Senator Wells: Thank you. Let me explain.

The opportunity to defeat a report, and the amendments that came with it, at committee is part of the normal rules — you would know that. This is one avenue we can take. I think, if your amendment is valid and worthy of consideration by the chamber, it should be debated on that merit. If you would like to bring that amendment back at third reading, where everyone can have a chance to debate and discuss it, I think that’s the appropriate place to do it.

Senator Wells: Of course, Senator Dalphond.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today at report stage as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I wish to thank the committee and its chair, Senator Black, for their important work on this bill.

Although it’s not uncommon to speak at report stage, it is important to do so at this particular point in the life of Bill C-234 as we’re dealing with an amendment from the committee designed to alter the spirit and intent of the bill and essentially kill the bill. An amended bill must go back to the other place, where the government can control the placement and pace of the bill’s progress and let it languish and, therefore, not become law.

However, after hearing all the arguments, I’m hopeful that senators will understand this bill is aimed at helping our food producers, and it respects the intent of the carbon tax. A vote against the report, which is what I’m asking the chamber to do, would allow the original, unamended bill to be reviewed and debated by the full chamber, where any amendments can be introduced and debated by all at third reading.

Farmer Roger Chevraux said it best:

I am a 4th generation farmer, and my family farm has been in operation for over 110 years. Together with my son, we farm 5,000 acres near Killam, Alberta, where we grow canola, wheat, and malt barley.

This proposed amendment excludes livestock farmers, ranchers and greenhouse growers and, if passed, would return the bill to the House of Commons, killing the bill and the much-needed financial relief it provides.

Farmers, ranchers and growers are simply asking for natural gas and propane — which are lower carbon fuels used on farms, essentially for barn heating and cooling — to receive the same carbon tax exemptions that are in place for gasoline and diesel.

Colleagues, the objective of this bill is straightforward. It’s intended to correct a legislative oversight by creating on-farm exemptions from the carbon tax on lower emission transition fuels used for critical farming practices such as grain drying, heating and cooling livestock barns and greenhouses, steam flaking and irrigation. The tax affects Canada’s farmers, ranchers and growers who rely on two key transition fuels, propane and natural gas, where there are currently no other viable alternatives.

This is not a carbon tax debate. We want to ensure farmers are motivated to eventually go to non-carbon fuel. The people that work the land are also the key stewards of the land, and they want to be as respectful to the environment and business-efficient as possible. To get there, farmers, ranchers and growers should be encouraged to use cleaner fuel like propane and natural gas. The ironic thing about the existing tax exemption is that higher emission fuels — including gasoline and diesel — are exempt and the lower-emission fuels — propane and natural gas — are not. It doesn’t make sense to put a behavioural tax on a product to which you want the behaviour to shift.

Colleagues, if we want to move away from the most carbon-intensive fuels, like coal and diesel, and transition to zero-carbon fuels like solar, wind, hydro, tidal or some other non-carbon fuel, there must be steps in between to get us there. These steps include lower emission fuels like gasoline and even less emission-intensive fuels like propane and natural gas. That’s what we are talking about here.

Since I’ve taken on this bill as Senate sponsor, I have visited a number of farms and ranches. One poultry farmer I met in Alberta told me he is doing everything he can already to make his business less costly and more efficient. He has eight poultry barns, and he needs to keep a very specific temperature range in those barns. It’s a poultry barn, colleagues, so that’s chickens; if it goes above that range, the chickens will die in about 15 minutes. If it goes below, they will survive a few hours, but that’s it.

Therefore, these aren’t choices. They are things they have to do, and the only way they can do them with the technology available now is to heat their barns in the winter, when it can be minus 30 or minus 40 degrees Celsius, or cool them in the summer, when it can be plus 30 or plus 40 degrees. This farmer has already done so many things, like insulating his barns, putting up heat shields on the sun side of the barns so the sun is absorbed by the shield and has less impact on the barns and building with concrete. They are doing everything to lower their use of fuel and to keep their animals alive.

Having barns removed from the exemption is the entirety of the amendment, versus grain dying, which is also important, but a different sector of the business from keeping your cattle alive and keeping your chickens and hogs comfortable and alive in the summer and winter where in Canada we have those extremes.

The other critical issue with farms is that, by their very nature, they are remote and rural. There is not always a ready supply of whatever fuel you might want except for something like propane, which is delivered to the site in a tank. Many farms, which are rural and remote, don’t have access to natural gas. The goal is not just about shifting behaviour, which Canadians are already doing, it’s also recognizing the practical challenges faced by farmers, ranchers and growers and ensuring a smooth transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.

Colleagues, the process of amending this bill sends it back to the other place where it will die. That’s the purpose of the amendment. The amendment didn’t have to be on barns — it could have been a change in the bill’s name. That would have been an amendment and would have achieved the same result. But the amendment that did get through, with a number of abstentions and vigorous debate, was removing barns from this whole equation. That’s fine for grain dryers, but it’s not fine for the farmers and ranchers of Canada who need to keep their animals comfortable and alive.

Another farmer I visited in southern Alberta told me that when the carbon tax reaches $170 a tonne, it will cost him half a million dollars per year just on the carbon tax — money that could be spent getting better or newer technology or testing solar cooling on one of their barns. This is the effect of additional costs and brings with it no benefit to the farm and no benefit to the environment. The government is calling it a market signal. Farmers, ranchers and growers believe that the only signal this sends will be higher costs to them and higher prices for the consumer. If there is an exemption for diesel and gasoline for internal combustion engines that drive heaters and coolers, would that not also be a market signal?

Colleagues, farmers, ranchers and growers are listening to this debate. They fully understand what transpired at committee and what is at stake at this stage of the Senate legislative process, and they understand the purpose of the amendment. As Ontario farmer Merv Erb said after hearing the news of what happened at committee:

I saw what happened at committee with Bill C-234. So here we are — with wet corn, facing atrocious drying costs. It might be a harvest nightmare like 2018/2019 all over again. Bill C-234 would have offered much-needed and critical relief. And now the Senate is gutting the bill.

As the bill’s Senate critic, Senator Dalphond, asked at committee, given that the price of natural gas and propane is currently lower than in previous years, why would a farmer still need a break on that fuel? Well, the price of oil 10 years ago was over $100 a barrel. Four years later, it was less than $30. Should a farmer then switch to oil, given the lower price? Today, the price is $83 per barrel. If Bill C-234 is a question of fairness, then it shouldn’t be anchored on a fluctuating variable like spot price. It should be anchored on fairness.

I want to be clear on why I’m voting against the committee report. If the report is voted down, it doesn’t kill the bill. It just says that the report that came from the committee, including the amendment, is not accepted by the chamber. Bill C-234 will go to third reading as an unamended bill, and any amendments, including this amendment that passed at committee, can be proposed at third reading for consideration by the full Senate. That’s our process. It’s fair, and we can all be part of the discussion. If this amendment on removing barns from the exemption is deemed worthy, then please vote that way.

Colleagues, by voting for the report, you’re allowing this amendment to pass, which will cost farmers, ranchers and growers a billion dollars that would or could otherwise be invested in the sustainability and efficiency of their operations, in expansion and in hiring more people — all the things we wish for in any business.

Colleagues, we often hear in this chamber that our job is to make bills better. That is our job. If this report passes and the bill is amended, we’ll have failed in our commitment to do just that. Killing it by process does not make this bill better.

[Translation]