Senator Plett: Your government arbitrarily banned 1,500 types of firearms three years ago. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, says the price tag for this will be at least three quarters of a billion dollars — not worth the cost. It’s been three years, and nothing has been paid. The minister claimed last week that he’s still working on it.

When will this NDP-Liberal government actually complete its never-ending work and do what it promised to do?

Senator Plett: The majority of households in my province rely upon natural gas to heat their homes. It gets very cold in Manitoba. The Prime Minister might not know that. The Prime Minister doesn’t live in the real world, Senator Gold. He’s never had to worry about a budget or how to pay for home heating. The PBO has repeatedly said that Manitobans will be in the red because of the carbon tax, yet the Prime Minister says he’s still doubling down on his plan to quadruple the tax. It’s unbelievable.

How much more does he think Manitobans can afford to pay? What has record food bank usage in my province done? How much more does he want from them?

Senator Plett: Well, you’re right, and we are doing a job. You’re doing your job, leader; you’re here. You show up and attend Question Period. Your boss was in West Block yesterday, and couldn’t be bothered to go downstairs to answer questions in the House.

You may have noticed, leader, that it has been lightly snowing on and off in Ottawa over the last few days, and that hasn’t escaped Senator Downe’s notice. Senator Downe thinks the Prime Minister could be gone by February. Senator Gold, why wait? Why doesn’t he just go now?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, with great sadness, I also rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and a colleague, the Honourable Ian Shugart.

Ian liked to remind me that he was the only deputy minister whom our leader, Pierre Poilievre, ever had when he was a minister. Our time goes back to the days of my good friends Jake Epp, Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark.

I know we say this often when someone passes, but with regard to our friend Ian, the words were never truer: He left us too soon. Too soon because he was loved as a husband, a father, a family member and a friend. Too soon because he was a man of integrity with a depth of experience and knowledge, and yet a man of great humility. Too soon because he was a man with immense wisdom and significant experience that would have enriched our discussions and deliberations in this chamber.

When Ian Shugart gave his maiden speech in this chamber last June, we did not know that it would also be his farewell speech. His words were not addressed to the nation, nor to the Prime Minister, nor to any political party. They were addressed to us. He challenged us, each and every one of us, to be at our best and to exercise restraint. Allow me to read just a few lines from his speech when he said:

Canada is facing great challenges on many fronts: social justice, environmental crises and major economic and international security threats. To survive these realities, let alone thrive, we have to be at our best. The alternative is mediocrity. . . .

Canada is a big, diverse country — geographically, socially, culturally, economically and philosophically. For each of us, for parties and for institutions, restraint may begin with acknowledging that our point of view — legitimate as it is — is not the only point of view.

We have benefited from restraint in this country, and, in these times, we need it again. May we all find it within ourselves to practise restraint.

May Senator Shugart’s remarks be an inspiration to me, for all of us, to be at our best so that Canada not only survives but thrives. May we, too, live our lives with humility and integrity, as Ian did. May we, too, run our race well and finish strong, as he did.

Ian shared with me personally that he had hoped to have more time with us in this chamber, but as a man with deep faith in his God and his Saviour, he only wanted God’s will for his life, and he would accept that with no complaint.

Today, Ian is home in the arms of Jesus, but his loss is felt among all of us. I extend my heartfelt condolences on behalf of not only myself but our Conservative caucus to his wife Linda, his children Robin, James and Heather and to his entire family. May God strengthen all who are grieving his departure.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Now I know why he insisted on speaking before I did.

Honourable senators, I present Chapter 6 in the legacy of Team Plett. I am thrilled to be standing here in this chamber welcoming not only my granddaughter Myla but also her curling teammates Alyssa, Chloe and Allie, along with their coach Blair Lenton. David Nedohin, the other coach, has promised he will be at our reception tonight.

To say that I am proud of the quest for excellence that these girls have undertaken would be an understatement. They have done what no other junior curling team has ever accomplished: winning back-to-back Under-18 national championships, winning the silver medal at the Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island, then winning the Under-21 junior championship in Quebec, which allowed them to represent Canada in Finland at the World Junior Curling Championships 2024 and become the first women’s junior team in Canadian history to ever win the Under-18 and Under-21 championships in the same year.

Because of their curling accomplishments and past record, Team Plett was invited to curl in the PointsBet Invitational tournament in Oakville, Ontario, where they curled against professional curlers.

On September 27, they were given the unenviable task of curling in their first game against none other than the world champion Jennifer Jones. They took Jennifer all the way through 10 ends before losing in a very close game. In this game, Myla almost mirrored Jennifer Jones’s curling record of 82% with her own, which was 81%.

In the words of Canadian champion, Curling Canada Hall of Fame inductee and TSN commentator Cathy Gauthier, “Every so often there is somebody that comes along that you call the next best thing.” That is how she described my granddaughter Myla — as the best next thing in curling.

Colleagues, Team Plett then went on to curl in the Saville U25 Challenge, where they curled against women 25 years of age and under from around the world. Again, they went all the way to the final before losing a very close game.

This weekend, colleagues, they are here in Ottawa curling at the Ottawa Valley Curling Association U21 Junior SuperSpiel. I know we want to wish them all well, and although you may not be able to cheer for an Alberta team while they are here in Ottawa, I know you will want to encourage them and cheer them on when they represent Canada at the world championships.

Colleagues, I want to invite everyone to the third-floor boardroom this evening at 6 p.m. for a little get-together and reception to meet the girls. For many of you, supporting Team Plett might be much easier when it’s regarding curling rather than politics, and I hope you will all join us. I know the girls would love to meet each and every one of you.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, contrary to what the Prime Minister might believe, Manitobans are also suffering under his carbon tax. People in my province who are struggling to pay their bills know he’s not worth the cost.

Yesterday, the new provincial government said that, in light of the recent carbon tax changes, it wants greater fairness extended to Manitobans as well. Four Liberals and three MPs from their coalition partners, the NDP, represent Manitoba ridings in the House of Commons, yet not a single one of them was able to convince the Prime Minister to give Manitobans a break on their home heating.

Why is that, leader? Why are they all so useless?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, as you know, the shady “ArriveScam” contract is under RCMP investigation. NDP and Liberal coalition MPs recently shut down a committee that was about to hear from the RCMP Commissioner regarding a different Liberal scandal: the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Yesterday, a senior government official compared the Prime Minister’s green slush fund to the sponsorship scandal, and last week, we heard confirmation that the carbon tax is a form of punishment for those not voting Liberal.

What does Prime Minister Trudeau do amidst all this? He skips Question Period. He’s not worth the cost, leader. He provides no serious leadership, and has zero interest in accountability. Isn’t that right, leader?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, after eight long years, the NDP-Liberal government has played political games on the backs of licensed and responsible firearms owners. The latest example of this is another two-year extension of the amnesty for owners of firearms that the Trudeau cabinet banned in 2020. The amnesty is now set to expire on October 30, 2025, a few days after the next election is scheduled to take place. What a coincidence, leader.

Canadians can see this for what it is: A failed government willing to try anything to save itself. Are Canadians actually expected to think that your government picked this date randomly?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): 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.