THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 19, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act; and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. I would like to begin by welcoming the members of the committee, as well as those watching on the World Wide Web.
My name is Robert Black, a senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee. I will now ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Simons: I’m Paula Simons from the province of Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Cotter: Brent Cotter, senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Senator René Cormier from Nouveau-Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good morning. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, gentleman farmer from Nova Scotia.
Senator Plett: Don Plett, Manitoba.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. Welcome, colleagues.
Today, the committee is meeting to begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
If, at any point, a senator is not clear about where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that, at all times, we all have the same understanding of where we’re at in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved 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 might have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is, therefore, useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where the amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it could 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 might be of consequence to others and which might be contradictory.
If committee members ever have questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can raise a point of order. As the chair, I will listen to the argument, decide when there has 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 of the chair 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 a show of hands, the most effective route 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 before we proceed? Okay. We can proceed.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Senator Dalphond, please present your amendment.
Senator Dalphond: I am proposing an amendment to clause 1, on page 1. I’ll read the amendment:
[Translation]
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 1,
(a) on page 1, by replacing lines 4 to 15 with the following:
“1 (1) Paragraph (c) of the definition eligible farming machinery in section 3 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is replaced by the”;
(b) on page 2, by deleting lines 1 to 10.
[English]
This amendment means that the bill will be limited to grain drying equipment, and will essentially exclude the heating of barns. The amendment will limit the exemptions targeted by this bill to grain drying, and will exclude barn heating and cooling.
The committee clearly heard that alternatives and efficiencies are really achievable in barn heating. This is the case more so than for grain drying, although significant efficiencies are also possible. MP Ben Lobb, the sponsor of the bill, said in this committee that there are more efficient grain dryers. Professor Chandra Singh from Lethbridge College spoke about the reduction of about 30% being achievable in grain drying with more efficient equipment.
But let’s move to heating; heating is even clearer. Alternatives or efficiencies in barn heating or cooling include better insulation; in-floor heating; geothermal heat pumps; air-source heat pumps; energy-efficient ventilation fans; biomass heating; LED lighting; more natural lighting; light-coloured, heat-reflective paints; et cetera. We’re familiar with some of those options from homes and other buildings located in Canada. Many Canadians and businesses are investing in such ways to reduce emissions, as incentivized by the carbon pricing policy.
The sponsor of the bill, MP Lobb, said:
If you look at the heating of barns, it’s moving lockstep with the innovations that are heating a home, a commercial building or an industrial building — because it only makes financial sense.
This amendment will maintain the financial incentive to reduce emissions from raising livestock in barns by investing in alternative or efficient barn heating or cooling — an option available right now. We have been told by some supporters of this bill that it responds to a lack of viable alternatives, or perhaps it is implied efficiencies. With barn heating, this is a false premise. Parliament should not legislate on a false premise.
Finally, in the bigger picture, this amendment will discourage other sectors from seeking to exempt their economic activities that involve heating buildings, such as retail stores, supply chain infrastructure and other businesses — perhaps through other private members’ bills. We must guard against poking holes in Canada’s current climate plan, as occurred in Scandinavia, according to Professor Kathryn Harrison, one of the witnesses.
Emissions imposed on environmental costs with pollution that should have a price to encourage reduction — and at this time of the climate crisis. With this amendment, we can, at least, draw a line. We can say that if you can readily invest to reduce emissions in barn heating or cooling, which is the case, our law should incentivize that while providing relief to the 2022 tax rebate via Bill C-8. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Dalphond:
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 1,
(a) on page 1, by replacing lines 4 to 15 with the following:
“1 (1) Paragraph (c) of the definition eligible farming machinery in section 3 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is replaced by the”;
(b) on page 2, by deleting lines 1 to 10.
Senator Burey: Thank you for being on this committee, Senator Dalphond. I really respect your comments. I’m a junior senator, so I’m learning. Of course, the first thing they give you is the book Senate Procedure in Practice, which I have been studiously reading.
I want to raise a point of order to find out if this is allowable. It is regarding the admissibility of my esteemed colleague’s amendment — whether or not this amendment is admissible.
On page 141 of the Senate Procedure in Practice book, it states:
An amendment must respect the principle and scope of the bill, and must be relevant to it. It is a fundamental principle that “[a] committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.”
It further says that it should not be destructive in its goals.
I’m going to focus my arguments on the scope of the bill, the decision at second reading and whether this amendment is destructive to its original goals.
I quoted the summary of the bill regarding the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. It says that this bill amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of “eligible farming machinery” and to extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane. That means eligible farming machinery — grain drying and heating and cooling for livestock — and qualifying farming fuels now include marketable natural gas and propane.
Now, at second reading, the objective was laid out by the sponsor to create additional exemptions for critical farming practices, such as grain drying, heating and cooling barns and greenhouses. That was also intended by the sponsor in the other place. That answers the question of the scope and what was decided at second reading.
Now, this is the third point of amending a bill in a manner destructive to its original principles and goals: Removing property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure used for raising or housing livestock or growing crops — which is really the effect of Senator Dalphond’s amendment, in my opinion — would be destructive to the bill’s original purpose.
Chair and my colleagues, I’d like your ruling and debate on whether this amendment is admissible.
The Chair: On debate on this point of order?
Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Burey, for raising that question, and for your diligence in studying the Senate Procedure in Practice.
I don’t agree that this amendment is destructive to the purpose of the bill. The very idea of exemptions raises a question of which sectors should have exemptions, and it’s reasonable for a Senate committee to think about whether the sectors and processes described should be included or excluded. It’s conceivable that this committee could have considered sectors to be included for further exemptions. We have not done that. Certainly, I have not heard any suggestions to that effect. To do the reverse, which is to take out one of the sectors deemed to be inappropriate, in the view of Senator Dalphond, I think is entirely in keeping with the general thrust of the bill.
This amendment, as explained by Senator Dalphond, has a logic to it. It’s not done capriciously. It is not done in a way that is malicious in intent to damage the bill for the sake of damaging the bill. If you listen carefully to Senator Dalphond’s explanation, we will all have heard that there are, in the case of barn heating, alternatives to natural gas and propane because of the parallels to the heating of buildings in general.
We know very well — from our experience living and working in buildings and managing homes — that the technology to improve heating efficiency has improved dramatically, and that many of us, myself included, respond to incentives to install the sorts of changes that are needed to improve efficiency. The same, in many respects, applies to barns. The logic is defensible. I don’t know if you will support it, but the logic is defensible, and therefore, chair, I respectfully suggest that this point of order be declined.
The Chair: Thank you. Further debate on the point of order?
Senator Plett: Senator Burey suggested that she is somewhat of a new committee member. I’m probably a little newer than she is for this particular committee, but, of course, I spent the first 9 or maybe 10 years of my Senate life serving on the Agriculture Committee and definitely enjoyed that, and I’m happy to be here today.
The sponsor of the bill in the Senate is away on some other Senate business, and he couldn’t attend this particular meeting, and so, as an ex officio member, I’m here.
Chair, I could make some opening remarks. They are relevant to both this amendment as well as to others, and then I want to make some comments specifically on this amendment in support of Senator Burey’s point of order.
The Chair: So you will be speaking to her point of order?
Senator Plett: I will be speaking to her point of order, but this encompasses this and all amendments — whether or not you, at the end, rule in favour of Senator Burey’s point of order.
Amending this bill, colleagues, will hurt farmers because it will delay the legislation which the agriculture community has told us is critically needed. I have spoken with multiple farm organizations about these amendments, and they are very upset that possibly a handful of senators are, as they say, playing games with their livelihood.
This is what the Grain Farmers of Ontario told me: “The biggest reason for us not to support these or any other amendments is that the amendments further delay relief from the carbon tax for our farmers because the bill will be forced to go back to the House of Commons.”
We have been working on this for years. Relief is needed now for farmers who are right now taking their crop off and drying it. If the Senate passes this bill this fall, farmers could have their relief this year on their harvest, and that would be the best outcome for the farmers.
Now, I would understand these amendments if there were substantive reasons for them, but there are not. Anyone who has been paying attention to the testimony at committee, and the other evidence presented, knows this is not the case. These amendments are, in fact, frivolous and vexatious.
This bill was studied extensively at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The proposed amendments provided no added value, and we should respect the work and the decision of the House. This bill received unanimous support from the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, and a number of Liberal members voted in favour of this, including the Chair of the Agriculture Committee.
The Chair: Excuse me, Senator Plett.
Senator Woo: I want to come in afterwards.
Senator Plett: They’re all parties that support the pollution price, but decided that this bill was the right course of action for farmers for food security and for the environment.
Now, specifically to this amendment, I would like to second what Senator Burey has already said: She proposes this amendment is out of order because it changes the spirit of the bill, and should be ruled out of order.
I will read some excerpts from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states the following:
To be admissible, amendments should conform to the rules and practices of the House in order to preserve the integrity of the bill. The committee Chair rules on the admissibility of amendments and is advised by the legislative clerk.
The following are the most common rules of admissibility:
Principle of the bill: The principle of the bill is the object or purpose which the bill seeks to achieve. The principle of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment contrary to the principle of the bill is inadmissible.
Scope of the bill: The scope of the bill means the schemes or ways by which the principles of the bill are achieved; the scope of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment that goes beyond the scope of the bill is inadmissible.
When a bill is referred to a committee before second reading, amendments may alter the principle and scope of the bill.
Chair, this amendment undermines the principle of the bill and is clearly outside the scope of this bill, and I would like to read into the record a letter, if I could, from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to this. This is, of course, addressed to you, Senator Black, but it’s copied to, I’m sure, all senators:
We are writing today in relation to your committee’s study on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill is an extremely important one for Canadian farmers across the country and was supported by members representing all parties in the House of Commons. The Commons Agriculture Committee took careful consideration of the proposed legislation and made amendments to the sunset clause with a proposed exemption at eight years while also ensuring buildings supporting crop production were included in the spirit of the bill.
While we both appreciate the Senate has a role in scrutinizing legislation coming from the House, there should be some restraint from members in completely changing the spirit and intention of the democratically elected House. The proposed amendment tabled by Senator Dalphond to delete provisions related to the heating of buildings housing livestock or to grow crops would completely undermine the intention of the bill and the expression of the vast majority of the House of Commons. We are of the view this initiative is intended to remedy an oversight in the original price on pollution legislation, which did not include propane and natural gas in the list of exemptions.
Again, time is of the essence. This bill matters to farmers, and as winter approaches, the proposed legislation will impact farm affordability and cash flow. Any amendments to the bill would further delay its implementation, and while we appreciate the role of the Senate, we ask your committee members to weigh their proposed amendments versus the merits of advancing this meaningful initiative. Your work matters, and farmers are counting on you. As your parliamentary colleagues, we ask that you advance Bill C-234 as quickly as possible.
That is signed by Kody Blois, the Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, and John Barlow, the Vice-Chair of the House Agriculture Committee.
Respectfully, I would like to second or support Senator Burey’s motion that this is out of scope and out of order.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
Senator Woo: It is extraordinary to hear Senator Plett make an argument that we should essentially roll over to what the House of Commons has sent us, and to read into the record a letter from two co-chairs — the chair and the vice-chair — of a committee in the House, essentially browbeating senators into following what they want us to do.
The only part of that letter that we should pay attention to is the request that we take the amendments on their merits, and to see if they conform to our judgment using our sober second thought on whether this is good for the country. We should not be cowed by the threats that they are elected and we are unelected. We should not be cowed by the fact that they have made decisions already in the House and expect us to follow suit.
With respect to the question of the scope of the bill, this is a bill about exempting particular parts of farming activity. One significant farming activity, which is crop drying, is untouched in the amendment proposed by Senator Dalphond. To exclude part of the coverage is not, by any means, changing the intent of the bill. There are many examples of bills where senators have moved to excise coverage of items in bills that were sent from the House. I would encourage the clerk — who may now be doing some research on whether this, in fact, is a legitimate point of order — to request her colleagues to look into examples of numerous bills where senators have asked to strike out certain parts of bills that limit the overall coverage. That is exactly the same thing that we’re doing here today, and that is why this point of order is not valid.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I salute Senator Burey and her new perspective on the way we shall debate bills in the Senate, as well as the role of committees and the need for debates — or ways to prevent debates. That’s interesting.
To address a few points made by Senator Plett, I remember that in the two previous parliaments, the House of Commons adopted two motions — not one — begging the Senate to adopt Romeo Saganash’s bill about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and Rona Ambrose’s bill about judge training. They said, “We adopted these bills unanimously and we beg you to adopt them.” Senator Plett was one of those who was very offended by that. He said it was threatening the independence of the Senate.
I think the same could be said today of the letter that was sent yesterday, and I certainly agree with what he said at the time about the independence of the Senate. I still believe that he believes what he said at the time. I believe what he said at the time.
On the scope of amendments, the ruling is always the same from the Speakers. You can look into the books. There is a presumption that amendments are valid. This is the rule. What is the scope of an amendment? Let’s look at previous discussions that we had in the Senate over the last few years: discussions about Bill C-21 regarding guns and the amendments that were made in committee. I’m happy to hear what Senator Plett is saying this morning because I suppose that’s going to be applied further when we discuss the new Bill C-21, and the types of amendments that can be made to the bill. I expect that he will be consistent with the principles he’s raising.
I’ll refer to Bill C-48, or the tanker ban. The types of amendments that were made in committees, including with the support of the Conservatives, were to have a corridor, for example, and Senator Miville-Dechêne will remember this — instead of having a ban, it would be a corridor to let ships go through. That was found perfectly acceptable to the Conservatives. Let’s look at the amendments made recently to the Broadcasting Act.
Quite frankly, I’m impressed by the abilities to make arguments this morning that run contrary to whatever their behaviour was. It is well known that when you try to find out what the principle is, you look at behaviour, and past precedents establish the rules.
Mr. Chair, this point of order is a very clever attempt to derail the debate before us this morning, but it’s not a valid point of order. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I agree with Senator Woo that we should not be intimidated or cowed, as he put it, by the people in the House of Commons. I understand some of the arguments that Senator Dalphond is making, but we all seem to be forgetting the opinion of the farmers here. It’s the farmers who are going to be pinched here. Instead of us fighting back and forth about what we said about our own independence, it’s the farmers who will be paying the tax going into this winter, and trying to keep their farms and families going — I think we should concentrate on that.
Senator Plett: I will be very brief. First of all, I wasn’t the one who initially proposed the point of order, but Senator Dalphond is now saying I made a clever attempt here with Senator Burey. I was supporting her.
Second, I know that Senator Woo and Senator Dalphond take great pleasure in standing on their soapboxes and criticizing me whenever they have the opportunity. I was not being critical of them or anybody else in this committee, and, quite frankly, they should stop their childish games about trying to find fault with me as opposed to trying to find fault with a piece of legislation. If they want to do that, that’s fine.
But, chair, let’s be civil here. Here are a couple of gentlemen who 96% of the time have voted with this government. If ever there is anybody that’s been cowed by a government, it is these two individuals, and they have the nerve to start saying that I’m inconsistent with what I believe. I’m very consistent. I support every farmer in this country. I grew up in a farming community. I know what the farmers are experiencing. I know these are frivolous ways of stalling this bill on behalf of whoever has ordered them or instructed them to do so — we all know that is the case.
If Senator Woo and Senator Dalphond simply want to filibuster and play around with this so that this doesn’t get done, that’s fine. We can do that. I will do that as well. But if they want to grow up and start acting like gentlemen, and debate the merits of the bill as opposed to debating their love or lack of love for Don Plett, then I’m willing to do that.
Let’s move on, chair. I think you have a duty. I think there’s been a suggestion that something is out of order. It was not made by me — it was made by another colleague, and I simply supported it.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Senator Woo: Chair, I would just say that Senator Plett has levelled some personal attacks on both Senator Dalphond and me, talking about being childish and asking us to grow up. That should not be allowed in this committee. It should never be allowed in any Senate debate, and I wish you would call that out.
On Senator MacDonald’s point that we should listen to farmers, I agree. I agree that this is about farmers, and we all have to make our judgment about what is best for the farming sector, for the Canadian economy and for the environment, but that has nothing to do with the point of order, and I’m sure, chair, you understand that very well.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further debate?
Senator Dalphond: To conclude the remarks about the point of order, I refer you, Mr. Chair, to the summary of the bill, as introduced in the House of Commons:
This enactment amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of eligible farming machinery and extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.
My amendment doesn’t change that. My amendment will limit the scope of the amendments, but it doesn’t change the fact that the bill is about amending the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act; it doesn’t deny that.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further debate?
Senator Oh: Chair and committee members, I have been travelling across Ontario and other parts of the country, and I have met many farmers. The message from farmers was that it’s very important to get this bill passed before the winter. They need this bill — not only for pollution and climate change, but also for inflation and the critical condition of our economy.
I hope the committee will work toward getting this bill passed as soon as possible. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Any further debate? Colleagues, I’ll take your comments under advisement and ask if you agree that we suspend for a few minutes while the clerk and I discuss this point of order. Is that fair enough?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Colleagues, thanks for being here. Thanks for sticking around.
Honourable senators, it is now my intention to rule on the point of order raised by Senator Burey on Senator Dalphond’s amendment. I would like to thank all senators who participated in the debate on the point of order. We have heard references throughout that debate to previous rulings, so I won’t repeat those references, which state the importance of the principle of the bill at second reading.
Applying the ideas around the principle to the point of order, the basic objective of Bill C-234 is to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of “eligible farming machinery” — grain drying and heating and cooling for livestock — and for “qualifying farming fuels” to include “marketable natural gas.” To remove structures from the bill as to exclude barns and greenhouses, in my thinking, would be destructive to the bill.
The structures themselves are essential to Bill C-234. Senator Dalphond’s amendment effectively reverses the principle of the bill. Since the amendment goes against the basic principle of the bill and does not reflect the decision made by the Senate at second reading, I’ll deem it out of order. While debate is allowed and welcomed in this committee, I find that the amendment is inadmissible, and thus I rule in favour of Senator Burey’s point of order.
Senator Dalphond: As you may know, a similar amendment was proposed in the House of Commons during the committee study. It was defeated 6 to 5, but it was debated, and nobody thought it was against the bill. It was a similar amendment. Mr. Chair, I ask that your decision be reconsidered by the committee.
The Chair: With that in mind, there is no debate on it, so this is my question put to the group: Shall the chair’s ruling be sustained?
Honourable senators, there’s been a request, and I believe we’re going to do a recorded vote. I will first ask the clerk to name all the senators present who are entitled to vote at this time.
Ferda Simpson, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Black, the Honourable Senator Burey, the Honourable Senator Cardozo, the Honourable Senator Cormier, the Honourable Senator Cotter, the Honourable Senator Dalphond, the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, the Honourable Senator MacDonald, the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, the Honourable Senator Oh, the Honourable Senator Simons, the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, the Honourable Senator Woo and the Honourable Senator Plett.
The Chair: 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.” The clerk will then announce the results of the vote, and the chair will declare whether the ruling is sustained or defeated.
The question is: Shall the chair’s ruling be sustained?
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: Abstain.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Abstain.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: No.
Ms. Simpson: Yeas: 5; nays: 7; abstentions: 2.
The Chair: Thank you. The chair’s ruling was not sustained, so we will now move to a debate on the amendment that was proposed by Senator Dalphond.
Senator Plett: As I’m sure you know, I strongly oppose the amendment. This bill has been carefully crafted, and I know that Senator Woo is going to be unhappy that I am speaking again, but, nevertheless, I will make my comments.
This bill had the support of MPs from every political party. It was passed by a vote of 176 to 146, including all Conservatives, all of the NDP, all of the Bloc Québécois and all of the Green Party. Three brave Liberals who understand agriculture also voted for the bill, including Kody Blois, the Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food; Malpeque MP Heath MacDonald; and Egmont MP Robert Morrissey. There is no reason to amend this bill. It should be passed as written for a number of reasons, and I will detail some of them for you.
As the committee heard repeatedly, there are no viable fuel options to replace propane and natural gas at this time. This was noted over and over again at committee, but I will give you one quote from Ian Boxall, President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan:
While technologies like hydrogen, solar, wind, biomass and geothermal hold promise, they remain limited in their application due to our unique environmental conditions and our vast geography.
Colleagues, I would argue that on the basis of the evidence presented at committee and the briefs that were submitted, this amendment is nothing but frivolous, and will do nothing except punish farmers — farmers who have been punished over and over again. Here we have a group of senators who want to continue to add to their misery.
Second, the carbon tax is supposed to send a price signal to incentivize the transition to lower carbon-emitting fuels, but because there are no alternate fuel options, this price signal simply does not work when it comes to propane and natural gas used for agricultural purposes. For this reason alone, the exemption for buildings is just as needed as the exemption for grain dryers.
Third, I would note that the government has already acknowledged that the carbon tax on the agricultural use of propane and natural gas should be returned directly to farming businesses when it introduced the existing rebate.
Here is what the government said in their Economic and Fiscal Update 2021:
Recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, and consistent with the Budget 2021 commitment, the government proposes to return fuel charge proceeds directly to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions via a refundable tax credit, starting for the 2021-22 fuel charge year.
The problem is, as noted by multiple witnesses, the rebate is too blunt an instrument. The exemptions are needed for both grain dryers and for heating buildings.
Fourth, don’t forget that diesel fuel and gasoline, which make up 85% of agricultural fuel emissions, are already exempted from the carbon tax, yet both propane and natural gas produce fewer emissions than either gasoline or diesel fuel.
Senator Dalphond is suggesting that we should incentivize farmers to stop using propane or natural gas to heat their buildings, and use gasoline or diesel fuel instead. It is incoherent public policy to tax the lower-carbon options while providing an exemption to the higher-carbon fuels.
While federal programs such as the Agricultural Clean Technology Program — propane and tax rebate programs — are aimed at providing relief to farmers from the fuel charges for natural gas and propane, these programs have often proven difficult to access and are further oversubscribed.
The programs are welcomed and needed, but they reach only a small percentage of farmers. You cannot make the argument that the exemption should not apply to buildings because there are other programs in place to help farmers. These programs are simply insufficient.
Another thing to realize is that refusing to provide the exemption for buildings provided in Bill C-234 places Canadian farmers at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to international competitors who are not subject to fuel charges. Farmers receive the world price for their product, and cannot pass on the cost of the carbon tax on either grain drying or for heating and cooling of their buildings. The exemption on buildings is as critical for them as the one on grain dryers.
Finally, this same amendment was proposed by MP Ryan Turnbull at the House of Commons — which has already been suggested here — and was defeated. It is a waste of time to send them the amendment from the House of Commons that they will just simply defeat. This is, colleagues, a waste of time, which is, of course, what Senator Dalphond and Senator Woo want to do — and they now have the support of the government who has always said they will stay out of private members’ business, and now the government is here voting on a bill.
We are wasting time, and that time is costing farmers money. Every one of you, colleagues, has farmers in your constituencies and your provinces. You are costing them money.
Colleagues, exemptions to the carbon tax are not a bug. They are a feature. They already exist because they are necessary to ensure that the policy is targeted and effective and does not create undesirable results. The exemption on buildings is essential for the reasons I have listed, and I hope you will support our agricultural sector by defeating this amendment.
I have one last comment. The committee heard repeatedly that alternative fuels are not available for propane and natural gas. Improving efficiency for propane and natural gas is not the intent of this bill, as farmers are fully incentivized to reduce their heating costs because it saves them money. Farmers will do what they can to create fewer emissions. It saves them money.
Here we have the government coming to the table to try to defeat a private member’s bill. I find that objectionable, and I’ll certainly be voting against the amendment, chair.
The Chair: Thank you. I remind folks that we’re debating the amendment.
Senator Cotter: I’m going to come to this conversation slightly differently from Senator Plett, but I’m going to end up in the same position. My view is actually consistent with each of the amendments that may get provided consideration, so I will just make one intervention and have it applicable to the other amendments.
I listened to all the testimony that was presented here and read all of the materials. It’s clear that this amendment would assist farmers with respect to improving their revenue cost situation to some degree. My own sense is that the proponents of the bill described the significance of it. It is not insignificant, but it is not overwhelming.
The parallel to that is the following: On the subject of climate change, greenhouse gases and CO2 emissions, it is equally a modest issue. It is not an overwhelming issue.
My second point is that I would prefer the bill to have a built-in incentive to move — not just to save costs — toward more climate-friendly fuels. But I recognize that once we begin to tinker with this bill, we produce the consequences that Senator Plett spoke about, and I don’t want to see that happen.
For me, I’m supportive of the government’s initiatives with respect to greening our economy, and the efforts that they have in mind with respect to climate change. That’s a legitimate and large policy perspective that deserves consideration.
As the government says, from time to time, this implementation toward a greener economy requires equitable implementation. One of the consequences of a grand national regime with respect to a green economy is that it is sure to land disproportionately on different sectors of the economy in different parts of the country. Agriculture is one of the ones that is most vulnerable to that inequitable burden, and aspects of government policy have moderated that.
Related to that — not just with respect to individual farmers and producers — the whole sector of agriculture and agri-food is seen by this government as a pillar of the economy going forward. In my view, this modest adjustment to the burdens of the greenhouse gas tax is a signal of our commitment to that economy and the people who deliver the product. I’m hopeful. I would have preferred, as I said, a degree of incentivization in this bill for pieces of this small part of the puzzle to be explicit in the document, but its consequences, I think, would be negative and unfortunate.
Support for agriculture, agriculture producers and the agri-food economy by this bill is small in dollars, but it is a rich contribution in appreciating the contribution that this sector makes — and it’s a modest olive branch to those who sometimes are frustrated with government policy in this country. Let me stop there. The bottom line is that I will vote against the amendment.
On the other amendments, even though, unlike Senator Plett, I would regard them as delivered in good faith and in a constructive way, I think that — in the present circumstances — it would be unwise to adopt them. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cotter.
Senator Woo: I thank Senator Cotter for his nuanced assessment of this bill and his honesty with all of us — not only on this amendment and subsequent amendments, but he has also sat through all of our hearings, and has heard the range of information that we have received. Senator Plett has not sat through any — certainly not many — of the hearings, and he’s provided us with a one-sided summary of the findings.
For example, Senator Cotter is quite right in pointing out that, on the one hand, the greenhouse gas, or GHG, impact of this particular sector — barns and dryers — is relatively small in the scheme of things. He’s also pointed out — it’s something that Senator Plett omitted — that the share of the cost of natural gas in total farm costs is very small. The estimates that we’ve received from our witness testimony and from official research suggested it’s well under 1%. Furthermore, this piece of information has not been shared, but I know that Senator Cotter is aware of it: The price of natural gas has fallen substantially over the last 10 years or more, and could perhaps fall even more, so the substantive impact of having natural gas and propane subject to greenhouse gas pricing is relatively minor for the farmers. Not to trivialize this point, but it was heard in the testimony and it’s something we should remember.
I also deeply appreciate Senator Cotter’s comments on equitability, and the job of ensuring that the burden of a national policy, such as greenhouse gas pricing, does not fall excessively on one set of Canadians — and not others. I would encourage Senator Cotter and others to reflect on the fact that if this bill does pass in its current form, it will only apply to backstop jurisdictions, and there will be a built-in inequality for the other jurisdictions that are part of the national GHG pricing plan — for which the farmers are putting in a different kind of effort to reduce their GHG emissions. That inequality will be extended if this bill is passed.
With respect to the argument that this is a relatively small exemption that won’t make a huge difference, that may be correct in absolute terms, but we would be very naive if we were to assume that if this bill passes, it doesn’t create both the political argument and also the sectoral interest in carving out exemptions in many other sectors.
We know already that the sponsor of the bill in the House is against the carbon tax. The party is against the carbon tax. It’s against greenhouse gas pricing. The mantra is to axe the tax. It would be extremely naive of all of us to think that if this bill goes through, that mantra, that call and that rally will not be magnified, and that it will not spread to other sectors that also seek exemptions.
What we are trying to do here — in proposing some amendments, and in pushing back on some of the propositions put forward in this bill — is, on the one hand, to recognize that farmers have a special challenge in terms of reducing their propane and natural gas use. The mechanism that has been offered already to mitigate some of those burdens is the refundable tax credit. Later, in our discussion, I hope to offer an observation — perhaps it can be turned into policy at some point in the future — that encourages the government to refine the refundable tax credit so that it is better targeted at the farms that use propane and natural gas for crop drying.
I’ll again thank Senator Cotter for his comments, as well as to offer a few counterpoints to his observations and to encourage us to go to the vote on the question of this first amendment from Senator Dalphond.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo.
Senator Simons: I find myself deeply torn here because, as the deputy chair of this committee, I did sit through every bit of evidence, and I heard all of the testimony.
We asked experts in grain drying equipment engineering about the potential for viable alternative forms to drying grain, and what we heard — quite to my surprise and, I suspect, to the surprise of others around the table — is that there are no credible, viable alternatives for grain drying that will be market-ready at any time in the near future. To me, that made a pretty strong case for the exemption for grain drying technology.
The evidence in terms of barn heating and greenhouse heating is considerably less strong. There are alternatives, and, especially when it comes to greenhouses, there are already compensations in the tax system for people who use natural gas and propane to heat their greenhouses. I was probably the first person around the table who actually asked a witness what would happen if we carved out an exemption only for grain drying and not for buildings. The logic of Senator Dalphond’s amendment is straightforward.
That being said, I keep going back to the testimony that we heard from government officials about why the exemptions were set up the way they were in the first place, and the answer — which I still find disconcerting — was because that’s how British Columbia set them up. British Columbia became the model for the rest of the country with no consideration of the fact that British Columbia’s climate is considerably more temperate than the climate of the Prairies or parts of Ontario.
I realize, of course, that if the Prairie provinces had maintained or created their own carbon taxes, they would have been able to exempt whatever they like. The irony is that Alberta in particular — which had a robust carbon tax scheme of its own and gave it up — is now vulnerable to having its carbon tax policy set in Ottawa. You would think Albertans would want to do that in-house, but we opted not to.
The logic of Senator Dalphond’s amendment is unassailable on its face. On the other hand, I really do worry that it puts farmers — who farm in some of the most unforgiving climates — in a very invidious position because they’re working with a model that was never designed with their needs in mind.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: Reflecting on what Senator Woo spoke about, we shouldn’t be backpedalling on carbon issues. Farmers are already exempt on diesel and gas, which the Liberals did themselves. The Liberals axed that tax, so that argument doesn’t hold any water.
We should be thinking about the best interests of the farmers here. It’s October in this country. We’re about to go into winter, and I just don’t think the argument is strong enough when they’ve already made exemptions in the same vein.
I’m also surprised and shocked, Mr. Chair, that your ruling was overruled. I’ve been here for 14 years, and I haven’t experienced this.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator MacDonald.
Senator Dalphond: I’ll be brief. On the last point of Senator MacDonald, I think I remember a ruling by Senator Housakos that was overruled by the chamber, including by his own colleagues. That being said, let’s go to the substance of the amendment.
The sponsor of this bill — MP Lobb — is an MP from Ontario, and he said before this committee:
If you look at the heating of barns, it’s moving lockstep with the innovations that are heating a home, a commercial building or an industrial building — because it only makes financial sense.
No one denies that buildings are more efficient, and they are using different heating technologies that are available. We know there is a farm in Alberta that is run without being connected to the grid whatsoever. It is not using natural gas or propane, so we know that there are alternatives.
We know that when some programs were set up by the government, they were oversubscribed because farmers wanted to get the subsidy in order to do things. We know about making a farm more efficient with proper air circulation, having a heat pump and having solar panels — it’s all available on the market now. Even the sponsor of the bill recognizes that.
What is being proposed here is to say, “Yes, but let’s give a break to the farmers” because at the end of the day, that’s what is being said. We were told before the committee — not only by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but also by a representative of grain drying in Ontario — that, incidentally, grain drying in Ontario is done by third parties at 60%, so this bill will not affect the largest province which is using the largest amount of grain drying because 60% of their grains are dried by third parties that will not qualify. They said this will make us uncompetitive with farmers who have a grain dryer at home.
This bill is far from perfect. It is being drafted on the corner of a table. This guy is attempting to axe the tax. We know which party stands for that policy.
The issue here is this: What does the evidence that was led before the House of Commons and before this committee say? It says that there is a major distinction to make between grain drying — where efficiencies exist and are available, but new technology is not necessarily ready — and heating where efficiencies and new technologies exist. If we open the door here to say, “We’ll give the farmer a break” — a break, incidentally, as Senator Woo referred to — the evidence has shown it is less than 1%. The Parliamentary Budget Officer referred even, maybe, to 0.4% of the cost of energy for drying grains compared to the cost of the whole operation. We’re not talking about millions of dollars of a break. We’re talking about $1 billion over eight years. That is the price, assuming that it goes the full price when it’s $170 per tonne.
Colleagues, logic and evidence go in the same direction. They say there is a clear distinction between heating your barns and drying your grains, and that’s even acknowledged by the sponsor of the bill. My amendment is an amendment that was also made in the House of Commons, as pointed out by Senator Plett. It was defeated 6 to 5 — he forgot to mention the number.
This is the reality. We’re sober second thought. We have the evidence. We should not be moved by politics and by the agenda of a political party. We should be moved by the evidence, and the strong evidence is there is a clear distinction between grain drying and heating barns. Thank you.
Senator Plett: Let me start by saying that Senator Dalphond is absolutely correct when he says that I’m a Conservative. I’m a proud Conservative. I’m very proud of our policies, and very proud of what the Conservative Party of Canada has done for our country over the last 150 some odd years, with the first prime minister of the country being a Conservative prime minister. But this has nothing to do with whether we’re Conservatives or Liberals. This bill was passed unanimously by the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party. How much further apart could we get on environmental issues than between the Conservatives and the Greens?
The only people who are making this a political issue are the people who 96% of the time vote in favour of this particular government. I don’t know why we don’t vote on the merits of whether this is good legislation or not — not based on whether or not we support the Liberals or the Conservatives.
Both Senator Woo and Senator Dalphond are talking about how negligible this is, but it’s only negligible, according to them, when it comes to the farmers. Well, how about to the bill? It’s also then negligible to the bill, but, for some reason, it’s tremendously important in the bill.
When you listen to some of the opponents of this bill, you are left with the clear impression that doing so will somehow destroy the impact and the effectiveness of carbon pricing. This is simply false, colleagues. We are talking about a very small, focused exemption being applied in a specific area where the carbon tax does not fulfill its public policy purpose but, in fact, does the opposite.
While opponents like to suggest that providing an exemption for propane and natural gas for agricultural purposes will be like removing the fateful piece in a game of Jenga that brings the whole structure crashing down, the reality is actually quite the opposite. Exemptions are part of the design of the policy.
Colleagues, as I said earlier, exemptions are not a bug but a feature of a carbon tax system. They are necessary to ensure that the policy is targeted and effective and does not create undesirable results. Exemptions exist for farmers and fishers, along with the additional targeted relief for residents of rural and small communities, users of aviation fuels in the territories, greenhouse operators and power plants that generate electricity for remote communities and Indigenous peoples.
Bill C-234 is not breaking new ground. It is one small but necessary tweak to the existing suite of exemptions that will have no impact on the effectiveness of the carbon tax, but will have a significant impact on the ability of farmers to compete on a level playing field and to continue to adopt more efficient technologies.
This will help Bloc Québécois farmers. This will help NDP farmers. This will help Green Party-supporting farmers. This will not just help Conservative farmers, Senator Dalphond. I assure you that farmers who vote Conservative will benefit from this, as will farmers who vote Bloc Québécois and Liberal. So let’s stop with the idea that “Conservatives are opposed to the carbon tax so we must pass this amendment.” That simply doesn’t hold water. If you have an amendment that has merit, argue it on the base of merit — not on who is opposing it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett. After Senator MacDonald and Senator Woo speak, we will cut the debate and move to the vote.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Dalphond, you mentioned heat pumps. I put heat pumps in my home. I know how much they cost and how they work. You need 100 heat pumps for a 100,000-square-foot chicken barn. Do you know how much that would cost? We need to get practical here and be realistic with what we’re dealing with.
Again, both the Green Party and the NDP supported this; it’s not a partisan initiative. I think we have to get away from the partisan stuff, and deal with the issue: helping farmers survive in this economic environment. We know how much food is costing in this country, and now we’re going to add to the cost of running a farm. If you’re going to add to the cost of running a farm, you’re going to add to the cost of food.
We’re going down the wrong road. I think we have to reassess this.
Senator Woo: First, let me make a comment on the presence of ex officio members on this committee who have parachuted into our clause-by-clause consideration, not having sat through —
Senator Plett: Point of order, chair.
Chair, this debate is about an amendment, not about whether — I’m talking on a point of order, sir.
This debate is about an amendment, not on whether I have the right to be here. We have rules in this Senate that Senator Woo does not like. We understand that. He’s very clear and he has every right.
The differences between Senator Woo and me are clear on a number of political issues, but the biggest difference is that I agree with his right to his opinion, and I agree with my right to mine.
We have rules in the Senate that allow me, as an ex officio member, to be here, and in this case — whether or not I agree with the government coming here to debate a private member’s bill — the rules also allow for Senator LaBoucane-Benson to be here. That is not debatable, chair, and I respectfully ask that you keep the debate to the issue at hand. That is not whether or not I have the right to be here.
Senator Woo: Debate on the point of order.
The Chair: Debate on the point of order.
Senator Woo: Senator Plett objected to the representative of the government voting in a certain way in his earlier intervention when it was not on that very question.
He is the pot calling the kettle black. I have made my point. There’s an asymmetry and unfairness in the way ex officio status is granted to only certain groups and not others. I want to move on — if you will agree, chair — to the debate of the amendment.
The Chair: I need to rule on the point of order. To that point, I will just ask us to keep in mind the amendment. We have one more speaker, and then we will move to the vote.
Senator Woo: The question of whether exemptions are part of the policy is an important one. While there are, in fact, exemptions built into the policy, it’s well understood by the best economists and the best analysts of carbon pricing — of greenhouse gas pollution pricing — that exemptions are a suboptimal and less preferable way of designing a pollution pricing scheme than rebates, including income rebates, rebates for lost revenue and rebates that deal with output-based pricing. Those are the preferred mechanisms in designing a pollution pricing scheme.
In fact, we have such a measure when it comes to natural gas and propane, where the government, in a previous budget bill, put in place a refundable tax credit to give back all of the proceeds of pollution pricing on natural gas and propane on farms — every single cent.
That amount is given to the sector as a whole, and not necessarily in proportion to the amounts used by particular farms and grain dryers, but that is in order to preserve the price incentive. This means that farms that make more effort, and farms that have already invested in efficiency measures on their crop drying operations or on their barns, will benefit more than the farms that haven’t done those things. But that’s the whole point of a price incentive. And so I think it’s deeply misleading to suggest that exemptions are, in fact, the desirable pathway for a carbon pricing scheme.
I want to make one point that is really important, as we think about this amendment and all the other amendments. The argument put forward by proponents — and we’ve heard this many times from Senator Plett and Senator MacDonald — is that there are no alternatives.
In some senses that is correct, but this is not simply about alternatives. The issue is about efficiencies, and the point of pollution pricing is not necessarily to drive you to a brand new technology which may or may not exist — we hope something will come up — but to encourage you to make all of the incremental changes that will improve your efficiency, even operating under existing technologies.
Senator Plett did not hear all of the testimonies, so he will not have heard from a number of witnesses that there are crop dryers that are 20 or 30 years old. We heard from one of our star witnesses that he replaced his crop dryer only last year, I think, and he admitted that his previous appliance — his previous facility — was, I think, more than 20 years old. You need incentives to encourage farmers to make that change, and this is not about finding fusion or some kind of magic solution. It’s about making incremental efficiency gains, and, even if there are no clear alternatives to natural gas and propane today, there is a value in pollution pricing, and in encouraging farmers — whether in the barn or the crop drying sector — to make the changes that they can currently make with the current technology.
The Chair: The amendment moved by the Honourable Senator Dalphond states that Bill C-234 be amended in clause 1. Shall I read it fully? Would you like me to read it? May I dispense? Thank you very much.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
We will do a voice vote. So we will ask you to carry on.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Abstain.
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 Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: Yeas: 7; nays: 6; abstention: 1.
The Chair: I’ll declare the motion in amendment carried. The amendment has been adopted, so shall clause 1, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. Carried as amended.
Senator Woo: We don’t need a digression, do we? We should move on?
The Chair: Let’s move forward. Clause 1, as amended, is carried.
Moving forward now, shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Woo: Honourable colleagues, I move:
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 22 and 23 with the following:
“2 (1) Subsections 1(2.1) and (5) come into force on the day that is the third anniversary”.
You will all know that the bill currently has a sunset period of eight years, at which time the exemptions expire unless there is a Governor-in-Council order plus some motions passed by the House and by the Senate.
The eight-year time period is somewhat arbitrary. It has been defended as the period of time that is necessary for new technology to emerge, perhaps, or for farmers to come up with alternate solutions. But, colleagues, what is going to happen in the eight-year period is that the pollution price will go up by $15 a year. I believe that by the end of the eight-year period, it will be $170 per tonne — up from what is currently $65 per tonne. That is a very large jump.
For farmers who have not made any adjustments, and who may not have alternatives to turn to — or have not prepared for alternatives to turn to — at the end of the eight-year period, that’s a very large adjustment to make, and it’s one that could be debilitating.
It will also, of course, create a lot of pressure to extend the exemption, regardless of the technology available.
This amendment proposes a shorter time frame for two reasons: The first is to not allow such a long lag time to transpire, which could increase the adjustment difficulty for farmers. But the second and more substantive agreement is that there already is a review of the pollution price scheme planned for 2026. This will be carried out by Environment and Climate Change Canada. It will look at the entire pricing regime which will encompass consultations and engagement with provincial, territorial and Indigenous stakeholders. It will look at the impacts on interjurisdictional, and the concerns raised by my colleagues. It will look at the impacts on international competitiveness from pollution pricing.
I’m happy to provide more context, but, in the interests of time, those are the key arguments in favour of a shorter sunset period.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Woo. Further debate?
Senator Plett: Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Again, I will remind you that you’re speaking to the amendment.
Senator Plett: There was no evidence provided at committee that indicated the sunset time frame should be changed from eight years to three years — none.
In fact, as noted by Professor Lubitz, Associate Professor at the University of Guelph School of Engineering, we’re looking at a minimum of six to eight years, and perhaps longer. It may surprise Senator Woo that I actually am capable of reading evidence that witnesses have brought, and also listening to committee meetings from my office. Although, as he says, I wasn’t here for every meeting, I have a pretty good idea of what went on at the meetings.
In response to a question by Senator Simons about certain technologies — whether they would be available within eight years — Professor Lubitz said, “For the technologies that are under development, it’s difficult to say.”
He continued:
We mentioned the heat pump technology; we are looking at that. Others are working on biomass and other things as well. One could argue some of these are close to being ready for small-scale, prototype, experimental use, but I think the big question is when will they be ready for large-scale deployment? I believe some of these will be ready within the eight-year window, but not in the next year or two. Our project will not reach that in the next year or two, but it has potential in the next six or eight years. Similarly, I’m not aware of other technologies that are ready for that large-scale deployment in the next year or two. It takes a long time to go through those steps to roll out and scale up. This is large infrastructure that takes a long time to build, test and build again.
Professor Singh, Senior Research Chair in Agricultural Engineering and Technology at Lethbridge College, echoed the uncertainty of Professor Lubitz by saying:
I don’t know if it takes three years or five years and if it’s available in a way that farmers can use. Maybe or maybe not. I’m sorry, I don’t have a clear answer for that.
In their brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Agri-Food Innovation Council said the following:
Research and innovation on the use of [alternative] renewable . . . energy sources show significant promise in farming operations. [However, the technology is not at a point where it is viable for many farming operations. Further research and new innovations are needed to meet the needs of the agri-food sector.]
As alternative sources of energy sources are identified, it would be important to think about scalability, affordability, and adoption.
Does this mean that we will never get to the point where we’re able to replace propane and natural gas? No. But most experts indicate that we would need at least a decade before we are able to have workable, proven, affordable and “scalable” alternatives.
These are professionals, colleagues. Colleagues, this amendment is not supported by any evidence, and, in fact, this should be defeated — move this bill forward without this amendment. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I just want to make the point that Senator Woo raised that the eight-year limit was arbitrary. Why is it any more arbitrary than the three-year limit you’re proposing?
Senator Woo: Because there is a mandated review that will take place at the end of three years. It will happen whether we like it or not, and that review may well find that the uncertainty that Senator Plett has rightly commented on — the uncertainty around technological process — may be cleared up. We do not know.
All I was able to get from Senator Plett’s recitation of some of the testimony is that people don’t know. Not one to two years — probably five or six years. The middle sounds like three to me.
Don’t forget that adopting this amendment to have the sunset at three years rather than eight years does not preclude that the exemptions can be extended. It does not preclude that from happening. It simply allows for us to use an established, mandated, serious review process that will be conducted by Environment and Climate Change Canada in order to use the findings of that formal, official review to make a judgment on what to do with further exemptions.
Senator Dalphond: I support the amendment, and just to add precision about committee evidence, on September 26, Ms. Cool-Fergus, National Policy Manager from Climate Action Network Canada, said that she disagreed with the eight-year timeline as it undermines innovation. She noted that demand for digital clean technology programs is outstripping supply now, and that long deadline brings us to postpone people who are willing to consider alternatives to continuing to use old equipment for a longer period.
Furthermore, eight years takes the sunset provisions beyond the critical important date of 2030, which is the target date to reach some milestones, so we are here saying that because remember this is the third continuation of that attempt to have no tax for farmers. It started in 2020 when they were asking for eight years, so that would be the end of 2028. Now we are asking for eight years in 2023, which brings us to 2031 — way beyond the target date of 2030.
This is a consequential and logical amendment. Furthermore, if, in 2030, after the comprehensive review is completed, there are adjustments to be made, the government will be in a position to make the adjustments. Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Woo said it will be cleared up in three years. We will have an election in three years, and you can rest assured it will be cleared up.
Senator Plett: Senator Woo said that all he could get from my comments is that we don’t know. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it was something along that line — and that he couldn’t get timelines out of what I said.
Here is, in fact, what I said: I believe some of these will be ready within the eight-year window. It’s very clear — within the eight-year window.
It has potential in the six or eight years. Most experts indicate that we would need at least a decade. I don’t know how much clearer that can be: Three years isn’t an acceptable time frame.
Here we have experts who know, and yet somehow around this table, we say, “Well, you don’t know what you’re talking about. We’ll make it something else.” At least have the expertise before you come forward with an amendment. With respect, the senator does not have the expertise; the witnesses do.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Plett.
It is moved by the Honourable Senator Woo:
That Bill C-234 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by replacing lines 22 and 23 with the following:
“2 (1)Subsections 1(2.1) and (5) come into force on the day that is the third anniversary”.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
I think we’ll do the standing vote again.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cardozo?
Senator Cardozo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cormier?
Senator Cormier: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Cotter?
Senator Cotter: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson?
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Plett?
Senator Plett: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Oh?
Senator Oh: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: No.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: The Honourable Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: Yes.
Ms. Simpson: Yeas: 7; nays: 7.
The Chair: Being a tie, the amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
It being 10:55 a.m., shall we continue for five more minutes?
Senator Plett: Yes.
The Chair: All right.
Shall the title carry — sorry, Senator Woo?
Senator Woo: There is an amendment — it’s amendment 4 — that I would like to move. It is in your package. It’s clause 2, on pages 2 and 3. May I move the amendment?
The Chair: Please.
Senator Woo: I move:
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.
These clauses in their original form allow for the exemptions in Bill C-234 to be extended beyond the sunset period simply by a resolution from the Governor-in-Council and by motions of the House of Commons and the Senate. They do not require the same kind of scrutiny and investigation by either the other place or the Senate.
There is a certain automaticity in the current proposal to have exemptions extended.
I believe that now that we are looking at an eight-year sunset period — an eight-year period that I have already argued would make it more difficult for farmers to turn away from, and more difficult politically to turn down, hence there being more pressure on the exemptions to be continued — we should not, as the chamber of sober second thought, allow for an extension of these exemptions to be able to go through with such ease.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that we eliminate the possibility of the exemptions being continued, but they should be done in the normal way that we do things in the Parliament of Canada, which is to have a bill, to bring about the extension, to collect fresh evidence, to have debates in the House and in the Senate, and then make that decision on the basis of the merits of the new legislation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
We are coming to the end, but we will hear from Senator Plett, and then we’ll end the debate until the next meeting.
Senator Plett: First of all, chair, I believe we should finish this committee meeting; we should finish this bill. That’s what we were going to do, and we’re minutes away from finishing the bill. I would find it extremely wasteful that we would come back for another meeting — thank you; you can speak when you have the mic. Right now, I do. I would find it extremely wasteful that we would adjourn at this point when we are minutes away. This has been another delay tactic by Senator Woo to now do something through the back door that he couldn’t do through the front door, so I will not be debating this until I have agreement that we are going forward to finish the bill today.
Senator Saint-Germain: This bill is important for the farmers, but also for the Canadian economy and for us. I believe that we need more time to continue because we don’t have enough time today. Many of us — in my case — have to go to other appointments. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough time to make a decision on the further amendments and the observations that we still have to study.
If I may, I hope that the next meetings will be respectful — on all sides — of colleagues, their views, their votes and their expertise.
The Chair: Thank you. We do have a hard stop at 11 a.m. because there is another meeting in here, so it has to be turned around.
With that, colleagues, I thank you for your attention, your conversation and your debates today.
I want to thank the folks behind us, the folks online that support us — and have significantly supported us today — as well as our office colleagues.
We will meet again on Tuesday, October 24 at 6:30 p.m.
(The committee adjourned.)