Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Moncion for her amendment, which gives me the opportunity to point out one of the many flaws in Bill C-234. As the critic for the bill, I will have the opportunity to tell you all about its other flaws and shortcomings in a future speech.

First, let me tell you about Bill C-234’s journey so far. Second reading of the bill began on May 9 with a speech by Senator Wells. We wrapped up second reading stage with my speech as critic on June 13, 2023. In short, that is just 12 sitting days for a bill introduced by the Conservatives in the other place, which was passed despite the government’s opposition and which amends the government’s primary tool for fighting greenhouse gas emissions: incremental carbon pricing. The bill also peripherally affects provisions of the Income Tax Act.

I would invite you to compare this process with the second reading of Bill C-226 on environmental racism, where the critic, Senator Plett, had to wait six months after Senator McCallum to speak to the bill. We could also look at Bill C-282 on the protection of supply management, a bill that was endorsed by all party leaders in the House of Commons. That same critic still has not had a chance to speak to this bill, two months after Senator Gerba gave her speech.

The reason this bill is moving so exceptionally fast is that an agreement was reached among the groups to refer it to two committees.

The adopted motion reads:

. . . if Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, is adopted at second reading:

1. it stand referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry;

2. the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill; and

3. the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry be authorized to take into account, during its consideration of the bill, any public documents and public evidence received by the committee authorized to study the subject matter of the bill —

— finance —

— as well as any report from that committee to the Senate on the subject matter of the bill.

That decision to have the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance involved rather than the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources was due to the fact that the finance committee studied the carbon pricing legislation at the time of the 2018 budget, as well as amendments to the Income Tax Act, at the time of the 2022 budget, that gave credits to farmers that enabled them to divvy up the carbon tax they paid.

On September 20, before the Agriculture Committee started its study of Bill C-234, which was planned to be short, I emailed the chair a list of potential witnesses who had expressed concerns and even opposition to the bill.

Eleven minutes later, the chair replied:

Thank you, colleague, for your email. The Steering Committee has approved a witness list earlier this month, for at least three upcoming committee meetings and we will begin witness testimony tomorrow. Should we decide we need additional witnesses or information we will certainly look at your suggestions.

The same day, I wrote to the Agriculture Committee’s steering committee to stress the need to avoid a truncated process designed to achieve a certain result. I thanked steering for adding two meetings to hear some of my proposed witnesses.

At the third meeting, the chair said that at the end of the following meeting, we might proceed to clause-by-clause consideration and that it would be helpful to circulate amendments or observations in advance. Some senators then inquired about the input of the National Finance Committee. The chair responded that the committee will not be providing any insight on the bill and that amendments could be moved at third reading.

Surprised, Senator Woo suggested to invite the chair of the National Finance Committee to attend the Agriculture Committee’s next meeting.

On October 3, Senator Mockler, as the Chair of the National Finance Committee, attended the Agriculture Committee and said:

When we looked at the order of reference, it says that the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was referred the entire bill, and then the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance being authorized to examine and report on the subject matter of the bill, so the subject matter of the bill versus the entire bill being referred to the committee.

Because of our responsibilities in the Finance Committee, the steering committee — and we have met twice on this matter — opted to say that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee was well equipped to do the proper report and table that report in the Senate. We have decided that we would respect what will be put forward by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

In other words, the Chair of the National Finance Committee confirmed a refusal to study the subject matter of Bill C-234, making it clear that the agreement between the groups was reneged upon.

In the terms of Senator Wells, was that a fix?

On October 17, the Agriculture Committee was scheduled to sit, but the Conservatives denied consent. On October 19, the Agriculture Committee moved to clause-by-clause consideration. Attendance surged to 14, compared to 6 to 10 at all the previous five meetings. This included Senator Plett, who exercised his privilege as Leader of the Opposition to attend ex officio. The practice is then to notify the Government Representative Office, or GRO. As a result, Senator LaBoucane-Benson also attended.

Ahead of the meeting, Senator Woo and I circulated four draft amendments, and some other members circulated draft observations. My sole amendment was a copycat of one defeated in the House committee by a vote of six to five. It was to limit the tax exemptions to grain drying and to exclude building heating.

After I summarized the evidence presented at the Agriculture Committee supporting my amendment, Senator Burey argued on a point of order that my amendment was not admissible, relying on excerpts from the Senate Procedure in Practice. Then Senator Plett, reading from a memo, argued in favour of the point of order.

Obviously, that day the Conservative Party of Canada, or CPC, and the Canadian Senators Group, or CSG, were acting jointly. Of course, neither the Progressive Senate Group, or PSG, nor the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, were told in advance to prepare.

In the terms of Senator Wells, was that a fix or, rather, a mega‑fix?

I had no choice but to ask the committee to reverse the ruling, which it did on a vote of seven to five with two abstentions. The five votes to sustain the chair were the three Conservative senators and the two CSG senators. The whole event took about an hour and forced a second meeting for clause‑by‑clause consideration.

We finally debated my amendment, which was adopted by a vote of seven to six with one abstention — the GRO representative, Senator LaBoucane-Benson.

Contrary to what was said on social media by Senator Plett and by the Agriculture Carbon Alliance in the National Post, the GRO did not make possible the adoption of the amendment — to the contrary.

After the vote on my amendment, the chair moved to clause 2. Senator Woo proceeded to his first amendment, proposing to reduce the exemption period from eight to three years. After a long debate, the amendment was negatived by a tie vote, seven to seven.

Then, forgetting that Senator Woo had another amendment to the clause, the chair said, “. . . shall clause 2 carry?” Some senators said, “Yes,” and the chair replied, “Thank you,” and then asked the committee if the title shall carry.

Senator Woo immediately mentioned that there was still an amendment to deal with and that he would like to move it. The chair replied, “Please.” Then he did move his amendment — identical to the one which is now before us.

Debate followed with Senator Plett arguing at one point that he wanted a commitment to finish the clause-by-clause before adjourning the meeting. The chair said that the committee had a hard stop at —

Order.

The chair said that the committee had a hard stop at 11 a.m., and we adjourned.

At the following meeting, Senators Plett and Wells objected to continuing consideration of clause 2, arguing that it was out of order since the chair had stated at the previous meeting that clause 2 had carried.

Senator Woo, Senator Simons and I remarked that debate on that last amendment had already started. Furthermore, we referred to previous similar incidents in the chamber and to rule 10-5, which states:

At any time before a bill is passed, a Senator may move for the reconsideration of any clause already carried.

The chair rejected Senator Plett’s point of order. We then resumed consideration of the remaining amendments, completed the clause-by-clause consideration and unanimously appended many thoughtful observations.

Colleagues, if there were one or more fixes in this process, they were clearly not in this chamber but at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

Now let’s look at Senator Moncion’s amendment. Yes, it is identical to the last one moved by Senator Woo at committee. Yes, it was defeated — but by a tied vote, seven to seven.

In such a context, reconsideration by the whole chamber is fully justified — even more so since Senator Moncion’s amendment deals with an exceptional legislative mechanism. It would allow for an extension of the eight-year exemption currently found in the bill — I repeat: eight years, not three — on a simple motion adopted in both houses within the limited time frame.

As clearly explained by Senator Woo on Tuesday, this provides an easy way to extend the exemption before it expires, without committee hearings and normal debates.

Why should we agree to a special procedure designed to prevent a thorough review of the facts and to stifle debates? Is that another attempt to have a fix?

Furthermore, why signal to farmers that it would be an easy process to extend the exemption and that there is no real need to transition to greener farm practices during the exemption period?

Alex Cool-Fergus, National Policy Manager at Climate Action Network Canada, said before the committee:

I am not arguing that there are no marketable solutions right now, but if there is no market signal pushing that kind of innovation, there won’t be any more innovation, whether that is in eight years if this bill comes into effect and is sunset or longer down the road.

Colleagues, if we want to encourage Canadians to continue to push the technological frontier to reduce emissions, then we should not signal that this exemption may be rubber-stamped again in eight years, regardless of the evidence.

In conclusion, with this bill, it seems that we are always pressured to have a truncated process. This suggests that the facts do not present a strong case. Therefore, I support Senator Moncion’s proposal. Thank you, marsee.

Senator Black, Senator Plett, Senator Wells and Senator Quinn. We only have two minutes.

Will the honourable senator take a question?

Of course.

Thank you. With all due respect, as a senator from the metropolis of Montreal, why do you believe that you know better than farmers what they need?

Thank you to the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, someone very close to farmers’ interests.

Yes, I live in Montreal. However, you should know that two years ago, after the passing of my father, I sold the farmland that belonged to my family to a farmer in order for it to remain farmland, as it has been in my family for the last 150 years. I was born and raised on that farm, sir. I grew up with the cows and the grains.

I also made hay every year, sir.

I know the farm practice and the farmers, and the family home is still there.

Senator Plett, a quick question.

Would the senator take another question?

With pleasure, senator.

Thank you. Aside from the fact that Don Plett is supporting the bill, is there a reason why you are not? Because that seems to me to be the only reason.

I’m wondering, Senator Dalphond, whether your colleagues know that the reason why Bill C-282 has not been debated properly is because, for quite a while, you wanted Bill S-270, your bill, to be ahead of Bill C-282. At scroll, you finally put Bill C-282 there. I’m waiting for your colleague sitting directly in front of you to speak to Bill C-282; after that, I will.

Were you aware of that, Senator Dalphond? That is a question.

May I have five more minutes to answer that question?

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

I have another question. If it is only to answer the question, good.

Is leave granted for five more minutes?

Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Plett, you know very well that you go to the leaders’ meeting, I go to the deputy leaders’ meeting and we do the scroll together. At our scroll meeting, Senator Martin said, “We’re ready to move some bills. Here are the bills that we, the Conservatives, will move forward; here are the bills that you, the Independent Senators Group, will move forward; here is the bill that you, Senator Dalphond, will move on behalf of the Progressive Senate Group; and here is the bill that we are willing to accept to be moved on behalf of the Canadian Senators Group.”

Senator Clement and I were taken by surprise by the fact that not only were they moving bills, but deciding which bills we were going to be moving. To please me, of course, they said, “We will move your tax bill, An Act to establish International Tax Justice and Cooperation Day.”

I spoke with my colleagues, as we always do in our group. I don’t decide by myself. We spoke about that the following week. There was agreement that if a bill were to be moved, it should be a bill about farmers. It should be Bill C-282, the bill about supply management — a bill that has been supported unanimously by the leaders in the House of Commons, including Mr. Poilievre.

I know that Mr. Poilievre has a position and that other colleagues have said during the summer that they will have concerns, even big concerns, about the bill. However, I said that if we want to move Bill C-234 — which is an important bill for farmers, according to you — I want a bill on supply management, which is an important bill for farmers, to also be moved. That was agreed upon. Unfortunately, you said, “No, this bill will not be moved unless my bill has gone through.” I think you said to Senator Gerba that we had better vote the right way if we want to see the other bill going through.

I think I deserve another question.

As long as the three senators are able to ask their questions within the two and a half minutes that remain.

Senator Dalphond, of course, none of that is correct information. I did not tell Senator Gerba what you just suggested that I told her.

Are you aware that I am the critic of the bill and that normal procedure in the Senate is that the critic is the last person to speak? I am waiting for your colleague, and others, to speak to Bill C-282. I have my speech prepared. I am ready to speak to it the day after your colleague and others are finished. Are you aware of that, Senator Dalphond?

Thank you, Senator Plett, for reminding us that the rule that the critic gets 45 minutes is so they can speak after everyone else has spoken, not so they can inform people about their concerns about a bill. Our rules give the sponsor 45 minutes to explain a bill and, normally, the critic, who is not necessarily a friendly critic, should get 45 minutes to explain to their colleagues, before debate begins, any concerns that other people have about it.

I know that the Conservative Party’s preference is for the critic to speak last, but I would argue, as I said during my speech at second reading of Bill C-234, that that is not the intent behind the practice, Senator Plett.

Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for your intervention on the amendment.

You talked about the importance of market signals and why that’s one of the reasons that this bill should not pass.

What would you say is the market signal for an exemption on carbon tax for diesel and gasoline?

Thank you. In my speech at third reading, I will address the issue at length. I will not get into it now during the debate on the amendment, but I am pleased that you recognize that we need to send an important signal to all Canadians to tell them that 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, as Europe and most countries are doing.

We went to Taiwan with colleagues three weeks ago, and one of the ministers we met with praised Canada as a leader in the fight against carbon for having charged a tax on carbon. Yes, I am in favour of the carbon tax and, unfortunately, I believe that your party, which has issued a policy platform entitled Axe the Tax, does not believe in it. There is a big difference between the two of us. I suggest that we amend the bill and refer it to the place where all of this needs to be decided: the elected house.

Senator Dalphond, your time is up.

Honourable senators, I had not planned on speaking to the amendment on Bill C-234, but I have to rise to express a few thoughts this evening.

First, I’d like to express my gratitude to Senator Arnot, who during his well-thought-out speech Tuesday left us with some very good questions. I would encourage you to review those if you have the time in the coming days. Thank you, Senator Arnot, for your wise words and thoughts.

Second, I want to reiterate to all in this chamber that other than propane and natural gas, there are no viable alternatives in use or able to be used at this time to dry grain, corn, beans or any other commodity in this country — none.

Finally, I wish to express my disagreement, respectfully, with my honourable colleague who said on Tuesday that the vote on this amendment is not a vote about farmers. Colleagues, voting for and passing this amendment will see it go back to the other place if it ultimately passes third reading in this chamber. There it is sure to die, and farmers will continue to suffer financially as a result. A vote in favour of this amendment is absolutely a vote about farmers. It is a vote against them.

Colleagues, please vote against this amendment and support our farmers, our ranchers and our growers. They support us three times a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, year in, year out. Let’s show them that we appreciate them and support them in their efforts to feed Canada and feed the world. Thank you.

Senator Black, will you take a question, sir?

I was going to speak very briefly, so I will say no, thank you.

Honourable senators, I want to try and untangle Bill C-234 from the unfortunate actions in this chamber on and following November 9 that have dominated discussions this week.

I want to firmly move the focus back to the action needed to ensure that our farmers are empowered to play a net-positive role in our collective efforts to address climate change.

Much of the debate about Bill C-234 has just focused on the role the carbon tax might have in incrementally reducing carbon emissions from the agricultural activities in our country. As stated in my speech to the Agriculture Committee report, I continue to be of the opinion that this misses a much larger opportunity. Colleagues, I fear that this amendment puts the bill at risk to the harm of our fight against climate change for reasons that have already been stated by Senator Arnot, Senator Black and others.

We’re a long way from the day when agricultural activities will not produce greenhouse gases. However, the day when agriculture can play an important role in our fight against climate change is already here, but we’re continuing to ignore this enormous opportunity. Let me repeat: The day when agriculture can play an important role in our fight against climate change is already here.

I find the reality that this opportunity is being ignored very concerning because if we’re going to beat the climate crisis, not only do we need to reduce our production of greenhouse gases, but we must begin to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. The sequestration of atmospheric carbon into agricultural soils — a process called regenerative agriculture — is a natural process that improves soil health. That natural process can be dramatically accelerated today thanks to years of research, but much of that research is not being widely applied. This chronic problem is not limited to agriculture, far from it. You have heard me speak often about Canada’s long-standing problem of not applying our best research to accelerate economic social health and environmental opportunities.

This problem has befuddled governments of every political stripe for decades.

I get that the issue related to farmers is they are subjected to so many external risks, be those due to extreme weather events, wars on the other side of the world causing massive increases to their input costs, or global market fluctuations on the price of commodities they produce. As a consequence, they are reluctant to implement any changes to those things within their control unless they have certainty in the outcome, hence the slow adoption of regenerative agricultural practices.

In an effort to introduce greater certainty for farmers and carbon markets, leading Canadian companies, like Terramera of Vancouver, have developed proprietary technologies that quickly and affordably measure soil ingredients so farmers can track the recarbonization of their agricultural soil. Other companies now have sensors in satellites that can measure soil carbon remotely. These are incredibly inspiring export opportunities for leading Canadian companies that are already demonstrating that they can help us in the fight against climate change.

Companies like these, if encouraged and incorporated into the fight against the climate crisis here in Canada, can then export their effective and cost-efficient solutions globally thanks to Canadian leadership and experience. If we refuse to act on this massive carbon sequestration opportunity and simply stay focused on the carbon tax as our only tool, we’re missing this global opportunity.

All the while, countless other countries are developing and creating incentives and market frameworks to encourage and empower farmers to implement regenerative agriculture so they have greater certainty and can better manage the risks associated with these changes and ultimately be financially rewarded for their fight against climate change.

Farmers in other countries are being rewarded for the net increases in soil carbon content with cheques that are coming to the mailbox at the end of their lane — but not Canadian farmers. The lack of a carbon tax exemption on the cleanest fuels is not empowering farmers to become more carbon-efficient. One of the biggest reasons is that it is limiting their ability to afford to invest in those changes.

Slowing down the passage of Bill C-234 will force the continuation of a tax that only affects the fringes of total carbon emissions in agriculture. By admission of the government, the carbon tax only affects 3% of the total fuels used across Canada on farms.

All the evidence that I have seen through my own research, through the work of our Agriculture Committee on their study of soil health and through reports from Senators Black and Cotter from their attendance at the World Congress of Soil Science in 2022, the opportunity to sequester greenhouse gases in our agricultural soils would at minimum sequester the annual greenhouse gas emissions for the entire agricultural sector and potentially sequester the equivalent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

The Senate has been effective in passing private member’s bills in their original state, especially when previous governments have failed to act. Let me remind you of a recent example, Bill C-208, in the last Parliament.

Like the bill we’re studying right now, Bill C-234, and the amendment we’re speaking about right now, that bill was potentially going to be amended in the Senate. It was a bill that aimed to amend the tax policy where intergenerational transfers of farms, fishing operations and small businesses were being taxed at rates that were double or triple the rates of other businesses.

This situation existed for years, putting parents in the untenable position of having to sell the family farm or fishing operation to a third party because they could not afford the additional tax burden that resulted from selling it to a son or daughter who wanted to carry on the family’s legacy. Why did that situation exist? Simply because Finance Canada believed that allowing these transfers could encourage tax avoidance, yet a solution to the risk had existed for years and was known to Finance Canada but had not been implemented.

I’m incredibly proud of the fact that here in the Senate we pushed back against that amendment at third reading and we supported the unamended bill. Following Royal Assent in June 2021, concerns continued to be raised that uncontrolled levels of tax avoidance would result. They did not. In Budget 2023, after very thoughtful consultations, measures were put in place to firmly protect against any abuses of the intergenerational transfers of farms, fishing operations and small businesses into the future. I commend the government for finding a sensible and effective path forward, but they only did so because we held the line here in the Senate. Colleagues, we did our job. We challenged the government to do better, especially when they had failed to act on this issue, and that’s precisely what was requested of me when I was appointed to the Senate.

So let me get back to Bill C-234 and this amendment.

Let me be clear: I’m generally for the carbon tax and the accompanying rebate. Personally, I’ve always preferred market-based solutions when a breadth of affordable solutions exist. I agree with Senator Gold when he reminds us that the Conservative Party does not have a plan to fight the climate crisis. Simply axing the tax is not a solution to the climate crisis. The intention of the carbon tax is to motivate change when affordable solutions exist. Whether it can be applied equally across all sectors and all jurisdictions is a question, and, as we’ve recently seen, this is even a question within the Liberal Party.

When decisions were made within the government about applications of the carbon tax and agriculture, clearly there was not agreement about the equal application of the carbon tax on the four different petroleum products used on farms, from the dirtiest — diesel and gasoline — to the cleanest — propane and natural gas. I still have not been able to find an answer as to why the two cleanest fuels were not exempted and the two dirtiest were. The answer that 97% of fuels used are exempted so it doesn’t really matter is not an appropriate or an effective response because not every agriculture operation uses the same balance of fuels. The dominant fuel in greenhouses is overwhelmingly natural gas or propane. On other farms, it’s overwhelmingly diesel.

Canadian vegetable operations are heavily disadvantaged as it relates to the carbon tax. There’s no question that all of them want to be more energy efficient, but more than ever, I want them to be able to deliver grown-in-Canada produce that can cost compete with California, Florida and Mexico and the high carbon burden due to the cross-continental trucking that those vegetables incur.

Colleagues, forcing the status quo is tinkering at the edges of the greenhouse gas output resulting from our agricultural activities. Conversely, Canada’s farms can fundamentally reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions if we begin to follow the comprehensive regenerative agricultural practices that have been successfully applied in other countries like France, Australia and New Zealand and if we were to work with our innovators to export their technological services and solutions around the world.

As my final point, colleagues, I want to highlight how incoherent climate policy is not just limited to this matter — with a focus on procurement as an example. The use of procurement to achieve sustainability goals was identified by the Council of Canadian Academies as being the most effective tactic to use to achieve our net zero objectives. Scope 3 emissions are our biggest emissions. These are emissions resulting from our purchases — effectively our procurement of products and services — as individuals and organizations.

However, I am concerned that the department responsible for our strategies to address climate change is not changing its own behaviour and adopting sustainable procurement practices. I say this because Environment and Climate Change Canada, or ECCC, does not consistently include sustainability criteria in its own procurement contracts. How can we expect others to step up and address our sustainability challenges when the department responsible fails to set an example?

Colleagues, the incredibly unfortunate behaviour and actions that followed November 9 have cast a troubling shadow over Bill C-234. We have to separate our decision making from that series of events and focus intently on the bill itself. Senator Moncion’s clarifying amendment risks the bill, and the divisiveness in the House of Commons will make its climb back up the Order Paper next to impossible.

My motivation in supporting the unamended bill is based primarily on the need to push the government to capture the opportunity presented by soil carbon sequestration. I’m far from alone in this regard. Our Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has been studying the issue of soil health through much of this Parliament. As I said, two of its members travelled to the World Congress of Soil Science to learn the best practices, policies and successes in other countries. Conversely, any discussion with officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has hit a brick wall. There is no interest in engagement and no reasons as to why.

Colleagues, I truly hope that we do not amend this bill, slowing relief to farmers and, worse still, causing it to languish in the House. I hope we choose to pass an unamended Bill C-234. By accepting the will of the elected chamber and with votes in support of this bill from all five parties, I believe that we will encourage the government to take another look at their plans to not rely solely on the carbon tax to incrementally reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but instead to create policies, incentives and frameworks that fundamentally alter the agricultural sector’s total emissions and enable it to become a net carbon sink.

Again, colleagues, we are a long way from the day when agricultural activities are not producing greenhouse gases. However, the day when agriculture can play an important role in our fight against climate change is already here. We just need to begin to prioritize soil carbon sequestration.

Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Deacon, I want to thank you for your speech, and the reason why I want to thank you is that it’s one of the first speeches that gives us fact-based information. All through this process, I find there haven’t been a lot of facts presented to us.

I’ll give you just one example. We were told that the fuel cost for a farmer is $6,000, and as soon as the grain portion is done, the fuel cost goes down to $135. What we don’t hear about is the portion that is related to the carbon tax because not the whole amount is carbon tax. That’s one part of the equation.

The second part of the equation — and I’ll be coming to my questions, colleagues — is how much is given back to the farmers.

The third part of the question is which part of that amount also benefits from the tax credit?

That’s the first component. These are extremely important questions that we need to ask ourselves on this bill. We haven’t heard that information here. We have heard the large amounts, but we haven’t heard about the rest.

The other question — I have the floor, senator, and I don’t intervene when you speak. I would like to have the same courtesy, please.

Here is my question: Government grants are provided, and there are 55 programs with the —

Senator Moncion, Senator Deacon’s time has expired. Senator Deacon, are you asking for more time?

Yes, please, Your Honour.

Are you asking for five more minutes?

If it’s the will of the chamber.

The will of the chamber is to allow her to ask a question and him to answer.

Is it agreed?

Thank you.

There’s the Agricultural Methane Reduction Challenge, and there’s money there. Are you aware of these programs and what they do? Is the money invested in these programs enough to help farmers at least start to get to where they need to go?

Thank you, Senator Moncion, for your comments and for your question. I appreciate that.

I’ll talk about a separate program. The government has a cyber risk program for small businesses. It is not being accessed. It’s too complicated and too hard to fathom. Even though the risks are growing for small businesses and the risk is huge, they are not accessing the program in the way it’s designed.

The challenge with the programs — I know the programs, and they were explained extensively to me by the minister’s staff, by officials and by Senator Cotter on a call we had, and at no point did they explain what the strategy behind all these programs was and how they were enabling this market to happen. Market frameworks require, yes, incentives and different programs to help with costs, but the market framework itself has to be put in place so that it’s not government subsidizing the function of the market. It’s the market itself able to create value that others buy and want to buy. That is about creating rules, creating standards and creating the marketplace, just like we have a carbon stock exchange where farmers can reliably sell a carbon credit to another party and that delivers value to that party as an offset to them, and the farmer receives the revenue back.

That is a government structure and a government priority that has not been prioritized in this country, but it has in other countries, and nobody has given me a reason. I had great conversations with Minister Wilkinson when he was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. He was very intrigued by this. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada shut it down.

We — Senator Cotter, me and others — tried again. It’s a wall. They came to see us when I was on the Agriculture and Forestry Committee. We had question after question after question of the officials on this — we got nowhere.

I can’t explain why the barrier exists, but a list of programs does not create a market framework. The market framework has to be developed, and it has to be a priority and be allowed to function, and be enabled to get started with a few subsidies — not because of subsidies, but because of the value that it delivers to the marketplace. I hope that helps. Thank you.

Did we agree on an additional five minutes?

No, we did not.

Okay. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the amendment proposed by Senator Moncion. In front of me is not a podium. In front of me is my research on this bill — that I conducted on the break week — so everything that I will be saying in my speech is backed up right here, and you’re welcome — Senator Plett, I will tell you something: The rain of your sarcasm does not even attain the umbrella of my indifference to it.

Mr. Speaker, every time I’m interrupted during my 15-minute speech, I ask that, given that —

I do not have unlimited time to talk, so every time I’m interrupted, I want that time to be added back on my 15 minutes. Thank you.

Before I reach the arguments, I must say a few things to bring some context to our work of sober second thought — that is the raison d’être of the Senate. The Supreme Court of Canada indicated in its ruling that the Senate must review bills and policy in a dispassionate way to be a true sober second thought parliamentary institution.

Senators have never been subject to this much orchestrated lobbying. We must remember that lobbyists are highly paid professionals who seek to commit you to their request. It is, therefore, very important that you understand the many implications of any given issue.

My interest in this bill increased when I was informed by many senators that some of the lobbyists for Farmer Fairness were also lobbying against another group that wants a private member’s bill — Bill C-282 — from the House of Commons. The same people arguing for fairness for farmers were arguing against fairness for a very large group of farmers that operate under supply management: the egg, milk and poultry producers.

I do believe that the farmers in my area do not appreciate such double-talk, and I certainly don’t.

When lobbyists triggered my alarm, I started to do my own research. I started to read our Agriculture and Forestry Committee meeting transcripts, and cross-reference what was said with further research. It was a gratifying learning process. It was also important to me because in a recent conversation with Senator Klyne, he wisely reminded me how important it was to make the difference between myths and facts.

Then, I went on my fact-finding mission, necessary to have an informed opinion of the issues — not based on lobbyists, and not based on rhetoric, but based on facts that would enable me to be a responsible senator for current and future Canadians.

While this bill should have been a discussion about fair public policy, it has been blown into an outright partisan document against carbon pricing. As they say, the cat is out of the bag. This bill is not about fairness for farmers, but it’s a bill that is a Trojan Horse from climate change deniers to axe the tax.

The numbers supplied by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, that I will share will endorse this reality. Senator Plett? Thank you.

Central to this debate are carbon emissions creating climate change and a policy to reduce emissions so that humans can continue to survive on this planet. Scientists have been warning us for five decades that we need to reduce our carbon emissions, and many leaders have not acted.

In my humble rural area of New Brunswick, we have a saying, “If you critique a problem without bringing a solution, then you are part of the problem.”

There are 46 countries that have carbon charges, and 80 more are planning to have carbon charges to address climate change. Are we saying that all these countries are wrong? The PBO report of June 15, 2023 — and I believe that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee didn’t even look at that report — indicates that regarding the exemption of gas and diesel for farmers, which is 97% of their fuel usage, it estimates that foregone revenue from the carbon levy exemption is $595 million in 2023; $734 million in 2024; $871 million in 2025; $1.009 billion in 2026; $1.147 billion in 2027; $1.282 billion in 2028; $1.422 billion in 2029; and rising to $1.562 billion in 2030.

Honourable senators, the current exemption on gas and diesel from 2023 to 2030 represents $8.622 billion in exemptions for farmers. And it seems like that is not enough. They are saying that they want 100%.

The PBO report also provided the data regarding total greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions in the agricultural sector by activity for 2021. Animal and crop production accounts for 80% of farmers’ emissions. There is no pricing on these emissions. That same report showed that net farm income from 2010 to 2021 has gone from $3.563 billion in 2010 to $13.816 billion in 2021 — that is a 387% increase.

Colleagues, on the issue of carbon pricing fairness, farmers and fishers are the only sector of our economy that receives such a generous exemption from carbon pricing. A central question, and one not yet voiced in this debate, is this: What is the cost of climate change to our economy? What is the cost of doing nothing or doing the least?

Colleagues, I’m not a scientist or an economist, so I rely on their research to guide me. Here is what I found from the Canadian Climate Institute research. In 2022, they issued a report called The GDP cost of climate change for Canada. It stated that climate change cost to our GDP is not a one-year event. It is a drag on our growth every year unless we take policy decisions.

The $25-billion GDP loss in the last nine years is because of climate change, which represents a loss of revenue per person in Canada of $630. The cost of climate change effectively compounds over time, and by 2030 our GDP will be $35 billion lower than it would have been otherwise. The report goes on to state:

. . . households will lose income, and low-income households will suffer the most. Low-income households could see income losses of 12 per cent in a low-emissions scenario and 23 per cent in a high-emissions scenario . . . .

The report concluded that maximizing economic growth for every Canadian requires taking climate policy, both adaptation and mitigation, much more seriously. Is that what we’re doing right now?

Honourable senators, these are not myths. These are scientific facts that we must consider.

A few weeks ago, in our national news, we saw a smiling 10‑year-old Canadian boy that died of asthma from the continuous breathing of forest smoke in the air this year. A few years ago, colleagues, when we had extreme heat in Canada, this climate change event contributed to the death of more than 600 Canadians. Planet-wise, scientists estimate the number of deaths associated with temperature extremes at 5 million per year.

Scientific facts and rude awakening prompt me to ask: What is the cost to human lives? What is the cost to our health care system? The Canadian Climate Institute reported in June 2021 on these costs:

Assessing a range of possible impacts under both low- and high-emissions scenarios, the report finds that the impacts of climate change could cost Canada’s healthcare system billions of dollars . . . . Adding the value of lost quality of life and premature death, the societal costs of climate change impacts on health will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

That’s in Canada alone. Who will pay for that? We cannot ignore these facts.

Honourable senators, these are scientific facts, not myths. I’m sure the six doctors whom we have in the Senate can speak to this and to how, in their practice, they have witnessed the realities of climate change.

Honourable senators, we cannot overlook these facts. We, as a society, have made a commitment to the world with the Paris Agreement. We, as Canadians, have made a commitment to our citizens, our children and our grandchildren to act and not to push further down the road the required action to reduce emissions and its potential costs due to climate change.

No one person or industry will volunteer to be subject to carbon pricing — no one, not even in this room — if it’s not mandatory. It is the only way to go.

We, as independent senators, have not retreated on amending government and private bills. We have stood steadfastly on sober second thought and have sent amendments to bills to the other place. In fact, we have sent more amended bills to the other place than ever before in the history of the Senate, and that’s because of the independent senators in this room.

This is our mandate. It is our job to provide the best objective advice to the other place.

Now I’ve heard some say that amending this bill will kill it. Colleagues, I was an MP in the other place before I was here. The rules provide that this bill would not be killed. This bill would not be killed because we’re not going to have an election for two years; that’s for sure. And if there’s prorogation, the rules provide for that.

You must understand that I know my stuff and the rules are there.

Honourable Senator Ringuette, your time has expired.

Could I have 30 seconds?

Are you asking for five more minutes?

Yes, five more minutes.

Do we agree?

Thank you.

I support the amendment before us tabled by Senator Moncion —

I am sorry, Your Honour, but I know this requires unanimous consent and I don’t give it.

On a point of order, Senator Ringuette was interrupted at least two or three times when she spoke. She says she needs 30 seconds to complete her speech. She was interrupted for more than 30 seconds, so I think that Your Honour should recognize that she still has 30 seconds.

Senators, would you agree to the 30 seconds that she is asking for?

No? I heard a “no.” Okay.

Honourable senators, I’ll be very brief. I just want to put on the record that I support this bill unamended. The farmers in Prince Edward Island are working very hard on adapting to climate change. Every farm I know has heat pumps installed and solar panels.

The problem in Prince Edward Island for the farmers is that we have no natural gas. Any oil or propane is shipped into our province. There’s an additional transportation cost, and those costs are very high.

The cost of adapting to climate change is ongoing and very expensive for the farmers. The farmers in Prince Edward Island are doing everything they can to meet the objectives of climate change and reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it’s going to take them more time and more money than they currently have. That’s why this bill is important as a bridge to that climate change reduction.

Farmers understand that they have to fight climate change, and they are already engaged in that fight in Prince Edward Island. But the cost is very high.

The parallel situation is what the Government of Canada just did on oil subsidies for Prince Edward Islanders with their carve‑out — not only for Prince Edward Islanders but for other Canadians. They recognized that they were going too fast with the increases and it was impacting people’s ability, quite frankly, to heat their homes. I heard from one Atlantic Canadian MP — not from Prince Edward Island — who told me just last week that citizens in his area were having a hard time deciding if they were going to heat their house or buy some food. One woman told this MP that she only has chicken or steak when a niece or nephew invites her over for Sunday dinner because of the high cost of heating.

The initiatives that the government took recently, particularly on oil, were well received in Prince Edward Island. There was a massive reduction in the cost, and that has helped everyone. This bill will help farmers specifically.

I also want to address the point that Senator Colin Deacon raised about legislation that comes here, such as Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation). I voted in favour of that bill. I was inspired by the cross-party support. Liberal MPs voted for it, including the then-chair of the House of Commons Finance Committee, the Honourable Wayne Easter, who is from Prince Edward Island.

When it came here, it caught my attention. As many of you know, unlike some independent senators here, I’m an independent Liberal senator. I share the values of the Liberal Party, and, to that end, I vote for 95% to 97% of the legislation that comes from the Liberal government because I have similar interests and values.

In this case, I was taken by the fact that these Liberal MPs voted against what the executive branch of government wanted to do. There is a distinction there. It is the same distinction with this bill. The executive branch of government wants this bill. The House of Commons said, “no,” and they voted for it, including Liberal MPs. Two Liberal MPs from my province — Robert Morrissey from Egmont, and Heath MacDonald from Malpeque — voted for Bill C-234. That sends a message to me, as Bill C-208 did, when so many Liberal MPs voted for it. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government are not like a cult such as in North Korea where everyone talks about “dear leader.” The government, on occasion, makes mistakes; they made a mistake in Bill C-208. The Senate did the right thing in sending that bill back to them, and, eventually, as Senator Deacon indicated, it was corrected in the long term.

It is the same with this bill. When the Liberal MPs — elected members of the House of Commons — pass legislation, that has a big impact on me. I notice that; I pay attention to that. I don’t think it is my place to tell them that they are wrong, particularly when they are elected by farmers in their riding, and this is important legislation to them. It is important to the farmers of Prince Edward Island, and, therefore, it is important to me to support the residents of my province and those who work in the agricultural industry.

Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, I will be short. Despite having tried to ask a question three times, I will put it in the form of a debate. We have listened in this chamber over many months to the question of food security, as well as how farmers and farms are at risk in our country, how we are losing farms daily and how difficult it is for farmers to pass their farm onto the next generation because of whatever rules are in place. We have heard all of these arguments.

I think that tonight we’re hearing other arguments. In fact, excellent speeches have been given, including yours, Senator Ringuette — whom I have the utmost respect for, as you know — in which you clearly laid out the case that this is really about climate change.

We have had a bill come from the elected side. God knows we’ve had numerous debates and discussions about what our role is relevant to legislation that comes across to us from the elected chamber — and what we do and how we do it. We have heard discussions about restraint in how we deal with that.

We have had a committee of our honourable colleagues who have dealt with this, and have brought it to us unamended.

I would propose that rather than take the amendment under consideration and, more or less, stand back on the amendment to decide whether the bill goes back with an amendment or not, we should stand up and be a Senate of sober second thought before Canadians and before stakeholder communities — the farming community — and deal with the bill.

I will not be supporting the amendment simply to be able to voice my opinion on the bill and deal with the direct issue, which is climate change — not amendments that do this or do that, or risk this or don’t risk that. I respect your opinion with your experience.

That is the question before us: Are we going to deal with the bill as the bill? Or are we going to stand at the back of an amendment, and not stand as a Senate before the people that we represent from our regions? Thank you.

Will Senator Quinn take a question?

I am listening to my colleagues tonight, but I will take a question.

Again, it’s an excellent intervention.

Are you satisfied with the amount of information that you have received on this bill, whether for or against the bill? I am talking about the information that we’ve received on climate change. We have received information on the farmers, and it’s extremely important for Canada’s economy. It represents 10% of our GDP.

Are you satisfied with the financial information that you have received? If you are, I’m not. I would like to hear from you regarding that portion.

I will go to my second question, because you are saying that you would like to deal with the bill. My problem here is that I don’t think that we have received unbiased information so that we can come here and look at the bill and try to make a decision — and it is an important decision. It is not just something that you look at from one side. Over the last couple of weeks, we have been inundated with emails, and it’s only one‑sided. Normally — if you have ever looked at a gun bill — you receive “for” and “against.” But now that is all we have received, and we have received thousands of them. I want to understand this: Are you satisfied?

Our job here is that of sober second thought, and I don’t think that I have received all of the information to be able to look at this bill with a clear view on how I am going to vote on this bill at the end of the day.

Thank you, senator. I will start by saying that, as a former CFO in the Government of Canada, I am not going to comment. I don’t have enough information on the financial side of the argument.

But I do have enough information on the climate change side of the argument. We have a group of senators who come together monthly — those who are concerned about climate change — and we have great speakers and presentations; we had one this week. Senator Coyle does a great job in leading those initiatives.

Yes, I definitely have enough information to make an informed decision on the bill. I have full confidence that our committee did its job. I have full confidence in the elected people, whom we have heard many times — we need to really practise restraint in dealing with things that come to us from the elected side. We are carving out exceptions as we go forward with your amendment, with all due respect.

We owe it to this chamber to have the opportunity to stand and voice our opinion in front of Canadians — in front of the farming community — about how we feel about the bill, which is directly, in my opinion, tied to the government’s agenda on climate change, which is an important agenda.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, thank you for all of your interventions. I appreciate all sides of this and the discussions around it.

I was accused — in one of the interventions — of being a climate change denier. I can assure you that I am not. I see it every day in my home province. I live near the coast; I see it. I spent 35 years in the fishing industry, and I see significant changes in the fishing industry — all based on climate change. I am not a denier. I believe in it, and I believe that we have to do something about it. However, I believe that what we have to do has to be a global effort.

Colleagues, I am going to talk about the amendment. I hope to take only 15 minutes or less.

The key part of the amendment is the order-in-council or Governor-in-Council. The Governor-in-Council may, by order, which is what is proposed to be removed, establish the text of a resolution providing for the postponement and specifying the period of the postponement.

For those colleagues who do not know what an order‑in‑council is, it is a cabinet directive. We call it an order‑in-council.

A federal order-in-council is a statutory instrument by which the Governor General, the executive power of the Governor‑in‑Council acting on the advice and consent of the King’s Privy Council, expresses a decision. That is what an order-in-council is. It is essentially a cabinet decision.

The specific wording that is proposed to be removed in Senator Moncion’s amendment was taken, word for word, out of another bill called the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act. I believe that was enacted in 2014. That was on something called interswitching. It was an interswitching clause, which allowed cabinet, very quickly — and when necessary — to allow, if there was a problem with moving grain from one rail line to the marketplace — and there was in 2015 — and this order‑in‑council, this wording, allowed cabinet to say, “You can switch that grain to another line.”

That was to prevent the grain from rotting in the railcars or silos, waiting for other railcars to come. That is exactly what happened.

In 2015, the current government under Prime Minister Trudeau used that provision from the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act interswitching clause to allow grain to be moved to another rail line and get to market quickly. It had to be done quickly.

If it went to, as the amendment proposes, a motion in the House — a motion in the other place — and a motion in the Senate for debate, where each chamber would instruct on their opinion, that would take too long and certainly would have taken too long in the case of the interswitching clause, which is, word for word, what is in the coming-in-to-force section of this bill, and this is what Senator Moncion is proposing to change.

I wanted to deal with that because no one has talked about it in this discussion regarding the amendment.

In the other place, in the House’s Agriculture Committee, colleagues, there was an amendment made that changed when it talked about the length of time that this would be in effect, and this bill, if passed unamended, would be in effect; there would be a sunset clause at eight years. The original bill had 10 years. There was an amendment proposed by NDP MP Alistair MacGregor who proposed that it go from 10 years down to 8 years. That had light debate and was passed without a vote. It was fully agreed.

There was significant or some consideration by all parties who were represented in the Agriculture Committee in the House of Commons, and it was agreed to go to eight years.

So this amendment by Senator Moncion is proposing to strike that, and not have it at eight years.

The same issue regarding — sorry, not the eight years — the Governor-in-Council was debated at committee and defeated in the House — the other place — at the Agriculture Committee. Then, of course, it came to our committee here at the Senate where it was defeated once again.

We often say, colleagues, and I said it in my report stage speech, that we are here to make bills better. We have all heard that. Perhaps many of us have said it. I know that I have said it. In fact, this amendment does not make this bill better. It makes it the opposite.

Colleagues, I want to talk now about Senate amendments to a private member’s bill. We say, “Oh, it will kill the bill if it goes back to the other place. It will kill the bill.” It is an easy thing to say. It is very easy to say. But I am going to explain how the bill is killed if it is a Senate amendment to a private member’s bill.

I am reading from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, which states:

When the item reaches the top of the order of precedence, it is considered during Private Members’ Hour, and if not disposed of at the end of the hour, it is placed again at the bottom of the order of precedence. . . .

Senator Cuzner will know about this, and Speaker pro tempore Ringuette will know about this as well.

If this bill, as a Senate-amended private member’s bill, goes back to the House — and I asked for the list of the bills that it would sit under if it went back, and there are 25 private members’ bills in front of it. They are dealt with one hour a day. In fact, since the Fall Economic Statement, they’ve done no one‑hour discussions. That is called a private member’s hour. They’ve done none since the Fall Economic Statement. And that Fall Economic Statement debate will continue to push the private member’s hours further ahead. So right now, even if this bill passed today with an amendment, it would go into the line and would not be addressed for the first time until February 8, 2024. Because it is a private member’s bill amended by the Senate, it has a different rule than a private member’s bill amended by the other place. There is a time limit — a time cap — on a private member’s bill that comes from the House. That cap is two hours. After two hours, it is dispatched.

If it is a Senate-amended private member’s bill, there is no time limit. It can be addressed during that hour, and if it is not completed, it goes to the bottom of the list again in the order of precedence, and then when it comes back up, it can be addressed again. All opponents of this bill have to do is to throw up speakers. Once that time — that hour — passes, it goes back to the bottom of the list and it comes back around in 25 days or however many bills are in front of it, for that hour, and then it is debated. It can be debated or spoken on by four people for 15 minutes. If it is not dealt with, it goes back. That, colleagues, is how to kill a bill without actually saying, “I’ve killed it.”

I know that in the other place there are 15 private members’ bills, or PMBs, that are under amendment now that are being discussed at private member’s hour, and I have the list of all of them.

There are six Senate public bills amended being addressed over there and two motions, which also fit into that private member’s hour. When we say the bill will be killed, it is easy to kill the bill without actually killing it. You just let it die because you throw up speakers, and then it goes to the bottom of the order. I wanted to explain that. I thought that was important because I think that is what is at play here.

Now, I didn’t know that before, but now I know it. Now we all know it.

The last thing I wanted to talk about, colleagues, and I talked about it when I spoke the other day — I cannot remember what day my last speech on this was — I took on this bill because I thought it would be an easy one. I thought it was a principled stand that I could take. It is a question of farmers, ranchers, growers and those who provide food. It is not those who provide tennis rackets and rubber tires. It is people who provide food for us. They have a hard enough time. Every obstacle that you can imagine is thrown in front of them every year. They have high costs anyway.

Then we have the effects of climate change, whether it is flood, drought or maybe both of those in the same year. That can ruin crops. It can damage animals. We can have significantly high temperatures. We have seen that over the past couple of years with the heat domes out West. That kills animals. We have seen the wildfires, brush fires and grass fires, which remove land from being used for farming, ranching or growing.

Colleagues, I thought that this was an easy one. I thought this was a real motherhood issue that I could comfortably stand behind and do it on principle because I believe in climate change, and I believe in those who provide food for us and the world. Canada is a major grain and seed provider to the world.

When I think about the troubles that farmers might have, whether it is weather-related or price-related, because they don’t always choose the price — that is chosen in the Chicago market or at some other negotiating table. They don’t choose the price, and they don’t always choose their costs, either. Their costs are given to them. They have to buy grain dryers. We heard from Senator Batters that it costs $300,000 for a grain dryer, so they have to do lease payments unless they can buy it with cash. I don’t know many farmers who can. Any of the things that they have to buy are usually on a lease program, and those are costs too. Certainly, now they’re going up because interest rates are increasing.

When I think about the obstacles that specifically farmers, ranchers and growers — we all have our own problems and obstacles, but they have obstacles every year, such as pestilence, viruses and things like diseases in their crops. All of those are things they have to fight against every time, each year. They might have a good year and have only a few of those obstacles. Generally, those hit all the time, and they’re always costly. Whether they lose crops, animals or time, that’s losing money.

What this bill does is it allows farmers to keep some of their money. I believe that increasing a tax on a transition fuel, unlike — I asked the question of Senator Dalphond about the pricing, and I didn’t hear an answer that I understood. What’s the price signal? What’s the signal to the marketplace if you provide an exemption for diesel but you don’t provide an exemption for natural gas or propane? Whenever I try to sell the idea of the bill, I start there because it doesn’t make sense.

My thoughts on this bill are clear. I don’t take the debate lightly. I appreciate, for sure, all of those who are supportive of the unamended bill, but I also appreciate forcing me to think about the arguments of those who are against the bill. I get it. Not everyone thinks the same way I do, and that’s probably a good thing.

I wanted to close by saying — if this is the conclusion of this part of the debate on Senator Moncion’s amendment — here is what it actually does: It takes the power out of the hands of cabinet to make a move on whether to increase or decrease the sunset or keep it as it is at eight years. The necessity that is granted to cabinet under the provisions of this bill is there, like it was under the interswitching, which is necessary and is still in place to be used by any government until the time it’s removed.

Colleagues, I just want to say that I think this is a very good bill. It helps our farmers, growers and ranchers, and ultimately, it helps our consumers and our economy. Thank you.

Senator Dalphond, do you have a question?

Yes. Would the honourable senator take a question?

I will, Senator Dalphond.

It’s a very short question. Are you aware that in the other place you can trade places? If you are number 25 but another member from your own caucus is number 2, you can trade places and you can go straight to the top?

Thank you, Senator Dalphond. Of course, I’m aware of that, but it still doesn’t stop the process. You can move up the line, but you can quickly be moved down the line as well by running that one hour debate for the hour by putting up four speakers. It’s simple.

There are no guarantees that you will be able to switch with someone. Everyone with a private member’s bill takes these things very seriously. Perhaps they’ve waited for years. Maybe they’ve won a lottery that puts them to the front of the line. I think it’s a heavy sacrifice and still no guarantee.

Senator Dasko, you have a question. Senator Wells, you are out of time. Are you asking for five more minutes?

I would take Senator Dasko’s question.

Senator Wells is asking to reply to one more question. Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Thank you, senator, for your comments.

You did say, and I believe you, that you are not a carbon denier —

Climate change denier. I am a carbon denier.

Yes, sorry. Climate change denier. I have been inspired by Senator Ringuette’s phrase “the cat is out of the bag” in her speech. I understand that you do support the bill because you are concerned about farmers. I do believe that, for sure. Is this bill also an effort to kill the carbon tax? Thank you.

Thank you so much for your question, Senator Dasko.

In my second reading speech, I said very specifically this bill is not about whether you like or dislike the carbon tax. I knew if that were the debate we were going to have in this chamber on this bill, the room would be divided and there would be no opportunity to bring some unity to the debate.

The fact that there is a carbon tax is an instrument of the government. I accept that. They were duly elected to lead, and they’ve put policies in place. I don’t like them all. Some I like, some I don’t like, but that’s the one that I accept is there.

This is, as we’ve talked about before, a fair and reasonable exemption. It’s in line with the design of the carbon tax bill in the first place that allowed for exemptions. I think this is a reasonable exemption. In fact, if we’re talking about climate change, it’s probably a more reasonable exemption than the existing one that’s there for diesel and gasoline. Thank you for your question.

Would the senator take another question?

You have three minutes, Senator Wells. Oh, yes, we had agreed to one question. Unless, Senator Wells, you are asking to answer one other question.

Thank you. I will take Senator LaBoucane-Benson’s question, if the chamber wishes.

Is it agreed? I heard a “no.”

Colleagues, on debate?

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dupuis, that Bill C-234 be not read the third time —

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

All those opposed will please say, “nay.”

I believe the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on the bell?

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

The vote is therefore deferred. Pursuant to rule 9-10(6), it will take place after the vote already deferred earlier today, without the bells ringing again, that is, immediately after the other vote.