Bill C-206 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel)

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

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-216.

We are debating this legislation because the Liberal government has not treated supply-managed sectors fairly. They have not supported farmers or producers, and not followed through on their commitments. However, this legislation does not address the issues of farmers and producers.

Conservatives have been strong and vocal supporters of our supply-managed sectors and will continue to be. In fact, Conservatives have a policy declaration that says the following:

...it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative Government will support supply management and its goal to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

Our leader, our party, and our policy have been clear on this. The Conservative party is an ally, supporter and defender of supply management in Canada. I will talk about these important supply-managed sectors.

When I met with the Chicken Farmers of Canada, they were clear about their priorities. Through correspondence and an appearance at committee, we know that their priorities are new investment programs to support producers as they improve their operations, a market development fund to promote Canadian-raised chicken, a tariff rate quota allocation methodology designed to ensure minimal market distortions, the enforcement of Canadian production standards on imports and the resolution of import control loopholes undermining this sector. One of these is the fraudulent importation of mislabelled broiler meat being declared as spent fowl. There are reports of chicken meat imports being mislabelled in order to bypass import control measures.

When this situation first became apparent in 2012, Canada was importing the equivalent of 101% of the United States’ entire spent fowl production. According to the Chicken Farmers of Canada, these illegal imports have resulted in an estimated annual loss of 1,400 jobs in Canada, $105 million in contributions to the national economy, $35 million in tax revenue and the loss of at least $66 million in government revenues due to tariff evasion.

These illegal imports also raise important food safety concerns relating to traceability for recalls. This issue not only affects our economy and hard-working chicken farmers, but the lives of Canadians are on the line in the case of a food-borne illness.

Where is the action plan to deal with this?

When I spoke to the Egg Farmers of Canada, an industry association that represents over 1,000 family farms across the country that support over 18,000 jobs and $1.3 billion in GDP, they were clear that they wanted the government to stop claiming to support the industry and actually start defending it. I learned of the innovation occurring in this industry.

The egg industry is tired of being strung along by the government. They had to fight tooth and nail for clarity on promised compensation. They expressed their desire for investment in their industry, which is the backbone of rural communities, and for market development support when it comes to the Canadian egg brand.

Where is the desire or action plan to defend our egg industry?

When I spoke to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, they told me how hard it was for the industry to plan for the future due to the government’s lack of transparency, not the least in regard to the disbursement of promised compensation.

Where is the desire and action plan to defend the dairy industry?

These same concerns were raised by the Turkey Farmers of Canada. When I first spoke with them, they were going into year four without any payments of promised compensation by the government.

The Conservatives are the only party who can and will be able to ensure that our world-class producers of dairy, chicken, turkey, and eggs have a partner in government. The Bloc Québécois will never have to negotiate a trade agreement for Canada and be the partner in government that the supply management businesses in Quebec and across the country can rely on. The Conservative Party is the only party that can and will put an end to the failures of the Liberal government when it comes to trade agreements and compensation.

Conservatives will faithfully defend supply management. We were in the House of Commons pressing the government over and over again to fulfill its compensation promises to the supply-managed sectors. We have also raised in the House the meaningful actions that we can take now to protect and support farmers and producers, including in supply-managed sectors. These actions would include modernizing and improving agricultural risk management programs, asking the Competition Bureau to investigate the impacts of abusive trade practices in the grocery industry by the grocery giants, or providing flexibility and clarity on how compensation for supply-managed sectors is allocated.

Why have we seen no plans on these important topics?

I have spent a lot of time talking with businesses and industry representatives. They want consultation, understanding and transparency from the government. They want support from the government, which has been sorely lacking. After all, our agricultural sectors do not compete fairly with other countries that subsidize, both directly and indirectly, their own products.

Creating legislation such as we are debating today, which could target farmers and producers right from the onset as bargaining chips in future trade negotiations, is not a wise strategy. Canada could be outnegotiated and forced to agree to concessions and pay compensation. This would mean more workers losing jobs, and it would do nothing to drive investment, spearhead innovation or protect jobs.

In my home province of British Columbia, supply management is an important part of our economy. B.C. has over three million egg-laying hens across over 140 farms in the province. Chicken farmers in B.C. produce 87 million dozen eggs annually and account for 14,000 jobs, contributing $1.1 billion to Canada's GDP.

B.C. is also the third-largest dairy-producing province in Canada, with 500 farms.

It is the Conservatives who are putting forth private members' bills that are meaningful to the agriculture sector. Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-206, would exempt farmers from paying the carbon tax on gasoline, propane and natural gas. From heating barns to running farm equipment, farmers face steep energy costs, and these have skyrocketed in many parts of the country due to the increasing federal carbon tax. It is a practical measure to help alleviate the financial strain on the agriculture sector. Supporting our food security is more important than ever.

Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-208, would allow the transfer of a small business, family farm or fishing operation at the same tax rate when selling to a family member as when selling to a third party. I was happy to jointly second this bill in the first session of this Parliament. This was a poor tax policy change brought in by the government. This policy bothered me so much when it first came out. It was one of the factors that prompted me to run to become a member of Parliament.

Succession planning is a challenge at the best of times for small businesses, in particular farmers, and it is unfair that it is more financially advantageous to sell to a stranger than to one's own children, who have often grown up around the family business and contributed over time. I have many communications regarding this bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country on how positively it will affect their businesses and future planning.

Conservative Bill C-205 would amend the animal health act to address trespassing onto farms, into barns or other enclosed areas where the health of animals and safety of Canada’s food supply is potentially at risk. Entering a farm without lawful authority or excuse would become an offence under the act.

We will always support the hard-working farmers and producers in our supply managed sectors who ensure quality foods for Canadians. Dairy products, chicken, turkey and eggs are core staples on our dinner tables, and the pandemic showed us how important it is to protect our supply chains, supply management and food security.

The legislation we are debating today does nothing to address any of the concerns I have outlined. There are more meaningful, productive and long-lasting ways we can stand up for supply management without supporting Bill C-216.

Canada’s Conservatives will continue to support our supply managed sectors and ensure that dairy- and poultry-farming families and producers are consulted and engaged in any trade negotiations in the future.

We will continue to support all farmers and producers in meaningful ways.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's a long way out from Bill C-206.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

That's not really within the scope of this bill. I appreciate the question. I guess what I can tell you, Mr. Drouin—and thank you for your support, by the way—is that the provincial minister of the environment did come out in support of Bill C-206, which of course will affect Ontario. The broader discussion of the carbon tax is really not within the scope of this bill. I'm happy to have a discussion with you at a later point.

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

I've spoken to a lot of farmers and received a lot of correspondence on Bill C-206 and, as you said, there is pretty much near unanimous support for the bill.

I see that the government is concentrating on making investments in clean technology, energy efficiency, fuel switching and other technologies on the farms. I think that's great, but it's going to take some time for these to come into effect. It seems to me that Bill C-206 can act as a bridge until these technologies make themselves available. Wouldn't you agree with that?

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

Yes, so you're quite confident. I read in the media.... We had both Minister Bibeau and Minister Wilkinson say that Bill C-206 as written doesn't provide for relief from fuel costs of grain drying, but you and, of course, our legislative drafter, who helped you with this bill, beg to differ on that.

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

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Lawrence, for coming before the committee and being in the hot seat to talk about Bill C-206.

I've had a lot of back and forth with legislative drafters over my years as an MP and I know it's quite a challenge. We're lucky to be aided by such professional staff in the House of Commons, who take our big, bright ideas and put them into legalese. There is always a lot of back and forth between an MP and the drafters because when we write our bills, part of the challenge is also to figure out how they will be interpreted. Writing is the easy part. Then you have to figure out, when the rubber hits the road, whether your bill will be interpreted in the right way.

I just wanted to follow on Mr. Ellis's line of questioning.

When you were having your back and forth with the drafters, I know why you picked “qualifying farm fuel”. This is a very specific term that is used in different sections of the existing act. It's referred to in section 17 and section 38 of the existing statute, showing that the carbon tax is not payable. However, when you look at those other definitions, such as when it comes to eligible farming activity and eligible farming machinery, can you tell the committee what your back-and-forth discussions with the drafters were like on whether you should tackle those parts as well? Did they offer any insights?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Our agriculture industry accounts for almost 7% of our total GDP. It is more vital to our economy than many might realize. We are the fifth largest exporter of agriculture in the world. The agri-food and agriculture industry employs 2.3 million Canadians. That's one in eight jobs in Canada. We are one of the world's largest producers of flax seed, canola, pulses and oats.

While the farmers' work has been unwavering, they have faced many challenges, known colloquially in August and the autumn of 2019 as the harvest from hell. They've also faced some global trade wars that have reduced their markets. In addition to that, they've been fighting the pandemic along with all of us. Some of those barriers were unpreventable. However, one that is very controllable and where we can help Canadians is that they currently bear an inequitable share of the burden of the carbon tax.

The greenhouse gas pollution pricing currently allows qualifying farmers an exemption on certain farm fuels such as gasoline and diesel; however, it fails to extend that exemption to other fuels such as natural gas and propane. This is challenging on many different fronts, as farmers quite often don't have other options and their only option for their particular industrial equipment may be natural gas and propane.

The science says that natural gas and propane are often cleaner fuels than diesel or gasoline. Why would we not include them in this exemption? Farmers, after all, are stewards of our land and, along with our indigenous people, were some of the first environmentalists standing up for the land and also for the animals and plants located on their properties.

Farmers have been leaders in environmental technologies. They've led with such technologies as no-till to prevent soil erosion, or precision-led, satellite-led agriculture that reduces the use of fossil fuels. In fact, the Canadian agriculture industry has already achieved net zero decades ahead of many other industries.

Beyond the fact that the carbon tax presents a significant cost to our farmers, it has tremendous pricing barriers for our farmers as well. Many times our farmers are price-takers, and so, unlike other industries, they cannot simply push the carbon tax on to the consumers. They absorb it themselves, which can be a make or break for many of them, making them uncompetitive in some cases.

We've seen the result of higher taxation on farmers as farm debt has doubled in the last 20 years. Farmers are struggling now. Farmers want to reinvest in our communities, to spend money at the feed stores, the tractor dealerships and local restaurants to keep the rural economies flowing through these very difficult times. Rural Canada needs more support, not more taxes.

Our farmers deserve a break. Bill C-206 aims to fix what seems to me, to put it gently, an oversight in the initial carbon tax legislation. By expanding the farmers' exemption from the carbon tax we are securing their continued innovation in environmental protection, the protection of Canada's food supply, the livelihood of farmers.

What may seem like an insignificant amount of money to the government may very well be make or break for many of our farmers. I have seen carbon tax bills of tens of thousands of dollars. This is having a tremendous impact on our farmers across Canada.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the farmers for everything they do. Conservatives will continue to advocate for farmers and common sense solutions. I hope to see, this time, not just all parties, but all members support Bill C-206.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is an honour and a privilege, friends, to join you at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to speak about my private member's bill, Bill C-206.

It has been a pleasure throughout this private members process, especially as a new MP, to get to talk to farmers and stakeholders from coast to coast to coast. Do you know what? In talking to farmers, nearly all farmers, in fact, every farmer, supported Bill C-206.

After all, we have to remember that our farmers are the backbone of our communities, the engine of our economies. They work early mornings and late nights to put food on our table and clothes on our back. They have continued to ensure throughout COVID-19 and really at any time in recent history that our food supply has been protected. While we have battled the pandemic along with the farmers, they have not paused their work. They continue to plant their fields, feed their livestock—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome to meeting number 21 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 24, 2021, and the motion adopted by the committee on February 25, 2021, the committee is beginning its study of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel).

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members could be attending in person in the room, or remotely using the Zoom application.

Proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots—taking photos of your screen—are not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the videoconference, please click on the microphone to unmute yourself. Those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

I would like now to welcome our witness, member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South and sponsor of Bill C-206, Mr. Philip Lawrence.

Welcome, Mr. Lawrence. You may give an opening statement of up to seven and a half minutes.

Health of Animals Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very fitting that I have the opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-205, on the week that we celebrated Canada's Agriculture Day. It means a lot when we look at the bills that have come forward. I want to congratulate my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for the passing at second reading of his private member's bill, Bill C-206, which would exempt all farm fuels from the carbon tax. It is a huge message we are sending to Canadian farmers: We are advocating for them and working on issues that are important to them.

I want to take the short time I have remaining in this debate to thank my colleagues who have stepped up and spoken to my bill, and certainly my colleague from Beauce and my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who spoke in favour of the legislation today. It is important that we talk about how this legislation builds on the very robust biosecurity measures we already have in Canada.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, especially the agriculture critic, who spoke about another very important issue in our first hour of debate. I heard it raised again today. It is the issue of whistle-blowers. Nothing in the bill does anything to prevent whistle-blowers from doing what I believe, and what many Canadians believe, is a very important job. Someone with a lawful reason for being on a farm, like a farm employee, who sees something that is concerning or is not up to standard should absolutely take the opportunity to raise the issue with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or their employer to ensure that our farm animals are protected.

I also want to thank the Bloc's agriculture critic, who talked about another important issue: the mental health impact on Canadian farmers. The Tschetter family, in my riding, went to their barns at 7:30 in the morning and saw 40 protesters in one of their barns. It was shocking, and it has had a profound impact on them. I know it still impacts them to this day.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot spoke today about a very recent issue at a farm in his riding, where 30 protesters came onto a hog operation. They did not understand the biosecurity protocols that are in place. That is exactly what this legislation is trying to address. As a result of the protesters being on that hog farm, the farmer has now seen rotavirus in his herd. He had not seen it on his farm in more than 40 years. These issues are very real, and they do impact Canadian farmers. It could have been African swine fever, which would have devastated that farm and spread across Canada.

This is a $14-billion industry to Canada. A protester or an activist, unknowingly, does not understand the biosecurity protocols that are in place, and they are very strict. Any of us who have gone to visit a farm in our riding or a neighbouring riding understands the things we must do before we go onto farms, and certainly into barns or processing plants. Protesters and activists many times do not understand the protocols that are in place. I know they do not do it on purpose, but sometimes they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They could be bringing in African swine fever, BSE, foot-and-mouth disease or avian flu. All of these things have an impact.

As I said, we saw it at the hog farm in Quebec. However, we also saw mink farms in B.C. have to euthanize their animals because of COVID-19. We have seen the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on our Canadian economy and what has happened. Imagine a similar virus or disease came onto a farm. It could have a similar impact throughout our agriculture sector. That is what the legislation is trying to prevent. It is not a statement against protesting. Protesting is an important part of our society, but people can do that on public property, outside of the farm. This is about when they cross the line and go onto private property. That is what the bill is trying to address.

I want to thank the commodity groups and farmers across Canada I have worked with, including the Tschetter family, to develop this legislation and bring it forward. It would not have been possible without their support and encouragement.

I ask that all members of the House support Bill C-205 to get it to committee for further discussion. I hope they will all vote in favour of it. I want us to send a message to farmers and farm families that we are here for them, we understand what they are going through, we are here for their financial and mental health, and we are here to protect the sanctity of our food supply.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, pollution should not be free. A pricing system where all the revenues stay in the province is one of the key solutions to reduce emissions. Bill C-206 would not provide relief for the fuel cost of grain drying, as it does not add grain drying as an eligible farming activity.

We are committed to new rebates for on-farm fuel use, such as grain drying, to support our producers and are making grain drying and barn heating a priority focus under the new $165-million agriculture clean technology fund. Having a serious plan that achieves our environmental goals is expected not only by Canadians, but also by the next generation of farmers.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food released a statement earlier this week that deliberately misled Canadians to believe that Bill C-206 does not provide relief for the fuel costs of grain drying.

Does the minister honestly believe that a grain dryer is not an industrial machine used in farming, as prescribed in the legislation? Is she this out of touch with farmers or is she just incompetent?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay. That's a “no”, Minister. Thank you very much.

My second question has to do with a project that you've mentioned several times and that your colleagues in the last meeting mentioned as well. It's the Alberta irrigation project. Actually, every time I hear the name of this project, it's like nails on a chalkboard to me, because I'm not certain how you could possibly feel that one infrastructure bank project could replace an entire industry, which your government, under your helm, destroyed, and that is the natural resources sector. That was a result of the implementation of Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the carbon tax.

Also, just yesterday, your government had an opportunity to help offset that by supporting the agricultural sector, which you claim you are trying to help with the Alberta irrigation project, by supporting Bill C-206, and instead, you and your government didn't support it. You voted against it.

How can you possibly feel that a single project for Alberta could resolve the entire destruction of the industry here under your leadership over the last five years?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-206 under Private Members' Business.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5:55 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 6:11 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), be read the second time and referred to a committee.