Honourable senators, I have just a few comments. I won’t take a long time. We’ve had lots of discussion around Bill C-234, and I want to share some observations about all of the valuable debate we’ve had here, and I want to recognize all of the valuable work that was done by our committee. I think we really did our job in the sense of sober second thought.

We’ve heard different things during debate, and we’ve heard things that I don’t necessarily agree with, for example, the anti‑tax commentary, the partisanship commentary. We’ve also heard conflicting information. One senator would say this is what was said, and another senator would say this is the other fact.

When we look at Bill C-234, we have to agree that the fundamental issue is, in fact, climate change, and we have to keep that front and centre.

I happen to be a believer that climate change is real, and we need to do things to try and save the planet. That’s why I’m a part of Senator Coyle’s group of senators who are very focused on and concerned about the environment.

This morning, I heard a report on CBC Radio as I was coming to my office, and it was a reflection of the debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. And that debate, of course, pitted them in opposite positions, but it did refer to a mushroom farm just outside of Ottawa. They had the farmer on for an interview. At the conclusion of his commentary, I thought, “That is a non-partisan farmer.” He acknowledged that not only the Prime Minister was correct in some of the observations that he’d been making during the debate, but the Leader of the Opposition was also correct in some of the aspects that he was referring to.

He also acknowledged that climate change for him as a farmer is real and that he has introduced different techniques, practices and procedures in his operation to help mitigate the impact on the climate, and he feels more can be done as we move to the right and as technologies becomes more available.

He also talked about what the requirements around climate change will cost him, taking his fuel bill from $150,000 to $475,000 to $500,000, I think he said, by 2030. His concern was that he may have to change the size of his farm, that he may have to reduce it, but it was more around the price of food to consumers in Canada, particularly in the local marketplace that he supplies.

He brought a really balanced position forward. He acknowledged that as he continues with his business, he will continue to do everything he can to improve his operation. He was talking very personally, very locally.

As we consider this, we have to think about the amendments we’ve heard. I was asked by Senator Moncion at one point if I had enough information. At that point I said, “I think I have enough but not on the financial side.”

I wish I had more information on the amendments that have been proposed, because those amendments weren’t necessarily fully addressed or fully included in the commentary provided throughout the debates. We really need to deal with the bill itself, and, for me, it’s a bill about climate change, but it also has to be a debate or a consideration by all of us about balance.

We have to look at the farmers of our country who are under pressures. Farms are reducing. We talk about food security. We need to give them the opportunity to continue to provide food for not only Canadians but people around the world while we don’t put unnecessary hardships that continue to accelerate the loss of farms.

We need to keep climate change as a reality but do so in a very balanced way. I don’t think climate change is a question of us flipping a switch, and all emissions stop. We need a very well thought out, balanced approach to allow our climate to make the changes that will save our planet while we balance the requirements of our continuing as humanity.

I suggest and ask that we stand back from any partisan views we may have and truly be independent senators to think about the best position that takes into consideration the things that I have mentioned, including the farmers who feed our country and feed our world.

I just wanted to share those comments and observations going into our final stages of debate. Thank you.

Senator Quinn, will you take a question?

Yes, I will take a question.

Thank you for your question, and thank you for doing comparison shopping.

The important issue I’ve raised is the question of climate change as it relates to farms. I didn’t raise the pricing policies of retailers. I can take you to No Frills, and you might get it even more cheaply, but that’s a retailer issue. It’s not the issue I was addressing in relation to the operation of the farm and what not.

As my last comment, I am glad that you were able to go to Costco and to Walmart and to choose the products you want. My point is if we don’t take a balanced approach, we will continue to see an increase in the numbers of people who don’t enjoy the same benefit that you enjoyed because they don’t have the resources to pay for those foods.

Honourable senators, I’m speaking, of course, on Senator Dalphond’s amendment.

After the debate earlier in the week, or maybe it was last week, some assertions were made about the drying season no longer happening or it being over. There were some discussions about the dollar figures expended on carbon tax. I’d like to talk about that. I didn’t have to do much research on it because my inbox was flooded with notes from farmers. I will read a couple of them; they’re not edited at all.

Before I do that, I want to thank Senator Quinn for his remarks. I’m in accord with everything he said on the financial side, which I’ll talk about in a moment, but also on the bill itself. In all my discourse not just on that committee but on second reading and on the number of amendments we’ve had, I’ve tried to keep my discourse non-political. I’ve tried to not have it be about the carbon tax.

Senator Dasko asked me a question the other day when I spoke about that. She asked if this was really just about the carbon tax. I said no, and I’ve taken great pains to make this not about the carbon tax. For me, this is really about the farmers, the ranchers and the growers. I say those three words a lot because that’s what it is to me. I don’t say, “Axe the tax.” I don’t talk about the carbon tax in general. I recognize that it’s a valid government policy. The government in power has that policy, and that’s what we accept. I’ve taken great pains to take the merit side of the argument because if my arguments don’t stand on merit, they don’t stand at all.

I want to talk about some of the notes I received from actual farmers, from actual people who buy actual fuel and spend actual money on carbon tax. I asked them if I could use their names, and they said by all means.

So, John McDonnell of McDon O’Sie Farms in Perth County paid carbon tax in 2023 of $2,281 on beet drying and $26,400 on corn drying, totalling $28,700 this year. Larry Cann of Meaford, Ontario, dried 500 tons of corn, spent $850 in carbon tax.

Tota Farms in Burford, Ontario, is a ginseng farm. I don’t know what the margins are like in ginseng, but I’m told they’re incredibly thin margins. Carbon tax on the cost of drying ginseng root in 2022 was $19,600. Of that, $3,300 was carbon tax, 17%. That certainly would eat up the margin.

For Doug and Dave Johnston of Maplevue Farms in Perth County, their corn was a little wetter, probably about 30%. This is from a message they sent. It took more than they planned or budgeted to dry. They paid a total of $7,746 in carbon tax and dried just over 2,000 tons of corn. Doug told me that the money would have helped pay the tuition of his son attending the University of Guelph.

As you perhaps know, colleagues, the University of Guelph is one of the top universities in the world in agriculture studies.

Melady Acres in Perth County, who farm in Huron and Perth Counties, put 2,900 tons through their dryer this fall, spending $4,900 in carbon tax. These are actual dollars. It’s money, and it’s not small money. Tara Terpstra, a hog farmer from Huron County, says her on-farm propane costs for barn heating have increased by 21% just with the carbon tax. She will spend $10,000 a year in additional production expenses.

I’ve got a few more, and I’ll read them because they cared enough to send in their information.

Redwood Poultry of Mitchell, Ontario, is a young and new entrant to chicken farming. They have a quota, so they can’t scale up and benefit from the possible cost decreases from scaling up. Each time they fill with propane, it’s another $256 in carbon tax. This is on top of the $11,000 a year in total barn heating costs. That’s 16% in carbon tax.

This one was sent to me but is clearly directed at the comments from Senator Moncion: “Still burning and turning here.” This message was from Drew Spoelstra. About 75% of his drying was complete. They’re about an hour west of Montreal.

Another ginseng grower from Scotland, Ontario, spent $21,000 to dry ginseng root, of which $4,900 in carbon tax. Colleagues, that’s 23%. And there are more. Allegro Acres, near Ruthven, Ontario, has 30 acres of greenhouse vegetable production; they’re paying nearly $100,000 a year in carbon tax. This is not small money, colleagues. JEM Farms in Kingsville, Ontario, paid $449,000 for natural gas to heat 50 acres. Their carbon tax bill came to 24%, almost $107,000.

Steve Brackenridge from Peterborough wrote:

Still drying here. We have over 1,600 tons of wet corn ahead of us and at least that much to come. Dropping off another 10,000 litres of propane tomorrow. That should get me to Saturday morning.

He told me he will spend, in one week alone, colleagues, $4,300 in carbon tax. I don’t know if farming is a lucrative business, but this makes it less lucrative and probably not lucrative at all.

Colleagues, I’d like to address some of the quotes that were given in earlier speeches by Senator Dalphond and Senator Woo, as well.

Senator Woo suggested that heat pumps are the solution for heating barns. Of course, we heard from William David Lubitz, Associate Professor at the School of Engineering at the University of Guelph. He’s a renowned expert. He appeared at the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. Here’s what he said. To use his words as an anchor for an argument against the carbon tax, I will give colleagues his full quote. Of course, Senator Woo mentioned heat pumps as the holy grail of grain drying. Professor Lubitz said:

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. . . .

Of course, colleagues, you know that the cap included in this bill is eight years. He goes on to say:

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.

That’s not opinion, colleagues. That’s from a renowned expert.

Senator Dalphond, of course, in his speech had a number of selective quotes that, taken alone, would certainly be taken out of context. Let me give you just one. He quoted Chandra B. Singh, Senior Research Chair, Agricultural Engineering and Technology at Lethbridge College, suggesting that alternate technology is currently available.

Again, Senator Dalphond, the critic, anchored his argument to the comments of Dr. Singh at committee. What Dr. Singh actually said in his full passage is this:

Propane and natural gas are the only two practical fuel sources for grain drying in Western Canada. Federal carbon pricing, with its proposed annual increase to $170 per tonne by 2030, will impact the farmers and, ultimately, the consumers who are already struggling with high food prices.

I strongly support Bill C-234 to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. . . .

That, colleagues, was a quote from Dr. Chandra B. Singh. Of course, part of that was used by Senator Dalphond in his speech but certainly not all of it.

There was also a quote from MP Ben Lobb. I think Mr. Lobb was in the gallery when Senator Dalphond partially quoted him. He quoted MP Lobb, and MP Lobb and I appeared at the Agriculture Committee when this was first being studied. We presented it as the movers in both the other place and here in the Senate.

Senator Dalphond quoted MP Lobb as saying:

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 . . . .

Of course, the full quote from MP Lobb included:

We have to recognize that agriculture is one of the most innovative industries there is. It’s absolutely one of the most innovative. . . .

Of course, colleagues, we know being innovative means increasing your efficiency and decreasing your costs.

He goes on to say:

If you have some of the grain drying businesses and innovators appear before committee, your jaw might hit the table because you’d be so amazed at what they’re actually doing. One of the thoughts that should not come out of this meeting is that agriculture is not innovating, or grain drying technology is not innovating. 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 . . .

Of course, what MP Lobb said — and I spoke to him about this — is that the solutions are in development. They are not in use or ready for on-farm application. These innovations might still use propane and natural gas, but perhaps just less or more efficiently.

Finally, colleagues, Senator Dalphond mentioned a number of times that it’s important for the market to see the price signal and that the price signal is really important. He was quite passionate about it. Senator Woo was as well. But they both seemed to lose that passion when I asked this question on his debate: What’s the price signal? What signal are you sending to the market on the question of price signal if diesel and gasoline are specifically exempted from the carbon price? They seemed to lose their enthusiasm for that argument.

Senator Dalphond’s answer, of course, had nothing to do with the price signal. I have his quote here. He talked about how:

. . . it is time to stop emitting carbon dioxide, that it is time to stop emitting greenhouse gases and that the best way to do so, as every economist in the entire world knows, is to charge a carbon tax . . . .

He talked about his trip to Taiwan, which I didn’t think had anything to do with the price signal that he referenced.

Colleagues, I could obviously talk more about the bill, and I may if people have questions. I’m happy to answer them. But I hope we’re nearing the end of the debate, certainly on this amendment, though I do expect other amendments. That seems clear and that’s a signal we’ve already received.

On the face of it, this is a good bill. When you dig into the simplicity of the bill, which removes the carbon tax or gives an exemption on the carbon tax for on-farm heating and cooling of barns and on-farm drying of grain, it seems only fair and reasonable that farmers, ranchers, growers and dryers of grain should be exempted — especially, colleagues, with respect to the transition fuels of natural gas and propane. Thank you.

Senator Wells, will you take a question?

I will, Senator Woo.

First of all, thank you for referring to my speech. It provides an opportunity for me to invite all colleagues to reread it and see if your characterization of it is accurate.

In the various submissions from hard-working farmers who wrote to you about the costs they’ve incurred, did they also tell you how much they got in rebates from the government because of a few charges that were paid, particularly the largest farmers, some of whom I think were reported about in your debate? Because they actually get more than the average. They may get more than what they have paid. Do you have the data from the same farmers who provided you the figures on carbon pricing?

Thank you for your question, Senator Woo. I didn’t hear from those farmers on the rebate, but I do know that the rebate is unfairly applied. We’ve already fully discussed that.

There is one farmer I did speak with. In fact, I visited his farm, and I mentioned this in an earlier intervention. It might have been in a speech or response. The rebate is not uniform, but I don’t want to say unfairly so. It obviously follows some rule that includes a calculation. The rebate is given to even those farmers, ranchers and growers who have very little use for natural gas and propane. It’s applied to all farming costs and has nothing to do specifically with fuel. You may know that. If you don’t know that, please know it now.

The farmer I visited in Okotoks — I’ve mentioned him before — has a modest-sized chicken operation. Last quarter, he received $47,000 in rebates. That’s a lot of money. It’s great he received that cheque for $47,000. But he paid out in carbon tax, colleagues, over $153,000.

Are senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

I think the “nays” have it.

Do we have agreement on the bell?

Madam Speaker, the vote will be deferred to the next sitting of the Senate.

Pursuant to rule 9-10(6), the vote is deferred until 5:30 p.m. on the next day the Senate sits, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.