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.

Hon. Paula Simons: Senator Wells, will you take a question?

Senator Wells: I will, Senator Simons.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: On this topic about drying off-site, I happen to come from a province that has 40% of the country’s farmland, so this is what we do for a living. When you keep wet grain on your farm waiting in the queue to go somewhere else to dry it, you lose quality. That is the first loss of money.

The distances are huge in Saskatchewan to go to drying facilities, or they can be. There are huge transportation costs. The differential there is significant. The difference between old equipment and new equipment in terms of efficiency is also very important. I am looking for your thoughts on this, that we just keep a bunch of old equipment around because it might justify this kind of program is an absurd way to approach dealing with the environment or, for that matter, feeding the world.

Senator Wells: Senator Wallin, thank you for your question.

Sometimes people won’t upgrade their equipment because they can’t afford it. They have to make do with what they have. We see that not just in farm operations; we see that in homes as well.

Depending upon what the grain is, you will have different requirements in drying. Corn, I learned, takes longer because it absorbs more water. It does not dry as quickly. The weather is not always consistent for drying, so that is why they have to use automatic dryers.

I learned it is also true that if a product is not dried in the right amount of time, you will get mould and rot. You mentioned the reduction in quality. That is the elimination of quality and elimination of any revenue from that, despite having the costs to get it that far.

All I can say is, you are absolutely right: Having on-site drying gives not just a financial benefit but an operational benefit.

Hon. Robert Black: Senator Wells, will you take a question?

Senator Wells: Yes, Senator Black.

The Hon. the Speaker: It is on debate.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Denise Batters: I have a question.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-234 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended, in clause 2,

(a) on page 2, by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following:

(b) on page 3, by deleting lines 1 to 9.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dupuis, that Bill C-234 be not read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 2(a) on page 2 by replacing lines 24 to 37 with the following —

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: Point of order. I was standing. I thought Senator Clement wanted to either ask a question or go on debate. This is extremely rare and very unfair.

I was standing on debate and for Your Honour to allow somebody to move an adjournment motion while people are standing on debate is, I believe, definitely out of order.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Wells, do you have a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave to permit questions? Usually after an amendment we go on debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there leave to allow questions?

Will you take a question, Senator Moncion?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Point of order.

Not only is this outrageous, I have never before seen in my time in this place someone get on their feet, move an amendment without debating on the amendment. The tradition in this place is you get up on debate, move your amendment, make your debate, take questions on your amendment and then you go into debate. Then, after that, we can try to adjourn because obviously we know what we are trying to do here.

The fact that we are skipping all of these other necessary steps — amend, debate, ask questions of the amender, go to other debates and then ask for a question? Come on, Your Honour, please.

Hon. David M. Wells: No, I was going to go on debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: I recognized Senator Clement.

It is moved by Senator Clement, seconded by Honourable Senator Petitclerc, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Was it a question?