Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act
Bill to Amend--Third Reading
December 12, 2023
Honourable senators, I rise once again, now at third reading, to ask for your support for Bill C-234, an Act to Amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, albeit as amended. As you may anticipate, I first want to express my frustration and disappointment that this bill has been amended twice, especially, given that these amendments were previously debated, as has been noted at committee, and voted down in this chamber of sober second thought when my honourable colleagues voted down the Agriculture and Forestry Committee report. The industry was very thankful to those colleagues who did not support that report.
I heard from many agriculture stakeholders who supported this action a few weeks ago. I expect that many of you who voted it down did as well. While at COP 28 in Dubai last week, I was awakened during the night to a number of emails coming in from stakeholders who expressed significant disappointment in the passing of the first of what has now been two amendments passing in this chamber. I too was disappointed to hear that a majority of our colleagues supported an amendment similar to the one in the Agriculture and Forestry Committee report this chamber voted down. Colleagues, while at COP 28 it became evident that the decision made in the chamber last week reverberated beyond our borders and around the world. I heard the disappointment in the amendment from many stakeholders whom I met and ran into at COP 28 in Dubai. For your information, colleagues, to date, since this bill has been in the Senate, I have received over 2,500 letters and 2,000-plus emails from farmers, ranchers and growers, who all shared their support for an unamended Bill C-234.
Since last week, a number have reached out again to express their disappointment about the amended bill. They have used such words and comments like, “The Senate is being obstructionist,” “The Senate lacks the understanding of our issues,” “Some senators are truly, truly misinformed,” and “The Senate has a disdain for farmers, doesn’t it?” and “It’s time to get rid of the Senate.”
Colleagues, these comments bother me greatly.
I’m not proud of what has transpired here in the Senate Chamber over the past few weeks with respect to Bill C-234. We have failed a very important segment of our Canadian population, and I remain concerned that I have not done my job well enough in the chamber as a senator representing agriculture in Canada because that’s what I was asked to do when I was asked by the Prime Minister to come into the Senate.
While I believe it is now severely flawed, and the industry agrees with this statement, we must pass this bill now so that it can be returned to our elected officials who voted in support of the original bill, as soon as possible so they can decide if they will accept this amended bill or not.
While I can be hopeful that something might come of it and we’ll see it back here in its original form, as my honourable colleague Senator Wells already pointed out, it could be a long and difficult road ahead for this amended bill in the other place.
Canadian farmers, ranchers and growers are the losers in this process. Honourable colleagues, by supporting this amended bill in support of grain drying only being done by farmers across Canada, we are still able to demonstrate our commitment to fostering a nurturing environment for our farmers, ranchers and growers, allowing them to thrive and continue to do the essential work of feeding our great nation.
Although — and I will state this again — it is extremely unfortunate that this bill has been amended, we must continue to show our support for the thousands of farmers who remain included.
Colleagues, farmers are progressive. They are determined, ambitious and interested in engaging innovative new technologies for the advancement of the agricultural industry. Farmers understand the importance of innovation and progressiveness in their fight against climate change, and they will continue to innovate as they go forward. However, this can’t be easily done by limiting their fiscal capacities and forcing them to bear the burden of an unfair tax on their livelihood. It cannot be done by adding burdensome regulations that will continue to be discussed and considered by this government now and into the future.
Honourable colleagues, I respectfully request that you vote in favour of this amended bill for your farmers and local producers. Pass this bill now to show support for farmers, ranchers and growers who provide for us 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Whatever your reason, all I ask is that you vote in favour of those farmers, ranchers and growers who are still going to benefit from the measures of an amended Bill C-234. They are begging the government for relief from the burden of carbon tax.
Together we can ensure a brighter and more prosperous future for some within this industry and, by extension, support those who continue to provide for us — each and every day.
Thank you, meegwetch.
Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to say, in response to our friend and colleague Senator Black, that farmers, ranchers and growers could have no better advocate for their interests and the issues faced by that community than you, Senator Black. I think many, if not all, would agree with that.
I’m going to speak briefly to Bill C-234. First, I want to thank colleagues and everyone who has spoken for their fulsome participation. We have all learned a lot about grain drying and barn heating, haven’t we?
I want to pull out some of the key arguments that have been most persuasive to me as I have listened to these debates. As I start, for clarity, colleagues, I have received no phone calls. I watched my phone and waited for it to ring, but it just didn’t happen.
Senator Ringuette reminded us that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, published a report on June 15, 2023, which indicated that over 90% of gas and diesel fuel usage for farmers is exempted from the carbon tax already. That’s a good start. A report from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada stated that the fuels most commonly used on farms are gasoline and diesel, both of which are exempt. Most grain drying equipment, however, is powered with natural gas or propane, which are both subject to the federal fuel charge in jurisdictions where it applies, and that’s what we have been talking about.
The PBO report went on to say that because of this exemption, almost 10% of Canada’s carbon emissions are exempt from the tax. When it comes to grain drying, which is subject to the tax, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada found that based on the information received, the average per-farm cost of pollution pricing associated with grain drying by province ranges from 0.05% to 0.38% of net operating costs for an average farm, which is equivalent to $210 to $774. That’s grain drying.
Senator Dalphond told us that the share of expenditures devoted to heating fuel for farm buildings represents less than 1% of Canadian farm operating expenses. To be very specific, it represented 0.9% of expenses in 2019, 0.8% of expenses in 2020 — including the carbon tax — and the same in 2021. So for grain drying and heating fuel, less than 1% of a farmer’s operating costs comes from carbon pricing.
Senator Woo reminded us that incentives provided by the carbon levy on farmers and, in particular, the economic incentives to switch to more energy-efficient technology can help offset emissions while, in the long term, reducing costs for farmers as well. Many of these technologies are available; some are not, but providing that incentive is an important first step in motivating carbon-intensive sectors to invest in more efficient technologies. Giving a break to these sectors now will only make the transition more challenging in the future, and that’s a transition that is inevitable.
Both Senator Woo’s and Senator Dalphond’s amendments are responsive to these concerns. Senator Woo’s amendment would reduce the bill’s eight-year transition to three years, while Senator Dalphond’s amendment would narrow the exemption to grain drying only; it would not include barn heating.
I want to talk briefly about the farming landscape in Canada, which is changing dramatically in terms of scale. Many of us know, believe and see that there are still many small farms operating in Canada; however, that landscape is shifting quickly and dramatically, colleagues, in terms of both scale and financial structure. Increasingly, farms are becoming incorporated.
In 2021, about a quarter of farms in Canada were classified as corporations, either family or non-family owned. This was an increase from one fifth of farms in 2015. The number has been steadily increasing in past decades, in part because corporations, obviously, have benefitted more from lower taxes compared to small businesses than in the past.
Statistics Canada reports that in 2020, over half of Canada’s total farm operating revenues came from just 4.1% of farms, all of which belonged to the $2-million-and-over revenue class. That is over 50% of farm revenue, colleagues, up from 41.5% five years earlier.
Furthermore, farms in the top three revenue classes — those being $500,000 to $1 million, $1 million to $2 million, and $2 million and over — accounted for 83.2% of total operating revenues in 2020, up from 75% a year earlier.
A data report from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada indicates that costs are expected to vary by farm size, with larger farms having above-average costs and smaller farms having below-average costs. Although drying costs are not necessarily proportional to farm size, there is expected to be a strong correlation.
While the average Canadian grain and oilseed farm has gross revenues of $460,000 per year, and there are over 2,000 farms with revenues above $2 million per year that could see carbon pollution price costs that are significantly higher than provincial averages, if you want to be honest about what this bill is going to do, colleagues, it’s likely going to help large industrial farming corporations consume more of the market by giving them a tax break. That is the same sort of support these corporations would have received from Bill C-208, which some of you will remember as the “farms and fishers bill,” which whistled through this chamber very quickly several years ago and was specifically focused on helping farms in the incorporation process. Colleagues, small farms would, of course, benefit from the proposals in Bill C-234, but large, industrial-scale farms will be far and away the largest beneficiaries.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about climate change and carbon neutrality, which seems to have been marginal in this debate. Senator Ringuette asked a very pertinent question: What is the cost of climate change to our economy?
While we are here debating the economic cost to farmers, we have to acknowledge the cost to our children, our grandchildren and their ability to live on this planet comfortably when it’s already at significant risk. Every year that passes is hotter than the last. We’re breaking records for extreme temperatures and natural disasters around the world. We know that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, and the Arctic is warming three times as fast. This situation is unsustainable, and we all have to make sacrifices on the path to carbon neutrality — corporations most of all, given that they are the largest contributors.
If we had passed this bill as it was originally crafted, I believe we would have weakened Canada’s strategy for achieving carbon neutrality. Some colleagues have suggested the government has already weakened it with their exemptions for home heating oil, and I think that’s a fair argument.
It has certainly opened the door to other groups and provinces coming forward to suggest they should also be exempt from the carbon tax. Colleagues, we should not encourage the path of exemptions. We owe it to future generations. And I believe that Bill C-234, as amended, finds the appropriate balance in all of that nexus. Thank you so much.
Honourable senators, I rise today to say a few words and add some observations at third reading about Bill C-234 as amended.
As I said in my speech during debate at report stage, federalism is hard. Federal-provincial-territorial negotiations and our relationships with Indigenous peoples are different throughout this vast country. Our situation in Canada must be one of the more — if not the most — difficult forms of federalism government serving a population over a vast country.
Nonetheless, in spite of these challenges, governments of all political types, at all levels, embark upon a number of initiatives, including legislation in an effort to meet the needs of citizens, while remembering we are part of a global community.
Sometimes, these efforts are fairly readily achieved, and sometimes, as my Scots aunty used to say, “It’s just that the impossible takes a little longer.”
Most Canadians — and I’m sure Senator Dasko could tell me how many — recognize that climate change is a global issue, and that Canada must play a part. The impossible part, at least in the public discourse, now seems to be how to best persuade our population to make changes to meet the challenges of climate change.
Duly elected governments — federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, First Nations and Indigenous governments — are pursuing options. Canada, with the support of scientific and economic evidence — as has been discussed by senators with more knowledge than I have — implemented a carbon tax to incentivize a reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Carbon tax has been much discussed in Bill C-234. I wanted to add the Yukon perspective to our deliberations here to show how “one size fits all” does not fit all in this federation.
The Yukon signed on to the federal carbon tax regime because we strongly agree and are making best efforts to reduce emissions. As we debated this bill, the government decided to exempt the carbon tax on home heating oil. Some have called it an unfair break for Canadians in the Atlantic provinces. The exemption applies in the Yukon. It’s important to know the background and the situation in the Yukon, and I appreciate the opportunity to represent my region.
It’s complicated. In the Yukon, 93.9% of the electricity is provided by hydro. Yukon Energy has recently installed four new wind turbines after decommissioning those installed in 1993 and 2000. It’s estimated that the wind turbines will provide power to 650 homes. It’s a most welcome addition to the power supply.
Colleagues, you might be aware that Mayor Cabott of the City of Whitehorse recently shared with me that Whitehorse is currently appreciating a 12.5% increase in population. The new homes for this population are, by and large, constructed with electric heat. That varies in cost from $150 a month to almost $1,000, depending on the month and how warm you like the temperature.
Most of our power is from hydro. We have augmented that with wind. Self-governing First Nations and some of those without a final agreement are adding solar farms to their communities. Thousands of Yukoners have installed solar panels. There is a hydrogen battery storage facility under construction. These best efforts are partnerships with substantial financial support from the Government of Canada, additionally from the Government of Yukon and Yukon First Nations development corporations.
Despite these efforts, the Yukon is in dire need of more electric power. The hydro facility in Whitehorse is supplemented throughout the winter by sometimes as many as seven diesel generators running day and night. The fuel for these generators comes up the Alaska Highway, hauled by a diesel B-train truck — either from Alberta or at the other end of the highway — or from a port through Skagway in Alaska. Diesel fuel is used, the dirtiest-burning fuel bringing in more dirty fuel, and 49% of Yukoners heat with diesel fuel. Many Yukoners heat with wood, also a dirty option for the environment; 4% use propane and the balance are electric, some with wood backup.
The cost to fill a fuel-oil tank in September to heat our home in the Yukon — heating oil, Arctic stove — including almost $200 in carbon tax, was close to $1,200. To fill up in October was about half that; however, we’re also experiencing a warm fall.
Why not natural gas? Well, that’s another story. Senators, some of you might recall there was a 1972 treaty between Canada and the U.S. that would have seen Alaskan gas travel down the Alaska Highway, an existing transportation corridor.
Needless to say, you are welcome to come into my office and peruse the bumper sticker on the wall. It says, if you will forgive the unparliamentary language, “Canada . . . , kiss” my posterior — although another noun is used — “it’s Alaska’s gas.” That gas is transported south. Yukoners have no access to natural gas.
As another alternative, heat pumps have been proven to work in the Yukon. Unfortunately, I understand that, at minus 30 degrees, an electric backup is required. I also understand, from recent radio interviews with the heat pump installer, there are supply chain issues. If you can get a heat pump and if the installer is available, it remains an expensive investment. I refer you again to my point about the availability of electricity.
Bill C-234 specifically addresses agriculture. Yukon’s agriculture industry is growing and perhaps best described as a sapling in the forest of a Canadian industry. It is no less important.
Mandalay Farm produces 4,400 Little Red Hen Eggs per day or about 1.6 million a year. In a population of 45,000 people and growing, this represents 15% of the eggs consumed in the Yukon. Those other eggs, aside from a few small local producers, all come up the highway via a diesel truck. Mandalay Farm spends about $35,000 a year on propane to heat their barns for these hens. Their home is heated with diesel fuel and wood backup. A cord of wood, by the way, is anywhere from $400 to $500.
Would passage of Bill C-234 lower the price of Little Red Hen Eggs at the grocery store? Probably not, because farmers are price takers, not price makers. Would it help Mandalay with their bottom line if we were to pass Bill C-234 as originally intended? Absolutely, it would.
There are also two grain-drying operations in the Yukon, both of which use propane. They are small operations, so Bill C-234, had it been passed in its original form, would have helped them as well.
I would like to briefly address whether Bill C-234 is a carve-out. I believe it is not. Officials stated at committee that this was not an oversight. I have the greatest of respect for Canada’s public servants. I have also been one of, and have the greatest respect for, those members of Parliament and MLAs who have gone door to door to talk to individuals. It’s completely understandable because I, too, have heard it from friends who happen to be farmers in southern Alberta. Formerly, he worked for the Government of Alberta dealing with farm credit and farm financing. He absolutely confirmed to me the necessity of heating for poultry farms, particularly, and for grain dryers, especially in northern Alberta.
While a public servant in Ottawa might not feel that excluding grain dryers, chicken and poultry farms, propane and natural gas as part of the exemption granted to the agricultural industry, when fishers and agriculture were exempted, that public servant might not feel that’s an oversight. But the individual who knocks on their door, looking for their vote, will hear, “Why? It’s not fair that the diesel folks can get a break in a carbon tax rebate, and I can’t.”
Colleagues, I supported this bill in its original form for all the reasons I noted. What I cannot support and what angers, saddens and truly disappoints me as a Canadian, and as a voter, is that the politics have polarized this debate so deeply. It has ceased to be about whether this is an appropriate inclusion in an exemption already granted for agriculture and has become one of political slogans and partisan politics.
I find it especially frustrating, colleagues, because I honestly thought that in the Senate we were better than that, and that we could get beyond the talking points, the political campaigning and divisions and figure out a way through this. I’m saddened that we cannot. As I said earlier, I think it’s just that the impossible takes a little longer. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I want to thank the people who have contributed to this debate tonight in a thoughtful and respectful way. Senators Black, Dean and Duncan, my good friend — we’re on opposite sides of this issue, but we spend a lot of time talking with each other and learning from each other. I appreciate those senators’ respectful contributions.
Let me begin this contribution to the debate by saying what I won’t do tonight. I will not make ad hominem or those kinds of statements in the Senate or make those kinds of personal attacks. I will not participate in naming and shaming my colleagues who have spent so much time looking at and examining this bill and what, in fact, they have come to determine is the appropriate response from their perspective on this bill.
What I will do is be very respectful of the diversity of opinion in this chamber, whether you’re on one side of the debate or on the other side, and I will recognize that many of us have come to our position on this debate for different reasons and through different ways of reasoning. We can talk to each other about that. I hope that, at some point, we’ll take the wise words from your granny that we will maybe take a bit longer, but the Senate will get there. That’s what we strived for in terms of reform of this institution and in terms of value-added work for Canadians. I think we fail on that measure when we don’t behave in the way that I have just outlined.
I want to support those — and Senator Dean just said this — who are skeptical about the government’s actions to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax. I don’t support the government in that action, although I hasten to say for my dear colleague from P.E.I. that I do support getting more assistance to those homeowners who are still heating with home heating oil.
I don’t believe it should have been an exemption. There are many other ways that the government could have accomplished this. The government could have increased rebates, as they already have in this measure. They could have done that even more. They could have done a different subsidy. They could have gotten that support without undermining their own policy direction on carbon pricing, which for me is one of the most critical steps that we must take at this point with the technologies available to us to take steps forward on this existential challenge to our planet; not just our country, our planet.
However, I do support the measures that they have taken with respect to putting in supports and subsidies for the installation of heat pumps. That’s a brilliant additional measure, along with giving more direct support to home heating oil users.
I have told you what I wouldn’t do tonight. What I will do, beyond being respectful to the opinions here, is seek to correct the record and to read into the record published facts that go against some of the things that have been said certainly in the other place and in this place as well. It has been a voice that has been multiplied through Twitter or X and some media reporting, which I believe was a purposeful design on the part of some who have engaged in this debate in a less than respectful way, which I have commented on with respect to other contributions tonight.
I know that we sometimes seek the language to describe somebody else’s contributions. We are appropriately reminded about the decorum in this place, about the parliamentary respect for the institution and what is non-parliamentary language. Some people have joked over a number of different bills about things like, “you can’t call a duck a duck.” So we find other words for it. The other words that I have heard used is “falsehoods” or “that’s false.” When I seek to correct the record, I will seek to correct the falsehoods that we have heard in this chamber.
The first is heat pumps. When I was off sick with the flu recently — and some people are aware that I was away — I watched every debate on this. I watched an amendment debate and a second reading debate where I heard it stated categorically that heat pumps don’t work in this country because of the multiple numbers of days per year with minus 40 temperatures. My friends, with climate change, we don’t see a lot of those. We do see some. When my husband and I built our home 22 years ago, we wanted to put in a heat pump. I live in northern Ontario, and at that point, the technology for heat pumps was not sufficient, so what we heard in this chamber was perhaps true 22 years ago.
There have been so many reports. I have read reports from heat pump installation businesses in northern Ontario that are just overwhelmed with the demand, the subsidies that have been announced by the government and the green initiatives fund, which I make a pitch for now and is going to run out of money in March, we think. I hope it’s replenished in the next budget. I am also aware of companies like Enbridge that have heat pump subsidies of up to $10,000 for low-income Canadians. There’s support to move on this. I have heard from farmers about the ability to help their bottom line through the installation of heat pumps.
If there are those weeks of 40-below temperature, most have backup heating. I know that in our situation, we switched to propane from home heating oil, and we have the backup of wood. I will move to put in a heat pump now that the technology can support that.
I’ve heard from farmers who have talked about the vast improvement to their bottom line, farmers who are using propane or natural gas, which is already a quarter of the price of home heating oil, about how much they can save, even if it’s just in the shoulder seasons. The technology has changed. We were not informed about that. We were informed of a categorical falsehood, as I will call it.
I have also thought long and hard about the fairness issue. I listened to Senator Black and to others who have made that argument. It was initially a very persuasive argument to me. Part of our job is to look at different regional impacts. When I started to dig into it, I realized that we were told another falsehood. I won’t read the quotes, but I have the debates here, and the falsehood was that what the government has done was only for Atlantic Canada and not for the rest of us. I think that’s almost verbatim. Not for the rest of us, and not for the rest of Canada. False. It’s just false. Look at how the program is designed, look at who it will affect and look at the numbers.
I come from the province of Ontario. Of the total number of homes using heating oil — 266,700 — the vast overwhelming majority are in the province of Ontario. The constituents whom I represent — I represent all Canadians, but I am a senator from Ontario — have the most and highest utilization of this form of heating fuel, which is three or four times the cost of propane and natural gas, and that is what we are talking about in the bill that is before us.
Farmers have also been supported at the federal level through the original carbon pricing bill with exemptions for gas and diesel, with tax credits and with rebates — just like all of us get with respect to the carbon tax that has been imposed. By the way, having been a provincial minister, I hear about a lot of provincial measures that support farmers as well, and I am 100% for that. This is where the production of our food is and these are the most fertile lands in our country, and I wish everyone would fight as hard to protect those lands instead of opening them up for development, like I see in my province of Ontario.
There is the concern that if the exemptions come forward for a group of farmers, they will also lose the rebate. They might be a little further ahead, but let’s look at the numbers. We have heard these numbers before, so I’m not going to dwell on them. Senator Ringuette, thank you very much; you brought valuable information to us after doing your research based on the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. When you consider the carbon tax that will be placed on these particular farmers who we’re talking about in this bill, and you take off the rebate that they will be receiving — and I know this is a difficult number to deal with because there are large corporate farms and small family farms — on average, across this country, the additional cost to the farmers will be $806 this year. We weren’t told that either during the debate that we’ve heard here, other than from my colleague Senator Ringuette.
Let me say that again: It’s $806. Look at the rancour and the polarization that is happening in our country and, unfortunately, as Senator Duncan said, in this chamber.
As the penultimate point here, I want to speak about my concern on how this bill has been positioned. Perhaps some newer senators may not be aware of this. I cannot take a long time to talk about it this evening, but I’d be willing to at any other time. I’ve listened to our colleagues across the floor talk about the importance of Westminster precedents and policy with respect to what we do in this chamber. One of the things that we need to look at is the Salisbury Convention which, in short, says that if a party who is the elected government has — in a previous campaign — campaigned on a policy, then that policy should be supported when it comes to the Senate. We may make amendments and try to improve it, but it’s only in a very rare case where we would try to overturn that bill.
What’s happened here, colleagues, is an inverse Salisbury Convention. We have a situation where a bill has come forward that seeks to amend and undermine the intent of the carbon pricing bill that we passed in this chamber, and that the previous government has campaigned on and won an election on, whether it’s a minority or a majority.
When you flip that on its head, we are facing the latter bill that is before us — my colleague Senator Plett and I have a lot of hesitation about private members’ bills and how they’re handled in this place. We usually don’t like it when they take precedence above Government Business, because we’re called here to do Government Business.
In this situation — and for those of us who have had a difficult time dealing with it as it has come through here — to pass the original bill as it came through would be to reverse the application of the Salisbury Convention in this institution, and that is not our job. We need to pay attention. We are not the accountable elected chamber. We are the chamber of sober second thought. We have a 2014 constitutional reference decision that sets out our job to look at these areas: constitutional, Charter, regional, minority populations, minority-language populations and Indigenous populations. Those are our areas. We have boundaries on what we can do. We’re not a place to come in to simply bring a private concern or a private position. We have the ability to do that, but we must remember that Government Business is what we are called to do. When we swear our oath, it’s what we are called to commit to.
Lastly, if I may — and it is with the consent and leave of the Senate, and with tolerance — I want to make a couple of personal comments. I’m moving from the bill just to say that, over the last year, I have been absent a lot through the protracted illness of my husband and through his death. So many of you have supported me through this all the way. You have made a difference — all of you. One of you has changed my life in terms of stepping forward. I want to say a personal thank you to the members of the Conservative caucus — I only found out about this two months ago, and I’ve been wanting to send a letter — who donated to the project to expand our local Legion, which was my husband’s favourite place to be. It says something about him. We spent a lot of time there. The Conservative caucus made a $200 donation to that. When I saw it — excuse me — I began to cry because my heart was touched. Thank you very much. Thank you for indulging me with that. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in such a respectful debate of the last few speakers on this bill. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Honourable senators, I’m hoping to offer some diverse thoughts to this debate.
I begin by acknowledging the unceded and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabe Algonquin peoples upon which we stand and upon which we work. Indeed, it is the very concept of land that I will return to throughout my speech. I give heartfelt thanks to the Anishinaabe Algonquin peoples who have always cared for these lands upon which I am now living and working. It is through their lands that I know the Anishinabe Algonquin peoples. Land connects us all.
Honourable senators, I invite you to take a moment to gaze earthward. We are all anchored to our land. We are — each one of us — connected by the lands upon which we stand. We each have individual stories about these lands, but where our feet are anchored connects us all.
With this in mind, I want to thank Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Clement and Senator Petitclerc for their work in supporting fellow senators and ensuring our voices are heard in this chamber. Hiy hiy.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The amendment would exempt certain fuels and farming activities in jurisdictions where there is no provincial or territorial carbon pricing system.
There has been much discussion, debate and even amendments in the chamber. These debates and discussions have been insightful and meaningful. I rise to contribute to these debates and discussions. I hope to offer a perspective that I believe is too often overlooked, both here in the Senate and in so many other places. I rise today to offer you stories about the land. I rise today to speak about the importance of land to the health and well‑being of both Indigenous peoples and all Canadians. I offer this perspective for consideration in your deliberation of Bill C-234.
For many Indigenous peoples, land never stands alone. To evoke the concept of land is to simultaneously speak about water and air. To speak of land is to also speak of all that lives within complex webs of life. When I speak of land, I am speaking about water and air and everything alive, past, present and future.
To speak of the land is also to speak of culture, to speak of relationships, of ecosystems, of social systems, of spirituality and of law.
Colleagues, many teachings are embedded in stories. Stories offer us unlimited potential for learning. I offer you one story given to me by Mary Thomas, a Secwépemc Elder from interior British Columbia.
On a warm spring day, I went to the mountain with Mary. Halfway up the mountain, we stopped, and Mary described how the mountain once was with plants, animals and little trails that wound their way up the mountain. Over 80 years earlier, she had walked these trails with her grandmother. Her grandmother had taught her about the land, pointing out different plants and their uses, animals’ homes and so much more. Eighty years earlier, Mary had walked along with her grandmother; today, she walked with me.
Mary stopped beside a tall pine tree and pointed to scattered pine cone pieces nearby. She said:
See these? If you look carefully, you will find a pile of pieces, and underneath that pile you will find a cache of pine cones belonging to a squirrel. The little cones will be arranged in rows with the tops pointed downward so that when the winter snows begin to melt, the water drips into the cache and will run off the cones and not wreck the seeds inside. My grandmother taught me this.
Mary had asked her grandmother, “How do the little squirrels know to do that?” Mary’s grandmother had replied, “They learn like we do and pass their knowledge on to us.”
For many Indigenous peoples around the world, humans do not own the land. Instead, humans are a part of the land, of it and because of it. At the heart of Mary’s story is the teaching that even the smallest creatures have truths to offer, as long as humans are willing to listen. If listened to, these stories tell the truth of connectivity to the land. These stories speak of our interconnectedness with the land.
Indigenous ways of knowing and being are as diverse as Indigenous peoples ourselves, but commonalities do exist. One commonality is a deep and abiding understanding that land anchors Indigenous philosophies of knowing and being. This land is where our understandings of the world emerge. Our understandings of the world are characterized by interrelationships between the spirit, the natural world and human beings.
Indigenous scholar Greg Cajete described Indigenous peoples’ relationship with the land as “a theology of place.” A theology of place captures our sacred orientation to place, to space and to land.
Indigenous peoples come to our spiritual understandings through our intimate relationships with place and the environment — these are what gives us life. These are what gives us meaning as Indigenous peoples. For Cajete:
The land is an extension of Indian thought and being. . . . It is this place that holds our memories and the bones of our people. . . .This is the place that made us!
Look down again at the ground upon which we stand. This ground holds the memories of my people. These grounds are a web of being, holding in place the bones of Indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast. Your feet are grounded in the bones of Indigenous peoples, the peoples and places and stories of my people.
Indigenous knowledges and cultural teachings are transmitted through stories, ceremonies and experiences. These live in the land. These are the foundations of Indigeneity. Land teaches us the privileging of relationships. Embedded in land is fluidity of knowledge between past, present and future. Land honours language and orality. Land is inextricably linked with Indigenous identity, with the health and well-being of Indigenous and non‑Indigenous peoples.
Chief Seattle in a speech given to government officials in the 1800s says, “What we do to the land, we do to ourselves.”
We are in a time of ecological crisis. The land and the water and the air are hurting. The land is burning. The sky is choking. The waters are drying and disappearing. Everywhere there is a sickness in water and air and land.
I ask myself: What if the land becomes so sick that there are no more stories to tell other than stories of hardship and heartache? I ask myself: How can I contribute to the long-term health and well-being of all Canadians? What learning can I glean from these stories from the past? What teaching can I draw upon from those who have been here since time immemorial? How will we, in all our actions and care, preserve the land?
We all have a role to play in protecting the land and therefore our very existence. I understand the discussion and debate around Bill C-234. I know that on the face of it, we are discussing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. More deeply than all of this, we are talking about the health and well-being of the land and all people.
Many authors, when writing of the determinants of health and Indigenous peoples, write about colonization, anti-Indigenous racism, loss of language and dislocation as critical to individual and community well-being. Burdens of ill health are disproportionately experienced by Indigenous peoples in Canada. Our health and well-being are inextricably tied to the land. The health and well-being, indeed the very future of all people’s health and well-being, are grounded in the land, in the water and in the air.
We must not only contemplate these realities from a conceptual vantage point; we need to feel these conversations. How do you feel about the health and wellness of your children and your children’s children? How do you feel about the vibrancy of the land, the air and the water? Are we accounting for the life of the land as we contemplate this bill or others?
Honourable senators, I ask everyone here at this moment to ask themselves: Will amending this act protect the land? Will amending the act promote the health and well-being of all Canadians? Will passing this bill further the cause of reconciliation? As I contemplate Bill C-234, these are my thoughts alongside the other discussion points that have been set forth in this chamber.
I end my remarks with Mary’s words:
It is not the way we dressed or how we acted or what we are that allowed us to survive. It is the values of our people that have been whispered gently, from generation to generation, like a thread through time, that has ensured our existence. It is to the children that these values and ways of being are passed. They are our future and our survival.
What stories will we tell them?
I thank you, honourable senators. Hiy hiy.
Honourable senators, I’ll be very brief.
Not for the first time, I have been inspired by Senator Lankin, my former colleague on the National Security and Intelligence Committee, and her remarks. I want to address a few of the concerns she raised about Bill C-234.
She mentioned Prince Edward Island. There is a real disconnect, colleagues. This is a regional institution. There is a real disconnect between the understanding of some of our colleagues and between the different parts of our country; there is, obviously, a major disconnect between those in urban centres — and I respect their views — and those in rural communities over how we proceed on the fight against climate change.
I don’t know anyone in Prince Edward Island who doesn’t heat with oil. However, we have no propane, oil or natural gas. Everything we consume is imported to the province. We also have, the last time I checked, some of the highest electricity rates in Canada. As Senator Duncan indicated in her speech, some of the dollar figures she mentioned are very similar to the consumption cost in Prince Edward Island. I know many people who in wintertime pay over $1,000 a month in heating costs.
For heat pumps, the provincial government has a program, in addition to the federal government’s. Any household with an income of $75,000 or below is entitled to a free heat pump. Many people have heat pumps. I have a heat pump. I can tell you that in cold weather, you need oil. You have no choice. Your house and pipes will freeze. We are locked into what we are locked into. We have no flexibility until we have further advances in technology. Heat pumps, unfortunately, don’t work when it’s particularly cold.
Those are my concerns about some of the comments I heard earlier. I’ll conclude with the following: The Salisbury convention is a great argument when you’re on the government side trying to pass legislation, but I would argue that it’s not applicable in the Canadian Senate in 2023, because it was a situation in 1945, in the United Kingdom, when the Labour Party had the majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords was occupied by Conservatives who inherited their seats. No one here inherited their seats. What you’re really telling independent senators who have been appointed — I’ll look at the new senators — is that your job is to review and amend government legislation, but at the end of the day, you have no choice but to pass that legislation.
Well, that’s not what Prime Minister Trudeau has told us in his appointment process, which I think is quite wonderful. You are independent senators. You use your judgment. You’re here because of your previous experience and careers. You are not confined to the Salisbury convention at all. I’ll go on sometime later in a much more detailed speech about that.
I’m disappointed that Bill C-234 was amended, as I indicated before. Two Liberal MPs, and I noticed Senator Plett skipped over this part, in Prince Edward Island — Robert Morrissey in Egmont and Heath MacDonald in Malpeque — voted for it. I was guided by their wisdom, because they are on doorsteps talking to farmers involved in this much more than I am. They supported it; I supported them.
I’m disappointed it was amended. We can only hope the House of Commons can bring it back to us.
Thank you, colleagues.
Are senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed, on division.)
