THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 24, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET] for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. Thanks for coming back. I’d like to begin by welcoming members of the committee and those watching this meeting in the room and on the World Wide Web.
My name is Rob Black, and I’m a senator from Ontario and Chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee.
I would like to start by asking senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator for Saskatchewan.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: Renée Dupuis, senatorial division of The Laurentides, Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain, senatorial division of De la Vallière, Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, senatorial division of Inkerman, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond, senatorial division of De Lorimier, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett. I’m from Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today, the committee will continue the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators of a number of points.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to move in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving the amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair, I will listen to the argument or arguments, decide when there’s been sufficient discussion on the matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or show of hands, the most effective route — and we’ll likely move to this most times — is to request a roll-call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can now proceed.
Is it agreed that the committee continue with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Hearing full agreement, we will proceed.
During the committee’s meeting on Thursday, October 19, the committee adopted clause 1 of the bill, as amended, and before we adjourned, Senator Woo moved and spoke to his second amendment:
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 2,
(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following:
“of the day on which this Act comes into force.”;
(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 9.
Senator Woo: Thank you, chair.
Senator Plett: A point of order, chair.
Chair, last Thursday, just before we adjourned — and Senator Woo indeed was speaking to an amendment — with respect to the chair, you had asked before that whether clause 2 carry. Senators agreed that the clause would carry. That meant that debate on clause 2 was over.
Senator Woo then brought his amendment forward, and he did this after this section had already been adopted. Under the Rules, both for committees and for the Senate, we would have needed to revert because it had been carried. We had voted for it, and it carried.
In order to revert, Senator Woo would need unanimous consent, as the Rules of the Senate state. The rules governing committee procedures are the same as the rules that govern proceedings in the chamber, as evidenced by the following: Rule 12-20(5) says, “No Senate committee shall adopt procedures inconsistent with the Rules or practices of the Senate.”
The Rules of the Senate also dictate that items are to be called and dealt with in the numerical order as outlined by rule 4-14:
Except as otherwise ordered by the Senate, Other Business shall be called in the following order, with bills, motions and inquiries called in numerical order within their categories, and any other items within their categories in the order in which they were placed on the Orders of the Day . . . .
If a senator wishes to revert to an item that was previously dealt with, then it is standard procedure that leave must be given to do so. Senate Procedure in Practice outlines this practice on page 75 as follows:
Items under Other Business are called by a clerk at the table in the order that they appear on the Order Paper. Leave of the Senate is required to deviate from this order. . . .
This, chair, is also the case when a committee is considering clause by clause of a bill. We deal with each clause individually in numerical order. This is necessary to allow senators to get a clear idea of exactly what they are voting on and the relevance of each clause as they relate to each other and the bill as a whole.
As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017, edited by Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, in the section “Use of Unanimous Consent”:
Committee decisions are usually made by a majority of the members present. However, with the agreement of all committee members present, a committee may reach a decision without following all the steps of the decision-making process.
Unanimous consent has been used to: depart from, vary or abridge temporarily a committee rule; move a motion in respect of which notice was given by another committee member; and retake a vote on a matter that has already been put to a vote.
See, for example, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, May 18, 2013, Meeting No. 73.
In conclusion, chair, clause 2 of Bill C-234 had already been dealt with and voted on by this committee, as evidenced by the transcript of the last committee.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, chair, Senator Woo will require unanimous leave from this committee to revert to clause 2.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Is there further debate on the point of order?
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Plett, for raising this. I want to make sure we have the excerpts when this clause 2 would have been adopted. Could you ask the clerk to read it and to confirm that it was only related to clause 2 and not to clause 2, page 2?
The Chair: I will get that for you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Woo: Thank you, chair. This point of order is out of order because it was not raised at the time when the matter came up. In fact, we had not only, with your consent and implicitly the consent of the committee, moved on to the amendment that I am proposing, but I had already provided a fairly lengthy explanation of that amendment. I further recall that Senator Plett himself, observing that we were close to the time when the committee would have normally ended its deliberations, asked for an extension of time so that we could finish debating my amendment and other matters that were required by the clause-by-clause procedure.
On those grounds alone, chair, that he, by his actions, consented to the consideration of my amendment, that he did not raise the point of order at that moment — it was not a timely objection — and the fact that no one else on the committee raised an objection, I believe this point of order should be ruled invalid. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo. We have the information for Senator Saint-Germain.
Ferda Simpson, Clerk of the Committee: These are from the transcripts from our meeting on Thursday, October 19:
The Chair: . . . Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
It being 10:55, shall we continue for five more minutes?
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: All right.
Shall the title car — sorry, Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: There is an amendment, amendment 4, that I would like to move. It is in your package. It’s clause 2, pages 2 and 3. May I move the amendment?
The Chair: Please. Senator Woo, you have the amendment?
Senator Woo: Yes. I move:
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 2 . . . .
The Chair: Thank you. That answers your question.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair. To Senator Woo’s point of order regarding Senator Plett not being immediate in his point of order intervention, very often in the chamber, and even in committee, the processes aren’t always picked up right away. Given that it was minutes left in the committee meeting — and I watched the committee proceeding — this is, realistically, the first time that this point of order could have been brought up and should have been brought up. A lot of times we have to confer in chamber with the clerks and find out exactly what the Rules are, and just as Senator Saint-Germain asked about exactly what was said, a lot of times these things have to be confirmed before it’s realistic to bring a point of order, which Senator Plett did in a very timely manner.
Senator Plett: Well, thank you. Senator Wells already very capably said part of what I was going to say, but, indeed, a point of order can be raised at any time. Without question, there was some confusion as to the amendments. It is very common when we debate any clause by clause that there is confusion, and the chair at the last meeting, I believe — and at most meetings — said that if there is confusion, we can go back.
When I look at the unrevised transcript here, again, it said:
The Chair: Being a tie —
— and this was to a different amendment —
— the amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
It being 10:55, shall we continue for five more minutes?
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: All right.
Shall the title car — sorry, Senator Woo?
So when I agreed to the extra minutes, five extra minutes, that was agreeing to finish the discussion on the bill. There had been no amendment put forward when I agreed to that. A point of order can be raised at any time, and — with the highest of respect to the chair because, again, these things are fluid — it would have been the responsibility of the chair, or in the case of the Senate for the Speaker, to ask for leave before we revert, which is what happened here.
We did revert, and you’re right; there was no objection raised at that point. We were all working on what we were doing, and so the point of order can be raised at any time, and it is still valid today.
We did not revert. That requires unanimous consent. It wasn’t asked for. It wasn’t given.
Senator Woo: I think Senator Plett has confirmed that we, in fact, did move ahead in our discussion to consider my amendment with your permission and without the objections of any other members.
The discussion around whether or not we should continue as we approached the hour took place, again, after I had provided a brief explanation of the amendment. That, too, strikes me as a fait accompli, supporting the case that this amendment was very much in order.
If Senator Plett has an objection to your decision, that is a different kind of question that can be considered and that he may want to raise, but the fact that we have moved ahead on my amendment and had an initial discussion already suggests to me that we should be able to continue with it and to vote, as he has said before, on the substance of the matter rather than on the procedure. It seems this committee is becoming a bit like the Rules Committee rather than the Agriculture Committee, but we haven’t even gotten to the substance of the matter at hand.
Senator Wells: Any time in the chamber and in committee when we want to move beyond the normal proceedings — and the normal proceedings, as I believe I heard when the clerk read it, concerned the title: “Shall the title stand?” or something like that. So that was moving towards proceedings. Any time there’s a reversion, just because one senator starts speaking about what he or she wanted to have happened prior, it can’t be assumed that there was agreement. There is always the question to either the chair or to the Speaker to revert. That’s common in chamber, and it’s common in committee, and it’s common that — well, it’s in the Rules that it would have to be unanimous, and, of course, in this case there was no request to revert.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: I have a question for you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. I’m filling in for Senator Petitclerc, and I’d like to make sure I understand what we’re being asked to do and what you’re being asked to do this evening.
If I understood correctly what the clerk read to us from the transcript of the last meeting, you allowed Senator Woo to start the discussion on his amendment. That was your decision.
Before we try to settle anything else, I think if we want to challenge your decision, we’ll have to settle that first. Then we can decide who needs what to come back to discuss an amendment, if I understand the rules and the authority that rests with a committee chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I don’t have the transcript with me, but maybe the clerk could be of assistance. Yes, thank you, Senator Plett.
We had an exchange about the time left. I said at one point that there is one more amendment after this amendment. Oh, we stopped the transcript before that? I remember I said, “You know, we don’t have enough time.” Yes, we denied to continue beyond the time, and I said there’s even more. There’s another amendment to consider, and there are observations to deal with — that’s what I said. I said this couldn’t be done in five minutes.
The Chair: You did say that.
Senator Dalphond: I think that maybe there was a mistake by the chair, and you thought that it was over, but it was pending — this amendment was not considered yet, and there was another amendment after that, which is on page 3.
That reminds me of one night — I forgot when it was — but Speaker Furey was in the chamber. Something happened; there was a misunderstanding about what was happening. He said, “Carried,” or something like that, and somebody stood up and said, “No, I am not finished. I wanted to speak to it. I ask you to reconsider,” and the Speaker took that under advisement and he delivered a ruling the day after or second day after. He said something like, “There was some confusion in the chambers and I could not follow exactly what was going on, and I understand now that the debate was not over, and I should not have said the motion was carried.”
Senator Furey made that ruling. I forget exactly when it was, but it was about two years ago, I think.
The Chair: Thank you. I will be very clear. The transcript said we passed clause 2. I want that very clear. I’m not saying I’ve made a decision, but the transcript says we agreed to pass clause 2.
Senator Plett, did you have something to say?
Senator Plett: I do. Again, with respect to Senator Dalphond, we can all say, “Well, something happened back here. I don’t know for sure what it was, but I vaguely remember it and it worked this way, and that worked in my favour.” And so I really think we need to stick to facts.
As you just said, chair, you very clearly ruled that the clause had carried. There is no argument from any of us here that if there were amendments for further clauses or indeed observations, that we discuss them. There’s no argument with that.
This is a discussion about going backwards. The fact of the matter is, procedurally, we should have been asked whether we were giving leave. We weren’t, and that is wrong.
I don’t want to make your life more difficult or easier, chair. I don’t believe that this is something that the chair should even rule on. This is procedurally incorrect when the Rules of the Senate say you are required to have leave to revert.
The question needs to be posed. It wasn’t posed. We didn’t revert. We didn’t give leave to revert. I think today, in order to deal with Senator Woo’s amendment, that question has to be posed. I wouldn’t put a lot of money on it, but it might get leave today.
But that is the correct procedure: to ask for leave to revert. We will not debate whether or not we should entertain other amendments going forward. We may speak against the amendments, but, certainly, Senator Woo or Dalphond or anybody else has the right to introduce any other amendments that they want. They don’t even have to have them tabled. They can do them off the floor.
However, this particular amendment — to deal with it is simply not according to the Rules. It is out of order, chair. I’m certainly starting to repeat myself, so I’ll try to contain myself and not speak any further, but I believe it’s out of order. I believe we need to move on to the rest of the bill.
Senator Simons: It’s a shame that the motion is clouding what was clearly a very simple series of mistakes that we quickly corrected. The chair got out over his skis. Senator Woo was perhaps not quick enough on the draw. Are those enough western analogies for you?
But it was my understanding that it was understood to be the unanimous consent of the committee that by consensus we went back. Perhaps that was not formal enough. I did not understand at that moment that anyone objected to the fact that we had de facto reverted.
I don’t know that it matters. If this is what is required to give all of our colleagues around the table comfort, then, fine, let’s do it. I don’t know that it will make the outcome at the end any different, but I think it’s unfortunate if what was a simple misunderstanding that in the moment was instantly clarified with the consent of everyone around the table is now retroactively made to sound like it was a much bigger issue than it was in the moment.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Simons, for making me feel better.
Senator Wells: Well, to Senator Simons’ point, there were two clear markers in the transcripts and in what I watched on the recording, and they were both formal and they were both recorded.
The first one was, “Shall clause 2 pass?” or whatever the wording was. And it was all agreed. And then the next thing that I heard when the clerk continued with the next order of business was about the title. That was a clear marker that the discussion of the clause had ended and we were on to the next phase.
Any desire to go back to prior to those two markers would have required a request to revert, which obviously would have required unanimity, and neither of those two things happened.
For me, it couldn’t be clearer. There were two clear markers that we moved on, and those two markers stood as long as there wasn’t a request to revert, which frequently happens in the chamber, as we know.
Senator Woo: Let the record show that a determined group of senators wants to avoid debating a motion, an amendment, that may be good or may be bad and which they can, of course, argue against, and which is part and parcel of our job of scrutinizing this bill, debate on which they would prefer to short-circuit.
Senator Wells: Excuse me, a point of order on this. This is not part of what we are discussing. That’s not part of the point of order.
Senator Woo: Let me get to my point.
My point is that the outcome of this decision — which is focused on the rule, focused on whether or not it’s even legitimate for this amendment to be tabled — will likely be the same as the outcome of the vote on the amendment. But the record will show that there was a focus more on the procedure and the rule than on the substance of the amendment that I am trying to put forward for all Canadians to consider.
So based on my expectation that whatever outcome is likely to take place on the amendment itself is the same as the outcome of this procedural question, I’m prepared, chair, to ask for leave to go back to raise this amendment. And I invite all colleagues around the table to consider what signal you would be sending by denying leave to turn back an amendment that they can vote against anyway and which really is deserving of our debate and consideration.
Senator Wells: If we’re talking about the Rules, then we should also talk about following the Rules, which you clearly are trying not to do. Colleagues should also know that, Senator Woo, if you want to put more amendments in, frivolous as they might be, you can do them at third reading. Your right is still there, and that’s also within the Rules.
Senator Dalphond: I retrieved — my memory is certainly not so bad — the exact excerpts. It was in March 2022. Senator Moncion stood up on a point of order after the Speaker declared the motion adopted:
I rise on a point of order. You said that the motion was adopted, but then you went back on the decision because two senators rose. Since you had already made the decision, may I know why we are reversing course?
Her point was that it was carried; it was finished.
The Speaker’s answer was this:
You make a good point Senator Moncion, but we had not moved on to the other item, and there was some confusion as to what was happening, so I reverted back and recognized the two senators standing to be fair to what was going on. There was obviously confusion. You make a good point, and it would have been far more difficult for me to make that adjustment had we moved on. Thank you for raising that.
Then Senator Plett stood up and commented on the confusion.
I would like to refer to rule 10-5. The rule states:
At any time before a bill is passed, a Senator may move for the reconsideration of any clause already carried.
So it’s one of two things. Either there was confusion, and clause 2 wasn’t carried, and therefore you were right, Mr. Chair, to say to Senator Woo, “Yes, there’s more work to do; you have the floor; go and explain your amendment,” or somebody is challenging your decision today to let the debate resume. Then Senator Woo could move that he wants the committee to move back to consideration of clause 2 — because it was already carried, so it could be reconsidered — and we will vote on it.
[Translation]
Senator Dupuis: If I understood the transcript of last week’s discussions correctly, you said that the clause passed, and you said, “Sorry, Senator Woo,” and you allowed Senator Woo to present his amendment.
There’s a reason we choose a senator as chair; it’s a difficult task. However, I don’t think we can demand that — insofar as you allowed Senator Woo to move his amendment, it’s not as if you said, “I’m sorry, the amendment is adopted,” and if he wanted it reconsidered, he’d have to file a request for reconsideration. That’s one thing, but that’s not what happened, as I understand the deliberations.
As chair, you authorized Senator Woo to introduce his amendment. So we’re not in the scenario they’re trying to present to us here tonight.
[English]
Senator Plett: Again, with respect to Senator Woo, I’m not sure what he meant with “let the record show” in his comments when he was addressing something other than the point of order, but I’m quite happy to let the record show that we are trying to do this by the Rules. I’m quite happy to let the record show that we are doing our level best to get a good piece of legislation across the finish line for Canadians, for farmers and for all of us. We know these farmers are growing food for all of us. So I’m quite happy to let the record show what we’re doing.
The fact of the matter is that we have rules in the Senate, and there are senators who want to change those rules. I respect entirely that they want to change those rules. There are ways to do that. We have a Rules Committee. There are ways to change the Rules of the Senate.
Senator Wells is correct that if Senator Woo believes this amendment has merit and that senators should have the right to vote on it, he can introduce this amendment at third reading, and it will be debated there. If senators agree with it, it will pass.
But we have rules here. Senator Dupuis says that, “Well, you may have made a mistake.” You may have made a mistake. I’m not sure; I’m not the judge of that. All I know is that there are very distinct rules, and those rules do not say, “Unless somebody makes a mistake, then we do this.” The rules are there. The rules are that after a clause passes, you move on to the next clause unless you get agreement to revert. That didn’t happen. Those are the rules. Those are the facts.
I’m not faulting you, chair. I’m not faulting Senator Woo for not jumping to that a little sooner. Certainly, we weren’t going to say, “Well, chair, Senator Woo might have another amendment before we carry clause 2.” That was his responsibility, and he didn’t do that. I’m sure it was unintentional, but that’s simply the way it is.
Chair, I believe we need to move ahead with the rest of this bill. The rules are that we needed to revert. We didn’t. So I’m quite happy for you to ask us now whether we would agree to revert. If we vote not to, then I think we need to move forward.
The Chair: We’ll hear from Senator Woo, and then I’ll move forward.
Senator Woo: In the interests of trying to find a path forward, let me refer to rule 5-8(1)(k), which states that while a bill is under consideration, any element of the bill already agreed to can be reconsidered by way of a debatable motion.
Based on that, even if a committee has carried a clause, it can decide to reconsider it.
Now, I suspect there’s an alignment between those who don’t want to revert and those who don’t like the amendment, so I’m prepared to move this debatable motion now, which is that we go back to the clause in question so that I can table the amendment to the satisfaction of my colleagues. If you’ll give me that ability, I’m happy to do that.
The Chair: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Before I suspend for a short time to confer, I want clarity myself: Is there a need for unanimity on the decision?
Senator Woo: Not under this rule.
Senator Plett: There is on reverting.
Senator Wells: There’s a requirement —
Senator Woo: It’s a debatable motion.
The Chair: I’m asking the clerk. Is there a need to . . .
Ms. Simpson: We can discuss it during the break.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ll discuss that. Then I’ll suspend — very quickly, senator.
Senator Dalphond: Rule 10-5 is that:
At any time before a bill is passed, a Senator may move for the reconsideration of any clause already carried.
The Chair: Thank you. We’ve heard that.
Senator Dalphond: That’s what he is trying to do — not reverting to an item on the Order Paper —
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: — we move down to item 14 and then we need unanimous consent to revert to item 7.
The Chair: I will take it under advisement.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, I want you to know that I’m very proud to chair this committee, and I’m proud of the work that you folks do, and I’m proud of the work that our staff do and the clerks do. It’s very much appreciated. I want to say that up front.
I’m prepared to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Plett.
On page 138 of Senate Procedure in Practice it states:
Rule 10-5 provides that “[a]t any time before a bill is passed, a Senator may move for reconsideration of any clause already carried.” In addition, rule 5-8(1)(k) states that while a bill is under consideration, any element of the bill already agreed to can be reconsidered by way of a debatable motion. Based on this, even if a committee has already carried a clause, it can decide to reconsider it.
The Rules are clear in this respect that a committee may reconsider a clause already carried. This can be agreed to by way of a debatable motion and does not require leave.
I therefore rule that the procedures followed in committee last week are in order and that the committee can resume clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill.
Resuming debate on the amendment.
Senator Woo: In all of the commotion around the procedure, you will recall this amendment is about removing the ability for the extension of the exemption to be granted simply by an order‑in-council together with motions passed in the House of Commons and in the Senate. This approach does not require a fresh piece of legislation to be debated in either place and, therefore, would not require the same amount of scrutiny and care that would go into the consideration of a new bill.
In addition to the matter of climate change being an existential concern — first of all, for farmers, but for all of us — we should, I think, establish a threshold for extending the exemptions that is in keeping with the work we do in Parliament, and that would be to go through the normal process of the government of the day, in its judgment, after consultations, putting forward a bill that provides for an extension period of X number of years.
If you would consider for a moment the counterfactual, which is the current version of the bill that allows for an extension simply by an order-in-council plus motions from the House and the Senate, I think you might agree that the current approach would facilitate a much easier pathway for an extension of the exemption and that it would therefore be more amenable, more susceptible to political pressure and populist initiatives.
I’ve already talked about how the eight-year sunset period will make it more difficult for any farmers to make a transition if they have not done the necessary preparations in the intervening period, because the carbon price will have gone up substantially between now and 2031.
That will also make it more difficult for farmers to not give up the exemptions and add to the political pressure to continue the exemptions, which at that time may not be necessary as, perhaps, they are now.
Therefore, colleagues, my appeal is simply to ask that we do this the proper way. There is a sunset period. There is the possibility of extending the exemptions. My amendment by no means takes that away from the bill, but it allows for a more rigorous and, indeed, more proper process for allowing the exemptions to continue.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Is there any further debate?
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: I’m going to intervene by quoting the witnesses who appeared before the committee. MP Ben Lobb, sponsor of the bill, during his appearance on September 21, 2023, said, “If there is a technological breakthrough, we can change things later.”
Kyle Larkin, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada, in testimony on September 26, 2023, said the following:
. . . we’re not sure what we’ll see in two, three, or four years. We’re not sure what we’ll see in six, seven or eight years.
I would say that eight years is probably the magic number in terms of the research and development required for companies to create viable alternatives.
Dave Carey, Co-Chair, Agricultural Carbon Alliance, in testimony on September 26, 2023, said:
I think the eight-year sunset clause sends a signal to farmers that we understand the financial pressures you are under and that you want to make capital investments on farm, while also sending a signal to companies that serve farmers that we need to innovate.
Alex Cool-Fergus, National Policy Manager, Climate Action Network Canada, in testimony on September 26, 2023, said:
I am not arguing that there are no marketable solutions right now, but if there is no market signal pushing that kind of innovation, then there won’t be any more innovation, whether that is in eight years if this bill comes into effect and is sunset or longer down the road.
Ray Orb, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, in testimony on October 3, 2023, said:
Eight years from now, I really believe that agriculture in this country will be a lot different than it looks right now. As time goes on . . . farmers will become much more efficient.
Ray Orb added the following:
. . . I think, and I’m very confident that in eight years, many farmers will be actually drying their grain using different technology. It might not be anything close to what it is now.
Finally, Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in testimony on October 3, 2023, said:
We support the bill as is, including its sunset clause. The sunset clause is a signal to farm businesses that things will change and that it’s important for them to find ways or find alternative technology and solutions for drying grains, for example. . . . However, right now, we are hearing from our membership that farm businesses need to be supported because of the cost increases that they are facing, and this bill addresses that for them.
The sunset period seems to him sufficient to send the right message to farmers.
So, these are quotes from witnesses we’ve heard from, witnesses who are in favour of the bill, but who say eight years would be enough. So I support Senator Woo’s proposal. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Plett: I know this is likely going to fall on deaf ears, but we at least want to put it on the record because, as I said earlier, we are happy to put on the record our fight for Canadian farmers.
This amendment, in my humble opinion, is completely unnecessary. The section that is being removed was put in the bill in order to provide for an expedited process to extend the sunset clause period if such an extension is deemed necessary.
I would point out that this extension must be initiated by the government and must be approved by both houses of Parliament. It is not a backdoor regulatory process. There is no harm in leaving the process in place in case it is needed. On the other hand, removing the process would potentially harm producers.
There is a precedent for this clause the way it is. Such a provision existed in Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. The current Liberal government chose to use the provision brought in by the Conservatives to renew the sunsetting on extended interswitching but did not renew it a second time when they brought in the Transportation Modernization Act.
The precedent is there, colleagues. This is an unnecessary, harmful amendment, and I will certainly be voting against this amendment. I would encourage all senators to please think about the farmers in our country.
I’m not wanting to take even Senator Saint-Germain’s admonition at the end of the last meeting to not make this personal, so I will try not to, but we have heard last week, and again today we are hearing from Senator Woo and Senator Dalphond when they are destroying a bill that they are doing this because they want to help the grain farmers in the country. I just have a problem wrapping my mind around that we are helping the farmers when we are doing what we are doing to this bill.
We have farmers across the country who are watching us right now and hoping and praying that we will do the right thing and save them from this horrible carbon tax that is being imposed on them and help them so that they can dry their grain, grow their crops and make a living, because they are being asked to produce food for all of us.
Here we have two senators who think they know better than all of these farmers across the country, and we are just falling into that. We have my good friend the Leader of the Government now showing clearly his interest in trying to prevent this bill from passing. This is not a necessary amendment. This is harmful, as the last amendment was. It is extremely harmful.
We know the game that is being played here. We know that the idea here is to make it look like we care about farmers and we are going to improve the bill for you, and then you will get a better bill because somehow we senators all know better what’s best for you. Let’s be clear. Even the amendment the other day, we don’t even need this one. We know what the end game is. The end game here is to send an amended bill back to the House of Commons to try to stop this bill from passing. That is clearly the intent, and I’m afraid it will work.
For the rest of you, senators, who, I believe, really want to help, think about what you’re doing here. Think about what this amendment does, and think about what the amendment the other day did. It kills this bill. Unless we will turn down a report, it will kill this bill. This bill will not pass. Farmers will not have the ability to get their exemptions, and we, colleagues — those of us around this table — will be responsible for that. Thank you, chair.
Senator Cotter: Thank you, chair. Let me say I appreciated your ruling earlier. My own view is that we should be here debating the substance of the bill and its amendments, and not struggling with procedural issues. I’m happy that this is a part of our conversation.
In my view, neither the provision under debate right now nor the amendment are strictly necessary for Parliament to give consideration, if it chooses, eight years from now. And on balance, I would prefer a more typical legislative process than the one that is proposed in the existing bill. That said — and here I think I am channelling the last of Senator Plett’s remarks — every amendment that we introduce into this bill puts in jeopardy the likelihood that the exemption in any form doesn’t see the light of day, and that seems to me to be sad and ironic since, based on our conversation last Thursday, we supported an aspect of the exemption itself at this committee, particularly with respect to grain drying.
So for me, a relatively insignificant provision and a relatively insignificant amendment layered onto this are not justified, and I will vote against this amendment. Thank you.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Woo:
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 2,
(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following:
“of the day on which this Act comes into force.”;
(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 9.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: I’d prefer a voice vote, please.
Honourable senators, I’ve requested a recorded vote. I’ll first ask the clerk to name all the senators present who are entitled to vote at this time please.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Black; the Honourable Senator Burey; the Honourable Senator Cotter; the Honourable Senator Cardozo; the Honourable Senator Dalphond; the Honourable Senator Dupuis; the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.; the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne; the Honourable Senator Oh; the Honourable Senator Plett; the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain; the Honourable Senator Simons; the Honourable Senator Wells; the Honourable Senator Woo.
The Chair: Thank you. If any member present does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now.
The clerk will now call members’ names, beginning with the chair, followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order. Members should verbally indicate how they wish to vote by saying “yea,” “nay” or “abstain.”
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Nay.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: Yeas, 7; nays, 7.
The Chair: The motion in amendment, therefore, is defeated.
I’m going to ask if there are any other amendments.
Honourable senators, shall the title carry?
Senator Simons: Don’t we have to go back and say, “Does clause 2 carry?”
The Chair: Do we have to go back to clause 2?
Ms. Simpson: Yes.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Since there were amendments included that were adopted, is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes as a result of the amendments adopted by this committee, including updating cross-references and renumbering provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to this report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Simons: Oh, yes.
The Chair: Of course.
We will now move in camera to discuss the text of observations and further to consider a draft report. Is it agreed?
Senator Dalphond: I propose that we stay in public. We have nothing to hide from the public.
The Chair: Is it agreed, colleagues, that we stay in public to discuss observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee allow the transcription of today’s meeting, this part of it, that one copy be kept with the clerk of the committee —
Now we’ll discuss the observations. Do we have any to put forward?
Senator Simons: Are we doing them in alphabetical order?
The Chair: You said yes first.
Senator Simons: Okay, then we’re doing mine first.
My observation is quite simple and might be combined with some of the other ones when we get to them. My observation simply reads:
[Translation]
The committee recognizes that greater public and private investment in research and development into viable drying and heating technologies is needed to prepare for the sunset clause provision of this bill. The financial burden of this technological transformation should not fall solely on the shoulders of farmers.
[English]
The Chair: Is there any discussion?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I agree.
The Chair: Are we agreed that this observation should be appended?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Burey: Thank you so much. I’m learning a lot, as usual. My observation is about clean technology as well:
We have been made aware that the Agricultural Clean Technology Program is currently oversubscribed. In light of this, we strongly recommend expanding the accessibility and availability of this fund to a wider group of farmers as a critical step in mitigating greenhouse pollution emissions and fostering sustainable agricultural practices.
I just wanted to say that it has really been a privilege listening to all the witnesses, speaking to farmers. Coming from a different system, from the medical profession, and understanding how systemic change works, especially with complex science and complex adaptive systems, you need many levers.
Take, for example, a recipe. You could have all the ingredients, but if you don’t have the yeast — we’re talking about leavened bread — it’s not going to rise. That’s what I have found in the community. If we don’t have all the levers that were mentioned by the David Suzuki Foundation applied, to be effective, this Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act needs to be applied broadly. There need to be provisions for revenue recycling. There has to be equity and — this is my observation — government investment to support development of adoption of cleaner technologies.
I would ask that you consider this amendment, colleagues.
Senator Simons: I very much support Senator Burey’s observation, which I think flows naturally from mine. I think it very much parallels one of Senator Dalphond’s observations.
I wondered if Senator Dalphond would consider that appropriate sort of —
The Chair: We’ll get to that.
Senator Wells: Thank you, chair, and thank you, Senator Burey, for that observation. I agree fully. If there is to be a program like the Agricultural Clean Technology Program, it should have enough capacity to take care of those who would like to apply. Clearly, if it’s oversubscribed, there’s not enough, and I think this observation that the government make provisions in that program for those who wish to subscribe is good.
Of course, the objective is noble, namely, to mitigate greenhouse pollution emissions. I think that’s part of the market signal that we would think is a positive step.
Senator Plett: First, I also agree with Senator Burey, but I also agree with what Senator Simons said about it being very similar to Senator Dalphond’s observation. For the sake of not having more observations than necessary, I’m wondering whether they could meld them together somehow.
Senator Dalphond: I accept the suggestions of my honourable colleague here, Senator Plett, and I move to withdraw my observation.
The Chair: That’s the clean technology and grain drying, is it?
Senator Dalphond: It’s the same objective, yes.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Are we agreed that Senator Burey’s observation be appended to this amended bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Are there any further observations?
Senator Woo: Yes. You will have received a copy of this observation. It has to do with the rebate on Bill C-8 and the Senate National Finance Committee. Would you like to circulate it if colleagues haven’t seen the observation yet?
Shall I just go ahead and read it?
The Chair: Yes. We should read it into the record.
Senator Woo: My observation reads as follows:
On June 9, 2022, the Government and Parliament introduced a refundable tax credit via Bill C-8, designed to return the estimated fuel charge proceeds from the on-farm use of natural gas and propane in grain drying and barn heating activities to farmers located in backstop jurisdictions. The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance work with the Canada Revenue Agency to target this refund more precisely and effectively to farms that rely on natural gas and propane for grain drying, or to eliminate it if Bill C-234 is adopted, to avoid double compensation.
The Committee notes that it did not receive a report from the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance pertaining to these matters, as requested by the Senate through a motion adopted on June 13, 2023. . . . The financial aspects of this matter merit further examination, per the Senate’s motion.
The Chair: Can I just be clear? You started that last sentence by —
Senator Woo: Yes, I shortened it.
The Chair: Okay, thank you. That should be noted.
Any further comments?
Senator Plett: Well, respectfully, I disagree with this observation. Senator Woo has another one that I do agree with, but this one I don’t. This observation, in my opinion, is contradictory to the intent of the bill because it asks the government to target the existing rebate more effectively when, in fact, Bill C-234 will make the rebate redundant.
Furthermore, the government already has a plan in place to rescind the rebate should Bill C-234 pass. I don’t think this observation is in place.
Senator Wells: I’m in agreement with Senator Plett on that. Certainly, the possibility to have double compensation would be avoided or would be eliminated by a policy decision of the CRA, and that can be a directive from the minister. I don’t think that’s something that’s worthy of a specific observation, because it’s obvious that it wouldn’t happen anyway.
Concerning the other comment that Senator Woo has in his observation regarding the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, they — through their own discussion perhaps at the steering committee or with the full committee — decided not to go with that, which is their right. They can just have the primary committee study the bill, which it did in full. Of course, it will go back to the Senate for third reading anyway, where any of the issues that National Finance could have addressed can be addressed.
I think it’s redundant to have this in a process that’s already being covered.
Senator Woo: I thank Senators Plett and Wells for their comments. The observation concerning Bill C-8 and refundable tax credit allows for the possibility that the bill is adopted, in which case the observation says that the non-refundable tax credit should be eliminated. However, we cannot prejudge where this bill will go from here. I think it’s important to put on the record that there is a mechanism that does provide rebates to farmers who use natural gas and propane in its entirety but that this rebate is not well targeted. It is in part the design of the rebate that it should not be perfectly targeted, but we heard comments from a number of witnesses that perhaps there could be some better targeting of the refundable tax credit, which maintains the greenhouse gas pollution pricing incentive.
To make sure that we are not in a situation where farmers get nothing because this bill doesn’t go through at all, I think it’s valuable to advise the government to see if they can do better with the refundable tax credit that they’ve already put in place.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Colleagues, is it agreed that this observation be appended to the Agriculture and Forestry Committee report?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I think we had better roll call.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dupuis?
Senator Dupuis: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Gold, P.C.?
Senator Gold: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Abstain.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: Yeas, 10; nays, 3; abstentions, 1.
The Chair: The observation will be appended to the amended bill and report.
Are there any further observations?
Senator Woo: Let me read the observation, and then I want to make a short comment.
The observation is as follows:
The Committee observes that climate change is a major and worsening threat to the stability of Canada’s agricultural sector. The Committee urges the federal government to continue to develop, support, and appropriately fund programs to stabilize on-farm revenues at risk, due to extreme weather events and other sources of volatility, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s business risk management programs such as AgriStability and AgriInsurance.
Chair, may I give a quick commentary on the observation?
What we heard, colleagues, is that farmers face a lot of uncertainty in their business, a lot of volatility because they are price takers, volatility due to the variability of input as well as output prices.
It was my assessment that propane and natural gas, while definitely a source of volatility — downward volatility in this sense because natural gas prices have fallen significantly — are, in fact, a relatively minor source of volatility that farmers face.
If we are really concerned about the risk that farmers face because of uncertainty in world markets, uncertainty about the weather, uncertainty around input prices, we need to have a more holistic solution. This observation encourages the government to look at that bigger picture.
The Chair: Any further comments?
Senator Dalphond: I have two comments. The first is that farmers are not necessarily all price takers. Some are price makers when they are in the supply management system. It applies to milk, poultry and eggs.
The second comment is that I will gladly withdraw my last observation because it covers the same idea. I will withdraw mine. It will make the debate even shorter. Once more, I’m following the advice of Senator Plett.
The Chair: Which one are you withdrawing? Can you tell us?
Senator Dalphond: The last one, called “Climate change and carbon pricing.”
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Cotter, is this on the observation?
Senator Cotter: Yes, I support this observation.
I’m just worried about the wording and whether it seems to say what you intend it to say. In the latter part of it, it says it’s important for the government to:
. . . support, and appropriately fund programs to stabilize on-farm revenues at risk, due to extreme weather events and other sources of volatility . . . .
Then there’s a list of a number of agriculture programs that sound like —
Senator Woo: — the sources of volatility.
Senator Cotter: — the sources of volatility.
If we could get Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada out of this, maybe farmers would be better off and that might draw some support.
It might be something that we could leave to the clerk and others to structure it in a way that identifies these as ways by which the volatility can be moderated, rather than as causes of the volatility.
Senator Woo: Every committee needs a good grammarian. He’s absolutely right.
Perhaps the way to do it is to move the phrase referring to Agriculture and Agri-Food programs — to insert that phrase right after the words “appropriately fund programs” and then to continue with the rest of the sentence, or to break it up into two sentences.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further discussion on this observation?
Colleagues, are we in agreement that this observation be appended to the amended bill in our final report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you, colleagues.
Any further observations?
Senator Simons: It’s not an observation.
Senator Black has pointed out to me that I erred in not providing a title for my observation. I would like to call it “Alternate technologies.”
The Chair: Thank you.
Anything further? I’m going to ask the same question of Senator Burey.
Senator Burey: May I respond, Mr. Chair? “Supporting agricultural clean technology adoption.”
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, since we voted on these, or we called them in order, it would be my suggestion that we list them in the order of adoption. Are we agreed on that one?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the draft report be adopted in both official languages and that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report in both official languages, taking into consideration this meeting’s discussions and with any necessary editorial, grammatical and translation changes required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the chair be authorized to present the report in the Senate in both official languages at the earliest opportunity?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Both of those are carried.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, committee members, for your active participation.
Senator Wells: Sorry, did you ask if the title stood?
The Chair: We did that already.
Senator Wells: Thanks.
The Chair: It was carried.
Anything further?
Thank you to the committee members for your active participation in dealing with this bill.
I’d like to also take a moment to thank the staff and the clerk’s staff and support for all your work — very much appreciated — and to thank the folks behind us, our interpreters, the Debates team transcribing this meeting and all those involved in supporting us around this table and in our offices.
Is there any further business, colleagues?
Senator Simons: Yes. We need to go in camera to discuss Thursday’s meeting.
The Chair: We’ll go in camera.
Senator Dalphond: Before we go in camera, I would like to thank you for having chaired these meetings. I know there were some debates and questions of procedure; they are technical and difficult. You kept your calm all the time and you were a good chair. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Cotter: I would like to extend the thanks to the members of the committee whom we may never see again. It was great to have you.
The Chair: The steering committee will meet immediately following this to discuss Thursday’s meeting. If there’s no other business, honourable senators, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)