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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on the bell?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15. Therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate.

(On motion of Senator Loffreda, debate adjourned.)

On Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Second Reading, Order No. 23, by the Honourable Yonah Martin:

Second reading of Bill S-267, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (aggravating circumstance — evacuation order or emergency).

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I note that this item also is at day 15. Therefore, with leave of the Senate, I ask that consideration of this item be postponed until the next sitting of the Senate.

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I note this item is at day 15. Therefore, with leave of the Senate, I ask that consideration of this item be postponed until the next sitting of the Senate.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), on behalf of Senator Clement, I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of her time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: 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.

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Seidman, for the second reading of Bill S-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (murder of an intimate partner, one’s own child or an intimate partner’s child).

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I believe the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Hon. Michèle Audette: Honourable senators, I’d like the vote to be deferred to the next sitting of the Senate.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Okay. All those in favour of the motion, please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: 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?

Hon. René Cormier: Colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, which was introduced in the Senate by Senator Jim Quinn on September 19.

I’d like to acknowledge that I am speaking to you from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Our study of this bill must take into account the historical, political and legal context surrounding it. I think these perspectives are essential to understanding the purpose of this legislative measure and the questions it raises.

The Chignecto Isthmus is the piece of land that connects New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The system of dykes and aboiteaux that has been protecting it for centuries from the high tides in the Bay of Fundy holds a special historical and cultural place in the collective psyche of the region’s residents, particularly Indigenous people and Acadians.

[English]

The Mi’kmaq people occupied these lands long before Europeans arrived on the continent. The name “Chignecto” is, in fact, a European adaptation of a Mi’kmaq term for a much larger region: Siknikt, meaning drainage place.

In an article entitled “Revealing the History of the Isthmus of Chignecto: Toward Truth and Reconciliation,” Anne Marie Lane Jonah wrote:

. . . Archaeological investigations have found objects for hunting and food processing, trade goods, and cultural practices, demonstrating the sustained and consistent use and the importance of the region for trade and habitation over millennia. . . .

. . . The first Acadian settlers came to this area not only because they recognized its agricultural potential, but as importantly, because it was a Mi’kmaw place and a centre for trade.

[Translation]

When the Acadians arrived in this area in the early 17th century, they used an Indigenous agricultural technique to farm the Bay of Fundy’s saltwater marshes. It involved a water control system equipped with a breakwater to prevent the high tide from flooding the fields, while still allowing rainwater to drain off. This system of dykes and aboiteaux that enabled the Acadians to drain many hectares of marsh in order to farm is a fundamental aspect of Acadian culture.

Historian Ronald Rudin, distinguished professor emeritus at Concordia University’s history department said the following, and I quote:

 . . . when the Acadians were deported in the mid-18th century, 8,000 hectares of marshland had been drained, while on higher ground, only 200 hectares of forest had been cleared. That is why Acadians were known as “défricheurs d’eau” or clearers of water.

Roger Blais’s 1955 fictional documentary The Dikes, one of the first Acadian films made by the National Film Board, depicts this unique reality.

Although it is a work of fiction, this film shows how, in the 1950s, Acadians were dealing with the rapid deterioration of their dyke system and how major repairs were done in that region, including on the Chignecto Isthmus, to hold back the waters of the Bay of Fundy.

We have no choice but to acknowledge that, over the past few decades, new threats have arisen that were not contemplated at the time. Today, colleagues, the Chignecto Isthmus is especially vulnerable to rising sea levels and weather conditions caused by climate change.

Last year’s Chignecto Isthmus Climate Change Adaptation Comprehensive Engineering and Feasibility Study by the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia notes the following:

Induced Sea Level Rise (SLR) and coastal subsidence is forecasted to threaten a large portion of the coastal infrastructure in Atlantic Canada before the year 2100. The current Chignecto Isthmus dykes are at risk along with the various Trade Corridor infrastructure components they protect such as: TransCanada Highway, CN Rail, 138 kV and 345 kV electrical transmission lines, fibre-optical cables, a wind farm, agricultural cropland activities and various other utilities.

Given its importance to the country as a trade and transportation route, not to mention is agricultural value to the inhabitants of the region, it would indeed be catastrophic if the isthmus were to be flooded by 2100.

[English]

The Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is currently studying the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors — for instance, those located on the isthmus — and its members have heard relevant testimony on this subject.

Colleagues, allow me to quote David Kogon, the current mayor of the Town of Amherst, Nova Scotia:

We now feel that because we are seeing the sea levels rise, it will take less of a storm to breach the dikes, and our storms are getting more frequent and more intense. . . . the storm of a lifetime has become an annual event. When we look back over the last three or four years, we’ve had more hurricanes than we’ve had in many years prior.

The vulnerability due to climate change is the issue. It’s not that the dikes are destroyed, but they’ll be overcome by one of these storms. So the rail line being in good condition, the road being in good condition and the power lines being in good condition will all be for naught when the flood occurs.

We are vulnerable. We could have a high tide, full moon and hurricane at any time. That’s why we feel there is a major urgency to getting mitigation efforts started.

[Translation]

It is clear, then, that we need to adapt the isthmus dyke system to the effects of climate change before it’s too late.

The federal government and the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia agree on the need to restore this system, but do not agree on how it should be funded. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia feel that the federal government is entirely responsible for the work and for footing the bill, although Nova Scotia is proposing to pay 50%, based partially on the fact that the provinces own the Trans-Canada Highway that crosses the isthmus. The cost of the project to restore the system is estimated at $650 million.

Against that backdrop, the Nova Scotia government asked the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to clarify whether the federal government has “exclusive” responsibility to maintain the dykes and other structures in place to protect the isthmus. It goes without saying, colleagues, that this legal process raises constitutional questions that go beyond the issue of funding.

With that in mind, Bill S-273 would make the federal government responsible for dyke restoration work through a statement by Parliament indicating that this work is for “the general Advantage of Canada” under paragraph 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In doing so, we can reasonably assume that it will be responsible for footing the entire bill for the work, thus fulfilling the wishes of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia governments.

[English]

In his second reading speech on October 3, Senator Quinn presented some of the reasons for using the federal declaratory power, including the national importance of the dike restoration project given that it protects a number of elements essential to the country’s economic well-being such as the Trans-Canada Highway and the CN railway. He insisted that the planned 50% federal funding was insufficient given that this was a project of national interest.

Considering the context of Bill S-273 — and while I recognize the historical, cultural, economic and, shall we say, national importance of the dike system that protects the isthmus, including the related works — I have a few questions about the merits of this legislation.

[Translation]

As the legislative body in charge of providing sober second thought on legislation, is the Senate best placed to determine who is constitutionally responsible for the work in the Chignecto Isthmus?

Is it the best forum for adopting a bill likely to have a financial impact on the federal government?

Should the Senate interfere in this type of federal-provincial relationship, especially when we’re awaiting the outcome of the legal proceedings initiated by the Government of Nova Scotia?

In a spirit of cooperative federalism, shouldn’t we be promoting federal-provincial diplomacy for resolving the impasse? These are the questions I ask myself and I think they should be carefully considered in committee.

In this chamber, our former colleague André Pratte said that the declaratory power is a measure that should be used only as a last resort.

He said the following:

The declaratory power is the least federalist measure a central government can take. Some have called it the nuclear bomb of the federal government’s arsenal.

He went on to say this:

Renowned constitutional law professor Peter Hogg has commented that the federal Parliament’s power under section 92(10)(c) is in conflict with classical principles of federalism.

These assertions are all the more reason to take the time to carefully study the nature and potential scope of using declaratory power.

[English]

Colleagues, there is no doubt that the rapid and effective restoration of the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System in the face of the growing threat of climate change is in the interest of all Canadians, a national reality that underlies Bill S-273, and I sincerely thank Senator Quinn for bringing this issue to our attention.

[Translation]

As one of our most talented Acadian songwriters wrote in his famous song called “Les Aboiteaux”:

but somewhere the dikes are waiting

for the land around them to stir

telling us to set off before arriving

whispering of wonders to discover

It is indeed time to wake up and take action in the face of the fragility of this piece of land that unites not only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia but our entire country.

However, I feel that this legislation raises more questions than it attempts to resolve. I therefore invite my colleagues to examine this legislation in committee with all due attention.

Thank you.

[English]