Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-234 and the amendment put forward by Senator Moncion.

I will state at the outset that this has been a challenging bill to deal with, and I commend colleagues who have tried to come up with approaches that respond seriously to the impacts of climate change while being fair to farmers and those in different regions of the country.

There’s no denying the devastating impact of climate change on Canadians and people around the world. The increasing incidence of forest fires and extreme weather events is taking a toll. If we don’t take decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will exacerbate sea level rise, ocean acidification, heat waves, storms, forest fires, floods, droughts and mass extinctions.

In fact, Canada is warming faster than the world as a whole, at more than twice the global rate, and our Arctic is warming at about three times the global rate.

Colleagues, in 2021, the national average temperature was 2.1 degrees Celsius above the 1961-90 reference value. In that same year, a new Canadian record-high temperature of 49.6 degrees Celsius — nearly 24 degrees Celsius higher than normal — was set in the British Columbia village of Lytton, which was destroyed by fire days later that summer. The heat dome that affected the province for two weeks was responsible for over 1,000 new local daily temperature records and contributed to an early and above-average wildfire season. The extreme heat also had human health consequences, causing 619 deaths in British Columbia.

Colleagues, a few years earlier in Québec, the deadly 2018 heat wave was responsible for nearly 90 deaths.

The proposed legislation before us, Bill C-234, seeks to widen the already broad fuel charge exemptions granted to farmers under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by expanding not only the definition of “eligible farming machinery,” but also the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include propane and natural gas.

There are concerns that the bill could undermine Canada’s federal carbon-pricing framework by proposing sector-specific exemptions and removing financial incentives to reduce emissions, even where greater efficiencies are achievable through current technology.

Farming is critical to our country. We must safeguard our ability to feed our citizens and those around the world, and Canadian farmers understand the importance of reducing emissions, as they are the first to be impacted by climate change. This is why the pollution pricing policy reflects the realities of Canada’s agricultural industry and why Canada has a host of programs to support and assist farmers. We have supply management systems for milk, eggs, chickens and maple products. We have insurance programs for crops. We have trade protections. Moreover, we have financing programs for farms and farm equipment, and laws to prevent the seizure of farming assets.

Top economists agree that carbon pricing is the cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon emissions. The rising price is a powerful signal to consumers that fossil fuels will become more expensive and the adoption of cleaner alternatives will result in long-term savings. The logic of carbon pricing is simple: emissions impose an environmental cost with pollution so that users are encouraged to reduce emissions, especially at this time of climate crisis.

The carbon price is not a punishment, but an incentive to seek alternatives and take action to reduce emissions to meet our targets.

Under the current federal system, farmers specifically are exempt from the diesel and gasoline fuel charge used for operating combines, tractors, trucks and some machines. The carbon price paid by farmers in the eight provinces and the territories in 2023-24 is estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be $13 million in connection with propane and $63 million in connection with natural gas, for a grand total of $76 million. Of this total, 58% will be paid by farmers in Ontario, 22% by those in Alberta, close to 16% by those in Saskatchewan and close to 4% by those in Manitoba. Those in the Atlantic provinces will pay less than 1% of the total.

It was the three provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario that challenged the constitutionality of the federal scheme, as was their prerogative, rather than implementing provincial regimes adapted to their reality as their counterparts in other provinces and territories had done.

In 2021, colleagues, as you know, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the levies imposed by the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act are “. . . constitutionally valid regulatory charges . . .” and are not, strictly speaking, a tax.

Interestingly, it is these same three provincial premiers who have written to senators urging them to pass Bill C-234 as is, without amendment. It is worth noting, however, that none of them have ever supported placing a price on pollution. For those who disagree with and disapprove of the current system in place under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, I would very much welcome — and the Government of Canada would welcome — concrete suggestions from premiers and the Conservative Party as to how we address climate change going forward.

Colleagues, nowhere is the threat of climate change more tangible than in our agricultural sector. As Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada observes:

Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will increase reliance on irrigation and water-resource management, notably across the Prairies and the interior of British Columbia where moisture deficits are greatest, but also in regions where there has not traditionally been a need to irrigate.

This department adds:

In many parts of the country, wetter than normal springs will present challenges such as the need to delay seeding. Flooding and other extreme events, including wildfires, may result in loss or relocation of livestock and damage to crops; and increased frequency and intensity of storms could result in power outages, affecting livestock heating and cooling systems as well as automated feeding and milking systems.

At $2 billion, the cost of weather-related damage on Canadian farms in 2018 was the fourth-highest ever. According to a recent article in The Globe and Mail, in 2016, forest fires in Alberta cost almost $9 billion. The forest fires we’re seeing across Canada will only get worse year after year. As Professor Mike Flannigan of the University of Alberta said, these fires are “due to climate change.”

For Alberta crop farmers, we must not forget about 2019, the “. . . harvest from hell . . . .” As an article in The Western Producer remarks, the estimated total value of unharvested crops in Alberta due to severe weather events that year was $778 million. Clearly, colleagues — and it is certainly the position of this government — we must act now on the climate to assist farmers.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act sets minimum national standards of greenhouse gas price stringency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it imposes a price on carbon in provinces that have not enacted legislation to achieve the federal targets. That is why it is called a backstop system.

This price seeks to incentivize individuals and businesses to make more environmentally sustainable purchasing and consumption choices, to redirect their financial investments and to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by substituting carbon-intensive goods for low greenhouse gas alternatives.

In 2019, The Wall Street Journal published the “Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends,” which states that “. . . a carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. . . .” There are over 3,000 signatories to this statement, including nearly 30 Nobel laureate economists.

Colleagues, it should also be noted that gasoline and diesel for farm use represent approximately 97% of on-farm greenhouse gas fuel emissions. These fuels are the ones that have always been exempted under this program because the government and the program recognize that farmers currently don’t have a choice to run their combines and tractors save with either gas or diesel.

On December 15, 2021, the government introduced Bill C-8, the Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, which was adopted by Parliament and received Royal Assent on June 9, 2022. The bill provided that fuel charge proceeds paid by farmers are returned to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions via a refundable tax credit.

In Budget 2021, it was acknowledged that “. . . many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations . . .” — two fuels that are excluded from the definition of “. . . qualifying farming fuel . . .” under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The government therefore announced its intention to return a portion of the proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in backstop jurisdictions.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act contains specific programs to support Canadian farmers. As I’ve said, most fuel use on farms is already exempted from the fuel charge which would otherwise apply. Bill C-234 attempts to increase the exemption by expanding the definition of “. . . eligible farming machinery . . .” to include not only “. . . property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure used for raising or housing livestock or for growing crops . . .” but also “. . . an industrial machine or a stationary or portable engine, including a grain dryer . . . .” The bill also goes on to include “. . . marketable natural gas and propane” under the definition of “. . . qualifying farming fuel . . . .”

The tax credit in Bill C-8 returned fuel tax revenues to farmers in a way that does not conflict with the objective and benefits of such a tax, which are to incentivize behavioural changes that will lead to overall emissions reductions.

The current government’s strategy for fighting climate change is not limited to putting a price on pollution. It also sets up a multi-faceted approach that includes substantial public investment in researching, developing and adopting clean technology for the agricultural sector.

The numbers speak for themselves. The government has committed over $1.5 billion to accelerate the agricultural sector’s progress on reducing emissions and to remain a global leader in sustainable agriculture, as well as $495.7 million for the Agricultural Clean Technology Program.

What we have before us today, with Bill C-234, is a proposal to replace a system designed to induce behavioural change, including among farmers, with a system that gives farmers temporary financial relief for eight years.

Bill C-234 has within it an eight-year sunset clause, at which time the exemption would be reviewed. However, as written, this review and any subsequent extension would not be in the hands of legislators.

Senator Moncion’s amendment eliminates Bill C-234’s mechanism to extend the exemptions beyond the sunset period by Governor-in-Council resolution or by any other method that did not require the approval of Parliament. While her amendment retains the entirety of the substance of the bill, including the eight-year sunset clause, the amendment would allow Parliament to extend the exemption, should it see fit to do so, only by passing a new bill. Most importantly, for our purposes, it would ensure that the parliamentary process is followed; there would be full debate and proper committee study on any subsequent bill.

Colleagues, our role in the Senate is to conduct a comprehensive review of legislation passed by the other place, as we have done with government bills. Bill C-234 is no different. It is entirely appropriate for the Senate to propose meaningful improvements, and, in my view, to ensure that Parliament has a say in whether or not an exemption should be extended in eight years’ time. This is within our purview, and I submit to you, respectfully, that it is a meaningful improvement to the law as drafted.

Without Senator Moncion’s amendment, the extension after eight years could proceed with a simple resolution passed in both chambers or by a decision of the executive branch, with no role for parliamentary scrutiny and oversight or committee examination and study, all of which are central to the work we do in Parliament and in this chamber. Senator Moncion’s amendment increases the likelihood that a future extension would receive proper scrutiny and a fair hearing.

Therefore, for these reasons, from a policy and process perspective, I would respectfully submit that this amendment merits your support in this chamber.

Colleagues, the more clarity we give farmers now about when the exemption in Bill C-234 will expire, the greater the chances that they’ll prioritize energy-efficient technologies over the coming years.

Other amendments may yet come forward before our debate on this bill is finished, and it is up to us to debate them and determine their merits. But in speaking to this one amendment, ensuring that Parliament and this chamber are given every opportunity to study any potential extension to this exemption, is, in my view, simply doing our jobs.

On a concluding note, I wish to thank all the stakeholder groups who reached out. These past months, senators have had the opportunity to meet nearly two dozen representatives from various groups both supportive of and opposed to Bill C-234. Their thoughtful insights were, as always, most helpful to our studies.

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Senator Moncion, do you have a question?

Senator Gold, will you take a question?

Gladly.

I thank the honourable senator for her question. I don’t have exact figures on the amount of money, but we are all paying, and especially farmers. It’s taxpayers and governments who have to pay to ensure that families can return to their homes if they haven’t been affected by fires. Farmers pay when their crops fail to meet their needs and expectations.

In short, the cost to Canada, to Canadian citizens, to industry and to the governments that must support us in these difficult circumstances is enormous. The cost is enormous and, unfortunately, it’s unlikely to go down.

Although we can’t predict the future, experts keep telling us that, without a serious effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution as quickly and effectively as possible, we will continue to suffer the damage and impacts linked to climate change.

At the end of the day, one way or another, we’re the ones who pay, be it through taxes or insurance premiums.

I myself am currently renewing my own insurance, and it’s expensive. You are absolutely right. The economic burden resulting from climate change is very heavy.

That doesn’t mean it’s easy to be a farmer in Canada or that farmers don’t need our support. That is not the case at all. However, when we analyze a bill or a government program, we have to look at all the costs. We need a solid understanding of the costs and benefits of a given program or bill.

Thank you, Senator Gold, for your speech. I have no issues with the carbon tax in my own life. I think you know that I’m a big believer in our addressing climate change, leading the Senate working group on environment and climate change to make sure that we become a carbon neutral organization. I also live 12 feet above sea level, so I have a personal interest in the issue on the Atlantic Ocean.

In your speech, there are two things that I didn’t hear, and perhaps I missed them. One was this: Why were the cleanest fuels that farmers use missed? What was the reason for the oversight when the exemptions were originally provided on gasoline and diesel but not provided on natural gas and propane?

The second was this: At what point is this government going to start to take advantage of the opportunity to do that which is recognized globally? We need to start to sequester atmospheric carbon. We have to pull the carbon out of the atmosphere, and farmers can play an incredibly powerful role in that. At what point are we going to start to take advantage of the role that they can play — a huge role — in sequestering carbon? This bill will only minimally reduce the amount of carbon they produce.

Thank you, Senator Gold.

Thank you for your question — there were two aspects to your question. When this government focused on diesel and gas and exempted all farmers across this country from its use, it was not an oversight on the part of the government. It was a recognition that if you’re running a combine, tractor or truck, you don’t have a choice. Although — as I said — they represent 97% of the emissions on a farm, it was thought necessary and appropriate, in recognition of the important role farmers play, that they be exempted from the price on pollution. It was not an oversight at all. It was a deliberate policy choice that this government made and is entitled to have made in the overall approach to climate action that is taken.

That action is my bridge to the second question. It is true that economists from around the world — Nobel Prize laureates, others and, notably, middle-of-the-road and conservative economists — recognize that a price on pollution is the most effective policy instrument to create the incentives for behavioural change and is the tool that is the most cost effective. But it’s not the only tool in the government’s approach. This government has a comprehensive climate change plan. It is small comfort to hope that other parties — or at least one other party — will have a plan when it comes into government. Right now, this government has a plan, and it’s entitled to legislate its plan and make its policy choices, which it has done. In that regard — as one should know by reading the material that the former environment minister produced under his term and that the current one is carrying forward — many issues are being examined as part of an overall approach to reducing emissions and taking advantage of technology, whether it’s carbon sequestration, which you mentioned, clean hydrogen and many other issues.

The point to be underlined here, though, is that in the arsenal of policy tools, programs, incentives, subsidies and rebates that make up the suite of initiatives, a price on pollution is the central, most effective, most market-sensitive, affordable way to do it. Yes, it increases the price on pollution. That’s why it works. It changes behaviour. This government has taken steps to provide transitory, transitionary support for farmers and others, whether it’s for those who are forced to heat with oil, which is one of the dirtiest forms of fossil fuels, in creating an exemption for three years in the Atlantic provinces — in your neck of the woods — with strong incentives and support for heat pumps. These are targeted measures to provide the incentives to change and support for that change. Carbon sequestration is one of those tools among many.

There’s recognition that it’s a tool. Unfortunately, we’re one of the last countries to move in implementing that tool, yet we’re increasingly punishing farmers for the small amount of carbon they produce relative to the huge amount they can sequester. That imbalance is troubling, and I wonder if you hear any knowledge or have any insight as to whether or not any movement will occur. Because all we’ve heard so far — those of us who asked Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada — is that they’re not interested.

Thank you for your question. Let’s remember that addressing climate change is not simply a whole-of-federal-government initiative. It engages the provinces, the industry and farmers who are at the forefront of it and who are innovating. There are provinces in the West that are at the forefront of developing and implementing new technology. There are pilot projects across this country to test out different approaches.

Therefore — again to your question — we’re debating a bill here that the government does oppose, but more importantly, we’re debating an amendment that would restore parliamentary oversight and study so that at such time as a government of the day may choose to extend this exemption beyond the eight years, we as parliamentarians — those of you who will still be here; I’ll watch from the sidelines, given my age — will nonetheless have an opportunity to study and ask those questions to the government of the day.

My question is simple. If the amendment passes, then you’re voting for the bill?

The government supports this amendment. I will be voting in favour of the amendment.

As honourable senators know, if this or any other amendment passes, then we will vote on the bill at third reading, as amended; at that point, having done its work to improve the bill, I expect this chamber will pass the bill. Then, it will go back to the House of Commons. It will be inscribed in their Order of Precedence.

Many colleagues here, I’m sure — I’d be happy to answer questions on this — understand the system in the House is quite different than ours. When a private member’s bill is amended, it is automatically put on a list for debate. It is scheduled in an orderly calendar. This bill will be debated in the House of Commons as it works its way through the Order of Precedence. The House of Commons, the opposition and the government — because it’s a minority government — will have an opportunity to consider Senate amendments and decide what the will of the House is.

But for the moment, it’s sufficient to say we support this amendment. It will improve this bill.

Senator McCallum, you clearly didn’t have your question answered, as we usually don’t at Question Period. I can assure you how I will vote, Senator McCallum, and I’ll end it there.

Honourable senators, I too want to speak to this bill. I’m happy Senator Gold, at least, has finally admitted the government is opposed to it. He has been doing his level best not to do that. He usually doesn’t get involved in private members’ business, but he did here.

Colleagues, we all spent the last week in our provinces and in our regions. I did as well. I come from a very rural part of the country. There are many grain, hog and dairy farmers, all of them very much dependent on the heat and drying mechanisms they have. In my province, there is still a lot of corn out there that they are harvesting and need to dry.

I attended a hockey game on the weekend that my youngest grandson was playing at. I had farmers come to me and thank me and our party for the work we are doing on behalf of farmers. They were telling us how they felt abandoned by this government, by Senator Gold, Minister Guilbeault and the Prime Minister, how they felt abandoned and how they could not wait for the next election when we would come forward with our climate action plan. The first one will be to axe the tax — axe this tax.

Colleagues, I want to take a moment today and reflect on how things have gone over the last weeks. Senator Cordy in her welcome address to our new senators talked about a “silly season;” indeed, we have that twice a year, at least. We’ve entered into ours early this year. That “silly season” was clearly out there on Thursday, November 9.

I want to talk about that because Canadians need to know what is happening in this chamber. We have Canadians watching us. Believe me, Canadians have started taking an interest in the Senate, more than in all of the years I have been here, ever since our Prime Minister invoked that horrible Emergencies Act that was so unnecessary; since that day, people across the country have been watching what the Senate is doing. They are watching today.

We have farmers in Ottawa today, some in the chamber. I thank them for coming. I thank the farmers who are here in Ottawa today. This week, they are planning on staying here. They want to see this bill passed.

The way things have transgressed here in the last while, I want to take a moment to talk about that because I think it’s important. It was evidenced during our Senators’ Statements today how important it is to talk about how things have transgressed here.

When we have questions of privilege arising from people expressing their opinions and getting frustrated with stalling tactics, questions of privilege arise from that. For as long as the Senate has been here, 150-some years, we have had that. We have taken it on the chin.

There are senators who have been here during what I call “the good times” where things would have happened as happened last Thursday; then, we would have gone out and had a beer together with the person that we were fighting with. Instead, we have what we have now: accusations made.

I don’t know whom one of the questions of privilege is referring to. I do want to say that — and it may have been referring to me, to a different senator or a group of senators — as Senator Wells said earlier, I was called a “bully” last Thursday by a senator in this chamber. I was called a “bully.” I want to talk about that for a second.

I don’t like being called a “bully.” I also don’t like being a bully, but I am passionate. I am passionate and I am dedicated to what I believe. I will never apologize for that. I will fight hard for my cause and my party, but I want to do it in a respectful manner, colleagues, and if I didn’t on Thursday, that isn’t acceptable.

My wife asked me, “When are you schoolchildren all going to grow up?” We are becoming similar to what the House of Commons is in their Question Period. I take some responsibility for that.

I’ll tell you, colleagues, this is very personal. Our present government still has not outlawed me going into my private room and praying. I’m sure they’re working on a bill to do that, but they haven’t yet. They’re outlawing prayers at Remembrance Day services. They have not outlawed prayer yet.

I pray every night: “God, help me to not let others dictate your attitude; do not let your frustrations be dictated or be encouraged by others; be professional; be hard; be hard-headed, but be professional, God.” That’s what I want.

I sometimes win that fight. I don’t always. On Thursday I got angry. I got very angry. I don’t think I conducted myself unprofessionally, but I got angry.

Thursday, when we wanted to debate Bill C-234 and we wanted to call a vote to help our farmers across the country, we were impeded and stopped from doing that by an adjournment motion that I found very hard to accept. We had an amendment made by Senator Moncion, and she and I had a short discussion about it. She had every right to make that amendment; there is no question. I do not, for one second, disagree with her right to make that amendment.

Frivolous as it was, the intent of the amendment is to kill the bill. Let’s be clear: That is the intent of the amendment. It doesn’t matter how one twists that around; the intent is to kill the bill. When Senator Gold says it won’t kill the bill, he is not speaking the truth. An amendment will kill this bill. It will not see the light of day. We will not get it back into this chamber. Senator Cotter was clear about that when he spoke about this. That’s the intent of this amendment.

Nevertheless, we bring amendments forward at third reading that have not passed at committee, so I won’t stand here and point fingers at somebody else for doing exactly what we have done on occasion, probably to stall. But let’s at least be honest about that.

Then, when Senator Moncion was not done speaking or at least when she was just sitting down, Senator Clement was on her feet to adjourn the debate. The Speaker was standing while Senator Clement was standing, which, of course, Your Honour, you know we should not do. When the Speaker stands, we should be sitting, which I pointed out to Senator Clement. I don’t know whether she heard me, but I pointed out to Senator Clement that she should not be standing when the Speaker is.

When the Speaker sat down, we had three senators standing here and Senator Clement, which makes four senators. Senator Tannas was standing over on the other side.

She first recognized Senator Clement, and then we spoke up. Then she asked Senator Batters whether Senator Batters had a question, and Senator Batters said she did. She asked Senator Moncion a question, and Senator Moncion answered the question. I think there was only one question. Senator Wells and I were immediately on our feet, as was Senator Clement, and we were on our feet to debate. Senator Clement adjourned the debate, and the Speaker recognized her.

I stood on a point of order; I called out a point of order. The Speaker heard me call out the point of order. I have yet to receive a ruling on the point of order — I still haven’t received it — yet, here we are debating again.

She then again recognized Senator Clement to adjourn, and Senator Clement’s explanation for adjourning, both to us and to iPolitics, was that she adjourned because other senators wanted to speak. That’s paraphrasing it. “I adjourned because other senators still wanted to speak.”

That’s a bit of an oxymoron, senators: “Senators want to speak, so I’ll adjourn.” I can understand somebody adjourning when people are calling for the question and you’re not ready for the question. Then somebody adjourns the debate, and you have a vote on an adjournment motion. You win or lose that, and you move on. But when somebody is standing to speak on debate, the Speaker doesn’t allow an adjournment motion. But here we had it; we had an adjournment motion.

We called a bell, and we were frustrated — rightfully so, I believe. We were very rightfully frustrated because we wanted to debate an amendment.

Senator Wells, the sponsor of this bill, was on his feet. He’s the sponsor of the bill, and he was not allowed to speak, because the Speaker ruled that an adjournment motion could come ahead of debate. I have never seen that. Twice since I’ve been in the Senate, since 2009, something similar has happened.

The first instance was very distinctly different in that Senators Lankin and Petitclerc, regarding the national anthem bill, tricked us, and they did the right thing. It was a bill that had been debated for quite some time. They wanted the question called. We didn’t want it debated any longer, but we didn’t want to vote on it, because we thought we would lose the vote. Therefore, we made sure that there wasn’t a vote taken. I think Senator Petitclerc’s seat was directly in front of Senator Lankin’s, and as Senator Lankin was sitting down, Senator Petitclerc had her hand up. The Speaker recognized her, and Senator Petitclerc called previous question, and that was the end of it.

Now, I went and had words with the Speaker, but he was right.

Senator Lankin and I have talked about that. She won one there, and I accept that, but that was in a situation where somebody wanted to call the question and somebody else wanted to stop it. It was not a situation where somebody wanted to debate. I have never heard of something like that.

I don’t know why Senator Clement would have done that, and I do know that Senator Clement is not by herself in that — clearly it was a team effort; I understand that. Nevertheless, then we’re called bullies because we’re upset. It is not because we lost, but because it wasn’t right. It still isn’t right. It still hasn’t been corrected.

Now we have questions of privilege that we need to deal with as a result of that. I’m not raising a question of privilege. I had words with that senator. To me, it’s over. I don’t need any recourse; I’m good.

I will be passionate again, and I will fight again. I will do what I can to move the Conservative cause ahead. In this case, it is not the Conservative cause but the farmers’ cause.

Colleagues, this is a bill that supports farmers. Farmers are both smart and efficient. Farmers know what is good for farmers. If somebody took offence to my comment about people from Montreal and Toronto who have never been on a farm not knowing better than farmers, I hope you don’t raise a question of privilege on that, because I will say it here again: Farmers know better what is good for farmers than lawyers or plumbers from Montreal or Toronto. I agree on that.

On Thursday last week, on November 9, I had two farm groups in my office, back to back. The first farm group comprised grain growers and hog farmers who are not dependent upon supply management; as a matter of fact, they oppose supply management. They were in my office, and they wanted to talk about two issues. They were very clear when we sat down: “We have two issues, senator. The first one is Bill C-234. You need to get Bill C-234 passed, senator. We need Bill C-234. We need to be able to heat our barns, and we need to be able to dry our grains. We need it passed.”

Then they said, “The other bill we want to talk about, senator, is Bill C-282. You have to defeat Bill C-282. It’s a bad bill. It will hurt our negotiations.” It was Bill C-282, was it not, Senator Gerba? I got a quizzical look there from Senator Woo, and I wanted to make sure I had the right bill number.

They wanted me to make sure that bill didn’t pass. They agreed, all six of them in my office. We talked about it, and I told them that I was fighting Bill C-234 and that it was a full load for me right now and we would get to Bill C-282. I said it was on a priority list for the Progressive Senate Group and that, at scroll, we negotiated based on what other groups’ priorities were, and I said that I believed Bill C-282 was there and it would, in due course, go to committee.

They left. The next group that came in was a group of dairy farmers, chicken farmers and egg producers. They said, “Senator, we have two bills that we need your help with. We need you to pass Bill C-234 because we need to heat our chicken barns and our egg barns. We need your help on Bill C-234. What can you do to help us?” I told them what we were doing. I asked, “What’s the other bill?” They said it’s Bill C-282: “Senator, we need you to pass Bill C-282 as fast as possible.”