Bill C-234

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

This enactment amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of eligible farming machinery and extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.

Carbon Pricing

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Tina from Orangeville just sent me a photo from the Orangeville Food Bank. There is no juice. There is no cereal. There are almost no diapers. That is because the people who used to donate food are now lined up for food. This is actually Canada after eight years of the corrupt, incompetent NDP-Liberal government.

Will the Prime Minister finally show he has even a modicum of compassion for Canadians and pass Conservative Bill C-234 to take all carbon taxes off all farmers, so that Canadians can once again afford food?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the government in December about the carbon tax and Bill C-234. Notably, the question I asked got over 13 and a half million views on Instagram; clearly, many Canadians are very interested in the issue. It also might have had something to do with the hearty laughter from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was sitting behind me at the time.

The issue is with Bill C-234, which we continue to champion today in this House. Conservatives are fighting for farmers to be exempt from the carbon tax.

We believe in axing the tax completely. However, in this Parliament, in order to make some incremental progress, we have put forward a bill that has gained the support of a majority of the House of Commons, seeking to exempt farmers from the carbon tax.

This bill was on the verge of passing in the Senate when the government started to lean into their supposedly independent senators, making personal phone calls to try to pressure them to change their vote. The bill is now back in the House of Commons, and Conservatives are pushing to pass it in its original form, to exempt our hard-working farmers from the carbon tax.

Applying the carbon tax to farmers does not make any sense even if one believes in the carbon tax in general. The carbon tax is designed to be a Pigovian tax, that is, a tax on something that is believed to generate a negative externality in order to try to discourage that behaviour. That is the theory behind the carbon tax.

It seeks to make gasoline and airplane travel more expensive in the hopes that people will drive less, fly less, etc. That is the theory of the government's carbon tax. However, on what basis is it applied to our farmers?

Does the government hope that people will farm less if it makes farming more expensive? Does it think that farmers should do the essential work of farming less in response to the Pigovian tax that they are applying? It does not make any sense.

Farming is not an activity we want to discourage. Farming is an activity we should be encouraging. We should be making it easier for people to go into farming, to work in farming, to continue with this critical livelihood, feeding people across the country wherever they live.

Why is the government applying a punitive tax on farmers? What possible rational policy objective could taxing farmers in this way have? It just does not make any sense.

To be clear, Conservatives oppose the carbon tax in general. We will axe the tax after the carbon tax election. At a minimum, the Liberals should understand that, even in theory, the carbon tax makes no sense. Even on its own justification, the tax makes no sense when applied to farmers. That is why Conservatives have championed and will continue to champion the passage of Bill C-234, to push the government to pass the bill in its original form.

We have also called on the government to meet with the premiers; along with the Canadian public, they overwhelmingly oppose the carbon tax. Liberals are afraid to gather and meet with the premiers to have a carbon tax conference. I am sure that, if they did, they would clearly hear a call from the premiers to axe the carbon tax on farmers and on all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, related to today's discussion is Bill C-234. Conservatives have been campaigning loudly about how they would like to see the Senate amendments to that bill rejected and it be passed in its original form. I can say now, as I have said before, that the NDP supports that position because we think the bill's principles are in line with what is in the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Every time the bill has come forward to the House, it is lined up with Conservative speakers; thus we never seem to get to a stage where it will come to a vote.

I hear Conservatives complaining about all of these costs. When is the member's party going to let the bill come to a vote so that we can actually get these changes implemented?

Carbon Pricing

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we tax the farmer who grows the food and we tax the trucker who hauls the food, then we hurt the families who buy the food. Things have gotten so bad under the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition that military families stationed in Borden and Gagetown are having to use food banks, and troops trained right here in Ottawa are relying on food donations from college staff.

After eight long years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister lower the cost on Canadian farmers and make food more affordable for all Canadians by passing Bill C-234 in its original form immediately?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government and the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax is not worth the cost. The Prime Minister does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food, we end up taxing the family who buys it.

People are struggling in New Brunswick; 40 to 50 military families need to visit the Gagetown food bank just to feed their kids. UNB had to create its own food bank to feed its students.

Will the Prime Minister lower costs on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that minister is so out of touch, because here are the facts. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we have a record-smashing two million Canadians using a food bank in a single month, with over a million more expected this year. Food banks, like the one in Cambridge, are now seeing dual-income families, full-time working Canadians and our seniors lining up at the food banks. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister finally show some compassion and make food cheaper for Canadians by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government and its carbon tax, Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables. When we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who ships the food, we punish all Canadians who buy the food. Food banks, like the Cambridge Food Bank, are now seeing record-breaking demand. The Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike is not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister lower the cost on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister tweets out sunny ways from his rooftop, food banks in Simcoe County are reporting a 100% increase in use. Last week at the Angus Food Bank, director Heather Morgan told me that active soldiers from Base Borden are regular visitors. Let that sink in.

Meanwhile, Liberals hike the carbon tax by 23% and continue to delay the common-sense bill, Bill C-234.

Will the Prime Minister pass Bill C-234 in its original form, axe the tax on farmers and make food more affordable for all Canadians?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are tapped out. April 1 saw Canadians hit with a 23% carbon tax increase by these Liberals. As a farmer, I know the first-hand true impact of a carbon tax bill on farm operations. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. It is time to axe the tax on farmers and food and pass Bill C-234.

Will the Prime Minister lower costs on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. The Prime Minister raised his carbon tax 23% last week, driving up the cost of gas and groceries. Fortunately, Conservative Bill C-234 would exempt farmers' grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so food remains affordable.

Will the Prime Minister lower costs on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

Carbon Tax

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to feed, heat and house themselves, the NDP-Liberal government went ahead with a 23% carbon tax hike on April 1. We already know that it is not worth the cost. After eight years, rent and mortgage payments have doubled, deficits are driving up inflation and food banks received two million visitors in a single month last year.

With budget day just around the corner, Conservatives are calling for a cap on government spending through a dollar-for-dollar approach and a plan to build homes, not bureaucracy. In addition, we are calling on the government to axe the tax on food and farmers by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. That would support farm families and ensure that all Canadians can afford to put food on the table.

It is clear that only common-sense Conservatives have a plan to make life more affordable and bring home lower prices for all Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

I would like to reserve the right to put some amendments into the preamble. My position and the position of the NDP is quite clear, and I want to make sure that it's on the record that we do support Bill C-234 in its original form. We will be voting to reject the Senate amendment, so I want to make sure, for everyone who's listening, that this is very clear.

I also want to put into the record that I think there's a real disservice in this whole debate, because while my Conservative colleagues focus all of their attention on what amounted to an increase of three cents per litre in my region, they were completely silent when the cost of fuel in my region jumped by 30¢ a litre from February to March.

I would like to reserve the right to make some reference to the ridiculous profiteering that is going on in the oil and gas sector. We can always see their publicly reported figures, but for us to completely ignore the role that corporate profits in oil and gas in particular are having on our farm sector is really missing the entire point.

I think my position on Bill C-234 is quite clear, but I would like to reserve the right to amend some of the preamble. I'll just leave it at that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to use my time to put forward a motion.

All of us on this committee have received a number of letters over the last week or so. They were from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture; the Agriculture Alliance; the Vegetable Growers of Canada; Mushrooms Canada; the Western Stock Growers' Association; the Grain Farmers of Ontario, which represents 28,000 farm families; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the Wheat Growers Association. These letters are asking for a couple of specific things on the impact the carbon tax is having on Canadian agriculture with the hike of 23% on April 1.

That said, I'm going to ask the committee on this motion. It is:

Given that:

a) The committee received numerous letters from agricultural stakeholders regarding their opposition to the carbon tax hike on April 1, including from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities;

b) Seven Provincial Premiers and 70% of Canadians opposed the government's 23% increase in the carbon tax hike on April 1;

c) The Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have issued public letters calling on the government to provide a carbon tax carve-out for farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form;

d) The carbon tax currently costs greenhouse operators in Canada $22 million a year and will pay between $82 million and $100 million by 2030 when the carbon tax quadruples;

e) 44% of fresh fruit and vegetable growers are already selling at a loss and 77% can't offset production cost increase;

f) The carbon tax increase this year will cost mushroom farms $7.4 million, and by 2030 it'll be more than $16 million;

g) A sample of 50 farm operations across Canada paid a total of $329,644 in carbon taxes in one month last year, with the increase this year it'll cost those same farms $431,544 and nearly triple over the next seven years to $893,944;

h) The Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated the carbon tax will cost farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030;

i) The 2030 Food Price Report estimates the carbon tax will cost a typical 5,000-acre farm $153,000 by 2030; and

j) The Food Professor recommends pausing the carbon tax for the entire food supply chain,

I ask for unanimous consent for the committee to report the letters it received from agriculture stakeholders, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities regarding the 23% increase on the carbon tax on April 1, to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234

Chair, these letters we have here represent tens of thousands of farmers who are asking for their voices to be heard.

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I begin my speech, I want to talk a bit about how Canadians cannot afford the higher taxes and inflation that the government has brought on, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister. That is why we have been calling for judicial use of taxpayer dollars. We have been calling for the government to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234. We have demanded that the government build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal funding. We have also asked the government to cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down the interest rates and inflation. Conservatives said we will not support the government in its budget unless it does these things, so we will vote non-confidence if the government does not axe the tax; build more homes, not bureaucracy; and cap the spending.

It is the spending that brings us here today. We have seen that the ArriveCAN app, an app that could have cost only $80,000 to produce, ended up costing over $60 million. We have seen some unsavoury contractors taking advantage of the government, but the government also failed to maintain records.

This is a classic case of a time when we see a critical situation. Oftentimes this happens, and it is always very suspicious. There is a crime scene, a camera is recording the crime scene, but during the two minutes the crime happened, the camera seems to be mysteriously turned off, and then the camera comes back on after that. This is again one of these cases where we can smell that something is wrong and see that something is wrong.

We have the scathing Auditor General's report, which says that a massive amount of money was spent, and she cannot find what the money was spent on. She anticipates that 67% of the subcontractors did no actual work, yet here we are with a scandal of grand proportion. It appears that the tape was not running, that the camera was turned off for that period of time. The Auditor General says it could be as little as $60 million, and it could be far more.

We are debating a privilege motion here today. A privilege motion has to do with the ability of members of Parliament to do their jobs. Members of Parliament have particular privileges that are not broadly used by citizens. Taking a seat in the House of Commons is a privilege that only members of Parliament have, but the government has particular privileges as well. The government gets to write the cheques for Canada. It holds the chequebook. That is not an opposition party job. That is a job of the government. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the government maintains control of the chequebook and maintains the scrutiny of where the cheques are going. That is a massive failure, and we are trying to get to the bottom of that.

If we listen to the Liberals, they would have us believe that it is these evil contractors, and I am not denying that, who have been taking advantage of the government, which, by all accounts, appears to be the case, but where were the checks and balances? Where was the trust and verify? Why did it not ask if we were getting good value for money? This has been a common problem with the Liberals for a long time, that whenever they are questioned about a government failure, they point out how much money they have spent on a particular issue, whether it is border security, policing or managing vehicle crimes. They talk about how much money they are spending on a particular program, when the problem only seems to be getting worse.

Contractors have figured out that limiting the money being spent has not been an active priority for the government. Maintaining some sort of fiscal restraint is not something the government has been known for, and contractors have been taking advantage of that, for sure.

Common-sense Conservatives, after eight years of the Prime Minister, are putting forward a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, and that is really what this comes down to.

We have heard some incredible things that have come out of committee. First is the fact that the Auditor General said that it was incredibly hard to track down what this money was spent on, as the contracts that GS Strategies got were more and more vague as time went on. They were for longer and longer periods of time and for larger and larger amounts of money. However, there have been some other interesting things, such as resumés that had been submitted to get the contracts being forged, which appears to be just straight-up fraud. There was a requirement for experience and qualifications, and GC Strategies admitted that it doctored these resumés to make sure that they fit in order to get the contracts.

The other really interesting thing that happened, which we discovered last week at committee, was that KPMG was approached by the government to do an audit of the effectiveness of the app, but rather than the government contracting KPMG directly to do this audit, the government employee suggested to KPMG that it should approach GC Strategies to do this audit rather than just doing it directly, even though it was the government that approached KPMG. There does seem to be something very interesting going on between the bureaucracy and GC Strategies.

Again, going back to this video camera that, for some apparent reason, seems to have been shut off just when the crime seemed to be happening, interestingly, all of the emails associated with this discussion of the KPMG contract have disappeared. The government employee who had been communicating on this deleted all of his emails and is no longer affiliated with the department that he worked with. I am not sure, but I think he has been suspended from the public service, so we do not have the documents.

Members might say, “Well, that's the actions of one individual” or “Mr. Firth is not answering our questions, and that's the actions of a particular individual”, but I would say that this has been the MO of the government. I remember back in 2015 when the Liberals came into power with the grand slogan of being “open by default”. That is what it said, yet we have seen more redactions, and we have seen the government take the Speaker of the House of Commons to court to prevent documents from coming to this place. We have seen endless amounts of redactions. We have an ATIP process that is completely dysfunctional. We will get an ATIP back, and it will be entirely blacked out. We have also seen the Prime Minister call an election to prevent the Winnipeg lab documents from coming to this place. He first sued the Speaker to prevent it, and then called an election to prevent the truth coming to light on a number of things.

It is not a far leap that, when citizens see the government refusing to answer questions and redacting or not allowing documents to come forth, citizens who are then called before Parliament would not treat Parliament with the respect that is required or would not be as forthright with Parliament as they should be, which is why we are calling on Mr. Firth to come to the bar so he can be questioned on a number of these issues. However, we also want to point out that we wish the government would be more forthright with documentation as well so we can get to the bottom of a number of these scandals.

Carbon Pricing

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford to live because of the carbon tax. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, rent and mortgages have doubled. The Liberal-NDP government is just not worth the cost or the corruption.

Will the Prime Minister commit to immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form, cancel the carbon tax and once again make life affordable for Canadians?