gave hope to all those waiting. Then it delayed a year. And now in spite of facts and evidence to the contrary, you have delayed until after the next election.

The undermining of the joint committee process allowed the whole issue of MAID to be reopened, not just the question of mental illness. Now we are once again relitigating MAID in the public sphere because the government could not muster the courage of its convictions on this particular issue, nor could it take the advice of those who have studied this and who have concluded there is a state of readiness.

In a democracy, people are elected to make the hard decisions, not the easy ones. Anybody can do that. And if the government thinks by putting this off that you will be able to lay blame for backsliding at the opposition’s door, I think you are mistaken.

The Conservatives have long stated their disagreement with this, and we can all read the polls. The Conservatives have a reasonable chance of forming a government, so we know that means refighting this battle repeatedly. It was the government that lost its nerve and now tries to shift blame. This puts politics above life and death and the suffering of ill Canadians.

I disagree with the position of the official opposition, but at least they have been consistent in reflecting religious or moral concern, and they vote their conscience. The government has done a one-eighty. It looks political because it is. It was a government minister who said this will be put off until after the next election, and when you play with people’s lives, people, families and professionals will remember the consequences.

For me, the issue of MAID is and has always been about choice. It was for the Supreme Court of Canada, as well, when they ruled, and for the government when they made it the law of the land.

Choice — it’s all anybody asked for. The government says it believes in choice for abortion, gender or contraception, but what about choice for end-of-life care? And why will choice be denied just for certain groups?

The “better safe than sorry” argument was the debate three or four years ago before we had the training, standards, practitioners and experience with MAID provision, before MAID providers and medical experts declared readiness.

Of course, next week, next month, next year, more doctors and nurses will join those who have been trained and accredited, and the numbers will grow, but to say because only 40 are ready today that we can’t go ahead, well, that is specious. We don’t have enough doctors, oncologists, nurses or surgeons for dozens of procedures, but we don’t deny care until everyone has access. It has never been how the medical system operates.

We are told repeatedly by Senator Gold that The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, or CAMH, wants clinical standards. What most Canadians want is a CAMH facility in every city and province, but we don’t have that. That doesn’t mean we don’t treat the mentally ill, it means we do the best we can with the resources and facilities available. We cannot let perfection or equity be the enemy of common sense. Let’s do what we can now for those in need now.

But the arguments for the delays are still ill-conceived and more about politics than life struggles facing our citizens. The government says it agrees that mental illness is equivalent to physical illness, but it then proceeds to argue that those with mental illness — or even dementia or Alzheimer’s — must be denied the right to access MAID. It is the law of the land. Because some have yet to be defined as ready doesn’t mean we will deny readiness for all.

We are living and experiencing a health care system in crisis, and we do not have enough of anybody or anything, but we do not deny treatment until that problem is solved.

The provinces and health ministers’ job is to fund and safeguard our health care system, but not to judge or overrule the daily decision making of medical professionals who have direct patient experience and training needed to make safe judgments about medical procedures.

The readiness or preparedness criteria was met according to the experts the government appointed and who testified at the joint committee, and now once again the bar has been moved. What is the new bar? What are the new criteria that the government is adding to the list of four we were all asked to evaluate?

The government is unable to explain what would constitute readiness other than to say health ministers have to agree. Well, on no other file does this government seek unanimity from provinces before proceeding with the policy — energy; carbon taxes; even actual funding for health care. In fact, when governments embraced MAID, they most certainly did not have the backing of all provinces, health ministers, medical professionals or doctors.

As for the undue haste in passing the bill to delay the deadline of March 17, the government clearly, in advance, understood that time might be needed for proper debate. They have written right into the bill that should it not be finally passed by March 17, it will apply retroactively so there can be no accidental provisions of MAID. To be frank, no doctor in his or her right mind will provide MAID while it is still subject to the Criminal Code or retroactively subject to the Criminal Code, and, of course, there is the further 90-day waiting period as part of the assessment process.

Why sow this fear among the public so gratuitously? Here in this chamber, on the evening of the Committee of the Whole, we witnessed exactly why all bills should be subject to the rigorous standard of Senate standing committees and not this process.

The ministers, political creatures that they are and must be, treat it like a press conference with annoying reporters asking questions. Many senators had no chance to follow up their questions or press for substantive answers. I was one of the lucky ones, so when talking points were served up as answers, I, at least, had a brief chance to drill down. That is why our committee process works and why the Committee of the Whole works for them, but not for us.

I will give the ministers this: They are both new to their jobs and may have not had time to understand the level of debate that has occurred in this country. Yes, it is a nuanced debate. But it is a time now where we have moved well beyond that in this country. The public is ready. The system is ready. Only the government is not ready.

We have built high fences to ensure safety in the provision of MAID. It offers reassurance for families, and it offers protection for the individuals.

This delay — the denial of rights for some and the deliberate misrepresentation by government ministers of the state of readiness, and of the evidence and testimony heard — is truly troubling. I know this to be true because I sat through the testimony. Witnesses were questioned directly and repeatedly. These witnesses were people like Dr. Mona Gupta, the Chair of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness, who — among others — has been directly involved in the process of developing the regulations and guidelines for MAID assessors and providers. You may have seen the letter she sent to all of us.

As others have mentioned, this is also a sad fact, and part of this debate, that not one individual suffering from a mental disorder or who has been waiting to exercise their right to simply apply for MAID was consulted.

The government ignores those whose lives hang in the balance. It ignores the testimony of its own chosen experts and then tries to argue it was a lack of consensus on the issue. There will never be a consensus on issues that are so personal. But, then again, no consensus was sought. We were looking for a state of readiness, preparedness, and we were told by the providers that the system was ready.

All I can say to you tonight, colleagues, is please go back and read the letter sent on February 12, 2024, from 127 medical professionals. It says in their concluding paragraph:

We urge the Senate to review all of the evidence submitted to AMAD by the people actually involved in getting the Canadian MAiD system and healthcare professionals ready . . . to understand that there are many clinicians who support the implementation . . . .

It’s too late for to Senate because our process has been overridden, but I ask you all, as individuals, to take a moment to read the testimony and hear the advice of the professionals. Do it for the sake of the Canadians who live with mental illness every day of their lives.

Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: On this topic about drying off-site, I happen to come from a province that has 40% of the country’s farmland, so this is what we do for a living. When you keep wet grain on your farm waiting in the queue to go somewhere else to dry it, you lose quality. That is the first loss of money.

The distances are huge in Saskatchewan to go to drying facilities, or they can be. There are huge transportation costs. The differential there is significant. The difference between old equipment and new equipment in terms of efficiency is also very important. I am looking for your thoughts on this, that we just keep a bunch of old equipment around because it might justify this kind of program is an absurd way to approach dealing with the environment or, for that matter, feeding the world.

Senator Wells: Senator Wallin, thank you for your question.

Sometimes people won’t upgrade their equipment because they can’t afford it. They have to make do with what they have. We see that not just in farm operations; we see that in homes as well.

Depending upon what the grain is, you will have different requirements in drying. Corn, I learned, takes longer because it absorbs more water. It does not dry as quickly. The weather is not always consistent for drying, so that is why they have to use automatic dryers.

I learned it is also true that if a product is not dried in the right amount of time, you will get mould and rot. You mentioned the reduction in quality. That is the elimination of quality and elimination of any revenue from that, despite having the costs to get it that far.

All I can say is, you are absolutely right: Having on-site drying gives not just a financial benefit but an operational benefit.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, as a long-time journalist, I am not often shocked or surprised by what politicians say, but for a minister in the cabinet of this country’s government to state that if people in Western Canada voted Liberal, they, too, might be rewarded by a pause or a reduction in the punitive carbon tax — well, it’s beyond the pale, and it’s beyond what we deserve as citizens.

For those of us old enough to remember, it echoes the division and discord that came with the imposition of the National Energy Program or from the words of the Prime Minister’s father when he mused, “Why should I sell your wheat?” Well, at this rate, there won’t be much wheat, lentils or canola to sell.

Let me reiterate. This kind of politicking is divisive in the extreme. It’s unfair. It belies an ignorance about the diverse nature of this country — its rural communities, in particular. As Senator Simons pointed out, heat pumps don’t work when it’s minus 40, so we don’t use them. But that’s a debate for another day.

This report is a slap in the face to farmers and the entire agricultural sector who have pinned their hopes on some relief, as was offered by Bill C-234. That relief has now been snatched away by amendments here in this place which have the force and effect of gutting the bill and denying that much-needed relief.

We had a dry year in Saskatchewan, except that it rained and hailed for three days in late August when the crops were already cut. So now we need to dry the grain.

Farmers were partially exempt from the carbon tax on gasoline and diesel, but natural gas and propane — the fuels they use to dry their grain or heat their barns — were not exempted. This makes farming, food production, transporting, processing, marketing, selling and eating food more expensive.

Bill C-234 was passed with support from every single party in the other place, and I backed it wholeheartedly because compromising our food production should be non-negotiable. But the bill has been gutted, and so I can no longer support it. I urge everyone to vote against the report from the committee and reinstate the original intent of the bill because treating different regions differently because of how they vote is offensive.

It’s also a bit bizarre, I might say, that the government would undermine their core argument for climate policies. It’s their signature. They argued that this tax puts more money in our hands, that the rebates exceed the costs, but clearly not if they now agree that people need relief from the impact of the tax.

That’s what Bill C-234 was supposed to do, what it set out to do. Farmers are not asking for a handout. They put their money where their hearts and lives are. In my own province, for example, more than $11 billion is invested by farmers every spring to get their crops in the ground. This includes the cost of seed, treatment, fertilizer, labour and equipment.

Seeding is a megaproject when you consider the impact of all the component parts of that project, where the seeds come from, where the machinery is built and how the fertilizer is processed. This extends across and infiltrates every aspect of our economy. It’s impossible to overstate the value, not just to our province but to this country. And then comes harvest. Ditto. The economic impact is just as massive.

There are over 34,000 farms in Saskatchewan. That is 43% of the cropland in Canada, in this entire country. Saskatchewan generates more than $18 billion in international sales of that product, and they contribute over $82 billion just to the province’s GDP, never mind the country.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer provided an updated analysis of the exemption for qualifying farm fuel to natural gas and propane, and it shows farmers would save almost a billion dollars through to 2030 — one billion in taxes. That obviously makes our food more expensive in the middle of an affordability crisis. In fact, it makes life more expensive.

Colleagues, the cost of the carbon tax and the new Clean Fuel Standard — also a tax — to farmers is millions upon millions of dollars a year. These costs, of course, move along the supply chain as food makes it from farm to fork. And in the end, the consumer — each of us — pays more.

There are anxious farmers, consumers and businesses across this country who are counting on us, and we should do the right thing for every Canadian regardless of where they live or how they vote. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the second reading of Bill S-276, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report:

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the order of reference of September 26, 2023, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Government leader, last week, I asked about the inexplicable delays in processing work permits for Ukrainians stuck for months in bureaucratic limbo. They came to Canada at our behest to escape death at the hands of Russian invaders. Did you bring this to the minister’s attention? What did they say? Have they reassigned folks to get through the backlog, and if so, how many?

Fleeing one country only to be abandoned by the next isn’t the kind of support and salvation we promised.

Senator Wallin: All right, I’m wondering, then, if you could endeavour to determine how many resources are being put toward those files, what resources have been allocated in terms of money and people — how much and how many. Does the government know the answer to that question?

With the embarrassment that has been caused to Ukraine and the propaganda win it has now handed Russia, it is even more important that we fix this situation for the Ukrainians who are now here, waiting and desperate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I rise today to mark Air Force Day on the Hill and to invite you all to join us tonight to celebrate Royal Canadian Air Force, or RCAF, members, past and present, for their service to — and sacrifice for — our country.

It is my honour to become the sponsoring senator for this event, and I want to thank former senator Joe Day for his many years of service.

Today is an opportunity to publicly recognize Canada’s aviators and to offer our gratitude to both those who fly and those on the ground who make it safe and possible.

As the former honorary colonel of the RCAF, I have flown to Alert, to Afghan deserts, over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans with search and rescue and over Parliament Hill with the Snowbirds, so I know their work: protecting our airspace — and the land below — through surveillance, rescue and warfighting.

The RCAF played a vital role in the Second World War and reached its golden age during the Cold War with combat squadrons on the front lines. The term “Royal” was dropped from the name in 1968, but finally — and rightfully — reinstated in 2011. Their successes and service will continue.

The RCAF Association — the organizer of the event — was created in 1948. Its guiding principle is:

The Association shall stand for loyalty to the reigning sovereign and the principles of democratic and ordered government, for a national and united spirit, and for strong and united comradeship among all who have served in military or civil aviation.

We share those values and a powerful pride in the RCAF because the story of our country is embodied in those who serve.

We are pleased to have with us today in the gallery, as the Speaker said, Lieutenant-General Eric Kenny, Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and other members of the RCAF team, and we are especially honoured to recognize the three recipients of the RCAF Commander Special Recognition: Master Corporal Derek Rooney, Master Corporal Marie-Claude Beaulieu and Aviator Simon Gauthier. Congratulations!

I hope to see many colleagues at the Valour Building tonight at 5 p.m. to celebrate the contribution of our airwomen and airmen. Through adversity to the stars. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Government leader, many Ukrainians believed us when Canada offered refuge, work and a welcoming embrace. I think the unanimous motion here today reinforces that early promise.

However, those with everything in order, with documents submitted, who have paid their own way here, are still waiting months for work visas, stuck in limbo. Their calls are not answered, their employers’ calls are not answered and I cannot get any answers on their behalf.

People need a place to live. People need to eat. They need work. They need an income. Not being able to work makes it impossible to stay or to go.

When will you put the people and resources in place to end the backlog? In my community, Ukrainians came to work in agriculture; now harvest is almost done.

How long should people fleeing death have to wait? Why is the government unwilling to do what it promised it would do and provide proper refuge for Ukrainians?

Senator Wallin: We have made a promise and a commitment, and the President of Ukraine is arriving tomorrow. This is a question that can be solved. Can you put some kind of timeline on it? I have one constituent who has been waiting without a cent coming into his pocket since June 15, having filled out every form, having paid his own way and living off the kindness of strangers in our community.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I am honoured as a colleague and heartbroken as a friend to stand today to pay tribute to the Honourable Hugh Segal.

Ours was a friendship first forged some 40 years ago in the wee small hours of the morning, within the intimate surroundings of a national television studio — every Thursday morning — on Canada AM. Hugh was loved across this country, and across party lines, for his sharp political wit, his analytical precision and his heart. As his friend Liberal Tom Axworthy said, “. . . you were never with him without leaving with a smile on your face and hope in your heart.”

And as Bill Fox, his longtime Conservative friend, put it:

When there was disagreement or debate, that — for Hugh — was simply the starting point for a conversation and the search for compromise.

He believed government must offer freedom from want, as well as freedom from fear — the reason for his commitment to a guaranteed basic income.

He believed in the Tory idea of nation and enterprise — good governance was to be found at the intersection of market freedom and public interest.

He mourned the loss of civility, and was troubled by politicians and the media acting as merchants of polarity — which were his words — undermining hope and optimism.

Hugh was a student of history, and a believer in the Commonwealth, in the monarchy and, most powerfully, in the men and women of the military, whose sacrifice granted and preserved our freedoms.

Winston Churchill, whom Hugh admired, once said, “Fear is a reaction. Courage is a decision.”

Hugh lived a courageous life, from very humble beginnings: His sense of generosity was first learned from his mother who gave away his most prized possession — a simple wooden box — to a neighbour in order to stoke the fire to help keep her child warm.

Hugh always cheered for the underdog — not because they were, but because of why they were.

Today, my thoughts turn to his most passionate battle here in this chamber. He gave voice to those of us who had been silenced. He pleaded with his party’s leadership not to expel three senators without due process, and he did so not because he was my friend — though he most certainly was — but because he believed in fundamental rights.

In his farewell speech, he reminded senators of what our role here is. He said:

. . . above all, to champion the central and indisputable importance of rule of law, due process, presumption of innocence as cornerstones of our democratic way of life, whatever dark forces . . . impose upon us.

Hugh believed not just in the rule of law, but in justice. He was the truest of public servants, an engaged citizen and he was indeed that happy warrior for the causes that truly mattered. There was no better human being, and I am comforted knowing his legacy will live in all of us who had the privilege of his friendship.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, in October 2022, Lilly pharmaceuticals stopped making Glucagon. No one was told — not drugstores, nor the millions of diabetics for whom this is a life-saving medication. They said it was on back order. They eventually replaced the product with a nasal spray that has horrific side effects. My adult niece nearly died three nights ago from choking on her own blood. Novo Nordisk makes a similar product called GlucaGen, but they cannot handle the extreme increase in demand for prescriptions. According to Novo Nordisk, they have been asking Health Canada to bring this product in from the United States to help save lives, as even Canadian hospitals have not been able to secure the product for life-saving measures, as my niece discovered three nights ago.

Senator Gold, can you please beg the Minister of Health and Health Canada to approve the import of the replacement product from the U.S. before someone dies? I’m not asking for an answer from you. Please just raise this as an urgent matter. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the eighth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy entitled Needed: An Innovation Strategy for the Data-Driven Economy and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Wallin, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, as I was saying, Bill C-21 does not meaningfully address the root causes of gun violence — the illegal drug trade, drug addiction, illegal smuggling, gang violence. Again, I will quote the words of Saskatchewan’s Chief Firearms Officer, who says:

If you . . . look at the firearms they have seized and used in crime . . . they aren’t finding these assault style firearms. They aren’t being used. It’s a great optic, they look scary, but every firearm can look scary . . . it’s really the end use.

When we look at the American news . . . they have no regulations, they have no vetting, they have no education programs, they have no safe storage requirements, those firearms aren’t registered. It’s an entirely different paradigm.

The government often uses the U.S. events and their lack of rules to make a case for Canadian law, to shore up their own base, to look tough on crime for urban voters.

But these moves sometimes backfire. The plan to freeze handgun sales in fact triggered a buying frenzy. And many handguns have gone underground, family-owned handguns, because it’s so complicated to transfer to a son or a daughter. Of course, in the end, it will shutter hundreds of small businesses across this country that employ thousands of people selling legal guns to sane, non-criminal buyers.

This bill could also set a precedent for further bans and confiscations that the government may deem necessary for, in their words, “greater good, safety, and well-being of citizens.” It is a bit of a slippery slope.

This legislation, sadly, has little to do with saving innocent lives. The bill puts hunters, collectors and sports shooters in the crosshairs, but not the criminals.

And let’s not forget that an important but always forgotten effect of this bill might actually have to do with the cost of living. Many Canadians could use a gun to go hunting. As the cost of putting food on the table skyrockets, a deer or a moose in the deep-freeze can make a real difference. And killing the coyote that’s killing your cattle saves money and also puts food on the table.

But such practical thinking is just not part of the mindset here in the halls of Parliament. Let’s hope that we can ensure that we look at all aspects of this bill, the potential collateral damage for businesses and hunters, including Indigenous hunters with the traditional and treaty right to do so.

Consider the impact on families. Treat addictions that lead to crime. Enforce the full measure of the law on those who commit crimes with guns. Don’t defund the police or underfund the firearms officers. Support their good work and support legal gun ownership. And throw the book at the bad guys.

The House of Commons had a duty and a responsibility to create a better piece of legislation, and it failed. So it now falls to us. Let’s actually try to make sure Bill C-21 does something to make the country safer. Let’s also make sure that our laws respect the rights of law-abiding citizens. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, a former adviser to President Obama, David Plouffe, pulled back the curtain on how politicians sometimes play politics. He called it the “stray voltage” effect. He explained:

“People pay attention to and engage with controversy.” So . . . as a politician, you commit to a side . . . regardless of whether you’ve ever thought about it — then you support or oppose vehemently!

That is exactly what has become of gun control legislation, Bill C-21. Those who live a more rural life, love to hunt or sport shoot and those who live in urban centres where crime is high — two very different world views.

As Robert Freberg, Chief Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan, says, the bill will essentially criminalize thousands of Canadians despite the fact that it is the legal firearms owners that support training, licensing and registration, despite all of the things they have done to stay in compliance and promote education programs and despite following the “see something, say something” principle. The legal gun owners are now the ones being targeted by legislation.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I wanted to follow up, Senator Loffreda, on the ATSC, the air travellers security charge for safety and security put on passengers. It is going up by 33%. This is paid for exclusively by the flying public. You said that it would generate $1.25 billion a year. That funding is supposed to be recycled back into the system for security and upgrades, but I am told that it goes back into general government coffers for spending on a wide range of things. Do you have any further information on that? Again, it is one of these circumstances where, because it is a separate bill, we did not have time to look at it.

[Translation]

Senator Wallin: When we are told about increasing penalties for smugglers from 10 to 14 years, it sounds great. But today, right now, no one has ever been given the maximum penalty of even 10 years, so 14 years makes no difference. Senator Plett suggested the other day that perhaps there was one such case, but we’re not sure.

Legislation and governments must turn their attention to the people who are constantly in and out of the system, who have firearms prohibitions against them but too often get cut loose in a few hours after an arrest. Chances are the bad guys have more firearms — or access to them — and they just go get more and often end up retaliating against the people involved in their arrest or conviction.

Since 2015, the “soft-on-crime” approach has seen violent crime increase 32%, with 124,000 more violent crime incidents in 2021 compared to 2015, and gang-related homicides have increased 92%.

As we all know, crime is about people who commit the crime. Confiscating guns or knives — knives are now actually responsible for an increasing number of deaths — will not prevent this. A tire iron, a kitchen knife or a fist can kill if that’s the intent.

Government also disingenuously uses the endless horrific and deadly gun-related events south of the border to trigger the gun control debate here — a Uvalde or a Buffalo — but we’re operating in two completely different environments.

Bill C-21 does not meaningfully address the root causes of gun violence: illegal smuggling, gang violence, illegal drug trade and drug addiction. We need to focus on rehabilitation, not red tape.

Senator Wallin: The government wants to take away firearms from the people who have been advocating for licensing of firearms but are now having their property expropriated.

The way the government proceeded on this bill — and this was on several occasions — prevented an informed parliamentary debate or proper committee hearings with a full range of witnesses. Instead, they used cabinet orders to regulate “. . . the circumstances in which an individual does or does not need firearms.” All the more reason for this bill to be well studied by the Senate. We need evidence and facts, not just opinion and politics.

As if to further alienate rural voters everywhere, the Liberals are actually reducing the punishment for crimes committed using guns. With the passage of Bill C-5, the government has repealed one third of all mandatory minimum prison sentences, including for some 14 firearms and tobacco and drug-related offences.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: If you want to stop illegal gun crime, you need to crack down on gangs and gun smugglers, not on hunters and farmers.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of May 30, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on business investment in Canada, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, farmers and food producers everywhere are feeling severe financial pressures. We recently saw Dutch farmers flying their country’s flag upside down to protest their government’s plan to cut fertilizer use in half. The protests generated widespread support as people finally focused on what “farm to table” really means.

Farmers feed the world. Our farmers feed the world.

Arbitrary rules to reduce fertilizer usage or taxes on farm activities will only push high food prices even higher and lead to food insecurity in developed countries and continued shortages in the poorest. Food insecurity is not acceptable in the age of plenty. My colleague Senator Burey just last week spoke very eloquently on this issue. We have a responsibility to ensure that people do not go hungry globally because of some ill-considered policies here at home.

These concerns I have raised relate directly to Bill C-234. There is growing concern about the future cost to farmers and consumers of Ottawa’s approach to net-zero policies and the impact on production and yield, the cost of land and equipment, the movement of grain and what this all means for the global supply of food or global hunger.

Farmers have long known about the cyclical nature of weather and that extreme weather linked to climate change can affect crops, so many of their practices have been revolutionized to respond. Farmers are the stewards of the land and their livelihoods depend on the wise use of water, land and air. They are, in a sense, the original environmentalists.

But the cost of the carbon tax on agriculture has been exorbitant and disproportionate, putting many smaller operations on the auction block or out of business. There have been some exemptions for on-farm use for gasoline and diesel fuel, but this bill seeks to expand that to other qualifying farm fuels like propane and natural gas. This is crucial, as it provides much‑needed relief from the overwhelming cost of the carbon tax on such things as heating or cooling the barns where they keep animals, climate mitigation and, most importantly, grain drying. You can have a great crop, but if it rains at the wrong time, the crop degrades literally overnight — along with its value.

Farmers are not asking for a handout; they put their own money where their hearts live. In my own province, for example, more than $11 billion will be invested by farmers this year across the province to get their crops into the ground in 2023, according to a report from Economic Development Regina. The report takes into account the cost of seed, treatment, fertilizer and labour to reach that $11-billion number. Seeding is without question Saskatchewan’s largest annual megaproject. When you consider the impact of this work extending across our economy, it’s impossible to overstate the value to our province and country.

There are over 34,000 farms in Saskatchewan comprising more than 43% of the cropland in Canada. Saskatchewan generated more than $18.4 billion in international sales last year and contributed over $82 billion to the province’s gross domestic product in 2022.

Colleagues, the cost of the carbon tax and the clean fuel tax to farmers is millions upon millions of dollars a year, and these costs move all along the supply chain as food makes it from farm to fork. In the end, the consumer pays more. It is an inevitability unless we do something about it, here in this chamber, before we rise for the summer so that our farmers can take advantage of this much-needed bit of relief before this year’s harvest.

There are many ways to reduce carbon emissions in agriculture, and farmers are already well ahead of the game. Colleagues, don’t let this bill languish and die on the Order Paper or delay it to another session or another year. Farmers quite literally cannot face another season with the increases to the costs of their operations. Please do not hinder the relief for Canadians who feed this country and the world.

This bill came to us with multiparty support from the other place, with the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois and Green Party all voting in favour. Three of the four parties on that list, of course, support the tax on carbon, and yet they still voted in favour of this bill. I think that sends a message about the necessity of this legislation.

For our farmers, our ranchers and our growers, but also for everyone in this country who is living through one of the greatest periods of food inflation this country has ever seen, please take the right stand. Combatting climate change is important and we are all working diligently, but the burden should never fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those who are at the core of our economy and who feed us. Let’s help them fight food insecurity for all of our sakes.

Thank you.

Senator Wallin: This is absolutely something that we should do. I live in a rural community filled with farmers. I have this discussion on a daily basis. They bring me their bills with the costs to dry their grain and heat their barns; it is quite staggering. We all think about it in terms of what it means when we go to the pumps to fill up, and the gas is slightly more expensive, and then the home heating bill comes — it is impacting everybody, of course. However, they have such a crucial role in our economy. You heard the numbers in terms of the contribution to the Saskatchewan economy, and that filters out. We have farmers everywhere across this country — producers of all kinds, ranchers, fruit farmers and the whole list.

Yes, I think this is crucial — the food inflation issue is huge, and the increases are massive. I was listening to a Saskatchewan farmer on an open-line radio show, and he said that while he was growing up, he was told that it was their job to feed the world — and that’s what they did. They called themselves “the breadbasket of the world.” This has all been exacerbated because of what is happening in Ukraine. They supply a lot of food, which they will not be able to do now. It is even more incumbent on us to try to fill that gap. The Saskatchewan farmer was wistful as he spoke, and he said, “This is what I was taught. I’m a farmer’s son, I’m a farmer and my son will be a farmer. It is my job to feed the world. Please just let me do my job.” That’s how he put it. It was quite powerful because that’s all they are asking to do.

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)