Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

I am pleased to advise that we held seven meetings. We heard from 24 witnesses and received 21 written briefs. I would like to add that, in comparison, the other place only held five committee meetings on this bill.

As an overview of what happened during those seven meetings throughout our study, I offer the following:

Three amendments were proposed, and only one was adopted during clause-by-clause consideration. The amendment adopted — put forth by Senator Dalphond — limits the bill to grain drying equipment only by excluding the heating and cooling of barns, greenhouses and other structures.

Upon presentation of this amendment, a point of order was raised by my Canadian Senators Group colleague Senator Burey, deeming that amending Bill C-234 in this manner was destructive to its original principles and goals, and was, therefore, out of scope. After debate on the point of order, I, as chair, ruled in favour of the point of order. However, the chair’s ruling was defeated in a vote of 5 yeas; 7 nays; and 2 abstentions. The amendment was then debated, voted upon and adopted: 7 yeas; 6 nays; and 1 abstention.

The report also now includes four observations, with a fifth observation being withdrawn, as it was very similar to one that was approved.

Honourable colleagues, I will now remove my committee chair hat, and assume my perspective as a senator appointed to this chamber because of my agricultural background. As you know, I take every chance that I can to highlight this very important industry, and so now I am wearing my proverbial farm hat.

I will begin by saying that presenting this report is a challenging task for me. I’m highly disappointed — as the chair and as a lifelong “agvocate” — that I must table this report, and now have to speak against it.

Colleagues, as I have said, there were two parts to this bill — farm heating and cooling, and grain drying — and now there is one. The amendment adopted in this report by our colleague from the metropolis of Montreal effectively removes half the bill by excluding the heating and cooling of buildings and structures.

I believe, as does the industry, that this amendment changes the initial intent of the bill, which was to provide carbon tax relief for farmers. The bill, as it now stands, establishes an unjust precedent within our industry. Our farmers work tirelessly to produce food that feeds our nation and the world, and they are facing increasingly challenging circumstances.

We heard over and over again in committee how much the industry needs this carbon tax relief, especially as we move into the colder months when farmers will be required to heat their barns, greenhouses, et cetera. Climate change, labour shortages, trade disruptions and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have taken a toll on our agricultural sector. Additionally, agricultural commodities are already facing a rise in costs of production for things like inputs, supplies, machinery and transportation.

As a nation, I believe that we must do everything in our power to support our farms and ensure they can continue to thrive in the face of these significant challenges. Removing the heating and cooling of barns and other structures does the opposite of this.

While some alternative, greener options may be available for the heating and cooling of barns, the current challenges faced by the industry do not allow for producers to have the capital to afford these greener options, as they require astronomical investments usually amortized over 20 or more years.

The transition to more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices in agriculture is a goal we all share, including the industry. However, we must also understand that this transition requires time and significant investment to build the necessary infrastructure, and to scale up emerging alternative technologies.

Moreover, witnesses during the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry proceedings underlined that emerging technologies, which would provide alternatives, are at least eight years away from commercial viability. Let me repeat that — alternatives are at least eight years away from commercial viability.

Bill C-234 includes a sunset clause to re-evaluate its context in eight years, ensuring justification for such an exemption. As a side note, colleagues, one of the other amendments voted down by committee aimed to reduce this sunset clause to three years, even though we heard loud and clear in committee that three years wasn’t long enough for such technology to become viable.

The industry clearly supported the eight-year sunset clause amended to the bill in the other place. In the absence of viable alternatives for heating and cooling, the amendment, which removed half the bill, doesn’t just impact farmers’ and ranchers’ competitiveness — it jeopardizes their future efficiency and sustainability by forcing them to bear tens of thousands of dollars in carbon taxes. The net result is limited available capital for farmers to invest in their operations and continue lowering their carbon footprint through, for example, innovation.

The carbon tax both delays and prevents investments in critical efficiencies that would improve the sector’s environmental performance.

As I said previously, we are only weeks away from winter, when farmers across this country will begin adding more heat to their barns, greenhouses and other structures. This is a crucial period in the agriculture sector because of the coming cold weather. During this time, drying crops properly at the correct humidity level is required to prevent commodities from spoiling.

Furthermore, heating barns for broiler chickens, egg layers, young dairy calves, hogs and more is necessary to keep farm animals healthy through winter — so it is an animal welfare issue as well. Yet this amended bill removes the heating and cooling of these structures from a carbon tax exemption, essentially eliminating half the bill.

Colleagues, this is not the first time a bill with similar intent has been presented in Canada. Numerous attempts have been made in both chambers to provide relief for farmers from the carbon tax, underscoring the importance of this issue to our nation — and significant concerns regarding it. In fact, this is the second bill to pass the other place and come to our esteemed chamber of sober second thought, and this may very well be the second time the industry will fail to benefit from these measures, even though their duly elected officials voted for and passed similar bills twice.

I have heard, colleagues — and I expect you have all heard as well — from hundreds of Canadians, consumers, farmers, producers and numerous others in the last week or so who are extremely disappointed with this report, and that the bill has been gutted and its basic intent removed.

Representatives from the Canadian Cattle Association said:

On behalf of Canada’s 60,000 beef farms and feedlots, including the 7,500 seed stock breeders, we request your support for Canadian agriculture by voting against the proposed amendments and allowing the bill, in its original form, to be tabled at third reading and passed into law without delay.

A representative from Grain Growers of Canada, which represents over 65,000 producers, said:

I am asking for you to reject the proposed amendment from the committee which would exempt the heating and cooling of buildings. This would not only further delay this crucial piece of legislation, especially as we approach the winter season, but it also does not acknowledge the current technological realities.

Larry Davis, a cash crop farmer in Ontario, said:

Not only does this amendment change the intent of the bill which had received multi-party support in the house, it also jeopardizes the bill’s passage by adding considerable delays and sending it back to the house.

Honourable colleagues, this is a small fraction of what I have heard from people across our great country over the past week. It’s evident that our agricultural sector has been greatly let down by this report. Further, they have been let down by our honourable colleagues who never attended one meeting of the committee to hear from witnesses about the need for this exemption, but instead were parachuted into the committee for clause-by-clause consideration only.

Farmers, ranchers and processors must maintain their competitiveness within Canada’s economy. The carbon tax disproportionately affects them, despite their role as stewards of the land and an essential part of this nation.

Moreover, the sector plays a crucial role in preserving Canada’s environment and the fight against climate change. In fact, many farmers have been actively employing various carbon‑sequestration methods to enhance farmland productivity, protect the land and continue to produce the great food we all get to eat 365 days a year. Yet we continue to look only at the sector’s carbon footprint and not the contributions that farmers and producers make to return and sequester carbon and contribute to climate change mitigation.

In the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, we have heard testimony that many in the agricultural sector are already actively engaged in the fight against climate change. For example, Paul Maurice, a farmer in Tiny, Ontario, said:

We run a 35,000-bird broiler operation. We also cash crop 900 acres of corn, soybeans, cereal grain and hay in Simcoe County, Ontario. I acknowledge that we are all part of the problem but we, in the agricultural sector, are doing our best to be part of the solution and not the culprit, as many would have us believe. The best management practices that we implement in our operations far outweigh the carbon footprint that so many believe we create. The sequestration of carbon within our crops, and subsequently into our soils, seems to be a story that is put aside. As farmers, we are always looking for production efficiencies to remain competitive in our domestic and global agricultural marketplace.

As I’ve mentioned, farmers are finding carbon-reducing strategies and innovative new ways to produce food for Canada and the world. For example, carbon waste is being used to generate biofuels through the construction of things like anaerobic digesters. This innovation is being used by dairy farmers and others across the country, yet they are not being recognized for these innovations.

Farmers are progressive, determined and interested in engaging in innovative new technologies for the advancement of the industry. Farmers understand the importance of innovation and progressiveness in their fight against climate change. But this cannot be supported by limiting their fiscal capacities and forcing them to bear the burden of an unfair tax on their livelihoods.

Bill C-234, in its original state, offers a practical solution that would provide relief for farmers without compromising our environmental goals. This exemption would have had a significant positive impact on Canadian agriculture. It would have helped reduce input costs for farmers, thereby making it easier for them to invest in new technologies and infrastructure that will improve their efficiency and competitiveness — and lower their carbon footprint. It would also have encouraged the growth and development of the agriculture sector, which is essential for our country’s economic and social well-being, especially as our population continues to grow. We need farmers to be able to grow, innovate and expand to continue to feed Canadians and the world.

Furthermore, the exemption in the original bill would have been in line with this government’s commitment to support small businesses and rural communities. By exempting fuels used for farming, the government would be acknowledging the unique challenges faced by these groups and seen to be taking steps to address them. However, the current report before us, which removes exemptions for the heating and cooling of buildings, structures and greenhouses, threatens to undermine these objectives.

The bottom line is that it’s farmers who are being pinched. It’s farmers who are going into this winter and will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole while trying to keep their farms and families afloat to feed you, me, our families and the world.

If a business owner’s bottom line is affected, he or she will do all they can to cut costs to prevent bankruptcy. How can we expect our farmers to see their costs increase and their bottom lines threatened without them passing along those cost increases to the consumer? Except farmers can’t do that, because they are price takers, not price makers.

Colleagues, I am sure you heard the announcement last week by the Prime Minister that they are doubling the pollution price rebate rural top-up rate and implementing a three-year pause to the federal carbon price on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. As a senator who raises issues and concerns related to rural communities, I was very happy to hear this announcement and know it will help many rural Canadians as they struggle to pay their bills, heat their homes and put food on their tables.

Yet our farmers — who, of course, are also located in rural areas — will not receive this benefit when heating and cooling their farming facilities.

This would have been, and still is, a critical exemption that farmers need now that would help them survive and continue to feed us all.

Why are we burdening ranchers and growers with taxes, sometimes reaching tens of thousands of dollars — in some cases much more — and limiting their ability to adopt technology in the future? Why are we hindering our national food security and food sovereignty? Why are we causing farmers this grief and further delay?

Colleagues, having said all this, as a senator that many of my honourable colleagues come to with questions about agriculture, I turn to you now and respectfully request that you vote down this report. Vote it down for our farmers. Vote it down for your local producers. Vote it down to ensure that the increased costs don’t cause our food to continue to skyrocket and cost more. Whatever your reason, I ask that you vote this report down, return the bill to its original state and return it unamended to the other place post-haste so our farmers don’t have the burden of this carbon tax now.

With that, I’ll take off my agriculture hat and say thank you to the Library of Parliament analysts, the clerk and all the committee staff for their help.

Hon. Robert Black, pursuant to notice of September 27, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Thursday, February 10, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to agriculture and forestry be extended from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2025; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit reports on this study with the Clerk of the Senate if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Robert Black, pursuant to notice of September 20, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding the order of the Senate adopted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, the date for the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry in relation to its study on the status of soil health in Canada be extended from December 31, 2023 to December 31, 2024; and

That the committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate its report relating to this study, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is focused on ensuring it’s well positioned to provide a meaningful and well-rounded report on soil health to support Canadian farmers, producers and the world.

With food security, land use, biodiversity and environmental and agricultural health in mind, the committee looks to have a fulsome and in-depth perspective on soil health that will be as beneficial as the previous Senate report has been for nearly 40 years.

In order to do this, the committee finds that it is essential to meet with global counterparts in Rome as a greater opportunity to engage with experts on soil health from around the world. This fact-finding mission originates from an invitation extended to the Agriculture Committee from the deputy director of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, or UN FAO, to meet many international experts with the organization, which would be impossible to coordinate in a virtual method.

This will involve roundtable discussions as well as a mix of formal and informal meetings that will highlight the importance of global coordination on soil health programs and projects.

Honourable senators, as you know, I’m not one to lay idle, and I keep my schedule booked solid with meetings while also adhering to my responsibilities here in the chamber and in committee. This fact-finding mission will be no different. So to my colleagues travelling with me, we can look forward to a very busy schedule, packed full of meetings, tours and a soil conference as well.

Our Agriculture Committee has had consistent and meaningful discussions around this budgeted option. We understand that this is a large expenditure for Canadians. Soil health, however, is a global problem, and while the committee is working to travel throughout Canada to better understand soil health here, an international perspective will have vast benefits as well. We can learn from other experts, beyond Canada, and from our largest trading partners and allies. As I’ve alluded to earlier, we will also be attending the Global Soil Partnership Plenary Assembly where we’ll engage in meaningful discussions with leading stakeholders and experts on soil from around the world, who can, without a doubt, contribute to our understanding of soil health here in Canada.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, if it’s the will of the chamber, I hope that we can pass the report today so that our diligent committee support staff can begin making arrangements for this travel, expected to take place in mid-July. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Robert Black moved the adoption of the report.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Klyne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-241, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (great apes, elephants and certain other animals).