Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act
Bill to Amend--Twelfth Report of Agriculture and Forestry Committee--Vote Deferred
November 2, 2023
Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the twelfth report of our Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry which amends Bill C-234, an Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.
As we’re all very well aware, federalism must be one of the more difficult if not the most difficult form of government. We are a very large and diverse country — a country that is also, perhaps more than any other, challenged by the global crisis of climate change.
Crafting legislation, especially taxation and rebate policy, with these two challenges alone is incredibly difficult. It’s tough to have the legislation or the taxation mechanisms address the issues, change behaviour and be cognizant of all the differences that we share.
Reviewing the legislation and listening to the debate, a former member of our National Finance Committee, I needed to go back and look at the file on climate taxation. It’s not an easy file for those with PhDs in economics, whom I am not, let alone the average Canadian, whom I consider myself to be.
Having once occupied a seat with ministers of finance, as they are meeting tomorrow, and at what is now called the Council of the Federation, I can only imagine the challenging conversations that they are going to have.
The approach to climate change, taxation and climate change and rebate policy varies across the whole country.
Originally, the relief for farmers on fuel taxation was modelled after the program in British Columbia. That became evident at the committee hearings. A legislative oversight omitted the fuel used in grain drying and used largely by poultry farmers. Those are two very salient points. They prompted Bill C-234. The bill, as drafted and passed by the House of Commons, equitably addresses those two points and provides a time limit for the measure.
Honourable senators, I’d be remiss if I did not also flag that in addition to sober second thought, we represent our regions. Western Canada — where a good many of these farmers are located and where there are very specific differences in climate taxation programs that exist — is missing senators from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.
Dear colleagues, this does not denigrate any of the individuals sitting in this chamber today. It’s recognition that there are voices that we are not hearing.
Honourable senators, I note that much focus is put on aggregate expenses and aggregate benefits, and we see numbers from analysts that are based on averages, national or provincial. It’s a very urban and centralized way of thinking about this particular issue. It’s exactly to counter such aggregation and to identify weak spots of the current carbon pricing regime that is the purpose of the bill.
It’s quite evident from what I’ve read and heard from the committee study and from speaking with farmers that there’s a gap between the desired reduction in carbon emissions through technological innovation and adjustment and what is readily available. Let’s give the farmers the time they claim they need to fix it, to be an honest and participating partner in finding climate solutions that are realistic.
Honourable senators, this bill corrects an oversight. Some farmers that this bill addresses were left out.
I was deeply moved by the tributes today to a very honourable public servant. I was also reminded of the prayer that you’ve often heard me reference in the Yukon legislature, where we pray to the Creator that we may make only sound, fair and wise decisions on behalf of the people we represent.
It’s the fairness that strikes me about this bill over and over again. It’s fair to include the farmers who were left out and to correct this oversight.
I don’t see it as a purposeful omission, and I would not reference it as a drafting error in the original bill. I recognize that Bill C-234 corrects an oversight. It’s not the first time we’ve been asked to do this. Over and over at National Finance, when we were dealing with the difficult situation of the pandemic and the benefits to reach Canadians, we corrected bills repeatedly because people were left out. First it was the artists and the artistic community.
This is a similar situation. I believe it has been somewhat usurped by events of the past week and discussions of other situations that go on in our country. We must focus our efforts on this bill itself. That’s why I believe we should not accept the recommendations that were put forward in the Agriculture Committee report, but to reject the report and allow for fulsome, thorough third reading debate that enables a fair discussion of all amendments and points of view throughout the chamber so that we can hear from everyone.
I believe we have a chance, with a full discussion of Bill C-234, to fix an oversight. It will not cause an extraordinary burden on federal coffers to enact Bill C-234. Let’s remember that natural gas and propane are the cleanest burning fuels. Will allowing this rebate and passing Bill C-234 make a tremendous difference to Canada reaching the climate change goals? I don’t think so. It will correct an oversight and be fair to all concerned.
I believe that we should adopt the bill as we received it and send a message to inform the House of Commons that it is adopted without amendment.
I will encourage all senators to hear from one another, as I understand we will — perhaps not today — be expressing our views on the Agriculture report. I encourage senators to hear what I have said in terms of fairness, to take a look. Again, by rejecting this report and adopting and having a fulsome, fair, thorough and extensive debate on Bill C-234 as we received it, we can do our best work for Canadians and for the whole country. Thank you, honourable senators.
Honourable senators, I’m rising to speak against the adoption of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry report and amendment to Bill C-234 and in defence of an unamended bill.
I want to explain why I think the amended bill harms Canadian farm-gate incomes, food security and our efforts to fight climate change.
For my first five years in the Senate, I was a member of the Agriculture Committee. I love that committee totally. I was and continue to be inspired by the producers and processors whom I met through our work. Being on the committee took me back to my youth, when I raised cattle and worked for my cousin after school, on weekends and in the summer, helping in every aspect of his wheat, soybean and corn operation.
Farmers are innovative. To survive, they have to be solution-oriented Jills or Jacks of all trade. Today, Canada’s agricultural sector is even more innovative simply as a way to survive, but they have to do so very carefully because all of the external risks they constantly face.
When I tuned into the Agriculture Committee meeting two weeks ago, I was surprised to see so many new faces. I quickly realized that the attendance of these new members was part of a coordinated effort to push back on Bill C-234. I have the highest regard for my colleagues, but because they came with a single narrow focus, they were likely unaware of the important study on soil health that the committee has been undertaking. The committee members are, as the T-shirt says, “loyal to the soil,” and the topic of soil health is directly related to Bill C-234.
It was evident in the debate in committee that led to the tabling of the report that of the two amendments proposed, the one proposed by Senator Dalphond that made it into the report removed the heating of barns or greenhouses from the list of activities that would be exempted from the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. In other words, if the bill passes with this amendment, barn or greenhouse heating will be subjected to the carbon pricing regime.
I will speak to that specific amendment later, but first I want to speak to how efforts to amend this bill miss a much larger problem or opportunity. Three years ago, I started to really dig into the issue of soil health — pardon the pun. Well before the Agriculture Committee started to study this issue, I became amazed by the powerful role that our agricultural soils could play in helping us to sequester atmospheric carbon into our soil. This field of research is commonly referred to as regenerative agriculture.
The power and potential of regenerative agriculture was so inspiring that it became the focus of my office during the spring and summer of 2020. All of the evidence we heard showed the huge potential that regenerative agriculture could unlock for farmers. We spoke to leading researchers across North America, companies that were developing the new technologies to measure soil carbon affordably and accurately and farmers who had first‑hand experience in implementing regenerative agricultural practices. I was really excited to have found a powerful strategy for sequestering atmospheric greenhouse gases while increasing soil productivity, reducing input costs for farmers and creating new farm-gate revenues thanks to the sale of carbon credits.
This excitement was short-lived. I engaged with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and realized that the systems and incentives designed to support and reward farmers for sequestering carbon are deeply flawed.
As an example, the farmers who were early practitioners and early adopters of soil carbon sequestration are not allowed to receive any of the financial benefits for being trailblazers in this space. Remarkably, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada officials who came to the Agriculture Committee — AGFO — restated this decision to not reward early adopters when they testified before the committee in our soil study.
Colleagues, this is why we need to pass an unamended Bill C-234.
To simplify the question, how does it make any sense to punish farmers for the carbon-based fuels they must use to produce our food, when the market-based incentives to reward them for the carbon they sequester are blocked or ignored? If we are to achieve our net-zero targets by 2050, we cannot just limit our production of greenhouse gases. We must also begin to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Farmers can play an incredibly powerful role in that process.
For instance, we found evidence that agriculture can be a net carbon sink, having the potential to sequester between 11% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions — which is more than what the sector produces — and up to 82% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
Senators Black and Cotter travelled to Glasgow in the summer of 2022 for the World Soil Congress. What they found is that Canada is a global laggard in the public policy area of soil carbon sequestration. There are excellent policy examples to follow that are delivering reliable results to farmers and governments in countries like Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States.
These incentive plans are needed because, globally, it is recognized that farmers are constantly managing risks and variables that are completely outside of their control. Between global trade challenges such as China’s canola ban, our ban on Russian fertilizer, increasingly severe weather events in terms of droughts and overly wet springs or falls, and agricultural stabilization programs that delay relief for 18 months or more, our farmers are going through a lot.
Farming is a very risky business. In my youth, some years I made more money per hour than my cousin netted per hour from his entire farming operation. Sadly, this reality still exists today. A recent study from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture showed that total farm debt in Canada rose to $138 billion in 2022, up 15% in just two years. Meanwhile, the operating expenses for farmers also increased 21.2% last year alone. As a result, it is now more difficult for our producers to acquire and even maintain essential equipment. When you consider the fact that farmers currently don’t have the right to repair their own equipment — something that has been a money-saving essential in the past — the costs rise even further.
Colleagues, I think you will agree that these are very tough times. However, our farmers continue to innovate, not because of an abundance of incentives and opportunities but, rather, in spite of their absence. An unamended Bill C-234 will free up cash flow and capital that will allow farmers to invest in innovative alternatives.
I find it deeply concerning when I hear the argument that this amendment will somehow push farmers and other companies to innovate faster as they search for alternative heating solutions. Specifically, the amendment undermines the existing efforts of our farmers, who are already trying to do as much as they can with very little financial support. I am concerned that this amendment not only goes against the intention of the original bill but jeopardizes ongoing practices to improve soil health and fight climate change.
It also does not consider the conditions needed to produce low‑cost, efficient alternative solutions that farmers can adopt at scale. Colleagues, as you know, I used to be an entrepreneur. I have successfully commercialized products and sold them globally. I can tell you from experience that it takes much longer for new, innovative products to enter Canadian markets than it does elsewhere. Governments across all levels need to address regulatory stagnation and enable the conditions needed to catalyze private sector efforts in scaling public policy solutions.
Let me bring these points to life. In August, my team and I visited agricultural businesses across Nova Scotia’s Annapolis Valley. One business was run by Luke teStroete, a third-generation chicken farmer. His state-of-the-art facility was truly impressive. It includes measures that are crucial to maximizing animal health, fighting avian influenza and reducing energy consumption. It included everything from specialized lighting, ventilation and energy-efficient trucks to an entirely digitized farm management system.
However, his next big planned investment in solar power was being delayed because of limitations in Nova Scotia for selling power back to the grid. This investment would help him to reduce his propane use, which is his only option right now for his operation. He is therefore advocating heavily for feed-in tariff rates to be changed to allow for his innovative, climate-friendly investment, but he’s being prevented.
So I ask again: How can we justify penalizing farmers for the emissions they are already working to reduce when we are not creating the conditions to allow them to make innovative, climate-forward investments on the farm?
Rather than amending Bill C-234, let’s focus on delivering an agile regulatory system across different levels of government that catalyzes, rather than prevents, the implementation of affordable existing technologies that both reduce atmospheric carbon and farm costs. We cannot allow our farmers, such as Luke, to continue paying higher costs with no support.
Colleagues, helping farmers to innovate, using carrots and not sticks, will be important to keep in mind as we reflect on how to address the critical challenge of rising food security needs.
The Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph has predicted that, at our current rate of population growth, our species will have to deliver more food in the next 35 years than in the previous 10,000 years combined. It’s a frightful challenge, especially when we consider the extent to which we currently take our farmers for granted and the fast pace at which we are planting the last crop on our most productive farmland. In Ontario, for example, the current rate at which homes, malls and roads are being planted on our farmland is removing over 300 acres every single day of our most productive farmland. This is incredibly alarming.
I’d like to leave you with one last thought before I wrap up. You may recall the debate over Bill C-208 in the Forty-third Parliament in June 2021. It was an act to amend the Income Tax Act that would allow for the equitable intergenerational transfer of a small business, family farm or fishing operation.
After some considerable debate, we chose not to amend that bill, which had, similarly to Bill C-234, achieved cross-party support in the House of Commons. We heard warnings from the Department of Finance Canada that delivering fairness to intergenerational transfers of farm, fishing or small business operations would unleash a wave of tax evasion and cost untold billions.
In the end, because we held fast, the government chose to work with stakeholders to develop some simple safeguards that were put in place in Budget 2023. I’m proud of the fact that the Senate held firm, accepted that bill unamended and, consequently, caused the government to work with stakeholders to find an equitable solution. I can only hope that we will choose the same path here.
Colleagues, let me summarize why I’m asking you to reject this amendment at the report stage and move to approve an unamended Bill C-234. The amendment will nominally reduce farmers’ use of fossil fuels. Additionally, it risks driving them to convert from natural gas or propane to diesel because, for them, it is not subject to carbon tax. Passing this bill unamended will free up financial resources farmers need at a time of enormous financial strain — and capital to invest in innovative alternatives to meaningfully address the climate crisis. We cannot continue to punish farmers for the carbon they use to produce our food when incentives to reward them for sequestering carbon and other greenhouse gases are absent. This is especially important at a time when they are carrying an enormous debt load and other expenses that have risen across their businesses.
Colleagues, we have an opportunity to do the right thing for Canada’s food producers, helping them to increase farm gate incomes while sequestering greenhouse gases to achieve climate objectives. Our food security, our ability to respond to the climate crisis and the resilience of Canada’s agricultural sector depend on our rejecting this report and passing Bill C-234 unamended. Thank you, colleagues.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak against the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with regards to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.
Honourable senators, farming has a special place in my heart. I mentioned in a previous debate that I met Dr. Robert Glenn in 1972, when I worked with him as a dental assistant. He took me under his wing and became a surrogate father to me.
While working as a dentist, he was also a farmer and would talk to me about farming. I asked him why he continued to farm when so much could be against him, such as the weather, the costs and the time. I soon understood, despite the time and work ethic required and the possibility that he might not have made any money by the end of the season, the love he had for farming. He said, “My girl, it’s in your blood.”
So when I see farmers, I see that.
If we divide the earth into four quarters, three quarters would represent water — the oceans, lakes and rivers. The remaining quarter would represent the land. Half of that land, one eighth of the earth, is too hostile to support us. That leaves one eighth of the earth for us to live on. I urge you to remember that as we’re having this debate.
In October 2023, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs stated:
Energy-efficient barns traditionally were barns that were well insulated. The primary cost factors in poultry farming were considered to be feed costs and chick costs, not energy costs. But now farmers are facing a situation where energy costs may double in the next few years.
“We really started to focus on energy costs about three years ago, particularly when we had threats of rolling blackouts in the summer months,” comments Bill Revington . . .
— who is general manager of farm operations for a large commercial poultry producer.
The 2022 Independent Auditor’s Report entitled Carbon Pricing — Environment and Climate Change Canada, under the subheading “Supporting burdened groups,” states that “Some groups remain disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing.” The report notes that these groups include “ . . . low-income households; Indigenous peoples; northern and remote communities; emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries; and small- and medium-sized enterprises.”
The federal government implemented measures to mitigate the burden of the federal backstop on the groups that would be disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing. However, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada found that small- and medium-sized enterprises were still disproportionately burdened.
One of the principles used to guide the pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution was that carbon-pricing policies should use some of the revenue from carbon pricing to avoid a disproportionate burden on certain groups. Environment and Climate Change Canada made efforts to identify groups that could be disproportionately burdened by carbon pricing and included small- and medium-sized enterprises. Without mitigating measures, these burdens could include an increase in the cost of living, potential employment losses and increases in operating costs for some trade-exposed industries. The Office of the Auditor General of Canada stated that the relative effects of carbon-pricing systems on burdened groups and Indigenous peoples will not be assessed until the next interim review of the benchmark in 2026. That’s a long time to leave our farmers in limbo.
To support certain organizations, $218 million of the fuel charge proceeds was allocated to Environment and Climate Change Canada to be delivered through the Climate Action Incentive Fund over two years. The fund was created to help organizations make energy-efficient improvements and retrofits to reduce energy use, costs and carbon pollution, with funding delivered through three separate funding streams. Eligible recipients include small- and medium-sized enterprises as well as municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals.
In the 2019-20 fiscal year, none of the funds allocated to the Climate Action Incentive Fund had been spent. In the 2020-21 fiscal year, 44%, which amounted to $95 million, of the allocated funds had been spent. The department told the Office of the Auditor General of Canada that modifications aimed to address these issues were not implemented because the Climate Action Incentive Fund was sunsetting. The department had not addressed the burden from carbon pricing faced by small- and medium-sized enterprises.
The recommendation made by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada was to address the disproportionate burden that carbon pricing may have on certain groups and Indigenous peoples. Environment and Climate Change Canada should work with provinces and territories to assess the burden of carbon-pricing systems on certain groups and report publicly on measures implemented in jurisdictions to mitigate the burden of carbon pricing on these groups.
Honourable senators, the cost of producing food and the land on which it is produced is increasingly at odds with the tighter and tighter concentration and distribution of economic power. Urban sprawl and land rezoned for residential subdivisions have the ability to reduce the farmland available to feed Canadians. Why would people allow the land that is the basis of a central food source to be flipped into housing, causing farmers to lose their businesses?
As Jeff Rubin explained in an autumn 2013 article in The Globe and Mail:
The price of farmland in Canada has outpaced both residential and commercial real estate, gaining an average of 12 per cent over the last five years. In some hotspots, such as southwestern Ontario, the price-per-acre has been going up by as much as 50 per cent a year. Even pension plans and hedge funds have become players in the pursuit of prime agricultural land, interest that is only sending prices that much higher.
The pressure to rezone is a reality for many farms.
The EU’s common agricultural policy, or CAP, launched in 1962 and it is a partnership between agriculture and society, and between Europe and its farmers. Its main aims are to improve agricultural productivity so that consumers have a stable supply of affordable food, and to ensure that EU farmers can make a reasonable living. Fifty years after CAP was implemented, the EU recognized the need to address the following challenges: food security — at the global level, food production will have to double in order to feed a world population of 9 billion people in 2050; climate change and sustainable management of natural resources; looking after the countryside across the EU and keeping the rural economy alive; providing training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers; providing specialist advice and assistance in preparing conservation plans; and paying farmers for the ecological goods and services they provide, such as clean water and habitats for wildlife.
Honourable senators, don’t you think we owe it to all types of food production in Canada to do the same? This is not only an issue of carbon pricing; it is also one of food security and sovereignty.
As I said, I am speaking against the report, and ask that you pass Bill C-234 as soon as possible. Thank you.
Honourable senators, first of all, let me thank Senator Duncan, Senator McCallum and Senator Deacon for their speeches. I certainly concur with their remarks, and I want to add my voice to this debate.
I think Senator Deacon said that he had been on the Agriculture Committee for five years. I think I was there for nine years, and I think I was there for our government’s entire tenure and past that. I was privileged enough to be the sponsor, I believe, of every farm bill that our government introduced in the nine years that we were in power. It was a great experience.
However, I do now want to speak, as well, against the report on Bill C-234.
Senator Wells, of course, is our sponsor of this bill, but I have followed it closely. I was present at the committee meetings for clause-by-clause consideration, and I would like to share a few comments.
The rationale for this bill is very simple, colleagues. When the government designed the carbon tax, it provided some exemptions — one of them was for the agricultural use of gasoline and diesel fuel. With Bill C-234, these current exemptions for gasoline and diesel fuel — which make up about 88% of agricultural greenhouse gas, or GHG, fuel emissions — would be expanded to include natural gas, which makes up only 10% of farm fuel emissions, as well as propane, which makes up only 2% of farm fuel emissions.
The exemption would also be expanded to apply to these fuels when they’re used for grain drying, or for the heating and cooling of barn buildings.
After initially neglecting to provide an exemption for natural gas and propane, the government later announced a rebate for those fuels in their Economic and Fiscal Update 2021. Regrettably, however, that rebate has proven to be neither as effective nor as targeted as it should be — and possibly was intended to be — and needs to be replaced with an exemption. That, of course, is what Bill C-234 would do.
If the government is willing to offer a rebate for the use of natural gas and propane, it is because it considers that such use does not imperil its greenhouse gas reduction goals. Giving an exemption instead of a rebate has no effect on this.
However, while its impact on the environment is negligible, Bill C-234 is essential for farmers.
Do not just take my word for it, colleagues, but listen to the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP who all supported this legislation unanimously.
Listen to the Liberal Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, who not only voted for Bill C-234, but who is also a great defender of this bill.
Listen to the countless witnesses from the agricultural sector who came to our committee to testify, and provided us with briefs — all supportive of the bill unamended.
Listen to the farmers from all over the country who want this bill passed urgently because winter is coming. Even right here in Ottawa, we saw some snow yesterday.
So what is the report in front of us? The version of Bill C-234 sent to us from the House of Commons was left intact by our Agriculture Committee, except for one thing: The exemption for the use of propane or natural gas for the heating or cooling of farm buildings was removed. Colleagues, this is both regrettable and alarming for a number of reasons, and I would like to briefly explain those.
First of all, as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry ruled on Senator Burey’s point of order, the amendment adopted contradicts the spirit and the intent of the bill — that was Senator Black’s ruling.
Although this decision of the chair of the committee may have been overruled, it still remains true. In fact, the same decision was taken by the chair of the House of Commons committee — a Liberal member, as I’ve pointed out. In any event, this amendment was adopted. If we do not reverse course, the amended bill will be sent back to the House of Commons, where there is no clear timeline or deadline for its consideration. It is well expected to languish there until it dies on the Order Paper.
Senator Cotter noted this at committee when he said:
. . . 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 . . . we supported an aspect of the exemption itself at this committee particularly with respect to grain drying.
Senator Cotter is quite correct; with this bill, it is all or nothing. Amending the bill is the same, colleagues, as defeating the bill — let there be no question about that. If you want to defeat the bill, then, of course, you need to vote your conscience on that; there’s no argument there. Let’s not think that we will amend the bill, and have an amended bill passed in the House of Commons.
The Senate needs to reject the report from the committee, return Bill C-234 to its original form and then adopt it.
Colleagues, I’m certain that, like me, you have all received a flurry of emails from anxious producers from across the country. They are extremely concerned that this bill will pass unamended through the Senate.
In case you did not have the opportunity to read them, let me read from, at least, one of those letters sent by Keith Currie, President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. On October 27, Mr. Currie wrote, in part, the following:
Dear Honourable Senators, on behalf of the members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), we urgently call on senators to vote against the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (AGFO) report that puts forward amendments to Bill C-234. . . .
In addition to the fact that these amendments exclude thousands of Canadian farmers from receiving critical financial relief, introducing these amendments raises the potential for a significant delay in the passage of Bill C-234. This piece of legislation has been long overdue for our farmers, and further delays the potential to effectively kill the bill.
That is why we are now urgently calling on the Senate to reject the amendment and return the bill to its original form, as was passed in the House of Commons.
There are, in essence, six reasons to vote against the report. The first reason is that, as I said, I firmly believe the amendment is out of scope. This has been noted repeatedly by the sponsor of the bill and agricultural organizations across the country, along with both the Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Chair of the House of Commons Agriculture Committee.
For example, in a letter you have received from the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association, or SCA, they said:
. . . SCA has grave concerns regarding the amendment proposed by the AGFO Committee to remove provisions related to heating and cooling of livestock barns, greenhouses and other buildings used to grow food. This amendment dramatically changes the scope and principle of Bill C-234.
It is regrettable that the chair’s decision was reversed, and this should be corrected. Voting against the report would allow senators to do that.
Senators Dalphond and Woo have been, respectfully, trying to kill Bill C-234, I believe, and have insisted that any additional exemptions to the carbon tax will jeopardize the government’s fight against climate change.
I see two problems with that reasoning. First, as I said earlier, exemptions to the application of carbon tax are a feature of the program. Even as amended, Bill C-234 will give an exemption for grain dryers but not for buildings. One has to wonder how a group of senators, again, respectfully, none of whom are farmers — including myself — can decide that using propane for grain drying is less dangerous for the climate than using the same propane to heat chicken barns.
Second, the government was already planning an announcement to lift the carbon tax from home heating fuel while the opponents of Bill C-234 were telling us that it is impossible to grant exemptions. The inconsistency, colleagues, is staggering. The argument for the amendment that was made to Bill C-234 at committee is that exempting the farmers from the carbon tax when they heat their barns with propane and natural gas would go against fighting climate change. In the very same week, the government announced that home heating oil will now be exempted from the carbon tax. I don’t understand. Why is it okay to exempt one category of heating fuel for one type of building but not another type of heating fuel for another type of building? How come the fight against greenhouse gas is necessary for some and optional for others?
As the Prime Minister said when he made his announcement last week, “This is an important moment where we’re adjusting policies so that they have the right outcome.”
That, colleagues, is precisely what Bill C-234 is designed to do — ensure the right outcome.
The objective is to continue the fight against climate change while not damaging our agricultural industry or negatively impacting our food security. Acknowledging that home heating oil should be exempt from carbon tax while refusing an exemption for the heating of barn buildings is profoundly inconsistent and illogical. The Senate should make sure that the carbon tax, as any other policy, is applied fairly across regions and sectors. I think that was really at the heart of what Senator Duncan said in her speech when she talked about fairness across regions and sectors.
Voting against the report and putting the exemption for farm buildings back into this bill is not going against the spirit of the carbon tax system. It is not allowing an impediment to the fight against climate change. It is simply following logic and being fair with farmers.
A third reason to vote against the report is that the amendment is based on a false premise. The authors of the amendment argued that keeping the exemption may discourage farmers from taking steps to improve the heating efficiency of their buildings.
Colleagues, this is simply not true. Think about this. Farmers have long been motivated to improve heating efficiency. Heating their barns is one of the largest costs they have, so heating efficiency saves them money in heating and cooling costs. Piling a carbon tax on top of this does not strengthen this already‑existing incentive. It only penalizes farmers who are already doing what the carbon tax is supposed to incentivize them to do.
The Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers’ Association put it this way:
Rather than having the intended effect of changing behaviour, reducing emissions and decarbonizing, the millions of dollars collected by the federal government are not being returned and impede real climate action by these same businesses. The rising price on carbon cannot incentivize the many Canadian greenhouse growers who, driven by efforts to reduce their operating costs, have already invested in retrofits and upgrades including energy curtains, upgrades to insulation on walls, and installation of a third layer of roof cover.
The carbon tax only serves to increase the cost of producing food, placing inflationary pressures on consumers through the price of food, but also on the financial sustainability and competitiveness of Canadian farmers.
Refusing to give farmers the exemption for their barns will not help them go to alternatives. They don’t exist. And even if some alternatives come up in the near future, a lot of farmers will have been driven out of business before they can do anything.
The fourth reason to vote down the report is the impact of the amendment on food inflation. Like the letter from the Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers’ Association said, the amendment on Bill C-234 will simply drive up the operating costs of farmers and, in doing so, drive up the cost of food for Canadians. We hear day after day how many people are lined up at the food banks because of the cost of food. In the present situation, adopting a measure that would raise the cost of food for no valid reason is the worst thing that this Senate can do. We have a concrete way to fight inflation, colleagues: by voting down this report.
A fifth reason to vote against the report is the grave danger the amendment poses to some farmers. The authors of the amendment suggested that because heating fuel expenses relative to total farming operating expenses are quite small, the exemption for farm buildings is not necessary. Once again, they are incorrect.
Although heating fuel expenses relative to total farm operating expenses are less than 1% across all sectors of agriculture, the burden of these costs is distributed disproportionately. For example, greenhouses utilize 34% of total heating expenses, and animal production uses over 41%. Furthermore, some operations are critically sensitive to even the smallest of changes in temperature, and failure to maintain the required heat levels can have catastrophic outcomes.
Colleagues, as I said, I am not a farmer. I never have been a farmer, but I have had the pleasure of working on farms and with farmers. As a teenager, I worked in chicken barns. I was catching chickens. I saw them when they came in as little chicks. I helped unload them. Then I woke up at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning as a 15-year-old and I caught chickens and sent them off to market. I have worked both as a labourer in my teens and, later, as a heating contractor. We worked in barns across our province of Manitoba. As a contractor, I installed many heating systems in chicken barns and hog barns, where temperatures must be diligently monitored because even the smallest of variations can have devastating impacts on the health of the animals. Cooler temperatures can elevate the risk of disease outbreaks while warmer temperatures can cause heat stress and elevate humidity levels. Both can exacerbate the chance of respiratory issues and diseases, which can literally cost a producer millions of dollars.
The suggestion that these risks can be mitigated by installing heat pumps or more insulation is simply ludicrous, colleagues. It’s not there. Mark Reusser, a turkey farmer in Ontario, explained it this way:
We raise turkeys from baby to market age. At the outset, a baby turkey requires an ambient temperature of 32 degrees Celsius and can’t live below that temperature.
The reality is that you can’t raise poultry without supplemental heat in our climate. Even in the summer on the hottest day, it requires supplemental heat through the evening.
If this temperature varies by more than 2 degrees, it creates acute animal health and mortality concerns.
In our climate, poultry simply can’t be raised without supplemental heat. As a farm business, we have invested —
— colleagues, listen to this —
— in every available technology from insulation to high‑efficiency heating and ventilation.
On our farm, which is an average sized turkey operation, we have gone as far as we can with the technology available today, but there is no fuel alternative available to me today except for propane and natural gas.
The $10,000 annual cost the carbon tax imposes today will rise to over $32,000 by 2030, making it prohibitive to afford new technology as it becomes available.
Allow me also to quote from a letter that you all would have received from the Manitoba Pork Council, who wrote:
This amendment adopted by the Committee will remove hog farmers from the provisions of the Act. We find this difficult to comprehend.
Hog farmers in Manitoba take great pride in the care provided to the animals. This includes ensuring a safe and comfortable environment. A “safe and comfortable environment”, of course, includes heating barns during our prairie winter. Heating represents one of the largest costs for producers. They have no options. They cannot use less energy. There are no “green” sources of energy available to them. Barns must be heated with natural gas or electricity, and the carbon tax increases this unavoidable cost significantly — up to 25% according to some estimates.
Hog production is exactly the type of operation that is targeted by C-234 — critical agricultural operations that have no energy alternative.
The final reason to vote against this report is that its adoption, again, as I said earlier and as others have said, will kill the bill. But as you know, if we pass the bill unamended it goes from here to Royal Assent. Farmers will be protected for the winter season that is starting as we speak. Manitoba is much colder already than it is here in Ottawa.
Colleagues, today I join my voice with those of farmers and farm organizations across the country who have been flooding our inboxes with letters urging us, begging us and pleading with us to reject the committee’s report and promptly pass the original bill as it was approved in the House of Commons. Our agricultural sector, colleagues, is counting on us, and it is my hope that we are all listening. Thank you.
Are senators ready for the question?
It was moved by the Honourable Senator Black, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler, that this report be adopted. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Okay. All those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”
All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
I believe the “nays” have it.
I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the bell?
Honourable senators, I’d like the vote to be deferred to the next sitting of the Senate.
Pursuant to rule 9-10(1), the vote is deferred to 5:30 p.m. on the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.
