Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 200, dated February 2, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the legalization of cannabis — Health Canada.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, now I would like to have a clarification. We were of the impression, Your Honour, that Senator McCallum was going to ask leave for her to withdraw her amendment because Senator Klyne had a different amendment. If that is the case, there would not be a vote at 5:30. Now I am hearing that she is asking leave for a vote at 5:30. We already have that. If she is asking leave to withdraw her amendment so that Senator Klyne — apparently, they have an agreement, which we are certainly not objecting to — we would not object to leave for her to withdraw, but I think we need to be clear what she is trying — because I am not clear right now.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 200, dated February 2, 2023, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the legalization of cannabis — Canada Revenue Agency.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of November 8, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, November 21, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator, I can’t comment on how other countries make their decisions on travel advisories. I can say with confidence that work is being done daily in Canada to assess the level of risk to which Canadians are exposed. In that regard, the work that our institutions do to protect us is also informed by the deep and close relationships that we have with our Five Eyes partners and other democratic allies.

Our law enforcement and security services are monitoring all potential threats, and have robust measures in place to protect Canadians.

The Hon. the Speaker: That’s fine. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: Absolutely.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Denise Batters: Will Senator Wells take a couple of questions?

Senator Wells: I will, Senator Batters.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Wells, will you accept a question?

Senator Wells: Yes, I’ll accept a question from Senator Quinn.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Wells take another question?

[English]

Senator Wells: Of course, Senator Dalphond.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you have a question, Senator Quinn?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Dalphond, do you have another question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Was that a question?

[English]

Senator Wells: I agree with you. The fact that this legislation is very clean in giving the exemption for exactly that purpose — the purpose of not paying the pollution pricing amount specifically on natural gas and propane — causes the circumstances of not having to worry about applying credits elsewhere on other eligible farm costs that are not fuel.

[Translation]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I really liked the questions that were asked, because they were all about figures and numbers. If there is one thing we didn’t study about Bill C-234, it was the whole financial side of things, which would have allowed us to distinguish between capital expenditures, taxable expenses, expenses related to heating costs, and so on. The fact that we skipped this aspect means that part of the conversation around Bill C-234 was left out.

[English]

I rise today to speak at third reading on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Amending the Greenhouse Gas Pollutioning Pricing Act is a complex issue.

The Agriculture Committee heard from numerous experts during their five meetings on Bill C-234. Many of those witnesses told the committee that while alternatives to propane and natural gas grain dryers were limited, many efficiency improvements are already available, which can offset the cost increases associated with the carbon price by reducing fuel use by 30%.

In short, there was no clear consensus on Bill C-234. Many witnesses opposed the exemptions set out in this bill, particularly those who don’t stand to benefit from it.

Given that the Agriculture Committee report was rejected, this bill, once again, deals with barn heating. Witnesses spoke about technologies that are available today to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in barn heating. Tom Green from the David Suzuki Foundation said there are evermore examples of farms that are reducing their fossil fuel consumption and improving energy efficiency.

For instance, a poultry farm in Linden, Alberta, has a 175‑kilowatt rooftop solar system. In other cases, a poultry barn built with a high-efficiency thermal envelope reduces energy consumption by 83% per ton of eggs — 83% efficiency increases. This technology is now available.

Colleagues of mine on the Agriculture Committee could have spent significant time digging further into the benefits and drawbacks of this policy decision. They also said they would have appreciated a report from the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance which never came and which I think would have been important for the calculations that are very important in this bill, as I said earlier.

Importantly, the committee didn’t fully explore the realities of climate change and the potential cost to the agricultural sector if left unmitigated. However, we must conclude that those costs are consequential.

We heard that this bill will lead to less action on climate change. Mr. Lindberg, a manager with Environment and Climate Change Canada, said that:

. . . economics and massive experience with markets tell us that without this incentive, all things being equal, less action will be taken to reduce the use of these fuels. . . . All things being equal, without carbon pricing, we definitely see higher emissions globally in the economy.

Senators, we need action on climate change. We should not incentivize inaction. While some colleagues have determined this legislation is necessary to present circumstances, I think we can all agree that we do not know whether such a carve‑out will be necessary in eight years from now. But this legislation assumes we will need to extend the carve‑out far into the future, which is why this legislation includes a very unusual set of clauses which empowers the government — eight years from now — to extend the sunset period through an order-in-council and motions in both houses. This, colleagues, is a low bar and the decision to extend the sunset period for this carve‑out implies a willingness to perpetuate it in the future.

As Senator Woo pointed out at the Agriculture Committee on October 24, the eight-year sunset period will make it more difficult for any farmers to make a transition if they have not done the necessary preparations in the intervening period. The carbon price will have gone up substantially between now and 2031.

I don’t think we heard evidence that this justifies the inclusion of this uncommon, low-bar approach to extending the effective life of this carve‑out.

Given the real and devastating crisis caused by climate change, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to conduct fulsome analysis of our policy decisions and their impacts today and into the future. If, when this legislation sunsets, lawmakers wish to create a new carve‑out, they can introduce new legislation to address this issue.

For those reasons, I would like to move the following amendment, which eliminates Bill C-234’s mechanism to extend the exemption beyond the sunset period by Governor-in-Council resolution and motions of the House of Commons and the Senate.