Evidence of meeting #40 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contraband.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I call this meeting to order.
The first order of business we have is a notice of motion from Mr. Lauzon.
Mr. Lauzon, would you like to put that on the record?
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Chair, for the sake of time and because of our witnesses, maybe I'll just read this motion into the record:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food urges the Government of Canada to ensure Canadian farmers are not saddled with a carbon tax which would further increase their input costs and hurt their competitiveness vis-à-vis their American competitors.
Very briefly, Mr. Chair, I want to make this motion because the farmers I've spoken to say that if a carbon tax is put into place, their input costs would skyrocket. It would actually be devastating to the agricultural industry.
I would like to file this motion.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Chairman, can a motion written in what I would call rotten French be in order? This is absolutely incomprehensible in French; it makes no sense. The interpreter has just read it, and it's worse to hear it than it is to read it. “[...] le gouvernement [...] de garantir que les agriculteurs Canadiens ne seront pas sellés [...]”. What does that mean? “[...] un impôt de carbone [...]” What does that mean? “[...] leurs coûts d'entrée [...]” What does that mean? Nothing makes sense in this motion.
I have a lot of other comments to make, but we have important witnesses to hear. The way it is written is absolutely unacceptable. It shouldn't be introduced before the committee.
And what type of carbon tax is the parliamentary secretary talking about? Is his government hiding something in its books and is it preparing to present us with a carbon tax? Is it talking about what the leader of the opposition didn't really present officially? Who's telling us that costs will increase? Does it know things that we don't know? All this is hypothetical and makes no sense.
Let's reject this as fast as possible. Let's get rid of it.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, Mr. Chair, we do have witnesses here, and I believe this is going to take a considerable amount of time.
When I go through the government's own paper on detailed emissions and economic modelling, I see that it does show that by 2018 the current proposal of the Government of Canada on the regulatory side will really have a penalty of about $65 per tonne.
This is going to be a considerably long debate. I understand we have to go to the House for a vote at 10 o'clock; if Guy is in agreement, could we move it back to the first thing at the next meeting?
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
No, Mr. Chair. I think it should be dealt with now. It could be very briefly dealt with.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I'll pass it over to Mr. St. Amand right now, Mr. Chair.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you.
Unless Mr. Lauzon is concerned about his government bringing in a carbon tax, I have no comprehension as to the urgency of this motion. These witnesses have come in from hundreds of miles. It is obstinate in the extreme, quite apart from being illogical, for Mr. Lauzon to insist that this motion go ahead now. There is no urgency. We can deal with this next Tuesday. It's most unfair to witnesses who have come in.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Chair, I agree that we have very important witnesses here today. The point should be made and put on the record, though, that this carbon tax idea proposed by the Liberal leader and endorsed by Mr. Easter in the House would be very damaging to rural Canadians. This would be very damaging to our farm economy and to our farmers. The price of input costs would dramatically increase, and I think that needs to be put on the record. I think Mr. Easter even acknowledges that the price of inputs would rise.
I don't want to get into the full debate in front of the witnesses today. I think it needs to be--
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
There does not seem to be an urgency. I have not seen anywhere that our government is imposing this. This is a political statement that should probably be left to fight an election campaign, because that's what this is. I don't see an urgency. I would suggest that we not even consider it; if we do, next week would probably be a good time to do so.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
After André and then Lloyd spoke on this, I reread this motion. I agree with the witnesses we have here. This motion is simply protecting farmers. It's very simple; there should be no debate on it. I can't believe it. I know this is protecting farmers, and I know it will protect the ones in your riding as well, so what's the debate? There is none to have on it, Mr. Chairman, so I suggest that we have the vote and get it over with and get on to our witnesses.
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I've expressed myself quite clearly. I want to ask the clerk whether a motion written in completely incomprehensible French can be in order. How can the Conservatives want to continue discussing what's written here? It's all a jumble and means nothing. It makes no damned sense to continue discussing this matter when we know a vote will be held at 10 o'clock. People are here to discuss serious matters.
Let the parliamentary secretary do his homework and provide us with a properly written document. Then we can discuss the Conservatives' carbon tax as long as they want. This text is a mess.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It's not the clerk's role to make a judgment call on whether or not motions are in order; that's up to the chair. If you want to raise a point of order based upon the translation, then we should deal with that.
Mr. Godfrey is next, and then Mr. Easter.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Excuse me, Chair, as a visitor to the committee, I understood that one of my jobs was to be part of what I understood to be a serious discussion on the motion. If this is going to be a serious discussion, we have to talk about the role carbon plays in agriculture right across the piece, all the other greenhouse gases associated with agriculture, and how agriculture is also a solution to all of that. Either we are going to have a serious discussion about this or we're not. Otherwise, it just looks like a rhetorical gesture, which means nothing.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Is it possible, Mr. Chair, to move a motion to table it until the next meeting?
I would move that we table the motion until the next meeting.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Right. We just got a dilatory motion, a motion to table the motion. This is non-debatable. This goes straight to the vote.