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.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to wish my amazing wife, Cailey, and our beautiful daughter, Maeve, a happy Valentine's Day. I love them both, and I cannot wait to see them and celebrate.

I am going to speak from the heart a little on this one, it being Valentine's Day. It is something that is extremely close to my heart. I have been involved in the efforts to eliminate the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for grain drying for many years, going back to Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament. I worked for the Grain Growers of Canada prior to this.

This is a good piece of legislation. It should not be political. This is about fixing a policy that does not make sense and that simply punishes our farmers. Grain growers, when they have a wet year, have no choice but to store their grain at the appropriate moisture level. They do this by drying it, and the only sources to do that are propane and natural gas. In just the same way, our livestock producers are forced to use those fuels to heat and cool their livestock operations for the welfare of the animals.

This is a common-sense carve-out that would leave money in the pockets of farmers to reinvest in their own operations, to reinvest in their own communities and to lower the prices of food for Canadians. It amounts to $1 billion; it was the intention of the bill to allow our farmers to maintain that in their pockets. The amended version of this bill removes about $900 million of that, because the Senate gutted it.

Let us just go back through how we got to where we are. This was supported by parties across this chamber, and even some Liberal MPs. It was supported by the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and even the Green Party members, recognizing the importance of this legislation to Canadian producers and to Canadian consumers. The members acknowledged that this carve-out made sense.

Things got political, though. When it got to the Senate, of all places, that so-called chamber of sober second thought had a whole bunch of political manipulation involved with it that caused absolute mayhem. The fact is that we are in no man's land here, with debate potentially never ending, thanks to the Liberal government and its intrusion into that so-called independent Senate.

The reality is that, after we got through the House, the bill went to the Senate. The senators tried to amend it at the senate committee with the exact same amendments that were tried in this chamber, but the Liberals could not find a dancing partner. All the other parties realized that this is good policy; only the Liberals stood in the way of it.

However, in their back pocket, the Liberals had the so-called independent Liberal, not by name, senators that they could manipulate. In fact, the environment minister even admitted that he called six of them. At our environment committee, I asked for the names of the six senators. He promised to get back to me, and after 49 days, he came back with three names. I guess he forgot, and guessed up, how many senators he tried to corner into moving and passing amendments at the committee stage and at the broader Senate chamber to try to gut this bill.

The Prime Minister's Office and the radical environment minister did everything they and their government could to force the Senate to gut this bill. The environment minister just loves the carbon tax and put his entire credibility and career on the line, saying that he would resign if there was an additional carve-out for farmers. That is how we have arrived at where we are today.

This, from the Liberals, should not be surprising. They are fully committed to a policy that is failing Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This carbon tax scam is raising the price of everything, making us all poorer, making us less competitive and driving down profits for our farmers.

It is not surprising, because this is the Liberal government that called all farmers and small business owners “tax cheats”. The same government voted against a common-sense piece of legislation, Bill C-208, that would have aided in the transfer of farms from one generation of a family to the next. It came up with a crazy idea to reduce the amount of fertilizer we use in this country by 30%, following Europe's lead. Europe is a continent that went from being a net exporter to a net importer of food; it is reliant on other nations for its energy, in this case, terrible aggressors, namely Russia.

We are going down an awful path as it relates to our food and fuel in this country, so it should come as no surprise that the government stands opposed to such common-sense legislation. Frankly, the Liberal record on agriculture and rural issues is horrendous. It is appalling. That is part of the reason I went from being an advocate, working on behalf of farmers as a representative of the industry, to wanting to put my name on a ballot and come here. I thought I could do more from the inside to stand up for our rural communities and farmers. That is what I am proudly doing today and will do every day for the rest of my time in this place.

The government seems to think it can rebrand the carbon tax or the rebate cheques to people and that they will somehow change their minds about this. People know better. They know that the carbon tax is failing them in every facet of their life and simultaneously not reducing emissions. We went from being ranked 58th to 62nd in the world because of our environmental outcomes. We have become worse under this government, yet it stands by its failed policies, which are making us all poor.

I would encourage the Liberal MPs who do not have the opportunity to represent farmers and probably deny them meetings when asked to come and explain their situation, to pick up the phone and call a farmer. I will provide a few phone numbers if they want. It will be the best five minutes of their life when they get the chance to ask them what they think about the carbon tax, or better yet, when they ask them why they are paying a carbon tax on drying their grain, why they are drying grain and why they need temperature-controlled barns. They should ask them what they think of the 5% GST they pay on the carbon tax specifically, the revenue-neutral carbon tax that has just collected an extra 5% for the government, which needs it here in Ottawa for its political pet projects more than Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers do, who are paying higher prices at the grocery store.

They would also be able to tell MPs stories about the innovations and strides that have been made by our producers across this country over the last number of decades. It is hard to recognize a farm from a few decades ago, from the improvements in seed and livestock genetics to the vast improvements in equipment and machinery, the tractors and combines, the data collection and the focus on increased yields while reducing emissions. In fact, we have doubled our production in this country since 1997, while our emissions have stayed the same.

That is what we should be looking at. The emissions intensity of our production in this country is something we should be proud of. We are better than other countries around the world at growing food. It is something we should be standing up for. We should be taking down barriers and roadblocks. We should be enabling trade. We should be enabling our producers to sell their products around the world at a profit to reinvest in their own operations and communities. Instead, we focus on anti-competitive measures that push businesses south of the border and make it harder for farmers to make a living in this country.

Our farmers, of all types, are the true conservationists. They are the ones on the ground. They are the ones focused on making sure that their land is better off when they leave it than how they found it, because it makes sense. It is common sense for them to make sure they can maximize production on their land. This land is passed down from generation to generation. They are proud of it, and they want to protect it.

At the end of the day, there is no good reason to support this gutted bill. The farmers know that. Every member in the House absolutely should know that. It should not be about politics. It should not be about the Liberals deciding that 3% of Canadians should get a break on the carbon tax on their home heating oil while our farmers have to pay more because of the Liberals' political hides being on the line.

This is good legislation, as drafted and unamended, to save farmers $1 billion. I urge my colleagues of all political stripes to listen to our farmers and the organizations that represent them, do the right thing, pass this bill without the Senate amendments and send it immediately back to the Senate, which should also do the right thing and pass this legislation as Parliament has asked it to.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although it is already January 29, I do not think it is too late to extend my best wishes to everyone. I hope we can engage in constructive politics. That is exactly what we are going to try to do this morning.

Listening to the speeches, I feel as though this is being treated like an either-or issue. One side is saying “axe the tax” while the other side is saying that we need to send some sort of message and that they will be there to help. The Bloc Québécois falls somewhere in between. We are reasonable people. We believe in sending a message and offering incentives for the climate transition, but we also believe in a climate transition that is fair and equitable for everyone. That is what I am going to talk about this morning: the agricultural exemption.

The agricultural exemption is an expression I am using more and more often in an attempt to get it to stick in people's minds, so that everyone understands that farmers—the people who feed us, who work extremely hard and whom we thank—deserve respect and support. There are different ways of offering support. Bill C-234 granted an exemption to a specific sector, and that is why we were in favour of it. There needs to be more support for sectors where there are fewer or no exemptions.

I paid close attention when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government was speaking. He said his government is there for farmers and is supporting them, but that is not what I am seeing on a daily basis. If the Senate amendments are adopted, I want the government to make a formal commitment to supporting the climate transition in meaningful ways, especially in sectors where there is no alternative, such as grain drying. Farmers are being asked to use less pesticide and herbicide, to protect shorelines and wetlands, to maintain grasslands, to recultivate maginal land. We have to support them as they do that and give them the help they need. We have to be smart about this. That is the point of my speech this morning. If there is no exemption, there has to be compensation. There has to be support, intensive research and development and investment programs to help these sectors. That is key.

We have been talking about Bill C‑234, known in the previous Parliament as Bill C‑206, for the past four years. In the beginning, the bill was about grain drying. As the study progressed, the heating and cooling of certain buildings was added. Then an election was called. After that, Bill C‑234 was introduced, and it specifically addressed grain drying and the heating and cooling of certain buildings. We studied the bill. Now the Senate has sent it back to us with an amendment that cuts out buildings and shortens the bill's lifespan. It is certainly not the same bill that we passed. Obviously, we have some reservations. However, it is back in alignment with the original bill and puts the focus where it is needed the most.

I have to say that I am concerned about the Conservatives' tactics this morning. I am not entirely comfortable with all the parliamentary procedures, but when I see the opposition responding to the Senate before the government does, I have to wonder whether the procedures were followed. Could this not have been discussed earlier?

I thought the Conservatives' goal was to set targets and come up with slogans. When I talk about the Conservatives' goal, I do not include my colleague from Huron—Bruce in that. I know he cares about farmers and is doing this for the right reasons. I am talking about the strategy in general. Do the Conservatives want to turn this fight into a slogan, so they can go back to the kind of aggressive partisan politics we saw when this bill was being studied in the Senate? I would remind my colleagues that when we were debating a motion here dealing with this, bullying was a very serious problem.

That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted us to engage in constructive politics. I invite everyone to proceed in an intelligent way, to present intelligent arguments and content, and to engage with people from other political parties to reach a consensus in order to move things forward. We should not just be trying to score political points ahead of the next election.

What we should be doing right now is having a look at the work done by the Senate. We should be analyzing and improving it. How can we improve it? We have two options. We could reject the amendments and refer the bill back to the Senate. That would probably lead to a ping-pong match, forcing us to redo the work and set new deadlines. Bill C‑234 stayed in the Senate for a long time. Will it come back to the House? How long will it take? We have no control over the date of the election.

We have no control over whether the bill will be sent back. When will it come back? Is the second option not better? It is worth taking time to consider this bill. We could make tangible progress now and establish the principle of the agricultural exemption. The purpose of Bill C‑234, beyond the grain drying exemption, is to establish the agricultural exemption, the fact that there are some sensitive sectors that need to be supported or exempted. If the bill is adopted as amended, that is the message it will send. That will be a win for grain farmers with respect to grain drying. This was very well explained by my colleague from Huron—Bruce just now.

They have no alternatives, nor do they control sales prices. When costs go up, their profit margins go down. That is just not right. We cannot do that to the people who feed us.

At the same time, with the amendments that the Senate is proposing, we would continue sending a message about the environment. We cannot forget that side of things either. We need to continue doing that. Pollution must have a price, but sectors like agriculture must not be the ones who have to pay that price. They need to be supported in all of this. When it comes to buildings, perhaps the alternatives are not so far out of reach. Of course, for many farmers, many of those solutions have not actually been implemented, but they are more within reach than in the case of drying.

I would like to ask the government the following question: Is it committed to quickly implementing a bold and substantial program? I am talking to the parliamentary secretary, but this question is also for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We need to give farmers access to the technology that we are asking them to have but that they are unable to get. That is the key.

We must not forget that the the carbon tax is a federal tax. It was created for the provinces that were doing nothing for the environment. We need to think about that too. If we were to do away with the carbon tax, as the Conservatives are proposing, what message would that send to the other governments? Would we be sending them the message that they too can do away with the carbon tax?

For the benefit of my Conservative friends, I would point out once again that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The fact that the Bloc Québécois has supported Bill C‑234 from the beginning is a major gesture of goodwill toward the farming community, because the measure puts Quebec farmers, who are not currently entitled to the exemption, at a disadvantage. It sends a message to all governments that an agricultural exemption is inescapable. That is why we supported the bill. That is why Quebec farmers encouraged us to do so, to show their solidarity with westerners. That is why we did it, at their urging.

At the same time, we are putting our people at a disadvantage by voting for Bill C‑234. I would like to drive that point home for everyone. We are putting our people at a disadvantage. The proposal we are debating this morning may strike the right balance. Could the Senate's amendment be the ideal way to achieve the mission we were given, the mission to establish an agricultural exemption? Would it not create an exemption without placing Quebec producers at an undue disadvantage? I am asking the question.

We are well aware that some farmers will be disappointed if the Senate's amendments are adopted. However, there are other ways to get things done. We can take the grain drying exemption now and prevent the bill from getting bogged down again thanks to the kind of intimidation, threats and other things that have absolutely no place in a democracy. We can put the matter to rest, move on and keep working on the buildings issue in a different way. I will not turn my back on farmers. We will not turn our backs on them. We need proper dialogue, research and development.

Bill C‑234 must succeed. It would never have seen the light of day without the initial and ongoing support of the Bloc Québécois, which also agreed to officially recognize the agricultural exemption principle. I thank my colleagues for that. My question is this: Do we want to send the bill to the Senate and keep bickering over it, with media clips and slogans, or are we willing to grasp the tangible gains within our reach? The answer should be obvious.

We always try to do politics with the future in mind, not the next election. We intend to stick with this approach.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of this important motion, but boy do I wish we did not have to. I wish we did not have to defend the work of the elected chamber in the face of the unelected senators who are trying to overrule us.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Personally, I have been following Bill C-234 since its inception, as well as its predecessor, Bill C-206, so I have the unique ability to provide a primer on what this bill would do, why it matters and how we came to the point of needing a motion in the House of Commons calling on the Senate to pass this bill.

At the farm level, a grain grower harvests his or her crop. They can choose to sell it immediately to an elevator or store it in a bin, the bins we see lined up around farmyards all across the country. Storing grain costs money, but one has the benefit of being able to market it at a later date at hopefully higher prices.

All types of commodities must be stored in a specific manner that protects the moisture level to avoid spoiling, rotting or sprouting inside the bin, which would reduce or eliminate the value of the commodity. If the moisture level is too high, a grain dryer must be used, powered by propane or natural gas, to produce the amount of heat and consistent flow to make sure the quality is maintained throughout winter months. These dryers are full of impressive technology to ensure maximum efficiency.

Despite the carbon tax being added on, the cost of the fuel is already quite expensive, on top of the cost of the dryer itself. I have had the chance to tour western grain dryers in my riding, in Elie, Manitoba, to see some of that technology first-hand. Farmers have been adopting these innovative technologies for years and years, and they should be applauded for it, not punished.

There are only two fuel options available to a grain farmer: propane or natural gas. Despite what is said by my colleagues across the way, who might live in some fantasy world with new ways to heat a grain dryer, they do not exist at any scalable commercial level whatsoever. All we are doing is punishing farmers for doing a practice they need to do to maintain the quality of their grain. Livestock producers are in the exact same boat. They need to maintain temperatures inside their barns to protect the health and welfare of their animals, and they rely on the same heat sources.

What Bill C-234 would do is exempt farmers from paying the carbon tax on propane and natural gas when used on farm. That is it. That is all it would do. It is a very narrow carve-out that would alleviate costs for farmers and help make Canadians' food cheaper.

The Liberals have decided, bizarrely, that this is the hill they are going to die on. This is the carbon tax sword they are willing to fall on. I can only assume it is because over the next seven years, this would mean $1 billion being left in the pockets of hard-working farmers. They firmly believe that is their money, that the government should be taking $1 billion out of farmers' pockets to do whatever it thinks is going to save the planet.

It is common sense to take the tax off these activities, and it is not just me saying this is a good idea. Five premiers have written open letters to the Senate calling on it to pass this legislation. All major ag groups, including the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which encompasses all major ag groups in Canada, are in strong support of this legislation. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have offered their support to the Senate to pass this bill unamended because it makes sense for farmers and makes sense for Canadians.

The carbon tax most definitely should, and soon will, be taken off all products in this country, but in the meantime, this is a pretty good place to start to help alleviate the cost of food for Canadians. Right now, we are forcing farmers to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to do what they absolutely need to do to produce our food, fuel and fibre.

Our farmers have an incredible sustainability track record and we should be proud of it. They regularly invest in new technologies, new equipment and new practices that make them more sustainable and improve their sustainability profile. The challenge is that when we take this much money out of their pockets, they are simply unable to reinvest capital into their own operations. Instead of buying new equipment that can more precisely apply crop protection products and fertilizer seed, they are forced to make a choice, saying they cannot do this, despite that action being the best way to reduce emissions on farm.

It is a prime example of when we talk about technology, not taxes. This is the difference. On the Conservative side, we believe the technology that farmers will readily and happily invest in if the government is not taking money out of their pockets will improve environmental outcomes at the individual farm level and therefore across the nation. The Liberals say, “No, we will tax them.” Is the carbon tax working in this case? No. However, they do not care and want to keep the taxes on because they need this revenue to fund their other pet projects.

This bill has been around since 2020, previously as Bill C-206 and now as Bill C-234. It is essentially the same bill. It has maintained support from all opposition parties in the House except for the Liberals. They just refuse to give in. They refuse to be adaptive. They refuse to be reasonable and recognize that when something is not working, we should probably change it, because it is harming farmers and Canadian consumers.

Instead, we have this stubborn, worn-out government grappling with the political fallout of its decision to climb down from the carbon tax on home heating for 3% of Canadians in certain parts of the country while leaving the rest of Canadians out in the cold. Now the Liberals are trying to figure out how to grapple with what would be another carve-out. It has been quietly making its way through the elected chamber and into the Senate, but all of a sudden, it is a big problem for the Liberals.

The Minister of Environment even admitted in the media that he had been calling senators. We have PMO staffers calling in favours with Liberal-appointed senators. I am fed up with hearing members across the way repeatedly state that the Senate is independent. Nobody in this chamber, nobody in the press gallery, no political nerd and no casual observer of politics believes for a second that somehow the Senate is independent of this party, when just a couple of weeks ago, it appointed a former Liberal MP. Just because they do not caucus together does not mean it is an independent Senate.

Our elected chamber has spoken. We have endorsed a common-sense carve-out on the carbon tax for our farmers. What has happened in the Senate? All of a sudden, at the agriculture and forestry committee, attention was far higher on this random PMB that has worked its way through. It was only enhanced after the Prime Minister decided to step back on the home heating carbon tax for certain Canadians.

Many amendments were proposed, one of which, due to a tie, was passed. It was brought forward at report stage to the larger chamber. The Senate rightly voted down that amendment, returning the legislation back to its original form, where it should stay and where it should pass as is.

Then somehow, out of the blue, at third reading in the Senate, the amendment that was already brought forward at the committee stage was tabled by a senator who seems to have no previous interaction with agriculture and no interaction with this committee. It just magically appeared, with no connection to politics whatsoever. This could not be about the Liberal government's climbdown on the carbon tax.

Nobody believes that the Liberals are not behind this. It does not add up, and the fact that they continue to hide behind this is just embarrassing. The fake outrage we see during question period and during this debate, as they try to keep a straight face when they say the Senate is independent, is just absurd.

That is where we are. In the Senate, Liberal-without-title senators are holding this bill hostage at the request of the Prime Minister. This elected chamber chose democratically to eliminate the carbon tax on our farmers, and the Senate is trying to overrule us. We should not be here debating this motion today. The Senate should be doing the right thing. We should never have had to spend a day in this chamber trying to tell the Senate to do the right thing. It is shameful that the Liberals are being so petty.

The tactics they are taking in the Senate are unheard of. Instead of being reasonable, the Liberals are digging their heels in because they are worried about their political fortunes if there is a second carbon tax carve-out. The Liberals need to realize that Canadians do not like the carbon tax. They do not see value in the carbon tax because life has become so unaffordable across every aspect of their lives. It is hard to justify seeing the government getting richer and Canadians getting poorer.

In the upcoming carbon tax election, Canadians will have a choice between quadrupling the carbon tax or axing the carbon tax. In the meantime, I implore my colleagues to support this motion urging the Senate to do the right thing and pass Bill C-234 unamended to give our farmers a break and Canadian consumers a break on their food prices.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

With regard to Bill C-234, I would like to recognize a couple of people, the first being the member for Brandon—Souris. Before he was elected, he worked in the private sector. He was one of the people who gave the idea for the beginnings of this bill in the last Parliament to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, which was Bill C-206, which, at that time, talked about taking the carbon tax off the drying of grains.

With Bill C-234, we look to, as we always do in life or in legislation, trying to make it better. We included the heating of livestock barns and buildings used to grow food, such as mushrooms that we see at grocery stores.

I wanted to recognize those individuals, as well as the Conservative agriculture critic. He has done a great job and was a big advocate after the last election to include this.

Like I said, these are the basics of the bill. At a time when farmers are seeing increased costs due to inflation everywhere they look, this bill is very timely. Over the last two years, farmers have seen a tremendous increase in the cost of purchasing farm machinery, such as tractors. Some of the costs have skyrocketed, including the cost of carrying debt, such as mortgages on farms. For a lot of farmers, a portion of it is fixed and a portion of it is variable. They may also carry operating lines of credit, maybe for inputs or livestock, whatever it may be at the time. All these things have become more expensive, in large part, due to government spending. The amount of debt, inflation and printing money have caused this. Farmers have borne a terrible amount of the brunt on this.

In addition to that, a couple of years ago, we will remember how much the cost of fertilizer increased for farmers, even when some farmers had prepaid. In the previous fiscal year, farmers had prepaid, only to find out they had to pay more when it came time to put the fertilizer on their land. They have had some really challenging times, but they are still committed to being farmers and they are still committed to feeding Canadians. Canadian farmers, as we know, help feed the world many times over.

That is why this bill happens to be the right bill at the right time. It has been almost two years since I introduced this bill in the House of Commons. It will, hopefully, be voted on tonight or in the near future.

Farmers need a break. We have heard in question period, statements and speeches what farmers are facing with the carbon tax. The other thing that is frightening to farmers is they know this is not the end of it. They know that on April 1 every year, the carbon tax will go up until 2030, to the point where, in many cases, the profit margin will no longer be there at all for small farmers. They will have to make a decision whether to carry on or what to do.

That is why this bill is so timely and it is so important for the Senate to make a decision on it. I am open to whatever way the Senate votes. If it votes it up or down, I can live with either result, but what I find unfortunate is that there are some games being played. I do not mind if a committee takes the time to study it, which it did. I appeared at committee and it was a great honour. However, when amendments are put forward after virtually the same amendments were voted on at report stage and defeated, it does resemble a bit of a game, which is unfortunate.

The people having the games played on them are Canadian farmers. It is not me or the members of Parliament in this House of Commons who suffer. It is Canadian farmers who suffer.

There is another thing that really hits home. I hear it every weekend when I am at community events at home. I see the farmers in my area, when I drive up and down the county roads. They are still taking their corn off. The corn that is being taken off on November 28 needs to be dried. That is the reality. That uses propane and natural gas. Had the Senate dealt with this bill in the spring, farmers drying their crops today would not be paying the carbon tax. Farmers heating their broiler barns, their turkey barns, their layer barns and their hog barns would not be paying the carbon tax.

People have come up to me, and I imagine they are of all political stripes, and they cannot believe that this bill has not been passed. They understand. As many members have talked about today, this is not the only place it has touched the price of food. It is passed along many times. One pork farmer in my riding told me that the fuel surcharge, just the surcharge, for him to ship his 20,000 hogs a year to the processing plant, was $20,000.

In the big scheme of a significant operation, it is not going to put the fellow out of business, but it is $20,000. That is $20,000 he could have put into his operation. That is $20,000 he could have put on his line of credit or paid down his debt.

There is a pork farmer in my riding whose carbon tax bill in the month of March 2023 was $3,500. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who sits right beside me, talked about one yesterday. It was $1,500 a month. The leader of the Conservative Party has a mushroom grower in his riding who pays $10,000, $11,000, $12,000 a month. Farmers cannot afford this any longer. They need Canadian lawmakers, senators and members of the House of Commons to make a decision and move forward on this.

The other key point is that when it becomes more cost-effective, cheaper, for grocery stores and retailers to buy food, vegetables or whatever, from Mexico, California or Colorado, put it in a transport truck and ship it for five days to Ontario, where I live, there is something wrong with the cost structure in Canada and in my province of Ontario. Carbon tax is one of them.

We need to address this. It should not be political. One of the most important things a country can do, in addition to defending its citizens, is be able to feed its citizens, to have enough adequate food and nutrition to feed its citizens. We have had a lot of discussion about food banks, but the very idea of having a sustainable food production system, a full cycle in our country is one of the most important things.

In the last eight years, we have seen an erosion in food sovereignty in Canada. A number of processing plants have closed because of cost and mismanagement at the government level on trade. There are all sorts of issues on that. It is very important.

The last thing I will say is that we can drive up and down the rural roads and see people we have known pretty much our entire lives, people who have worked hard around the clock. They can be seen out at 11 o'clock at night combining their corn, harvesting their corn. We know they are doing it for Canadians. They like to make a little money, but it is a passion, a livelihood. It is their life.

We have to make sure that we get this right. We have to make sure that we take the carbon tax off and make it affordable for the consumer, make it right for the environment and make it right for the farmer.

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

Thank you very much. I'll anchor my comments to make sure that the connection is clear.

The carbon tax is having a huge impact on the economy, and we actually heard that testimony. You don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Chair. You can take Tiff Macklem's word for it. The number one problem with the economy—which I think is universally agreed upon by Bill Morneau, John Manley and Minister Freeland—is inflation.

We heard testimony from the Governor of the Bank of Canada that 16% of that inflation or 33% above target is directly related to the carbon tax, so one really can't talk about the economy without talking about the carbon tax.

I know that might offend the sensibilities of some Liberals because this is the signature piece that has really—it hasn't really accomplished anything on the environment. In fact, all it's doing is actually, as I had the opportunity to talk about a little bit, pushing Canadian companies to either leave fully or to put their manufacturing offshore so that they don't have to pay a carbon tax.

In places like Guangdong province or in West Virginia, where they may rely heavily on coal, they don't have to pay the carbon tax, which means that instead of having clean Canadian natural gas powering industry relatively efficiently, we have the same products being made in Guangdong province, in West Virginia and elsewhere in the world where they power with coal.

I would much rather have the hydroelectric dam in Niagara Falls powering and creating manufacturing in Ontario as opposed to having coal in the outskirts of Beijing and around other industrial areas where they don't have the same clean tech that we do here in Canada.

Getting back to the bill I was talking about, which was Bill C-206, agriculture is a primary part of the economy, and I think one of the most critical parts of the economy. We want to talk a little bit about how carbon tax interrelates with agriculture, both of which are critical to the economy.

I had the great pleasure of introducing Bill C-206 in Parliament in 2019, which was a bill to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax regime for farmers. As I said, it would affect farmers from coast to coast to coast, but particularly those who are drying grain. This was on the heals of—excuse the language; it's the term they use in agriculture circles—“the harvest from hell”. It was a very wet harvest, which created a very moist grain and corn. Individuals had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax. That continues to this day, and that was at $20 per tonne. As I said, it's been quadrupled now to $80 per tonne. We heard great testimony on the road. I hope that members of the government, particularly, were listening to CAPP and other expert witnesses.

We took that all the way to the Senate, Mr. Chair. We got it all the way there, and unfortunately, Prime Minister Trudeau called his unnecessary $600 million election, so it stalled there in the Senate.

To my great relief and admiration, my great colleague Mr. Ben Lobb brought it back in the form of Bill C-234. I might say that Mr. Lobb actually improved the bill to include barn heating amongst other small but important amendments that he made to that bill.

We're here now again. It's back in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Liberal government in the so-called independent Senate, and I do say “so-called”, is utilizing pressure on the senators it controls.

They can call them Liberals. They can call them whatever they want to call them. They listen to their master in Prime Minister Trudeau, and they are currently stalling that bill.

One of the reasons I think they might be stalling it is that the environment minister, Mr. Guilbeault, has said that if there's one more carve-out, he will resign as environment minister. That carve-out, I believe, is coming.

We have the support there, so I would call on the Prime Minister to.... If he has to choose between his environment minister and Canadian agriculture, the choice is easy. You go with Canadian agriculture. I'm sure Mr. Guilbeault, despite his criminal record, is eminently employable. I believe he'll be just fine, going forward.

The question is on the carbon tax. We should have farmers, and will likely have farmers, as exemptive, as long as the Liberal senators don't hold it up too much.

By the way, to anyone listening, please write your Liberal MP—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With your indulgence, I would just like to congratulate all of the members and witnesses whom we heard on our week of travelling from coast to coast. I thought there were great questions and even better answers from many of our witnesses. I had the pleasure of being there for Quebec City, Toronto and Winnipeg. I'm sure all stops were great.

As I said earlier, I just want to make sure my comments are anchored in the motion. I'll just read the first line of the motion:

Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan as the foundation of a secure and dignified retirement for tens of millions of Canadians and a pillar of Canada’s economy;

My remarks will focus mainly on Canada's economy per the motion.

We are of course, in an extremely difficult economic time, really with extremes that we haven't seen since the Great Depression. Philip Cross, of course, the noted academic and statistician has said that we have the worse GDP since the Great Depression. We're actually contracting. I believe it's per person GDP. Those numbers are obscured a little bit.

For those Canadians listening at home, they may be confused when they hear the Liberals say, we had an increase in GDP. Our increase in population is obscuring the actual economic numbers because while the absolute numbers are higher, the actual per Canadian numbers are lower. This government is in some respects successfully obscuring the truth. But you know what, Canadians feel it. The people of Northumberland—Peterborough South are very much aware of the economic times.

We see other indicators such as food banks being at record levels. I believe it's two million Canadians per month who visit food banks. I heard a statistic just this morning that fully a third of food bank attendees, customers—I guess "clients" may be the best way to refer to them—are new. These are folks who have never been to a food bank before. I heard a great interview this morning of one of the individuals who is in charge of a food bank.

You can imagine the energy, exhaustion and the stress it would take for someone who had never been to a food bank and probably never thought they would ever go to a food bank. Yet this government, instead of focusing on these very critical issues, is obsessed with scoring political points, to sow division. We all know from the first Prime Minister Trudeau of policies that, if not a willful, are certainly negligent, and of efforts that have alienated large portions of our country. Traditionally that might be viewed as western Canada, but I can tell you that in rural Ontario it's the same thing.

The folks in my riding, in part of rural Canada, very much feel like they are alienated and aren't thought about or cared about by this government. You see that even more so in the carve-out from the carbon tax. Yes, I'm glad that the Prime Minister got the memo from the Atlantic members of caucus who said that they can't campaign on this. We can't go back. We can't face our residents with a carbon tax at $80 a tonne.

I'll just remind people on the record as well, because there was some confusion—I'm sure it was honest confusion—on the road when I said carbon taxes had quadrupled. In 2019, the carbon tax was $20 per tonne. It is now $80. Four times $20 is $80. Sorry, it will be in the spring of 2024. I should correct that. We have the quadrupling of the carbon tax and in many cases a very meagre rebate coming back the other way.

We get this exemption, this carve-out, this acknowledgement that in fact the carbon tax is leading to an affordability crisis, as we heard from Tiff Macklem. He shared with us that 16% of inflation is actually directly because of the carbon tax and that 33% of inflation over target is directly because of the carbon tax. Those are all numbers.

I'm sure this is honest confusion, but I have heard many Liberal and even NDP members in the House, and even in this very committee, get very confused on that point and say things like it's only 1.5%. That's just not true. That's not what the governor said. The governor said, and he confirmed it, that it was actually 60 full basis points, which is 16% of inflation.

There is no doubt that by having that exemption, that carve-out only for Atlantic Canada.... I should be fair, though. I want to be completely transparent and make sure that we have all the facts. It does apply to other people across the country who heat their homes with oil. The reality is that the majority of people who heat their homes with oil are out on the east coast, which is where the Prime Minister's caucus was very upset. It's going to make many Canadians feel left out in the cold, literally and figuratively.

It's the logic, Mr. Chair, that really.... I don't understand it. I hear Minister Wilkinson say, you don't understand. Fuel oil is really bad for the environment, so we have to take the carbon tax off it. But then that same guy will say, you don't understand, gasoline is really bad for the environment so we have to quadruple the carbon tax. There's a complete gap of logic.

Every time I hear this debate, not even as a partisan or as a Conservative but as someone who studied philosophy at university, I don't understand the logic of it. Either the carbon tax leads to less of something, and so we should put it particularly heavily on bad things, or it doesn't, and then we should remove it all and, instead, allow Canadians to have the resources they need to make the decisions they need to. Actually, that brings me to Bill C-234.

As some of you might be aware, I originated Bill C-206—it's a private member's bill—back in 2019. That was the predecessor to Bill C-234, which was to remove the carbon tax from propane and natural gas for farmers. This would affect farmers from coast to coast to coast.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to extend my condolences to the Cossey family who farmed down the road from where I grew up near Chipman, for the loss of their beautiful Veronica, a much-loved, well-known and universally admired nurse, farm wife and community member from Lamont county.

I appreciate this opportunity to stand up for people like the Cosseys, for people all across Lakeland, and for hard-working farmers and agricultural workers across Alberta and throughout Canada, against the rising costs brought on by the NDP-Liberal costly coalition's carbon tax.

I thank my Conservative colleagues, the MP for Huron—Bruce who brought in this bill and the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South who introduced it as Bill C-206, which was agreed to before the Liberals called the unnecessary 2021 election. That put it back to square one and blocked crucial relief for farmers of the carbon tax on their farm fuels for the past two years.

I am proud to represent all kinds of farms, ag businesses and farming families across Lakeland, which is the fourth largest rural riding in Alberta. It is home to nine first nations and Métis communities, and more than 50 municipalities and summer villages. It takes almost an hour to drive from end to end. Lakeland's economy mainly relies on agriculture, natural resources and small businesses.

I hope colleagues from urban and suburban ridings can begin to imagine the distances, infrastructure challenges, equipment required and costs involved in the daily lives and work of the people and businesses across an area larger than 86 countries around the world, especially for those family farms and related businesses that make a living off the land and who feed the world using the highest environmental and production standards of any farmers on Planet Earth.

Where I am from, while a lot of us use Starlink now for Internet, we still cannot haul cattle or seed a crop with a Tesla, and almost none of the towns have public infrastructure and transportation. It is in those rural areas that Canadian farmers live and work to feed their neighbours and cities.

As one of the world's largest producers of canola, oats, wheat, flaxseed and pulse crops, and the fifth-largest agricultural exporter in the world, Canada's agriculture sector accounts for almost 7% of GDP and sustains the livelihoods of 2.4 million Canadians. It is vital.

Farmers are the backbone of Canadian rural communities. They work hard days and late nights to put food on our tables. Canadian farmers compete with each other and globally, so they constantly innovate for the most efficient production of crops and livestock to maintain, improve and steward the land, water and air on which their lives literally entirely depend. They strive to reduce costs and offer high-quality but affordable products. However, despite their generations of excellence in environmental stewardship and emissions reduction, the Liberals slapped them with an ever-growing carbon tax. Farmers now struggle to provide for their families, to maintain their businesses, to contribute to their communities and to pass on their way of life.

Constituents often share personal trials and tribulations, and my dedicated staff and I work as best we can to solve the problems we can impact. We all agree that some of the most heartbreaking conversations are in farmyards or in the constituency office where farmers, some whose roots stretch back so far they have awards that celebrate more than a century of their families' blood, sweat, tears and work, painfully say they have resigned themselves to hope that their kids do not try to take it on and that they pick a different path because the costs are insurmountable. It is no wonder, when some farmers will face $150,000 a year in taxes just seven years from now if the Liberals stay on course.

Canadian farmers and ag-based communities have faced major challenges in recent years, as collateral damage in trade wars and diplomatic disputes has made the normal uncertain weather, growing conditions and global prices even worse. Back-to-back disasters have hit Lakeland with alternating harvests from hell and major flooding. Farmers lost a significant portion of their crops, with some being completely wiped out, and other farmers ran out of grazing area and feed for their livestock.

Farmers have clearly requested one thing: Axe the expensive and unfair carbon tax so they can continue to feed Canadians and the world.

Michelle, a farmer from Blackfoot, says that carbon tax hikes are “crippling”. She says, “In my opinion, the Federal Minister of Agriculture is not taking this issue seriously.”

Farmers already have to navigate challenging conditions, and carefully plan and save so they do not go bankrupt during bad years. When rural families have to watch their once-a-year paycheque burn, drown, rot, freeze on the field or get loaded for processing because they cannot afford to feed all year, or the costs for grain drying and heating barns are skyrocketing and too expensive, situations that are completely out of their control, the government should not use a tax to make it worse and take even more away.

Unfortunately, the Liberals' approach to farmers and farm families is mostly broken programs, endless platitudes and, at worst, layers of punitive policies and outright hostility to their way of life.

In 2016, the then ag minister said the Liberals would not exempt farmers from the carbon tax because “the impact is a very small percentage of operating costs”. Frankly, that is just not the reality for farmers, ranchers and rural Canadians. Farmers need specialized, expensive equipment powered by fuels that have no alternatives to grow and harvest their crops, to irrigate and to heat barns and buildings.

The carbon tax will cost the average farmer $45,000 a year overall, with estimates of $36,000 a year for grain drying alone. The worst part is that the Liberals were warned, but they ignored the CFIB's analysis that farmers would already be paying an average of $14,000 a year in federal carbon taxes when it was just $20 in 2019. The Liberals hiked it 150% a year ago, and days from now the Liberals will triple that carbon tax compared to 2019. Let us talk about the worst April Fool's joke ever.

It is not just the Conservatives saying the carbon tax will cost more. The independent, non-partisan PBO confirms it is a net loss for most Canadians. The truth is that 60% of all households pay more than they get back. That will rise to 80% in Ontario and Alberta by next year. The average Canadian family will pay an extra 400 bucks, and more than 840 bucks in those provinces, in carbon tax this year after Liberal rebates. Farmers and ranchers of course will pay even more, but Michelle from Blackfoot is right. The Liberals do not care about the disproportionate damage of their carbon tax for rural Canadians and producers.

It is even more galling that the Liberals refuse to reverse course. Almost half of Canadians are $200 away from bankruptcy, and food prices are skyrocketing so that Canadians are already skipping meals, turning down the heat or cutting out meat and veggies to make ends meet because of the Liberals' reckless tax and inflationary spending agenda. The Liberals' rebate program, which they claim is an offset, is really just a blanket return to producers that is entirely based on eligible farming expenses that needs a total of over $25,000 to qualify. It ignores the distinct impacts of carbon surcharges on particular farms, sector productivity and competitiveness.

The carbon tax affects the entire supply chain. It makes it more expensive for farmers to produce food, and more expensive to ship it, which raises the cost of groceries for all Canadians. In many cases, farmers are so cash-strapped, they cannot afford any more capital-intensive innovations and technologies for productivity and sustainability gains. That is the exact opposite of what carbon tax proponents claim they want.

A chicken producer and mixed farmer, Ross, from Lakeland, recently said to me in exasperation that he doesn't know what the Prime Minister wants him to do: use coal or just quit farming. Obviously, a full carbon tax exemption for natural gas and propane, lower-emitting, more affordable and actually available fuels would make a real difference for farmers struggling to pay their bills. However, the Liberals do not listen to everyday Canadians, Conservatives or apparently even their own public servants. They impose policies with arbitrary and impossible targets without a second thought to how it will hike costs for everyone and hurt some even more.

Of course, the Liberal government's own studies long warned of the major added costs of the carbon tax for farmers and all Canadians. In 2015, Finance Canada said imposing a carbon tax would “cascade through the economy in the form of higher prices...leading all firms and consumers to pay more”. That prediction came true. The Lloydminster Ag Exhibition Association also says the carbon tax is “crippling” and too much of a burden. Its bill is already $30,000 a year in carbon tax alone. Its building got major energy retrofits, but the carbon tax still hiked bills 30% and taxed away any cost savings.

However, the Liberals are happy to add disproportionate costs to farmers, farm families and rural residents, even while the carbon tax causes everyone economic pain with no discernible environmental gain. That is not where their votes are.

Ultimately, all Canadians, farmers, workers, consumers, business owners, the middle class, people on fixed incomes, the working poor, urban residents, all consumers and anyone who eats will pay the price. Conservatives will axe the carbon tax completely, but today we can at least exempt farmers from the carbon tax on fuels they cannot do without, for which there are no alternatives to affordably or immediately replace, and save them tens of thousands of dollars a year on necessary farming costs and operations.

I want to thank, again, our Conservative colleague from Huron—Bruce for giving us this common-sense opportunity to turn hurt into hope for Conservative farmers. I am proud of the agricultural sector in Lakeland and all across the country. I am grateful to all the farmers, producers, their families and their workers. That is why I support Bill C-234, and I encourage all MPs who claim to stand with Canadian farmers and ranchers to do the same.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C‑234, which may seem like a hijacking of the carbon pricing legislation, but in fact is not. This is an exceptional measure and the Bloc Québécois supports it. Pricing pollution to change behaviours is a good measure. It is smart to use regulation and taxation with the very specific intent to change behaviour and change the use of a combustible or a larger vehicle for something that is available.

In the case of agriculture, when it comes to drying grain and heating buildings in particular, these alternative solutions are not yet available nor economically viable at this time. A transition in these energy areas is not very likely for at least five years. When we tax with the view to change behaviour, but the behaviour cannot be changed, we essentially end up taxing for the sake of it. We end up increasing the cost of food and the cost of farming production while reducing farmers' margins when they are already so thin.

Farmers often wind up having to pay either for big corporations or domestic policies, with no control over the situation. Let us consider the 35% tax on Russian fertilizer. Everyone here is unanimous in wanting to support Ukraine and defend democracy. Everyone wants victory for the people of Ukraine and, ultimately, total and full protection of its territory, without giving anything away, not even Crimea, which has been occupied for much longer. However, who pays the price? Farmers in eastern Canada. They have no choice but to pay that 35% tax, which led to a hike in fertilizer prices elsewhere; however, it is mostly people in Quebec and eastern Canada who paid that tax.

The government says it will reimburse farmers and that these poor farmers matter to it, but it cannot even do that because the billing was a total mess. Some co-ops assumed the costs while others billed everyone, even if the fertilizer did not come from here. It is a total mess. Now, it is about to be included in a program for farmers. I hope that it will go to farmers who paid the tax. That is a lengthy aside, but everyone can see where I am going.

The government says that it knows that there are no alternative solutions right now, but that it must send a signal and that it will reimburse farmers. However, that is not what is happening according to what we are hearing from people in the sector. What people are telling us is that they are being reimbursed, but on a limited basis and that the process is very complicated because there are so many forms to fill out. The best way to help people in this situation is to create an exemption, which is what Bill C‑234 would do.

It is also important to understand that Bill C‑234 is in keeping with the spirit of the carbon pricing legislation, which already exists and exempts farming fuel. It is important that members of the House remember that Bill C‑234 already provides an exemption for farmers. It seems that the government forgot to include “propane” and “natural gas” in that section. These terms will be included so producers who need to dry grain and heat buildings, such as poultry barns where significant changes in temperature must be made quickly, can continue to operate their farms without having their production costs skyrocket needlessly.

I would remind the House that the transition is not feasible at this time. Why am I saying the transition is difficult or not feasible at this time?

Take, for example, electricity. According to testimony we heard, there are electric dryers that could have comparable efficiency. However, that requires access to power. Three-phase power is not available in 80% of rural Quebec. I am not sure what the situation is in the other provinces, but in Quebec it is not available everywhere, so farmers do not have access to it.

We can talk about biomass. Experiments are already being conducted on biomass. This could have potential, but it is very costly and its development is still in the very early stages. It is okay and its development is off to a good start, but it is not quite ready yet.

Then there is geothermal energy. This is another great alternative, except that geothermal heating does not allow for large variations in intensity. Grain that is damp when harvested needs to be dried, which requires intense heat for a short time. It is unfortunate, but the energy sources capable of doing that are still pretty limited. That is the idea behind Bill C‑234. The bill also addresses the exemption for the agricultural sector. I urge parliamentarians to always keep that in mind.

We will be talking about culture later. It is in some way a similar principle. We are negotiating free trade agreements and talking about the cultural exemption. We should talk more about the exemption for the agricultural sector. We need to give ourselves the power to protect key, sensitive sectors. Agriculture is the basis for everything.

Politically, farmers often have a hard time lobbying, because there are too few of them to have voting clout in the next election. We know how the four-year election system works. Perhaps this is an unwarranted judgment, but many politicians' decisions are geared towards the next election.

Someone told me something this week that struck me. I am trying to keep it in mind and use it: “There is a difference between politicians and statesmen. Politicians base their actions on the next election, while statesmen base theirs on the next generation.” That is what we must do. We have a duty, all of us here in the House, to be statesmen and vote for measures that are good for our society and the common good. That is why Bill C-234 must be passed.

I would like to reassure environmental groups that we did things properly. Some people wrote us to ask us what we were doing there and to tell us not to vote for this because it creates a carbon tax loophole. In my opinion, we are not talking about a loophole here. We are talking about a temporary exemption.

The members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food are so reasonable that, two years ago, in 2021, we voted on a similar bill, what was then Bill C-206. Two years ago, we said that we were going to grant an exemption, but it is not true that alternatives will never be available. If we want alternative solutions to be developed, then we need to send a message to that effect and offer an incentive for such solutions. We therefore included a 10-year sunset clause. We did that in 2021.

In 2023, we are again dealing with the same bill, because we have a minority government that really wants a majority. We do not know when it might get the urge to call another election. Let us hope that we will have time to complete the work on our bills.

Two years later, I can say the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food have been very consistent. To ensure that the duration is not extended, we included an eight-year sunset clause. Clearly, we work well together. I am proud of the members of the committee. Naturally, we do not always agree, but in general the members of this committee act as politicians should, in other words, they act for the good of the farming community and for the next generation, not the next election. There is a big difference there.

Passing Bill C-234 amounts to endorsing the principle of a fair and equitable transition for the people who feed us every day and who are currently facing a major challenge. That is the difference. I invite members to read Bill C‑234 carefully before voting and then vote in favour of it.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak to our opposition motion today because the carbon tax is asking all Canadians to pay more. It is asking seniors to pay more, young people to pay more, small business owners to pay more and certainly farmers to pay more, and I can say that farmers have paid more.

In fact, according to Statistics Canada, the 2022 crop year was the most expensive in Canadian history. On-farm expenses were more than $11 billion, 12% higher than the previous year, which is the highest increase in history in Canadian farming. According to the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, or APAS, many of its members saw their input costs go up seven times. Much of that can be attributed to the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition and their carbon tax.

Mary Robinson, the chair of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and a potato farmer from P.E.I., was at the agriculture committee yesterday and said that this year's crop year could be even more expensive than what we saw previously.

Farm families cannot afford this. This jeopardizes their ability to remain economically viable. Farmers cannot afford fertilizer, fuel or feed, and they cannot afford to put crops in the ground. As a result of that, we are seeing many of those on family farms throw up their hands and walk away. Farmers just simply cannot be sustainable when they are selling at a loss. We are no longer competitive on the global market.

These should be red flags and alarm bells for the current Liberal government, and they should be forcing it to change course. In fact, it is not changing course, but tripling down on its failed carbon tax policy. It is going to be tripling that carbon tax when Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table.

My colleague earlier said that the Liberals will argue that the carbon tax is an environmental plan to ensure that farmers are environmentally sustainable. Ironically, they have not hit a single emissions target they have set, proving that the carbon tax is a fallacy. More importantly, farmers cannot remain environmentally sustainable if they are not economically sustainable. They will simply cease to exist.

According to the records we have seen, farmers are having a difficult time remaining sustainable. Unlike most other industries in Canada, Canadian farmers in agriculture pay the carbon tax over and over again. They pay it when they buy fertilizer, buy feed, haul cattle or move grain. They pay the carbon tax from the rail companies, the trucking companies and the gas companies, over and over again.

What makes the carbon tax attack on Canadian farmers the most frustrating is that they are being punished instead of applauded for the work they do. Canadian agriculture has reduced its carbon footprint and emissions by 50% over the last two decades. At the same time, they have increased their yields by 60%. What other industry on Planet Earth can make such a claim? Farmers have done this while, at the same time, reducing their inputs, improving soil health, reducing water input use and becoming much more efficient.

Do members know why they have done this? They have not done it because they were punished with carbon taxes or because of government regulations and interference. They have done it because it is the right thing to do. They have done this on their own, by embracing technology and new innovation, and by embracing new practices such as 4R nutrient stewardship, zero till and precision agriculture. Again, they have done these things on their own because it is the right thing to do. It has improved their efficiency and production, but it was the right thing to do to protect the water, their soil and their animals.

Instead of being applauded for that, the Liberal government is punishing them. It is taxing them to produce food in the most sustainable way anywhere in the world. Not only is this punishing Canadian farmers, it is also punishing every single Canadian, because the carbon tax trickles through the supply chain.

We are seeing it from the farm gate to grocery store shelves, where tens of thousands of Canadians are struggling to be able to put food on the table, and the impact is very real. We see the cost of fruit and vegetables is up 13%. Bread and potatoes are up 15%, and pasta is up 30%. These are the essentials that Canadian families rely on every single day, but they are unable to afford those fundamental parts of their grocery bills because of a Liberal carbon tax that is only going to go higher and higher.

Again, the Liberals will argue that there is nothing to worry about here and that most Canadian families get more back than what they paid into the carbon tax. We need to end this revenue-neutral carbon tax myth right here, because we know, from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that it is factually not true. In fact, we had the Grain Farmers of Ontario appear at the agriculture committee and say they are getting about 13% to 15% back of what they spend on the carbon tax. That is a long way from revenue-neutral. I fact, the CFIB just ratified those numbers by saying that the average farmer, right now, is spending about $14,000 a year on the carbon tax. When it is increased on April 1, they will be paying $45,000 a year on the carbon tax.

Interestingly, when the Grain Farmers of Ontario and the CFIB came out with these numbers, which show that the carbon tax is clearly punishing Canadian farmers and rural Canadians, no one in the Liberal government disputed those numbers. No one came out to say it was revenue-neutral and that this was not true. The reason they are not coming out to question those numbers is that they know they are true. The narrative the Liberals are putting out there is a fallacy. The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral.

In fact, I have the member for Winnipeg North saying that is not the case. I asked Finance Canada, as a matter of fact, how much, on average, a Canadian farmer gets back on the carbon tax. Its answer was $800 a year, when they are paying $45,000. Math is not my strong suit, but I am pretty sure that is a pretty wide gap, comparing what farmers are paying to what they are getting back in the carbon tax. Every single Canadian is paying for that in their grocery bills, and Canadian farmers are certainly bearing the brunt of that.

In fact, there is a farmer from the Winnipeg area, the member may be interested to know, and his name was Jochum. He was at the agriculture committee, and he said that the carbon tax is currently costing him about $40,000 a year, and when the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition triples that carbon tax, he will be paying $136,000 a year. A recent report came out and said that after the carbon tax is tripled, an average 5,000-acre farm will be paying $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone. Anybody in the House can come and tell me, especially if they have a rural riding, about any of their farmers who can absorb that kind of cost. There is not one.

This is putting the economic sustainability of Canadian agriculture at risk and our food security at risk. Taxing farmers who are trying to produce food, when there is no other alternative to the fuels they use on-farm, is nonsensical. It makes no sense, especially when the Parliamentary Budget Officer has certified the numbers we are talking about here. It is by no means revenue-neutral, and our agriculture minister is complicit on this. She is saddling Canadian farmers with the crippling carbon tax. She voted against our bill, Bill C-206, which would have exempted the carbon tax from on-farm fuels, such as natural gas and propane.

However, as Conservatives, we have not given up the fight. We have brought back a private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would again exempt the carbon tax from on-farm fuels, such as propane and natural gas. That would help farmers trying to heat and cool their barns and dry their grain. These are essential for Canadian farmers to remain competitive and viable.

It is time to end the attacks on Canadian agriculture. It is time to stop the Liberals from looking at Canadian farmers as part of the problem, because indeed and in fact, Canadian farmers are part of the solution, and the carbon tax has got to go.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to get to my feet and second this bill from my friend from Huron—Bruce, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act or, what we more commonly call it, the farming exemption for the carbon tax.

I was able to join the Standing Committee on Agriculture when this bill was working its way through the agriculture committee. I want to thank my colleagues on the agriculture committee, the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, the member for Beauce, our shadow minister and member for Foothills, the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex as well, and it feels like I am applying to be the next Speaker but I assure you that this is not the case, and a wonderful Bloc member as well.

I agree with my NDP colleague that the agriculture committee does work very well together. There were some amendments that were agreed to by all members. I would like to thank them for their contribution to make sure that this got passed. It is a bill that is very important to the agriculture committee across the country and very important to our people in Saskatchewan, Alberta and western Canada.

We have talked about what is involved when one is adding natural gas and propane as an exemption to this bill, and grain dryers, irrigation pumps and heating of barns for livestock.

The numbers actually have not been gone through as well as I would like. I would like to put some of the numbers on the record as to how much money we are actually putting back into the pockets of farmers, so that they can reinvest in their farm and invest in new technology, so that they can become more environmentally sustainable, because that is a goal for them. The better their land is looked after, the more land they can put into production, the more we can help with the global food crisis.

We have some numbers from APAS, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan. It calculated the carbon tax, at $50 a tonne, will cost farmers between $13,000 to $17,000. That is an equivalent of a 12% decrease in net income.

One of the reasons why we want to get this bill passed as fast as we can is because, I do not know if we remember, in the recent election the Liberals promised that the carbon tax would never go over $50 a tonne. Well, they blew through that promise. By 2030, the carbon tax is going to be $170 a tonne. APAS said that at $170 a tonne, they estimate that the carbon tax will cost a grain farmer $12.52 per acre by 2030. Of that, $4.44 will be specifically for grain drying. That is a lot of money back into the pockets of our producers.

I think that this is something that we can all agree is a very good thing when it comes to innovation in the agricultural sector.

Some more numbers have come through. The Canola Growers Association calculated that the carbon tax actually cost the industry $52.1 million in 2022, at $50 a tonne, which they said they would never raise or pass, which we all know is not true now, and the end goal will be $277.9 million in 2030 at $170 a tonne.

I think that this is something that we hear a lot from agricultural producers. My colleague from the NDP is very correct in saying that a lot of producers and a lot of groups that represent producers across our country came to the agriculture committee and said that this is something that is very important for their industry.

I am happy that the NDP and the Bloc and the Conservatives voted in favour of moving this bill forward but the Liberals did not. However, they have another chance to actually stand up for agriculture producers in this country on the vote at third reading.

My hope is that there are a few who show the courage of the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert in breaking ranks and will actually join us in supporting our agriculture producers, because it is what the industry wants.

In January 2022, the PBO updated a report on what the cost would be for Bill C-206, and by cost, I mean the savings that will go back into the farmers' pockets. It is a cumulative total of $1.1 billion over a 10-year period.

Can members imagine the innovation and the inputs that money could be in farmers' pockets and back into innovation in the agriculture sector? I come from Saskatchewan, and we are big believers that a dollar in the pocket of someone who has earned that dollar is worth a lot more than a dollar in the pocket of the government.

We have seen all this innovation when it comes to soil health from our province. We have seen precision drilling. We have seen zero tillage, direct seeding and crop rotation. These are all things that were brought forward in our agriculture industry without a dime from government. It was private innovation, such as Seed Hawk, Bourgault, private companies that brought forward these innovations in the agriculture sector, that allowed us to maintain our soil health and to produce more, and that is something the world needs more of.

We say this in the chamber often, but time and time again we see the Liberal government try to hamstring our farmers in producing more of what the world needs. We talk about being a global supplier of food, but we are now talking about adding another carbon tax for farmers who are already struggling under the inputs they have.

My friend from Huron—Bruce was dead-on when he said that farms are like a carrying account where farmers put money into inputs and wait until the end of the year to see what they are going to get back from the AgriStability suite of programs. However, farmers cannot continue to carry those exorbitant input costs, such as fertilizer. The tariffs on fertilizer hit farmers a lot harder than they hit Russia, which got its money. The farmers had to pay more, because the supply was shortened.

When we talk about how we want to support, stand up and be there for our farmers, this is definitely a case where I would urge my Liberal colleagues to support this bill, because that would definitely be a demonstration of supporting our farmers and putting Canadian agriculture first. We do agriculture better than anyone else in the world, and we are proud of our farmers. We are proud of the hard work they put in.

I talked with the Minister of Agriculture at committee a couple of weeks ago, and she did not realize that 95% of Canadian farms are still family-owned and operated. Everyone has a picture of this big corporate farm in Canada now, because it is painted by the left, but it is not true. It is still Canadian families that run Canadian farms. Those are the people we are supporting with Bill C-234 today, and it is something that is very important for us to continue to do.

On the topic of the environment, I think the carbon tax has nothing to do with the environment; it is just a tax scheme. However, when we talk about agriculture and the environment, when we were able to present to the minister, we disagreed on the numbers. I told her that agriculture represents 8% of all the carbon emissions in Canada, but the minister said that figure was wrong and that it was 10%, which is as close as I have been to a Liberal on numbers in a long time, so I said, “All right, we'll meet in the middle and say it is 9%.”

If it is 9% of our emissions, the average in the world when it comes to agriculture emissions in other countries and other jurisdictions is 25%. That is how much better our agriculture producers are doing when it comes to lowering their emissions than their competition. In trumpeting that and being proud of how well our agriculture producers are doing and will continue to do, we are now asking the Liberals to vote in favour of Bill C-234, because it is the right thing to do. It would allow our farmers and producers to have more money in their pockets to invest in more innovation on their farms to ensure that we have even better environmental standards than we already do, and they will do it better than government.

Do members know what the government might do with $1.1 billion? I can guess that probably more of it would go to McKinsey & Company, their buddies and high-paid lobbyists. So why do we not put that money back into the farmers' pockets? They are going to spend it a lot better than the Liberal government.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nice to see you up in the chair today, so congratulations on the good job you are doing up there.

I look forward to hearing the member for Regina—Lewvan in his speech later today. It will be interesting to hear his perspective from Saskatchewan, after me or later in the hour.

This private member's bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. What does it mean? Basically, there is an issue on farm today in the four backstop provinces. Really the issue is around natural gas and propane. Therefore, for farmers who have livestock in their barn, whether it be hogs, small chicks in a chicken operation, layer hens or turkeys, or whatever it is, wherever there needs to be heat to make the animals safe and healthy, we are asking for an amendment, through the bill, so that the carbon tax would be taken off. That is a pretty reasonable ask.

In addition to that, on farm at harvest time when farmers are taking their crops off, they need to be dried in a reasonable period of time and they need to be dried to a reasonable percentage of moisture. If they are using natural gas or propane to do that, which almost everybody is, we are asking that the carbon tax be taken off those bills. That is basically what we are asking for. In addition, for people growing food in a building, like on a mushroom farm or something like that, we are asking for the tax to be taken off as well. This is a basic principle, in my opinion. While I am thinking about it, if people are flaking corn to feed to their feedlot or such on farm, that would be another application.

For some of these bills, somebody watching at home might think it is a couple of dollars here or a couple of dollars there. In actual fact, in some cases, the bills actually are quite substantial.

Before I get into this too far, I would also like to thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. He presented a similar bill in the previous Parliament: Bill C-206. He did a nice job on that and so I am kind of taking over the reins in this Parliament on the bill. As well, I would like to thank our agriculture critic, the member of Parliament for Foothills; the agriculture committee; and parliamentarians across many different parties who have indicated their support for this bill.

Most people here, in light of events of the last year and even longer, recognize the importance of having food security in Canada be the number one priority or in the top five priorities. To me, it is unethical for a government to do anything that would put the food security of the country at a potential risk. Food security should be of the utmost importance. Fortunately, in Canada, we rarely see our store shelves other than full. However, during COVID time, we saw that store shelves were not always full and some of the fear that set in among our population when that happens. Therefore, anything that we can do to help farmers and reduce their costs; provide certainty in their industry, as much as it can be in farming; and enable them to deliver healthy, wholesome products to consumers should be on our minds at all times here in Parliament.

In addition to that, let us think about what takes place on a farm besides farming. Farmers are nature's stewards. Whether they have 100 acres or 5,000 acres, they are nature's stewards. They maintain the woodlots on their farms. They cherish those. They spend a lot of time in those to make sure the biodiversity is there and everything else is taken care of. In the fields and hills, whatever is the layout of their farm, they may do no-till drilling and they may do cover crops in the fall. They do ethical crop rotations throughout a normal cycle, meaning they could plant corn in one period of time and at a later period of time another crop in the basic rotation.

In Ontario, we have corn, beans, wheat and maybe a pasture for a while. This is what farmers do because they love farming. It is a multi-generational profession. It is a calling. If the farm is not healthy, if the soil is not healthy, the bottom line is not healthy. Farmers always realize this.

In addition to this, a number of years ago in a previous government, we also implemented changes to the regulations on diesel engines, for NOx and SOx. Even the combustion engines on farms today are a much cleaner version than their predecessors.

These are some important points I feel, in the debate that we are having today and we had in the previous Parliament, add some context to what we are doing.

I have heard this from some members of Parliament when talking about the rebate that was introduced in the fall statement a while ago, on the per $1,000 rebate. It was $1.47 and I believe in the next calendar year, it was $1.73 per $1,000. This is an important point to highlight the ineffectiveness of this rebate.

I will just give a brief overview. A friend of mine is a pork farmer and he sent me a bill over a year ago. I will just read it out to members. He has a sizable hog farm in the region. He sent me his heating bill for the period of November 30 to December 31, 2021. He is fortunate enough that his farm uses natural gas; it is an Enbridge bill. This is for the month of December.

The customer was charged delivery, admin fee, transportation by Enbridge, and gas supply charge for one month on one of his pig barns was just under $8,500 before the carbon tax. The carbon tax on that bill was $2,918. If we factor that into an $8,400 bill for one month, that gives us an indication of the carbon tax that they were paying. We know that rate is increasing in 2023.

In addition to that, they also pay HST on that bill. They can get a rebate for that on their input tax credit, but depending on their filing, that rebate could be some time away.

Let us look at that bill of $8,473 and the $2,918 on the carbon tax. Remember earlier I said the rebate is $1.47 per $1,000 and moving up to $1.73 per $1,000. The rebate this farmer will receive on his allowable expenses is under $15. If we think about it, it is per $1,000. He has paid over $2,900 on the carbon tax and he gets $15 back.

He is not producing widgets. He is producing food that will go on the plates of Ontarians and Canadians from one coast to the other. That gives members an idea, because that will likely come up today, about the rebate. The rebate falls very short.

The other point I would like to mention, and I will give credit to my colleagues from the Bloc and NDP, because they made a comment, which is pretty straightforward, that there is no other option. We also understand this. There is no other viable option out there today.

To dry corn in the fall in a reasonable period of time, farmers need a fossil fuel. They need propane or natural gas. Solar is not going to do it. It would not do it and it certainly is not going to do it in the month of October. That is the reality. When the Bloc and NDP see it that way, that is a logical step for them to make and a logical point to make.

There are no viable options today to heat one's barn other than propane or natural gas. Maybe down the road there will be. There was a Liberal member of Parliament who talked about heat pumps. Well, it will not be today or tomorrow, but maybe some day way out in the future, that will be viable option.

The other comment from the same member of Parliament was that maybe, if farmers insulated their barns better, it might help fix the problem. However, we are not talking about Old MacDonald's barn. These are, in most cases, modern-built barns, which obviously fit within the Canadian building code. In my province we have Ontario's building code, so obviously, snow load, insulation, etc. are all taken care of.

Thinking about some other way to heat one's barn is certainly a noble venture for the future. I think we could all support that. We can always look for ways to improve insulation, but let us be real. It is not like these barns are not insulated. Yes, if one goes to their grandpa's bank barn that was built in 1881, it may not have as much insulation, but that is not the case for the majority of barns, and certainly when we get into poultry and pork today, that is obviously not the case.

Another issue I take issue with, and most members of Parliament who represent rural ridings would see this as well, is that farmers are always asked to be the government's line of credit. What I mean is that, when we look at our business risk management programs, which include AgriStability and others, farmers pay their money to qualify to be in the program. They see how the year goes, make a submission with their accountant and then find out if they will get any money back with the agricultural stabilization program. However, that whole time, they are the government's line of credit.

In addition to that, with the HST that I mentioned before, if a farmer makes a large purchase, it could be holding tens of thousands of dollars of HST that farmer is owed. In some cases, it is for months, and in some cases that we have had in our office, it is close to a year. Therefore, there are issues that are kind of ongoing.

In the case of the Liberal's rebate program, we are once again asking farmers to be a line of credit, and I do not think that is fair. Agriculture is not an industry that has 70% gross margins. These are modest margins, so this is a way to help out.

Agriculture is the top economic driver in the province of Ontario, where I represent, and other members of Parliament who are here for their province, and it may be one, two or three, know that farmers are price-takers, not price-makers. There are world events that take place. There is the Midwest harvest, the harvest in Brazil, Chicago, ports, rails, conflicts in Ukraine and other places, and they all affect what happens down the country gravel roads in my riding and many others. These are the ways we can help them out.

Input prices are rising. It is incredible. I was at both cattle producers' AGMs in my riding, and it was amazing to hear what their input costs are, as well as interest rates. For anybody who carries an operating line of credit, it is staggering how much, in 12 to 15 months, this has changed their position.

If we think about it, people go to the grocery store every day and wonder how it could cost so much. Just something like this is a good indication of where inflation begins. Anything we can do to help consumers out and help farmers out, I think we should get behind in the House of Commons. In addition, as I said, there are no other options out there today. Any support we can have, I appreciate.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

I wish I knew the answer. I think that's the coefficient we need to get to, at least for the government to better understand exactly what the impact is going to be.

We've seen some polices in recent years that are, honestly, unfairly penalizing farmers. Farmers are price-takers and they have to absorb the carbon tax.

I have actually testified before the finance committee, I believe, on Bill C-206. My position was very clear. I think it's important to recognize each and every node within the supply chain and how the carbon tax is impacting each and every one of them.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I do want to move LIB-2 without paragraph (a).

Do I need to read it into the record? You all have it, so it should be fine.

Let me give you the rationale.

The original bill, Bill C-206, which Bill C-234 is based on, recommended a 10-year exemption. It's already been two years. It would follow very logically that another eight years is rational.

Certainly we've heard some testimony that the technology needs to adopted more quickly. I think the government can help with that. An eight-year timeline seems to me to be consistent with a lot of the testimony we've heard. There were witnesses who said that it's a moving target. They weren't sure whether a longer or shorter period was needed. We did hear testimony on that. I don't have all the testimony in front of me right now, but if one wished, I could look it up. However, I recollect pretty clearly that there were some different timelines given, based on different witnesses and their expert advice.

I'll leave it at that. I think eight years is better than 10 for those reasons.

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

I was a bit confused by the comment about this amendment broadening the bill. If CPC-1 passes, along with CPC-2, we're essentially going back to the way the act is currently written. I don't see how that's going to be broadening it.

I know it's a confusing way. It took me a few times to read through it. It's more complex than what I had proposed for Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament, but I'm confident—and I think the legislative clerk has nodded a few times—that if these two are passed, we're essentially going to revert to how the statute is currently written.

Opposition Motion—Tax Exemption on Home Heating Fuel

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

I rise today to discuss our party's opposition motion introduced by my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn.

Since the Liberal government is so out of touch with reality, our party felt it was essential to present this motion today to give Canadians a break during this very important period, when inflation remains high and interest rates continue to climb.

The current government likes to boast about its latest announcements, such as day cares and dental care, but it fails to realize that it will literally leave many Canadians out in the cold this winter. Some of my fellow citizens will need to choose between heating their home this winter and putting food on the table.

As we noted in our motion, one in 10 Canadian homes is heated by propane or oil. These Canadians actually do not have the financial means to chose another option, but the government will continue to treat them like second-class citizens, tripling the carbon tax over the winter. What a wonderful Christmas gift from our Prime Minister.

The gap between urban and rural areas has only grown under the leadership of this Prime Minister. He does not seem to understand that Canadians in rural areas are not second-class citizens. They want to prosper too, but his government is letting them down every time, whether a lack of cell coverage, defective Internet or this irrational tax that will triple during our country's coldest season. In the regions, there is no choice but to use a vehicle, whether to go to work, do grocery shopping or drive children to various activities. This tax is stifling them even more.

When housing prices have never been higher, food prices have not been as high since 1981 with an inflation rate of 11.4%, the government thinks it is the time to increase the carbon tax even more. I suppose these inflationist polices were passed on from generation to generation.

Do members know who the prime minister was in 1981? It was Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember it well because my spouse and I were a young couple with three young children. With high interest rates and inflation above 10%, we had to make difficult choices. Luckily, we had our parents to help us make ends meet. They were very difficult times. We can see the cycle repeating itself.

We all know that government members will stand up and say that inflation is a global phenomenon, but this made-in-Canada inflation cannot be blamed entirely on Putin and COVID-19. Decisions are being made at the Liberal cabinet table. It is obvious to me that those folks are completely out of touch with reality and what is really going on.

I can assure this House that the numbers would be a lot better if a Conservative government were in power. The Conservatives have been proposing solutions all along, but none of our suggestions have been taken seriously, because they do not revolve around taxing Canadians in order to recover funds to pay for the reckless spending and deficits the likes of which we had never seen before the current Prime Minister took office.

The costly coalition with the NDP has turned into a nightmare, as the New Democrats continue to prop up the government and try to convince Canadians to support it. A government that stands up for Canadians would never triple a tax in the winter or raise taxes on Canadians' paycheques.

Canadians work so hard. Why take away even more purchasing power at a time when they need it so much?

In my riding, residents have a hard time making ends meet. In Beauce, like everywhere in Canada, people work hard. They own and operate businesses and help their neighbours. In my riding, the unemployment rate is currently 1.8%. People are exhausted. They are tired of seeing the federal government dig deeper and deeper into their pockets at a time when they need their hard-earned money the most.

Surely the government will tell me about its $10-a-day day cares or the dental care they are currently imposing on us. First, I must say that Quebec has had its own day care system for many years now. Second, I can guarantee that a single mother in my riding would prefer to keep the heat on in her home or put food on the table to feed her family than have her children's teeth cleaned right now.

All that is part of the agreement of convenience with the NDP. Before the costly coalition was established, I had never heard the Liberal Party talk about dental care. It is all just a scheme to continue undermining democracy with this coalition that no one in Canada asked for.

As indicated in the text of our motion, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking for this same exemption, and our party has worked to do the same. This government's carbon tax makes no sense, particularly in relation to home heating. No one will turn down the heat in their home in the winter when it is bitter cold to reduce carbon consumption. I think people instead need to heat their homes to survive.

Our party tabled under private members' business a bill similar to Bill C‑206, which was not passed due to the needless election call last year. Bill C‑234, which is currently in committee, will help farmers keep their livestock and animals safe and warm during the winter. That bill has the support of all the parties, except one. We can guess that it is the Liberal Party.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my opinion: This winter, Canadians should not have to choose between heat and food. The Liberals must open their eyes and see the damage they are causing. Maybe they should listen to several of their colleagues in the House, and our party, because they are about to commit a serious mistake on January 1, 2023.

The leader of the Conservative Party and our united caucus will not stop until the Prime Minister has heard us. We are here for Canadians, and even more importantly, I am here to protect Beauce. I hope that the government will both hear and understand my message today.

[Tom L. Green, Senior Climate Policy Advisor, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again. It's always good to be here at this committee.

Bill C-234, like Bill C-206 before it, proposes amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

First, I want to begin with reiterating some reasons why Canada's pollution pricing system is so important. I also note that since I last spoke, Bill C-8 recycles revenue from the four backstop provinces to farmers.

I'm speaking to you today from Vancouver, where we are constantly reminded of how the combustion of fossil fuels is accelerating climate change—from wildfire smoke, to a heat dome that killed over 500 people, to atmospheric rivers that destroyed critical infrastructure. Obviously, farmers are being affected by all of these trends.

We are concerned and disappointed that some politicians are spreading misinformation about pollution pricing and misrepresenting the impacts of this key climate policy, even taking advantage of price increases in world oil and gas markets caused by Russia's unjust war of aggression on Ukraine to advance misleading arguments. We have even heard statements in the House recently suggesting that the carbon price is ineffective.

When it comes to affordability concerns, let's remember that 90% of the revenue collected through the federal fuel charge is returned to households in provinces where the backstop applies. Most households actually were served more from the climate action incentive than they paid. Second, provinces have the option of designing their own pollution pricing schemes and deciding how to recycle revenue to households and businesses. They can also address competitiveness concerns.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development audited Canada's approach to carbon pricing, and a report was tabled last spring. It stated that there was broad consensus among expert international bodies such as the World Bank, the OECD and the IMF that carbon pricing is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They also stated that carbon pricing is broadly recognized as one of the most efficient policy approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We note with concern that some politicians are saying that pricing pollution is not working, despite the fact that it is one of the most effective policies to reduce emissions. In B.C., we have had a price on carbon for a longer time period, and the benefits are already accruing, with a 19% reduction in transportation sector emissions.

We agree that it's important to get pollution pricing right, and there's room for improvement in both implementation and complementary measures to address disproportionate burden where these occur, but that's not what Bill C-234 proposes. Instead, it would set Canada on a slippery slope of sector-by-sector and interest-by-interest exemptions that risk fundamentally undermining the GGPPA as an economy-wide measure. Each sector can be advancing similar arguments as those being made before the committee today. If all of those arguments were heeded, pollution pricing would be eviscerated.

Furthermore, Bill C-8 ensured that proceeds from the carbon levy on fuels used on farms in backstop provinces are now returned to farmers in a manner that doesn't undermine the incentive to abate pollution. If the current bill passes, farmers will get a duplicate of pollution pricing relief.

One argument being advanced in favour of Bill C-234 is that there are no available fossil-free technologies for grain drying or heating agricultural buildings, so pollution should not be priced until such technologies are available. However, this causes a chicken-and-egg problem, because there is less incentive for firms to innovate and offer lower- or zero-carbon solutions if there is no predictable financial incentive to reduce emissions. Furthermore, such technologies are already appearing on the market, such as heat pump dryers or ways of heating buildings.

To help the agricultural sector, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada launched the agricultural clean technology program in 2021.

I had the opportunity to testify before you a year ago, and I refer you to my remarks explaining why the exemption is fraught and a slippery slope to undermining carbon pricing. I also reiterate that, like Bill C-206, Bill C-234 would entail a new fossil fuel subsidy at a time when Canada has committed to reduce these emissions.

The David Suzuki Foundation urges the committee to reject Bill C-234 and turn their attention to better ways in which the federal and provincial governments can support farmers in the transition to net zero. There are other solutions that merit your attention. For instance, we have recently published a major study modelling on expanding clean electricity supply across Canada and the pivotal importance of electrification so as to swap out fossil fuels across the economy. We suggest the committee could, for instance, investigate how farms can have sufficient access to a supply of affordable, zero-emissions electricity.

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

[Branden Leslie]

With Bill C-206, in the previous Parliament, the criticism of the bill then was that it was overly broad. I believe the intention of bringing in language such as the example of heating or cooling of livestock barns is meant to actually narrow that a little so that it could be a little more specific.

I would be hesitant, unless we're very careful to make sure that we're not accidentally going back to being what was feared to be too broad in the last version of this bill.

The way it's currently written, I would view it as covering off enough from an example standpoint. I think it's important to note that.... The reason it's important for this to be there is that this is not about the heating or cooling of a house. This is not about a home on a farmyard, which generally would be split from the natural gas connection. That is not covered by this. We don't want to remove the pricing signal from that aspect of the operation. This is meant to be about the farm itself.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

I understand that one change to Bill C-234 that was not in the previous bill from the last Parliament, Bill C-206, is that the new one allows for the heating and cooling of barns or structures “including those used for raising or housing livestock”.

The language seems overly broad. What would you say to amending the bill to ensure it's clear that the heating and cooling exemption is only for buildings used for raising or housing livestock?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I don't know if Mr. Orb can hear the question. If not, I'll ask someone else to answer.

With respect to Bill C‑206, which we studied in the last Parliament, an exemption for farm buildings was added to the bill. Is it as essential to have an exemption for farm buildings as it is for grain drying?

[Raymond Orb, President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ray Orb and I'm president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, known as SARM. I was born and raised and I live in the small community of Cupar, northeast of Regina, with a population of 625 people.

I'd like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the opportunity to share our association's thoughts as the committee studies Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Our membership is made up of Saskatchewan's rural municipal governments. SARM has been the voice of rural Saskatchewan for over 100 years. Today I will share the perspective of those we represent by sharing our thoughts on how the bill being proposed would impact our livelihood in rural Saskatchewan.

Bill C-234 picks up where Bill C-206 left off in the last Parliament before the federal election. As you know, Bill C-206 was passed by the House of Commons but not fully approved by the Senate.

As we were supportive of Bill C-206, we at SARM are supportive of Bill C-234 right now. This bill would provide much-needed economic relief for our members, freeing up the working capital they need to implement innovations on their farms.

Grain dryers are used to help dry wet grains so they can be properly stored. In recent years in Canada, the fall season has been particularly wet, creating a need to use the grain dryers. In 2020, grain dryers were running for a record amount of time, and farmers paid more than the federal government carbon tax estimate. Recent studies have shown that Saskatchewan farmers can expect to lose 8% of their total net income to the carbon tax. For a household managing a 5,000 acre grain farm in Saskatchewan, this will take the form of $8,000 to $10,000.

Our members have been very concerned about the impact of the federal carbon pricing system on unavoidable energy inputs like fuel to dry grain or heat livestock facilities. We have argued for years that producers cannot pass these additional costs along to our customers and that they further reduce our financial viability. The additional costs of carbon taxation do not help solve the problem of carbon emissions.

Saskatchewan has some of the greenest agriculture producers in the world. Most cropland is zero-till. This means that our producers use a low-disturbance direct seeding system. Not only does zero-till agriculture sink more carbon, but it also reduces soil erosion and the amount of fuel required on farms. The Saskatchewan Soil Conservation Association has been studying carbon sequestration for years, and through their research they found that Saskatchewan producers sequester 9.64 million new tonnes of carbon dioxide every year over 28 million acres.

Taxation on food production is short-sighted and not a solution. If we do not work together to find solutions, we will see even more decreases in the number of farmers and farms in Canada, and we will lose the food security we have.

In closing, on behalf of Saskatchewan's rural municipalities and rural Saskatchewan, we thank the standing committee for the opportunity to lend our voice to this important conversation. We look forward to continued dialogue as we all work together to further the best interests of all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Dave Carey]

I'm not a lawyer, but it's certainly.... Greenhouses already have an 80% exemption currently, so the parent legislation referred to earlier is certainly already there. I would certainly defer to the lawyers and drafters, but the intention of the bill is that it be for a building that heats or cools livestock or for greenhouses. As long as that is there, I wouldn't want to get overly prescriptive with the committee.

We did hear the CRA say on the last iteration of Bill C-206 that it was too broad and too vague. I believe the intention of this bill is actually to be more specific, recognizing that what you might call a building or something in one province might be different in another province.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to continue on the same line of questioning.

One of the big differences between Bill C-234 and the previous bill, Bill C-206, is the addition of a new paragraph 1(1)(b.1) that defines “eligible farming machinery” as:

property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure, including those used for raising or housing livestock;

When I first read this, it seemed to be fairly vague.

Mr. Carey, I think you mentioned earlier that you definitely want to see greenhouses and livestock mentioned. Do you think the wording could be tightened up a little bit in this particular section?

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

This is my final question.

I live in British Columbia, so this conversation that we're having is not going to really impact me, but I am curious. B.C. is not known as a major grain producer, but we do have the Peace region. I think there are roughly 380,000 acres in grain production up in the Peace region.

Bill C-206 made it to the doorstep of the Senate in the previous Parliament. If Bill C-234 goes the distance and we see this actual change to the federal legislation, what's your understanding of how that will impact provinces that don't fall under the federal...? Will it have some spinoff effects in B.C.?

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

Thank you.

I appreciate your comments on the sunset clause. That's certainly what our committee explored when we reported Bill C-206 back to the House in the previous Parliament.

You have already talked about the state of technology. We know that it's developing, and we certainly heard from a number of witnesses in the previous Parliament that it is not yet commercially viable.

There's a new addition to this bill in “property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure, including those used for raising or housing livestock”. I understand that you may think a sunset clause on that might be viable, but what do you think about the current language of it? Do you think it's open to too much interpretation in the number of buildings that could qualify?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

When you say we need to help farmers make the transition, I agree with you too, but wouldn't it be reasonable to allow some time for adjustment?

For example, you will recall that Bill C‑206 included a time limit provision.

What is your opinion on this issue?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Boisseau‑Bouvier, you said earlier that we need to keep a strong price signal to encourage the transition. We all agree with that. However, when it comes to grain drying, several witnesses said during the study of Bill C‑206 that we don't have economically viable alternatives at this time.

Are you aware of any economically viable alternatives to propane, especially for grain drying?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

One of the differences in Bill C-234, compared to Bill C-206, is the inclusion of animal housing areas. In this regard, there are solutions that already exist to get away from fossil fuels. There is an opportunity for the government to encourage those alternatives, whether it's improving the insulation and ventilation of those buildings or installing heat pumps that will make the energy system more efficient, for example. Electrical input changes can also be made. We know that our farmers often live at the end of a road, so these changes can be costly. The government can provide grants for this. These are all tools that are in the hands of the government and that make it possible to promote solutions that are sustainable and that make it possible to heat a building, for example, using renewable energy.

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, Climate Policy Analyst, Équiterre]

Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, good afternoon. My name is Émile Boisseau-Bouvier and I am a climate policy analyst at Équiterre.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C‑234 with you, as I was able to do alongside my colleague on Bill C‑206.

I will first say a few words about Équiterre. We are an environmental NGO that founded the Family Farmers Network in Quebec. In addition, we currently have a technology showcase project on health, soil conservation and regenerative practices. We have participated in the consultations for the next agricultural policy framework. Finally, we are working with producers, institutional buyers and policy-makers to implement solutions to build an agriculture that is more resilient and sustainable.

Of course, we also have expertise in climate issues. In recent years, we have defended federal jurisdiction over a carbon pricing system in the Supreme Court because we believe that a price signal is needed to guide individual and collective decisions.

We are also working on the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. If we are to meet our climate goals, Canada cannot continue to be the largest provider of subsidies and public support for fossil fuels in the G20.

Let's now get to the heart of the matter.

Bill C‑234 essentially replicates former Bill C‑206 with some clarifications regarding the use of fossil fuels to heat or cool a building that houses animals, or to dry grain. However, much has changed since Bill C-206 was originally introduced in February 2020.

First, since the passage of Bill C‑8, the government has been returning proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in provinces that are subject to the federal safety net.

However, most importantly, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada launched the agricultural clean technology program in 2021, which provides $50 million to help farmers purchase more efficient grain dryers and replace hydrocarbons. The program also focuses on research and innovation, particularly in the areas of green energy and energy efficiency. Ultimately, these are investments that will accelerate and facilitate producers' transition away from fossil fuels.

You will agree that Bill C-8, passed last June, addresses the very real problem raised by Bill C-234 without weakening the principle of carbon pricing. This is an approach we encourage you to pursue and enhance, rather than the one presented to us today.

We agree with providing assistance to farmers, but we cannot agree with systematizing the erosion of carbon pricing mechanisms. The transition must begin quickly.

I want to take a moment to say that we understand the farmers who are experiencing increased stress owing to increasing extreme weather events and the current economic context. We suggest that they be helped financially by promoting sustainable alternatives. This is a potential solution that, again, already exists.

I would now like to remind you of Canada's commitments on fossil fuel subsidies.

Canada made a commitment in 2009 to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. It has since consistently reiterated that commitment in various international forums. Last year, the government moved the deadline for its commitment closer to 2023 instead of 2025. The year 2023 is just around the corner.

Bill C-234, which is being considered today, proposes to exempt new fossil fuels and new activities from carbon pricing. If passed, the bill would artificially reduce the price of fossil fuels and increase their competitive advantage. In short, it would be another subsidy for fossil fuels, even as we have committed to eliminating them by next year.

In conclusion, while this bill is presented as a plan to help farmers, it instead creates conditions that are conducive to maintaining the dependence of agricultural activities on fossil fuels.

It is also a bill that, from my reading of it, would conflict with Canada's national and international commitments on fossil fuel subsidies.

Given the many advancements since 2020, it would be in the best interest of the agricultural sector, its operators and workers for this committee to quickly consider how to promote alternatives to fossil fuel grain drying and building heating. We have an opportunity to help transition the sector away from fossil fuels; this opportunity should not be missed.

Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer your questions.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that clarification. That's helpful. We certainly want to avoid double payment at all cost, I'm sure.

I'll move on to another question, about understanding the real impacts of the price on pollution related to farm viability. We've heard from the farming community and stakeholders about the increasing cost to farmers and the result of the price on pollution, often referencing tens of thousands of dollars on top of the already high cost for fuel that's needed to dry grain. However, in previous testimony on Bill C-206, the Pembina Institute stated:

...the impact of the cost of carbon pricing in relation to grain drying, which is not exempt, ranges from 0.05% to 0.38% of net operating costs for an average farm, equivalent to $210 to $774.

This is a lot less than what some stakeholders have told us. I'm not saying that I would know the difference, but I'm wondering whether we can get some clarity from you or Ms. Kim as to how much the price of pollution is really affecting farm viability. Do we know that, especially for grain drying?

Thank you.

Mr. Jovanovic, I'll go to you first.

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

I know from talking with Philip, in the last Parliament, about one thing that led to Bill C-206. We heard mention of the so-called “harvest from hell”—the really wet harvest that forced a lot of farmers to run their grain dryers overtime. It really ballooned their costs.

The irony, though, is that those extreme wet-weather events are going to become more and more frequent, thanks to climate change. A common refrain we hear at this committee is that farmers are on the front line of climate change.

In the time you took to draft Bill C-234, did you reach out to any of the farmers being impacted in that way and seeing increasing frequency in the use of their grain dryers?

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Lobb.

I think we can all agree that this is one of the best committees, if not the best, and we're all trying to work together here and make lives better for farmers.

In the last Parliament, it was nice to see Bill C-206 clear the House of Commons. We delivered it to the Senate, but unfortunately it was interrupted by an election.

However, maybe you could tell me what some of your big takeaways were when you looked at the journey that Bill C-206 took through the legislative process. What were your big takeaways, and how did that influence how you drafted Bill C-234?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Bill C‑206 refers to heating buildings. That was not included in the bill initially. We had talked about it, but it was not included. It is in the bill now.

For heating, are there more alternatives or is it the same situation? I am talking about heating buildings.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lobb, thank you for being here today.

When we receive alerts like the one we just got, we know it is high time for action on climate change. It is important.

Mr. Lobb, we also studied Bill C‑206, a very similar bill. We talked a lot about possible alternatives. Can you tell us what the current alternatives are for farmers, specifically for grain drying?

It is relevant to talk about the carbon tax to the extent that farmers have a choice. Do farmers have a choice currently, specifically for grain drying?

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

Okay.

This was also a point of discussion with Bill C-206. Would you be open to some amendments to your bill? For instance, we know that some technology is catching up. There are biomass grain dryers right now. I'll be forthright with you that they're not completely or all available to the market, but there are technologies in southwestern Ontario, where I know some farmers.... We've helped fund that particular technology. He's testing it with corn right now. He's paying zero carbon tax because he's adopted a biomass technology for grain dryers.

The point is that we are trying to decarbonize inputs, and that's what the carbon levy does, but I do recognize that right now technology is scarce for grain dryers. It's there, but it's not completely there yet.

Would you be open to having an amendment to put a timeline on that particular exemption?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the agriculture committee, Mr. Lobb. I know you have the opportunity to represent the second-best riding in Ontario. I don't want to make anyone jealous, but I do have the opportunity to visit your riding often, with my in-laws living there.

Mr. Epp touched a little bit on a key difference between Bill C-206 and Bill C-234. Mr. Lawrence's previous bill touched on qualifying fuels. You're focusing on property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling.

Why does your bill differ from Mr. Lawrence's bill?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the chamber and speak on behalf of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington and, indeed, on behalf of agriculture across Canada.

I am also pleased to speak to my colleague from Huron—Bruce's private member's bill, Bill C-234, which affects so many constituents, including our own family farm.

The bill seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by adding natural gas and propane to the list of qualifying farm fuels, and that is for the purposes of both grain drying and heating and cooling farm buildings.

I did have the opportunity to speak to this bill's predecessor, Bill C-206, in the previous Parliament where it was passed, only to die in the other place when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election.

Our farmers are the first environmentalists and our farmers are great competitors. They can hold their own against anyone, but not with one arm tied behind their back. They cannot continue to be first-rate environmentalists when they are hamstrung by policies that their competitors do not face.

Before getting into the specifics of this bill, I wish to remark on four different framing points that will outline where I am going.

One, as I just stated, as individuals, farmers are environmentalists by nature and by necessity. The drive to leave the land in a better condition than when they found it is innate to every farmer that I know. Farmers are environmentalists by necessity. It is the condition of their land, the condition of their flocks and of their herd that supplies the farm family with a return on their labour, on their investments and on their inputs, so it is in their own self-interest to leave the vehicle of their own prosperity in better condition for the next generation.

Two, collectively, agriculture has a strong record of reducing its environmental footprint, be it through the adoption of low till or no till; be it through the refinement of working through nutrients, such as through the lens of the 4Rs, putting the right nutrient at the right place at the right time with the right amount; be it through more intensive use of cover cropping or rotational grazing. Farmers have largely done all of this without regulation and without additional taxation or without an additional government-imposed price signal. I will come back to that point in a moment.

Three, agriculture has a strong record of innovation, of adopting new technologies, such as the use of GPS technology on the farm, the use of variable rate technology in seeding and in crop protection products, robotics in our dairy sector, and climate controls and automation in our greenhouse sector. Believe me, as soon as a viable commercial alternative to fossil fuels is available in rural Canada, farmers will adopt it and quickly, without the stick or a price signal embedded in a tax. That leads me to my final framing point.

Four, by and large, farmers are price takers. They cannot effectively pass along cost-input increases to their buyers.

Let these four points set the stage for my remarks on Bill C-234. When we initially debated its predecessor, Bill C-206, the harvest from hell in 2019 had just occurred in western Canada. That really demonstrated the need for this carbon tax exemption. It was a particularly wet fall where, with frost and rainfall, et cetera, interrupting the harvest, the use of natural gas and propane was required to put the grain into a storable condition.

Farming in Ontario and in eastern Canada requires the use of grain dryers each and every year, particularly for grain corn, but also for soybeans, wheat, canola, oats, et cetera.

When we studied Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament at committee, we did look at alternatives to fossil fuels. In many parts of our economy, electrification is a potential alternative, but given the obvious nature of agriculture being situated in rural Canada and the lack of our grid capacity, this is simply a non-starter.

We also looked at a second option, and that was the use of crop residues as a fuel source. That means gathering them after harvest and then burning them in heaters. While there are some prototypes being trialed, they are simply not available at scale.

Even more problematic with this approach, crop residues are incorporated into the soil or are left on the surface, and they become organic matter for our soils. They sequester carbon and they increase soil organic matter levels, which help both with crop production and our climate goals.

The voluntary adoption of reduced or eliminated tillage provided improvements in soil moisture retention, a reduction of soil erosion and, of course, an increase in carbon sequestration, all without the imposition of a tax. This is something that was not acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

It does not make sense to apply a tax to reverse the environmental improvements that the farmers put in place voluntarily. However, the question remains, does it make any sense at all to apply such a tax on fossil fuels to increase the agricultural community's focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels? The answer to that is no, for several reasons.

There simply are not commercially viable, scalable alternatives to using natural gas and propane available today, but because there are not viable alternatives, the demand for fuel tends to remain unaffected by price. That makes these additional fuel charges simply an additional tax and an inefficient policy to lower carbon emissions. This very fact was confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The recent budget, which has been alluded to in other speeches here this evening, did put some more funds into the agricultural clean technology fund to upgrade present drying systems to a higher efficiency, but these funds only have the potential to update 500 of the 50,000 grain dryers across Canada. That is 1% of them.

Also, as opposed to granting an exemption from paying the carbon tax, they have proposed in Bill C-8 a rebate program to maintain, in their words, a “price signal” to the farm community to change their ways even though there are no viable alternatives.

I explored with several of my constituents the impact of these two approaches. My riding is a large rectangle and in the northeastern corner, Ron and Francine Verhelle farm with their family. This past year, they needed 89,670 litres of propane to dry their almost 7,000 tonnes of corn. They paid over $5,550 in carbon tax. If the 2022 conditions on their farm are the same, they are anticipating that cost to go up to almost $7,000 this year. Under the Liberal plan, the eligible farm costs on their farm would have to be over $3.2 million using the planned $1.73 per thousand in eligible farm expenses in order for that rebate to recoup their carbon tax cost. Farm input costs are definitely skyrocketing, but fortunately they will not be that high or no farmer will be in business this coming year.

Paul Tiessen and his family farm just down the road from my home farm. They are a third generation grain farm and their total natural gas bill for 2021 to dry 107,000 bushels, or just over 2,900 tonnes, of corn this past year was $10,010, of which almost $2,500 was a carbon tax. Under the Liberal proposal that would have been in place for 2021 rebating back $1.47 per thousand in expenses, they would only get a fraction of their carbon tax cost returns from this past crop.

My final point is simply to call for basic fairness in the marketplace. Our Canadian grain competes directly with American grain. It is priced off of the Chicago Board of Trade. No customer of grain will pay more for Canadian grain because it incurs a carbon tax, not if they can source it from the Americans.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act did exempt gasoline and diesel fuel on the farm for this very reason and Bill C-234 is looking to correct the oversight regarding natural gas and propane for grain drying and barn heating and cooling.

Surely if the government cannot control its spending ways, it does not have to use farmers' bank accounts as a cashflow mechanism to finance its own spending. Making farmers pay this carbon tax in the fall and then having them file their taxes the following spring to apply for a rebate, all that does is return a portion of their costs plus now incurring all the administrative costs on the farm and the administrative burden on government to manage this program.

In fact, this past budget estimated that cost for the government alone to be $30 million. What does that do? All that does is serve to increase the size of government and not add any additional value to our climate goals.

In conclusion, I would again urge all members of the House to support passing a bill that removes the potential of being at cross purposes for lower greenhouse gas emissions. Please support the removal of a tax where the users have absolutely no viable options and please support basic inherent market fairness.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that it is an incentive. For an incentive to lead to a transition, there needs to be a possibility for change.

If I decided to buy a sports utility vehicle with a V8 engine to drive home from my work when I do not need it, it would make a lot of sense to tax the vehicle to encourage me to buy an electric vehicle or a smaller one. I would be in favour of such a measure.

However, I would not support such a measure being applied to grain producers who absolutely have to dry their grain. To begin with, we have to look at the basic context of North American agriculture. We do not have the same climate as our competitors. At harvest time, the grain often has to be dried. If the grain is wet when harvested, there is no choice but to dry it; otherwise it cannot be stored. There is no other way to dry grain that is as efficient, as fast, and less polluting as with propane. That is what this measure is all about. I hope that my clarifications at the beginning of my speech reassured people about my party's intentions. The Bloc is in favour of taxing pollution. We are in favour of transition measures. However, in this case, we must also act wisely.

If we put a tax on fuel we will see real repercussions: Either we reduce our agricultural producers’ margin, which is already very small because they do not control the selling price of products sold on international markets, or we increase the sale price of the product.

This measure will not reduce pollution. We need to act where it counts. Where it counts is in oil, natural gas, deposits and new projects. Where it counts is in not approving the Bay du Nord project, for example. I want someone to promise me that the oil sands development will be scaled back because the Bay du Nord project was approved, but that is not what we are hearing. We need to act where it counts.

I spoke earlier about the bills that failed because the Prime Minister called an election. There was Bill C-206. The conversations in the House distracted me a bit, but I also wanted to mention that the bill respecting supply management was at the end of the process. We will also reintroduce that bill.

What Bill C-234 does is quite simple: It changes the definition. There are already exemptions for farming fuel because there is no alternative, and natural gas and propane are simply being added. We will not be polluting more because we are adapting this bill. We are going to ensure that we do not hike the costs of agricultural production. Agriculture is the basis for everything else. That is the big difference.

As members know, the bill does not affect Quebec directly. In Quebec we have a parallel system, the carbon exchange. In theory, farmers are exempted from the carbon exchange, but they still feel the indirect impact, because when they purchase fuel, part of the costs incurred by the major companies is passed on. There are claims for that, but that is managed by Quebec.

Nevertheless, our farmers in Quebec tell us that we need to pass Bill C-234 because it is the right thing to do. It is what our farmers need. Therefore, that is what we will do.

The principle behind our support is a fair transition. I could draw a parallel with products, for example, pesticides used in fields. My colleagues know that this is a sensitive issue, and that the Bloc Québécois was among those who reacted vigorously last July when there was a rather sneaky attempt to increase limits during the construction holiday in the hope that no one would notice. This issue is a very sensitive one for us.

However, before taking a product off the market, we need to make sure there is an alternative and look into what will happen after that. Sometimes we must act prudently, but we should still use common sense and go even further. What does going further mean? It could mean establishing the famous environmental partnership I keep talking about. What is this environmental partnership?

We are asking our farmers to make an effort to reduce their environmental footprint. That is fine. They are essential to us, and they almost always volunteer to do the right thing.

However, we will be asking them, for example, to stop farming a buffer strip they have been harvesting for 25, 30, 40, 50 years or more. We are asking them to give up part of their income for the common good. That is fine, since it is the right thing to do. What is not fine is imposing this burden entirely and solely on these farmers when the entire community benefits.

I think we need to provide direct support for these measures and compensate farmers fairly. This will provide a considerable incentive for our farms to improve their performance on the ground.

This is not my first time saying this in the House, but I am convinced that we need to trust our people and decentralize these funds. Some programs are well designed and make sense. Consider, for example, the on-farm climate action fund, which is a step in the right direction. However, we need to stop asking farmers to fill out huge forms when the government decides it needs them. We must decentralize these decisions.

For example, the amounts we would pay to compensate the non-use of a buffer strip or its reforestation would be deposited in an account, a bit like the AgriInvest program. That way, the entrepreneur, in this case the farmer, would have access to it for the next technological innovation. Two years later, the farmer could use that money to build a new stable using geothermal energy. That would be another innovation made at the right time, and we could provide compensation so he could have that money for the next innovation.

None of the farmers I have met want to pollute. They are the first victims of floods and droughts. Members will recall how bad things were in the west last summer. Farmers are aware of that and they have always been aware, long before these problems arose. They work on the land all week long. They understand the situation far better than we do. We need to trust them.

Let us make the compromise proposed in Bill C-234 and provide financial relief for our farmers for a limited time. Let us foster the transition.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

I listened carefully to the previous speech and I want to reassure my colleague that we fully support the pollution pricing principle. It is an important principle, because polluting has to cost something. However, this tax is supposed to be an incentive.

We do not want to tamper with the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. That is not what we want to do. However, we think that exempting certain farm fuels from the tax is the right thing to do.

The bill before us today was already debated in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-206. Everyone remembers that. A democratic vote was held by the political parties that hold a majority in the House in the context of a minority government. It passed third reading. However, just before it was passed in the Senate, the Liberal government decided to call an election, which means that we have to start the entire process all over again. I want to take the opportunity this evening to say that I think that is unacceptable. That was an undemocratic move.

If we need to start over, then let us start over. The main principle of Bill C‑234 is simple enough. The carbon tax puts a price on pollution to encourage people to make the transition. However, we need alternatives if we want people to make the transition. That is the problem.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I have been hearing conversations since I started my speech.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be speaking to Bill C-8 for those in Canada who are watching today, and I will speak about how Bill C-8 fails our farmers.

What I learned recently, when I was back in British Columbia and spoke to the grain growers in my neck of the woods in northeastern B.C., is how dramatic the costs have risen over the last 12 months. Bill C-8 would not help. It would just makes things worse, and I will speak to that.

Ultimately, when we put our farmers at risk we put our food security at risk. I am going to mention the B.C. grain growers. That is the group I met in Dawson Creek a couple of weeks ago. They are good folks: President Malcolm Odermatt of Fort St. John, Vice-President Jennifer Critcher of Tower Lake, Robert Vander Linden of Clayhurst, Ernest Wiebe of Rose Prairie and researcher Kristyn Brody of Fort St. John. We heard what was obvious. We talked about Ukraine, the effects of Putin's invasion and its effects globally on fertilizer and things like it, and that accentuates what I am going to speak about. At a time when our farmers are getting hit with all these increased input costs, the government should be looking at any way possible to support our farmers.

This is what I heard. This is directly from farmers. From Ernest Wiebe of Rose Prairie, I heard that fuel has doubled over 12 months from 73¢ a litre $1.55 a litre this year. For Ernest's farm, let us speculate what the costs will be. Last year, in 2021, it was $110,000 for fuel, and in 2022, it will be $230,000. Inputs have doubled. Seed has doubled. Fertilizer has doubled. This highlights what the government could do with Bill C-8.

By the way, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

The member from the Liberal Party has already spoken about what Bill C-8 could do, but what about what Bill C-8 does not do? What the government has been asked to do is to extend the carbon tax exemption to propane and natural gas. Instead of just diesel, it really needs to be applied across the board. For people in Toronto, Ottawa or Vancouver, heating a shop might be an option, but where we live, in northern B.C., it gets down to -40°C for long periods of time and this really is not an option. Natural gas and propane are also used in grain drying, so they are a much-needed commodity up there, and we are asking the government to allow propane and natural gas to be exempt.

We are talking about carbon tax credits for our farmers, and I have not even brought up what they really do by putting carbon in the ground through carbon sequestration. Then there are all the other measures that farmers contribute to our environment but do not get credit for. However, maybe I will talk about what the government is offering in Bill C-8.

It says it is offering $1.73 per $100. I think that is the promise it has made, and it is in the form of a rebate. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has already come back with a figure that is much lower than that. I will digress a bit here. A rebate is something that a farmer has to apply for and then get refunded in the future. It could be a year or 18 months before a farmer ever sees a dime of that rebate, or maybe never at all. Maybe a form was filled out incorrectly and the farmer does not see any rebates.

Let us get down to the brass tacks of what the government is offering. It is a lofty promise, but this is what really happens. This is from the member of Parliament for Foothills in a previous speech:

From the very beginning, when the Liberals have talked about their carbon tax, they have always said it is going to be revenue-neutral and that whatever anyone pays into the carbon tax they are going to be getting it back in a rebate. We know, from the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer that came out last week, that this is completely untrue. In fact, Canadian farmers only get about $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses that they pay on the farm. That is definitely not revenue-neutral. In fact, that is only a fraction of what a farmer or a farm-family producer or agri-food business would spend in a carbon tax.

There is a huge cost to farmers right now. We see that the risk farmers are under is at an all-time high too. There are huge costs. The margins are the way they have pretty much always been, but the risk is much higher.

I would like to talk about a positive way the Liberals could actually change this, with Bill C-8. We have put forward a motion on this side of the House, by the member for Huron—Bruce. We had Bill C-206 put forward by a member in the House in the previous Parliament. This Parliament it is Bill C-234, and it does exactly what I am asking to do today. I will read it out.

This is a quote from the member for Huron—Bruce. He said, “According to Bill C-8, in the fall update on page 83, the rebate is $1.73. When I read that I thought it was per hundred dollars of eligible expenses, but it is actually per thousand dollars of eligible expenses. Therefore, if farmers have a million dollars in eligible expenses on their farms, they would not even receive a $1,800 rebate.”

It is cents on the dollar. This is, again, when farmers are at an all-time high of just pure risk and pure money that they are spending, and they are all dependent on weather to get food on our tables.

Once again, the Liberals across the way say the carbon tax is neutral. This is from the PBO. This is not just from the member for Foothills. This is from the PBO. The PBO recently updated the fiscal cost of Bill C-234. It costed exactly the carbon tax on propane and on heating, and the benefit that the farmers would receive. This is what the PBO has said the net gain would be. The PBO recently updated the fiscal cost of Bill C-234, and what farmers would save. Previous reports were done for its predecessor, Bill C-206. As members can see, the numbers are relatively similar, with cumulative costs being $1.107 billion versus $1.104 billion for Bill C-206.

Clearly, we have a plan. The government could be putting this in Bill C-8, as I heard the member across the way mention. This would be a really easy fix for farmers and really supportive for farmers, especially in this very trying time we are stepping into in 2022.

I am going to speak more about Bill C-234. I have another quote from the member for Foothills. He said,

In contrast to what is being offered by the Liberals in Bill C-8, the Conservatives have put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-234, that would exempt farm fuel from the carbon tax, specifically natural gas and propane used for heating and cooling barns and buildings, as well as for drying grain. That would allow those farmers to hold that money in their accounts and reinvest those dollars into their operations, again to make them more efficient and more sustainable.

Unlike the Liberals' carbon tax in Bill C-8, Bill C-234 has almost unanimous support among agriculture stakeholders, including the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which is a coalition of 14 different national farm organizations that represent 190,000 farm businesses and more than $70 billion in cash receipts. I think that is pretty critical, when all of those groups are supporting our approach to reducing emissions compared with the Liberals' obviously failing option.

The Liberals say we are holding up debate and holding up the House, but when there are simple things like this that they could be doing for farmers across the country, especially farmers in my riding who I just spoke to two weeks ago, it is unfortunate they will not make those simple changes that might get some support across Canada.

I will finish with this: Most importantly, whenever we put our farmers at risk and their businesses fail, what concerns me is that with one failed farm business, there are implications for our food security and for putting food on our tables across the country and well into the future. We all know that once farms fail, they rarely come back.

The Liberals know the right thing to do on Bill C-8. They have the opportunity to fix it and make it better. I would ask them to do that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gowriluk, on Bill C-234 the discussions are going to be very similar to what we had in the previous Parliament with Bill C-206. I remember that when that bill was before committee we had witnesses, people who were involved in the technology, and they said that anything to replace propane and natural gas was probably at least 10 years off to be commercially viable.

We also had a witness who appeared for this current study who warned our committee against systems that may take leftover plant residue, crop residue, off the fields to use that as a fuel source, because it is very important, she said, for increasing the carbon in the soil.

No matter which way you look at it, there's a trade-off.

From your members' perspective, have any of your members started using alternative systems? Do they want to see the federal government put more research into this? I know that even with natural gas prices, with or without the carbon tax, that can still be a very volatile fuel source on international markets, so that stability won't always be there as much as farmers would like.

Please give us what comments you have on that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and contribute to a debate. Today, we are debating at report stage Bill C-8 , an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021, and other measures. I always enjoy the long titles to bills because they give a sense of what the bill actually is. An economic statement or a fiscal update is kind of like a mini-budget. It is a chance for a government to provide some economic and budgetary measures without having an entire budget.

However, what we have seen now is that we have had the fall economic statement, we have had Bill C-8, we have had the actual budget, and in the coming days we will have the budget implementation act for this year's budget. Those are four different opportunities for the government to take meaningful action to help the people of Canada, to help people who are struggling with the cost of living, to help people struggling with inflation and to help those small business owners who over the last two years have faced lockdowns and restrictions, including restaurants, hospitality and tourism sector. The government has had all these opportunities and yet time and time again we have seen the government fail to meaningfully act to help the people in Perth—Wellington and the people across Canada.

What is equally concerning is that today's debate is being done under the threat of a guillotine motion. That guillotine motion is a time allocation motion, a motion that cuts off debate. We have seen this before. We have seen the Liberals rail for years against time allocation and against closure and then flip around and use that themselves. What is especially interesting this time is that it is being done in the shadow of Motion No. 11. Here we have the government using time allocation on this bill and yet at the same time it has given notice for closure on Motion No. 11.

Some may not know what Motion No. 11 actually would do. Motion No. 11 would allow the government not to show up for work. Motion No. 11 would allow the House of Commons to function without quorum. Just to show how out of the ordinary this is, the concept of quorum in the House of Commons, a minimum number of people being present in the chamber, is constitutionally protected. It is not a large number. We can count it on two sets of hands. It is 20 people. Some people may want to take off their socks to count that high, but it is not that high a number. That is including the Speaker. It is the Speaker plus 19 members.

In fact, if we consult the authorities of this place, including Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, edited by our good friend Mr. John Holtby of Brockville, Ontario, we see that it says this at paragraph 280: “The Constitution Act, s. 48 specifies that the quorum of the House is twenty, including the Speaker.” Paragraph 281 states, “Any Member may direct the Speaker's attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.”

This is something that is provided for in the authorities of this place, consistent with the Constitution of our country, Constitution Act, 1867. The government, with Motion No. 11, would withdraw the concept of quorum, allowing this place to function without the bare number of 20 people. This is simply unacceptable and in the coming days I hope to contribute more specifically to this debate. However, for now I will leave it at that and I will move on to some of the issues included in Bill C-8.

As I have mentioned in this House many times, the great riding of Perth—Wellington includes some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Quite literally, Perth—Wellington is the heartland of Canadian agriculture. There are more dairy farmers in Perth—Wellington than in any other electoral district in the country. Wellington County is number one for chicken production in Canada and in the top five in Ontario for beef and pork. What I hear all the time from farmers and farm families is the struggle they are facing, particularly when it comes to the rising cost of things. One thing in particular that we hear about time and time again is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is adding extra costs to farmers and farm families with no way to recoup those costs.

The Liberals will point to Bill C-8 saying there is going to be a rebate in it and that farmers can apply for those rebates. That is not what farmers are asking for. They are asking for the bill that was brought forward in the previous Parliament by my colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, Bill C-206, which passed through the House of Commons with support from our friends in the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Greens. It made it through this place and was in the Senate. However, as we all know, it was killed when the government dissolved Parliament to call its unnecessary election. With the budget, the fiscal update, Bill C-8 and the budget implementation act, the government had the opportunity to do the right thing and adopt the measures that were contained in Bill C-206.

Our friend, our colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, has introduced Bill C-234, which is in direct response to what farmers and farm families are asking for. They are asking for the on-farm use for drying of grain to be excluded from the carbon tax, when there are no alternatives. There are no ways for farmers to use other alternatives to dry their grains. They must use carbon-based fuel. Therefore, it makes no sense that the government is charging them, time and again, with no results. Once again, this is a missed opportunity for the government to take meaningful action when it comes to the cost of on-farm fuel.

That is not the only problem farmers are facing today. The other is the rising cost of fertilizer. I want to be clear. Every farmer, every farm business and every Canadian I have spoken to agree that tough sanctions against Vladimir Putin and his thugs are needed and warranted. However, those farmers and agri-businesses that purchased and have purchase orders for fertilizer pre-March 2, before the sanctions were introduced, should not be subject to a 35% tariff. That 35% tariff does nothing to Vladimir Putin and his thugs, because the purchase has already been made; it is simply money coming out of the pockets of farmers and farm families and going into the government coffers.

The government has not yet even addressed this. It has not provided a response. Yesterday in question period, in response to a question from the Bloc Québécois, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said:

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that we are taking the situation very seriously. We are looking at various options.

We want to make sure our farmers have the inputs they need for a good season so Canada can contribute to food security at home and around the world.

The planting season is upon us. Farmers and farm families are making decisions right now. They are paying for fertilizer right now with a 35% tariff that they did not anticipate and could not have anticipated in October, November or December when they purchased it. They are now being levied a 35% tariff on top of it. It is completely unacceptable, because it hurts only farmers, not Vladimir Putin and his regime. I again encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, if she has any sway at the cabinet table, if she has any influence with her own government, to stand up for farmers and for those who are working hard to literally feed our country, to feed the world, and do the right thing.

We are going to be seeing challenges in the years to come based on the out-of-commission farmland that is currently in Ukraine. We are going to be called upon as Canadians, as Canadian farmers, to address that shortage, and if the government is hamstringing and preventing Canadian farmers from feeding the world, then it is a crying shame and simply unacceptable.

I have been given the one-minute warning, so I want to address very quickly the point of housing.

We have seen house prices in Canada skyrocket over the last two years. I have seen it in the small rural communities within Perth—Wellington. We are seeing prices skyrocket, which makes housing unaffordable for young families, people getting out of university and newly married families with young kids trying to find a spot. It is unacceptable. The cost is being driven up for young people and it is driving them out of the market. The government needs to address it. We need to increase the supply of housing in Canada, and it needs to be done now, not five or 10 years from now.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join in the debate for this bill. I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for putting forward this legislation. I know she is a passionate defender of the environment and always has good intentions when she puts forward a piece of legislation.

I share her concern with bills dying on the Order Paper as a result of an unnecessary and costly election that was brought forward by the Liberal government. Bill C-206, to exempt farm fields from the carbon tax, also died on the Order Paper. I hope members of the House, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, will try and help with speedy passage of new Bill C-234.

With respect to this exact piece of legislation, I certainly have some concerns. First of all, I start off with my concern in general with national strategies. The current government has had difficulty dealing with existing pieces of legislation that it is trying to bring forward with respect to the environment. We had five reports today from the environment commissioner, and the government got zero for five on all five reports. As a batting average when playing baseball, that is a terrible day. When it is the government, it is a tragedy for our country.

When we talk about developing a new national strategy for something, we have to look at the capacity of the government to actually carry out this ambitious project. My concern is that there is not this capacity. We can look at, for example, the motion that was unanimously passed in the House with respect to the suicide prevention line, the 988. We heard about that just recently. It has been 500 days since this was passed unanimously in the House. Absolutely nothing has been done, and Canadians are still waiting for some progress.

The approach of trying to deal with this through a national strategy is not the right one. There could perhaps be ways of looking at making amendments to existing pieces of legislation. For example, the member talked about enshrining the right to a healthy environment. That is actually in the update to CEPA that is in the Senate right now. Something like that has already been dealt with in a piece of legislation.

We already have a complicated regulatory environment when we are developing projects in this country. I am unsure about this national strategy, what it will do and how it will add to the complication of these kinds of processes. When I look at the legislation and what it talks about, possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs, that is a very broad power that is being granted here as part of this legislation. We do not know exactly where that is going to lead. Whether it will lead to more uncertainty in other things, I am not 100% sure.

On compensation for individuals or communities, there are no parameters around this statement as to what that is going to look like, how it is going to be developed and what it is going to mean. I generally do not like open-ended or blank cheques that are given to any government, and in particular the current government. Right now, we certainly have concerns with this piece of legislation, because we do not know 100% what it is going to mean.

We do, of course, as Conservatives, want to support a healthy environment. We absolutely want to combat racism. However, I do not believe this piece of legislation is going to accomplish any of those goals, for the reasons that I have been setting out. I just do not think the government is actually going to get it done, and the proper way to deal with things like this is to look at existing legislation like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. If we want, for example, to collect information and statistics for incomes, we could look at modifying an existing piece of legislation to deal with that. If we are trying to look at information and statistics relating to the location of environmental hazards, I also think these are things that could be looked at within existing legislation if we want to add some additional protections for Canadians.

I do not think that the way to do this is to wait two years for the government to set up a national strategy. It would then be debated endlessly, and whether anything would actually be implemented, I do not know.

I appreciate the member's earnest hard work on this piece of legislation, but as this piece of legislation stands, we will not be in a position to support it.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is, as always, a privilege to rise in the House to share the concerns of the people of Perth—Wellington and bring those concerns to this place.

This year's budget was the third opportunity the Liberals had to address the real concerns of Canadians. Since the election, they could have addressed the concerns of Canadians in the fall economic statement, in the implementation act for the fall economic statement or in this budget. Sadly, the issues I am hearing about every day in phone calls, emails and conversations at community events were not addressed by the Liberals in this year's budget.

Canadians are feeling the impact of inflation. I hear from families who have lost hope on ever owning their own home, and I hear from others who are struggling to find rental housing that is not only affordable but also large enough for their families. I hear from seniors who have worked hard their entire lives and who are now struggling to pay the bills. They are on fixed incomes that are stagnating while the costs of groceries, utilities and housing keep going up. Their costs keep rising, but their incomes remain that same. That is the cruelty of inflation.

No one saw any humour in the government’s April Fools' Day joke to once again raise the carbon tax, which is a tax that impacts the people in the lowest income spectrum the most. These are the people who can least afford to pay it.

The government had options that could help Canadians. It could have taken the advice of our Conservative motion to temporarily remove the GST portion of the HST to give all Canadians a temporary 5% reduction on the cost of gas. Any Canadian who has filled up their tank recently knows the impact of $1.84 per litre and the impact it has on families commuting to work or taking their kids to soccer practice or baseball practice. The government did not take our advice and our modest, common sense proposal was voted down by the Liberal government and the other opposition parties.

I am very proud to represent a strong rural and agriculture-based community. Here in Canada, one in eight jobs is linked to the agriculture and agri-food sector. This generates 140 billion dollars' worth of economic activity each and every year. In Perth—Wellington alone, agriculture is a billion-dollar industry, with grain farmers cultivating some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Dairy, beef, pork, egg, chicken and other farmers provide high-quality food to feed our communities, our country and the world.

Anyone who tuned in to hear the Liberal government's budget speech would be sorely disappointed to know that this economic powerhouse of agriculture was not even mentioned in the finance minister's budget speech. In her 3,000-word speech, she did not once mention agriculture or agri-food, farmers and farm families, or food processing and rural communities. Not once was this economic powerhouse of agriculture and agri-food mentioned in the Minister of Finance's speech.

When a speech is used to highlight the priorities of a government, what is left unsaid is awfully telling. Farmers and farm families quite literally feed the world. They work hard, and they innovate each and every day. Thousands of farmers are up early every morning, while most of the country is still sleeping, making sure the food supply chain remains intact.

Agriculture has always been a challenging field. There are unknowns no one can predict. What farmers do not need is the uncertainty caused by their own government. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, fertilizer costs and supply issues were a problem. This included the ongoing efforts of the Liberal government to limit the fertilizer farmers use on their crops.

On March 2, when the government announced sanctions that were supposed to target Vladimir Putin and his thugs, it was Canadian farmers who were left feeling the greatest impact. As we approach the spring planting season, farmers and agribusinesses still do not have certainty from the government on whether the 35% tariff will apply on fertilizer purchased pre-March 2, but delivered after that date. In a case like this, the farmer and only the farmer is feeling the impact, not Vladimir Putin and his thugs.

No one is disagreeing with the need for sanctions against Putin, but those sanctions should not penalize those who prepurchased fertilizer last fall and now are being left with the bill. The budget was an opportunity to provide clarity on this issue and, once again, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance failed to do so.

The cost of fertilizer is not the only challenge facing Canadian farmers. There is also the cost of the carbon tax, as I mentioned earlier. For farmers there are very few, if any, alternatives to the use of carbon-based fuels to dry their grain or to transport grain to elevators for export around the globe. However, the Liberals continue to unfairly and punitively charge the carbon tax in situations where there are simply no alternatives, and the cost simply accrues to those who feed our country. Canadian farmers have long used the most sustainable measures to protect and preserve our land and national resources, but while they are doing the work necessary, they do not get the credit, and they are actually penalized for their work.

Once again, there is an easy solution. My friend and colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, wisely introduced a private member's bill that would exempt farmers for the responsible use of fuel on their farms. Bill C-234 would achieve this. In fact, a year ago, a bill similar to this one, Bill C-206, passed through this House and was well on its way to passing through the other place when the Liberals dissolved Parliament for the unnecessary summer election.

In a perfect world, we could have passed Bill C-206 a year ago, but the next best option would be to pass Bill C-234. The budget could have done this. Sadly, it failed to do so. Farmers and farm families deserve better than what they are receiving from the Liberal government. For the sake of our food sovereignty and food security, they must do better.

In the six and a half years I have been in this place, at almost every opportunity in almost every budget, I have raised the concerns about rural broadband in my riding and in rural communities across the country, but these past two years especially have shown the necessity of reliable Internet service. The Liberal government has been slower than dial-up. Every day I hear from constituents who cannot complete their education, grow their businesses, communicate with loved ones or even access mental health services because the high-speed Internet infrastructure is not there. Let me highlight that point. They cannot access mental health services because they do not have high-speed Internet.

I have heard from constituents who have had to drive to a Tim Hortons parking lot to use its Wi-Fi to access services. In 2022, this is not acceptable. In fact, yesterday in the House, we heard the Minister of Rural Economic Development highlight their plans to get Canadians connected by 2030. Eight years from now is not good enough. It is not good enough for the families in Perth—Wellington, and it is not good enough for the rural communities across this country who need reliable high-speed Internet for their families, their communities and their country.

I know my time is running thin, but I must highlight the issue of housing. In my community and in communities across Perth—Wellington, housing has simply become unaffordable. In some places we have seen an increase of 30%, 40%, 50% or more in the cost of housing, year over year. In a single year this has driven up the cost to where families are just priced out of the marketplace. There are things we could do. We could use the advice of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association and its efforts. It has stated that one million new homes need to be built in the next 10 years. We need to work toward that outcome. We need to remove the red tape blocking communities and home builders so families and communities can grow.

Sadly, this budget has left out rural communities. It has left out rural communities in Perth—Wellington and across the country. That is why I will be voting against this budget.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House again today rising on Bill C-8. As members are aware, Bill C-8 is an omnibus bill and a large piece of legislation, so I will spend my time focusing on several elements of it, particularly with respect to the carbon tax. However, before I do that, I think it is important to put down the context for Bill C-8.

From the time it was initially introduced to where we are right now, things have changed dramatically. Canadians are finding it harder and harder to get by. They are challenged to put gas in their tanks, feed their families and get through these cold months of early spring. The reason is that there has been profligate spending by the Liberal Party, and this unnecessary spending is being put right on the backs of Canadians.

What happens when we spend and spend is that the money has to come from somewhere. Either it has been coming from the taxpayer directly or it has been going to our loans. For people who are not aware, through quantitative easing we are actually borrowing money from ourselves, which is challenging because where is that money coming from? Well, the Bank of Canada is printing that money. It is a basic concept of economics that where we have more of something it is worth less, so what we are getting by having our printing press on overdrive through quantitative easing is more and more currency. There is $400 billion of extra currency out there, and we have driven down the value of money in our country. Not surprisingly, shock upon shock, guess what? We have inflation, which means the value of goods is going up and the value of money is going down.

Scotiabank is saying that we may in fact face inflation of up to 8% going forward. Let us put that in context. We call this the “inflation tax” because what it is really doing, just as sure as income tax or sales tax, is taking value from the taxpayer and putting that value into the vaults of government. To give members an idea, at 8% inflation, a Canadian earning $40,000, such as a single mother in Cobourg or Port Hope trying to get by earning a bit more than minimum wage, is going to be paying $3,200 in extra inflation tax just this year. Imagine a couple earning $50,000 each, and let us say they have a family four. That is $100,000 total. As we know, with housing prices and everything else going up, that is not a tremendous amount of money to get by on. They are going to be paying an additional $8,000 in inflation tax at 8% interest. This is robbing Canadians of the value of their labour and they are working so hard. The billionaires and millionaires will get by, but for those folks at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, those who are struggling, this inflation tax is enough to knock them down into poverty.

Then we exacerbate that problem with the carbon tax. I had the opportunity to ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, some questions about inflation and about the impact of the carbon tax. Surprisingly, he did not know what the impact was when I asked him. However, he wrote back to the finance committee and said that, at the time, nearly 10% of inflation was caused by one tax: the carbon tax. Imagine that. We have income tax, sales tax and taxes on tax, but just one tax, this carbon tax, is responsible for 10% of the pain being inflicted by the inflation tax.

The reality is that the purpose of the carbon tax is to increase the cost of certain goods and services that emit high amounts of GHG so that people will not want to buy them. We then push those individuals into buying lower GHG-emitting goods and services, which in itself is not a bad thing. The challenge, though, is that it is often a fallacy, because there are no other options available. As I said earlier, a single mother earning $40,000 a year simply cannot afford to buy a $50,000 or $100,000 Tesla. It is the equivalent to saying, “Let them eat cake” when we say to buy an electric vehicle.

For farmers, this problem is particularly acute, and for many of them, at least at this point, there are no alternatives. We are starting technologies for electric tractors, which is great, but they are not there yet, so when we increase the carbon tax on propane, natural gas and other fuels, we are putting that directly on our farmers.

One particular example I have is with respect to propane and natural gas. I had the great privilege and honour of introducing Bill C-206 in the House last Parliament, and what that called for was an exemption for farmers, not just on gasoline and diesel, as that already exists, but on cleaner fuels as well, like natural gas and propane. That gave farmers a full exemption, because they do not have the ability to use other technology right now. It does not exist. We listened to expert after expert at the agriculture committee, and they said there is not a commercially viable alternative to fossil fuels when it comes to drying grain or heating livestock barns. We live in a cold country, as we know. Those who do not know that should walk outside here in Ottawa. We need clean Canadian energy to allow our farmers to be competitive.

Bill C-8 offers a rebate to farmers instead of an exemption, and this rebate is a step in the right direction. However, I remember being in this very House about a year or two ago when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said the cost of the carbon tax is not a serious issue for farmers. Well, the farmers disagreed. They rose to the occasion and we were able to bring the discussion to Ottawa. We said that it is an issue and that farmers are paying tens of thousands of dollars. However, as is often the case, the new NDP-Liberal government is up here a day late and a dollar short, because this rebate only covers a very small amount of the cost. It is incredibly inequitable.

Let me explain what I mean by inequitable. Of course, this country is very different climate-wise, region-wise and even farming-wise. The type of farming someone does in Victoria, B.C., is much different from the farming someone does in St. John's, Newfoundland, and all parts in between. The system set up with Bill C-8 is one size fits all. It says that depending on expenses, the government will give a certain amount of a carbon tax rebate. That is a terrible proxy. It makes no sense because the expenses for farming in Victoria, B.C., will be different from those in Regina, Saskatchewan, and Northumberland—Peterborough South. We are just grabbing this one-size-fits-all solution. What I can guarantee will happen is that farmers will have no choice but to be in high carbon-intense areas of farming that will receive minuscule rebates, whereas other areas where carbon is not as important in a particular industry may receive higher rebates. We are creating inequity because the calculation in Bill C-8 makes no sense.

Here is a better idea. My colleague from Huron—Bruce has reintroduced the new and improved Bill C-206 as Bill C-234. It says we should just give them an exemption. That way they get 100% of the dollars they spend on propane and natural gas back in their pockets. It is a broader discussion we need to have. We need to decide whether we can trust Canadians with their own money.

Members will remember that back in the Paul Martin era, the Liberal government, now the Liberal-NDP government, famously said that if we leave Canadians alone, they are going to spend their money on beer and popcorn. This reeks of that. It reeks of this conversation. Why would we not just allow them to exempt that money instead of transporting all of it to Ottawa, since, shocker, some of it gets lost and stays here in Ottawa? Why would we not just leave it in the jeans of our farmers, instead of having that money go to Ottawa, where some of it will be left over, and then having a small portion go back to farmers? I will give an exact equation. A farmer in Manitoba would pay $9,000 in carbon tax and will get $3,000 back, whereas under Bill C-234, they would get all $9,000 back. I believe in the individual—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question will go to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I want to say thank you to Mr. Currie for attending Mr. Pommainville's wake yesterday. I know the community really appreciated it.

On the issue of Bill C-234, I know that on Bill C-206 there were some conventions with regard to putting a timeline on that exemption.

Are you in favour of putting a 10-year exemption on there or just a complete exemption for as long as it lasts?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise to speak to Bill C-234. I would like to acknowledge the member for Huron—Bruce, who is bringing forward this bill, which is a revival of what was called Bill C-206 in the 43rd Parliament. I would like to indicate that, as the New Democratic Party agriculture critic, I will be giving my support to the bill, demonstrating that we review every private member's bill that comes before us based on its merits and the principle behind it. I feel the principle behind this bill is sound.

I have been our party's agriculture critic for four years now. I have spent four years on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I am very familiar with the predecessor to this bill. I was present on the agriculture committee when we did a deep dive into the provisions of Bill C-206. As I will reflect later in my speech, this is something that the agricultural community is most definitely calling for.

Before I get into that, it is important to set the table with regard to the difficulties that are being posed by climate change. The fact that human-caused climate change is occurring is no longer in dispute. It is very much a verifiable scientific fact, and many parts of the world are starting to face a climate emergency. It is one that will manifest itself in increasingly costly ways, not only to our natural environment, but also to our economy. We will see more extreme weather events, and it is our farmers who will suffer because, as I have heard time and time again at the agriculture committee, farmers are on the front lines of this fight.

This climate emergency is leading to changing precipitation patterns. We are seeing increased occurrences of catastrophic flooding and catastrophic droughts. These are going to have real economic costs. We saw that in my home province of British Columbia last year when, in the space of a few months, we went from a heat dome and massive wildfires to flooding that essentially cut the port of Vancouver off from the rest of the country. That led to major disruptions for our agricultural producers in the prairie provinces.

We as a country need to acknowledge this fact, and we need to put in place policy that is going to treat it like the serious matter that it is. It is the fight of the 21st century. Unfortunately, the continuing political fight that we have seen in this place over the carbon tax has ignored many of these realities and it has sidelined the leadership that we as a country need to take against climate change. However, what has been missing in this conversation is the important role that farmers and our agriculture sector do and can play in this conversation. That centres on the theme of carbon sequestration.

It is time for us to start placing our farmers up on a pedestal and acknowledging the important work they do. The only way we are going to meaningfully solve this climate change problem is if we significantly reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere and find ways to put it in the soil where it can play a stable role.

I have been inspired by so many in Canada's agriculture sector who are adopting regenerative farming practices. They are going beyond sustainability as a principle and are observing the patterns and principles in ecosystems to reduce their input and help purify the air, the water, rebuild the soil and increase diversity. In this way, our agricultural leaders are building resilience against climate change by tackling and overcoming challenges without being completely overwhelmed by them, and we must find ways as parliamentarians in this place to be strong and firm partners with those leaders.

In 2020, I took a trip to the interior of southern British Columbia where I talked with ranchers who had won sustainability awards. I do want to acknowledge the work of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, which are showing the way by trying to replicate the natural ecosystem that used to exist on Canada's Prairies and that requires a symbiotic relationship between plants and animals through rotational grazing techniques, which actually leads to healthier grasslands, which in their own way are putting carbon back into the soil where we need to put it.

Despite the advances that we have made in good agricultural practices in the fight against climate change, it is still an inescapable fact that farmers today do depend on fossil fuels. This is especially true when it comes to the drying of grain.

Many of my colleagues here will remember the wet autumn of 2019, which was called the harvest from hell. That was extensive and prolonged rainfall that happened right before and during the harvest in many parts of Canada. Of course, the early snowfalls and frosts also ruined many crops. Farmers in those situations were forced to use propane and natural gas heaters to dry their grain. Without the use of those dryers, their cash crops would have become worthless because rot would have set in, and it would have been a massive economic hit.

As it stands, there are currently no viable commercial alternatives to the use of propane and natural gas for the operation of these dryers. This was explained very clearly to the agriculture committee in the previous Parliament. During that time, when we were examining Bill C-206, we received eight briefs and had 29 witnesses over six meetings. In particular, I will highlight some of the testimony that we received from the Agri-Food Innovation Council.

The council acknowledged that we want to move to alternative and renewable energy sources. It also pointed out the fact that we are not yet at a point where farmers have those alternative options available. Many of the renewable or clean energy options are still in an experimental stage and they have nowhere near the scaling-up capability that farmers need to employ them on a mass scale. With that being said, there was also an acknowledgement that Ottawa can play a key role in helping develop further research into alternative, renewable and clean energy sources.

I also want to acknowledge that we had several witnesses come before the committee who expressed concern with Bill C-206. However, again, when I pressed them on the fact that there were no viable alternatives, I did not, in my own opinion, hear a convincing argument to lead me to go the other way. There is a very real interest in trying to repeat the work that we did at the agriculture committee. Let us bring Bill C-234 there, so that we can again do a deep dive into it and find ways, hopefully, of making some slight improvements.

It does not need to be said in this place that the value of our agricultural crops out of the Prairies, especially with grains and canola, numbers in the billions of dollars and is an incredible economic driver in those regions. Those sectors need to have our support, especially when they are facing challenges and especially when no viable alternatives exist. It is a significant part of our economy as many of my colleagues will attest.

In the final couple of minutes with respect to Bill C-234, I will say that the main thing it would do is make definitions as to what a qualifying farm fuel is and what eligible farming machinery is. With respect to a qualifying farm fuel, the bill would be making sure that natural gas and propane are provided in the list of fuels. With respect to eligible farming machinery, I think this is an improvement on the previous Bill C-206. The bill is specifically making reference to grain drying but also making room for providing heating or cooling in a building. I will just highlight that this particular section might be too broad a definition, and it is something that I am interested in taking a closer look at in committee. That being said, there is some room for improvement and some room for negotiation on hopefully improving this bill and reporting it back to the House.

In conclusion, I hope that, in our conversation on Bill C-234, we also take this opportunity to acknowledge the incredible costs that farmers are bearing. This has been detailed quite considerably by the National Farmers Union, which has recognized that Canadian farm debt is now listed at over $100 billion and has nearly doubled since the year 2000. Since 1990, the corporations that supply fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, fuels, technology services and credit have captured nearly all of farm revenues, leaving farmers with just 5% of the total revenue.

While I think that the measures in Bill C-234 are going to have a measurable impact, we also need to use this opportunity to have a broader conversation on how we support farmers and make sure that, in most of the work that they are doing, the financial rewards are in fact staying in their pockets.

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

Madam Speaker, as the NDP's agriculture critic, I look forward to supporting this bill so that we can have a closer look at it in the agriculture committee, just as I did with Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament.

We often are talking about the punitive aspects of policy, but the member did talk a bit about the work that farmers are doing. I was wondering if he could expand on the amazing potential that exists on farms for renewable energy sources. If we look at the area that is on barns, we could help farmers with solar panel installations. There are also some tremendous possibilities to use natural gas that is naturally derived from the decomposition of materials on farms. Could the member expand on how Ottawa can maybe partner with those farms, instead of having an Ottawa-knows-best approach, and really try to put those farmers on a pedestal, show good examples and maybe increase the knowledge transfer so that all regions across Canada are benefiting from that knowledge?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

moved that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on this bill. Through the years I have had the honour and privilege of presenting private member's bills and motions. I had one pass many years ago, and I had one or two that did not pass.

First of all, I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Foothills and the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South who presented Bill C-206 in the last Parliament. I would also thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and all of the other members of Parliament in my party and caucus who have a deep love and admiration for agriculture and the farm families that do the work each and every day.

The issue that I am trying to fix with this private member's bill is the application of the carbon tax on natural gas and propane. It is for on-farm agriculture uses to dry grain and heat livestock barns where there may be a variety of livestock, but mainly poultry and pork in these cases. The problem is with the current carbon tax on these areas. I will give one example of a pork farmer in my riding who sent me his December usage of natural gas. The natural gas bill for his hog barn was $11,391 in total. The carbon tax was $2,918, which is 25% of the base bill. When we throw the HST on, which is almost $1,500, 34% of the bill is in carbon tax and HST. That is really the problem.

There are tight margins in agriculture and, when we get into the drying of grains in the fall, these are foods that we eat. Farmers are price-takers; they are not price-makers. They do not set the price; they take the price. Anybody in the House or those listening today well understand the issue with that. On the flip side, when it is time to pay for inputs, machinery, etc., we obviously know the price. There are a lot of improvements we could make.

One of my other issues with the carbon tax specifically on farmers, which I have said in the House of Commons before, is that farm producers and farmers do not get credit for any of the environmental good that they do on their farms up and down the country roads. If we look at what farmers are able to do on their farms, first of all, they get no credit for any of the carbon sequestration of their crops. They get no credit for their grasslands or woodlots. There is no credit for that.

We are trying to right an environmental wrong and a taxation wrong to make it fair for farmers. It is very difficult to recognize all of the different ways in which farmers do good. Putting a carbon tax on their efforts does not really recognize the environmental benefit they have. Many members of Parliament in the House today have had the opportunity to tour many farms, conservation areas and livestock barns, and they see the good work that they do.

Another issue that is recognized in this bill is that farmers are always asked to be the government's line of credit. People may ask what that means. What I mean by this is that, if we look at the business risk management programs available to farmers, AgriStability being one of them, if they were able to trigger a payment with AgriStability, their expenses are incurred so much earlier. Farmers carry the cost and at the end they receive. It is the same with HST. There have been issues through the years with certain producers where their HST was hung up, so that they are the line of credit in some cases. It was three months, four months, six months, maybe even a year before they would get their HST rebate.

Now we have another program that is going to create a level of bureaucracy. We have a program that is once again going to ask the farmer to be the line of credit. To give an example, farmers could pay a propane or natural gas bill on their poultry or hog barn in January and February of 2022 and that almost $3,000 in carbon tax they paid on their bill could be carried all the way through the year. They could dry their grains in September, October or November, depending on how the harvest went, and then carry all of those costs all through the entire year and file their taxes, depending on when their fiscal year end is, in June of 2023. When do members think those farmers would receive their rebate?

That is a long time to be once again asking farm producers or farm families to carry these expenses. Then we also calculate the increasing costs of all the inputs, whether feed for livestock or fertilizer. We have seen the crazy prices. Their lines of credit are continually edging up and now they are faced with doing this.

According to Bill C-8, in the fall update on page 83, the rebate is $1.73. When I read that I thought it was per hundred dollars of eligible expenses, but it is actually per thousand dollars of eligible expenses. Therefore, if farmers have a million dollars in eligible expenses on their farms, they would not even receive a $1,800 rebate.

For the farm I spoke about a second ago, one bill was almost $3,000, so it is not neutral. It will not be neutral. If there are statistics to show otherwise, I would like to see them, but based on page 83 of this statement, it does not look like it. A month or two ago, the member for Foothills showed me a bill for a farmer in his province, and it might have been in his riding, I cannot remember, that was twice that amount. Can members imagine $5,500 being paid in carbon tax for one month? Therefore, $1,700 is not going to cut it.

We have talked about carbon sequestration through their crops, grasslands and woodlots. Farmers plant trees on their farms. They have windrows. In Ontario, and I am sure in many other provinces, we have nutrient management plans for how and when manure is spread across their fields. With technology we have precision spraying of herbicides and pesticides, and even precision fertilizing. This is not our great-grandfather's farms. These are very progressive farms across this country today with a high degree of professionalism and a love for agriculture and the environment.

If we take a woodlot in Huron County or Bruce County, we will see some of the best-managed woodlots in all the land. That is over the last 10 years when we have been dealing with the emerald ash borer on our ash trees. Most of those have been cleared out of woodlots and maple and other trees have come up in their place, but these are well-maintained woodlots that sequester carbon.

The other thing I would like to mention is crop rotation. I know the member for Foothills brought it up in question period today and the agriculture minister made a comment the other day in question period about it, as if it was some sort of new idea. I am sure she misspoke in question period, but we can go back to textbooks from probably the twenties and thirties talking about crop rotation and crop cover. Most of the farmers in my area plant late summer and early fall crops as well for cover crops. There is quite a bit that goes on.

The other thing I would like to recognize is all the conservation authorities and environmental groups in our communities. One that is not too far from where I live is the Pine River Watershed Initiative Network, which plants trees and manages water on farms. There are also crop and soil groups in Huron County, Bruce County and Grey County, all the way through the area, doing some amazing research on drainage and being able to hold some of those spring rains and thaws, hold some of that water, back in the drain itself. It is a very exciting technology.

Another thing I would like to talk about is our food sovereignty. We have seen a lot of this in the last number of years, maybe perhaps most recently in the past little while. In Ontario, we ship hogs, for example, to Burlington and other places like Conestoga. We also ship hogs to Quebec. We actually ship hogs to Manitoba as well, to Brandon. Although it is good for them to have those hogs in the production line, it makes no sense at all for farmers in southwestern Ontario to ship hogs in transport trucks across the provinces to their destination. We should be able to process them in our own regions. For that, I would say that I do think the government needs to take a real long look at food sovereignty in each province and, of course, in our country, as well as identifying strategic mines or opportunities.

Phosphates are a great example, with the latest embargo and tariffs from Russia, of where there are opportunities in our own country to speed up environmental assessments. Do it right but make sure they are streamlined so that we can mine our own goods and raw materials in our own country to support the entire cycle of agriculture in our country. Today we do not have that and I do think that should be a priority.

How much money does it take to make one dollar on a farm? It takes millions, and the margins are tight. People may drive up and down the road if they are going to their cottage or wherever else they are going on a weekend and the might look at how nice the farm looks from the truck they are driving. The reality is that it took multiple generations working seven days a week, 365 days a year, for margins that would put fear into most people. If they knew how much capital investment, debt and line of credit was at risk each and every day to earn a few dollars on $100, they would be so impressed.

The reason I am saying this is that the carbon tax is punitive even for the existence of a farm operation. I have numerous calls in a week from different farmers commenting on the cost of doing business in 2022. Yes, if one were to look at the spot prices or futures prices for soybeans, corn, wheat or any of those, it does look pretty amazing. Unfortunately, for farmers, costs have gone in lockstep. In some cases, they have actually increased at a higher rate.

Where can we help them? We can help them with the carbon tax. We can help them by cutting the carbon tax and eliminating the carbon tax on farms. It does not get recycled. The carbon tax that they collect on farmers does not all go back to farmers. It does not go back into some environmental farm plan. It does not. They may say that it goes in dollar for dollar, but it does not.

The quickest and most efficient way to help agriculture and to recognize the environmental benefit the industry provides the country, without creating a bureaucracy and without hiring consultants to walk the farm, go through the woodlot and come up with an idea of how much was actually sequestered, is to cut it off right at the source. Do not make the farmer be the line of credit for the government on one more program. Do not tell them it is going to be neutral when we know it is $1.73 per thousand dollars. Let us not do that.

There are certain industries, I am sure, in Canada that do not provide a whole lot of environmental benefit to the country. Farming is not one of them. It is an organization with the most grassroots, environmental preservation organizations someone will ever see. If one were to go to a Ducks Unlimited auction or a conservation authority fundraiser, who would be there? It is the townspeople, for sure, but it is also the farmers. The farmers come out. In some cases, it is the conservation authority that gives them a hard time, but they are still out there to support the cause because they understand the relationship between productive land and the environment.

I really enjoyed the debate today. It is an honour to do this. I look forward to having discussions, hearing what the other parties have to say and what their thoughts are, and hopefully, with their good will, seeing it in committee.

I am thankful for the opportunity today and I look forward to the questions.

[Phil King]

I am familiar with Bill C-206 and Bill C-234.

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

Yes. I meant Bill C-206. My apologies.

[Phil King]

I am familiar with Bill C-206. I think the member said Bill C-216.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is able to get her technical problems resolved. I was looking forward to enjoying her speech. I know how challenging it can be with technical things.

I want to start with the substance of my speech. Like everyone else today, I am addressing Bill C-8, which is a financial update to the fiscal update.

I am going to talk about some specific issues. Over the next few days, we will have a well-rounded discussion, but today I really wanted to talk about one area specifically, and that is part 1(d). It has to do with the introduction of a refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions. Before we get into that, I want to talk a little about farmers and how important they are to our economy.

They provide the very sustenance we need every day, including throughout the pandemic. They actually account for nearly 7% of our GDP. In addition to feeding Canada and Canadians, people around the world are counting on our Canadian farmers. We are the fifth-largest agriculture exporter in the world and that provides nearly one in eight Canadians a job. We are one of the world's largest producers in flaxseed, canola, pulses, oats and durum.

Our farmers, despite providing an incredible bounty for us and around the world, have undergone some significant challenges throughout the pandemic. Like everyone else, they fought through the challenges of the pandemic. They also had challenges going into the pandemic, like the harvest from hell in 2019, which had the significant challenge of crops literally rotting in the field because it was so wet and farmers were unable to dry their fields. That harvest exacerbated the challenges our farmers were already facing, such as the self-inflicted wounds from the government in the form of the carbon tax.

The fact is that in some cases there is no doubt that the claims of revenue neutral do apply. If a person lives in a condo in downtown Toronto, there is a very good chance that their rebate is equal to the amount of the carbon tax they pay. However, if someone is a grain farmer in Saskatchewan, there is a very good chance and, in fact, a 100% chance, that they are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in carbon tax while receiving a mere pittance in return from the carbon tax rebate.

That is what led me, after discussions with some of the great advocacy groups for our farmers, to bring in a private member's bill, Bill C-206. Bill C-206 was legislation that would have exempted propane and natural gas from the carbon tax for farmers. It was well received and it created some great discussion. Our stakeholders were very pleased with it.

Initially, if one can believe this, the agriculture minister said that the carbon tax was not significant. Despite me and others receiving carbon tax bills from farmers around this great country in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars, she said it was not that significant.

However, as the bill gained momentum, all of a sudden the tone changed, which was quite odd. She said that there now might very well be an issue. The minister went from “it is not significant” to “it might be an issue at some point”. Then, of course, as we know, later on in the fiscal update, she announced that there would be a rebate program. That rebate would be a $1.47 for every $1,000 of eligible farming expenses, or $1.73 in 2023. We will see the math, but we will see that is not nearly as much carbon tax as farmers are actually paying.

Before we get into that, let us talk about a rebate versus an exemption and why we still need an exemption. A rebate takes money from the farmer, puts it in Ottawa and then takes it back to the farmer. Why would we go through that machination of having it go to Ottawa and then come back to the farmer? Why would we not just leave it in the pockets of farmers?

I can only speculate but I have a couple of ideas. It might be that, in fact, the government wanted to take credit for an idea that came from farmers, and it wanted to have that credit. It just might be that the government wants control of that money. It is funny what happens sometimes when people's money goes to Ottawa. It tends to diminish. In talking to advocacy groups, whether in the agriculture committee or one-on-one conversations with farmers, we hear that they welcome the rebate but they would much prefer an exemption.

Let us move on from there to see how this is calculated.

It is calculated based on eligible farming expenses. For those of you who are not aware, who have never filled out a tax return for a farmer or done it for their own farm, a farmer has to state and list all of their expenses on their tax return. This bill says that, if they had $25,000 or more, based on the amount of those expenses, the more carbon tax rebate they will get. Therefore, they are using eligible expenses as a proxy for the amount. In other words, the more they burn the more they earn. Where have we heard that before? That is exactly how the system works. Only it does not work. In the proxy that they use, they are saying that with more eligible farming expenses there is more carbon tax rebate.

The challenge with that is that not all farmers are the same and not all areas of the country are the same. The temperature is very different in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia than it is in northern Alberta. Of course, the amount of fossil fuels, including natural gas and propane, is different. In addition to that, different industries have different routes to alternatives to fossil fuels. For certain industries, it may take years but it is relatively inexpensive to switch to alternative sources. In contrast, with other industries, it may take decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet we are blanketing it. We are using the same formula for different types of farms.

I am pleased, once again, that the government is starting to recognize that the agriculture industry, in addition to being great stewards of our land, already carbon neutral and ahead of many other industries, is what is called “an emissions-intensive trade exposed industry”. That means that there are certain industries, of which agriculture is certainly one, that do not have the ability to switch to alternatives, and there are certain emissions that may take years, if not decades, to get out of the system, despite the best efforts of our farmers.

The reason, as we heard over and over in the agriculture committee, is twofold. As I already said, there simply are not alternatives, so all this is an increased cost. There is no way to motivate farmers to do something that is impossible. The other part of it is that farmers are price-takers. The price that farmers get for their commodities off the gate is set by markets thousands of miles away from them. Therefore, they are unable to push that cost onto the consumer. That means many of our farmers are struggling to hang on and are struggling to get through Justinflation like everyone else, so it is a significant challenge.

I will just wrap up here by going through an example of how ineffective and insignificant this rebate is. For example, if a grain farm in Manitoba had a gross income of $2 million, which could very easily be a net income of zero, a farmer could expect a rebate of $3,446. That same farm would be paying a carbon tax of almost $10,000. It is woefully insufficient. Farmers need an exemption, not a rebate. They need more money in their pockets, not in Ottawa bureaucrats'.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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

The House resumed from June 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), be read the third time and passed.

The Environment

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

Madam Speaker, the last petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the increases to the carbon tax. They are supportive of Bill C-206, which will be voted on soon. The petitioners note that there is no carbon tax increase in the Liberals' election platform, and that increasing the carbon tax severely impacts and penalizes those living in rural and farming communities. They are concerned about the increasing costs of heating and groceries, along with how the government is trying to bring about a one-size-fits-all approach instead of co-operating with the provinces.

The petitioners are asking the Liberals to respect their electoral promise and not increase the carbon tax, which disproportionately affects rural and western Canadians. They want co-operation with the provinces and ask for the speedy passage of Bill C-206 so there are exemptions from the carbon tax for certain farm fuels.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely my pleasure to rise on my private member's bill, Bill C-206. To me, it is a fantastic wrap-up for the year, if we go to an election.

A couple of weeks into being an MP, I was in Ottawa and my staffer came to me and said, “You won the lottery”. I did not think I had bought a ticket. What did that mean? I had gotten number 16 on the private member's bills, which then put in place a large canvass of issues: ones that affect people across Canada and in my wonderful riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South. One issue that kept coming up was the impact of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act on the agricultural sector.

I am a very proud advocate for and supporter of the agriculture sector and rural Canada in general. I had been told that dirtier fuels like diesel and gasoline were exempt from the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act but propane and natural gas were not, and of the impact this was having on our local farmers. When I had the opportunity, I was compelled. This was something I had to bring forward for the residents of Northumberland—Peterborough South and for our farmers across the country.

I have enjoyed this process. It has been an iterative process and it has been collaborative. In fact, this whole hour has been an island of its own in a sea of partisanship. This has been full of non-partisanship. We had the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell stand up for my private member's bill and for a commitment he made to a couple of constituents. That is the very epitome of what it is to be from rural Canada and rural Ontario. When we give our word in rural Ontario and in rural Canada, we stand by it. That is exactly what this member did, and I salute him.

One of the issues he brought to attention in his discussion was that things may change, and that very well may be. That is why the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford made a wise amendment to my private member's bill, which was to timeline it and have it go for only 10 years. If technology evolves and, in a decade, we can get to a point where there are biofuels or some other way, we are all for it, but as of now there is no other solution. Climate change is 100% real, and we are all in the House to fight climate change.

In the absence of exemption, we are pushing our farmers out of competitiveness because they are dependent on worldwide markets and on trade boards for pricing. When a cost is increased, such as with the carbon tax, it is put directly on the tables of our farmers. Farmers work so hard. Especially through this pandemic, they have not stopped for a moment, and because of that they have kept our food supply the best in the world. We produce the best grain, the best poultry and the best beef right here in Canada, and we need to make sure that our farmers stay competitive because when we increase input costs, those come directly from the farmers.

These costs not only affect our farmers, but entire rural communities because farmers are largely the ones who drive our economies. They are the ones who go to tractor dealerships and buy tractors. They are the ones who go to local restaurants, and there may be only a couple of restaurants in their towns. They are also the ones who support our local grocery stores, so we need to support and protect our farmers.

As I said, we are at the end of the session. I would like to take a moment to thank all the wonderful members of my constituency of Northumberland—Peterborough South and thank the farmers for this wonderful piece of legislation that I have been able to work with. Particularly, I would like to thank Brandon from the Grain Farmers. I would like to thank my staffer Hailey, who was fantastic and critical to doing this. Most important, I would like to thank all the members of the agriculture community who worked so hard to get this on board. We will have a vote on Wednesday and we will get this across. Hopefully, we will be back in session so we can get this bill passed and help our farmers.

I thank everyone out there so much. It has been a great pleasure to hear all the interventions. Some of my best friends, across the aisle and otherwise, have spoken. The member for Hamilton Centre is even wearing a blue suit for us, if I am allowed to acknowledge that he is in the chamber. I really appreciate that. I thank everyone for their learned interventions and their contributions. It is a great day for farmers.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to speak to my colleagues about Bill C-206, brought by the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who has done an excellent job of finding an issue that resonates not just within his riding but right across the country. I will make a few short points about this, because I believe that Private Members' Business provides the opportunity for members, such as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, to bring up issues they are hearing locally to see if they are salient. The adoption of this bill through second reading to committee and now to third reading shows there is a consensus in this country. The Liberals were the only party to vote against it. Every other party recognizes that Canada's future is, in great part, due to agriculture. Many may argue that Canada's past was formulated on that, and I would say that is true, but so is the fact we can do more.

In fact, in the majority government the current ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, put forward the Barton report and said that Canada could do so much more by working with agriculture. It could expand exports and feed people not just across our country but around the globe. It seemed for a while that the report might go somewhere. Most farmers thought it was great to have a government that was focused on that. Unfortunately, the government was not. Rather, it was focused simply on ideology and not on helping to connect the dots to make it work for farmers.

As the MP who sponsored the legislation said, the Grain Farmers of Ontario stated, “there are no readily available grain drying technology replacement alternatives that are cost effective. Drying grain is essential for marketing grain.” This points out that when the input costs are too high, grain farmers will lose traction to other areas that have better prices. Unfortunately, it is a commodity market and we cannot just say, “Buy Canadian because Canada is great.” People in other countries also need to feed their families. If the rate for our grain is too high because of input costs, these people will simply go to another cost provider.

The member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan previously mentioned the concept of carbon leakage, which is where adding extra regulations or taxation beyond that of another jurisdiction eventually makes it difficult for a place with a carbon tax, such as Canada's, to compete. I should know this. A B.C. Liberal government was the first to introduce a carbon tax in British Columbia. It found out quite quickly that the farming community would not be able to be competitive. Therefore, along with cement, it ended up having to subsidize many of those activities.

I am grateful the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South has brought forward something that will help with that competitiveness. The bill has received broad agreement, with the exception of the Liberal government and its backbenchers. I am sure there was a whipped vote on this, so I know many Liberal members probably felt very sympathetic and wanted to vote alongside the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP to support our farmers, but unfortunately it seems many on that side do not question the government's position as much. In fact, some seem to want to carry it on all day long, but enough about the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I just have a few more things to say. The Conservatives believe we should be working with agriculture. The government has put out a clean fuel standard that is so complicated that farmers do not know what opportunities are there. They are worried about getting lost in the paperwork. It is the same government that is making it more difficult for farm operations to use small amounts of propane. The government is basically encouraging them, through red tape, to move to diesel. We know it is not as clean, as easy to store or as manageable. The current government seems to always be at odds with what farmers need and want.

I will say this. Members like the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and our Conservative caucus will be standing up for our farmers. We will put forward solutions, and we will have a meaningful impact on our greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy, especially for our farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. It is great to have a vast audience across the way to hear what I am about to say, although the member for Kingston and the Islands may not entirely agree with it.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this excellent private member's bill, Bill C-206, from my colleague for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and in particular to talk about the significant failures in environmental policy on the part of government and how it is imposing costs on Canadians without a real plan to help us achieve our environmental objectives vis-à-vis climate change.

I will start briefly by congratulating the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South on his excellent work on this bill and so many other issues. He serves as the shadow minister for revenue in our caucus. When I hear “shadow minister of revenue”, I think it sounds exciting, but he really has grabbed this position by the horns. It has been a pleasure to work with him on a number of revenue issues, including trying to bring about reforms to the direction and control system.

This member has been a great champion of the charitable sector, trying to push the government to reform various aspects of the regulatory and legislative environment around revenue, especially direction and control, to really empower our charitable organizations and help them move forward. I want to congratulate the member for all his work, particularly in this bill, on behalf of farmers in his riding and elsewhere.

Bill C-206 seeks to change the definition of a qualifying farm fuel to include certain fuels not currently included, and that is a step forward in terms of allowing any fuel a farmer would use to be qualified as a qualifying farm fuel, and therefore not having the carbon tax applied to it. Right now, while natural gas and propane are not identified as qualifying farm fuels, gas and diesel are. Not only does this impose additional costs on farmers, but it also gives farmers an incentive to move away from using natural gas and propane and toward using relatively more gas and diesel.

In all likelihood, this is sort of perverse incentive that encourages greater greenhouse gas emissions, so this member is rationalizing the system through this bill in a way that would reduce costs for farmers and help our environment by removing this artificial incentive to use fuels that pollute to a greater extent.

One would think this is a no-brainer on that basis. If this is going to reduce costs for farmers, but is also going to help our environment by providing more of an incentive for farmers to use cleaner fuels, why would it not just be automatic that everyone in this House supports it? The Liberals are stubbornly clinging to their position that the way they did it was fine.

The big problem with these Liberals on so many aspects of their environmental policy is they do not understand the way in which perverse incentives can lead to worse outcomes for the environment, and they are not willing to look critically at the impact of those incentives on behaviour.

One of the issues we have talked about a lot in the Conservative caucus in terms of the failures of the Liberals' environmental policy is this issue of border adjustments. The Liberal approach is to impose carbon taxes on Canadian producers, Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers, but not to apply those same requirements on people outside of Canada who are producing products and then selling those products in the Canadian market.

The effect of this is that it is artificially creating an advantage for foreign producers, the people manufacturing goods and growing crops outside the country who are trying to then sell those products in Canada. One is creating an advantage for those outside Canada who are selling their products to Canada over Canadian producers. This obviously does not make any sense, in terms not only of protecting our own economic interests, but also of responding to the environmental challenges we face.

When one makes it more expensive, and in the case of this particular bill, it relates to farming, and when one imposes more costs on Canadian farmers and therefore tilts the field against our farmers and in favour of people involved in agriculture production outside of the country, that is not helping the environment. It is simply hurting our own economy at no environmental benefit.

We understand, in this caucus, that the challenges we face in terms of climate change are global challenges. Canada has to do its part, but it also has to put in place policies that recognize that emissions can happen outside of the country, and when they happen they impact us. We need to have a structure that integrates an appreciation for the global impact of climate change.

That is why the Conservative environmental plan, for the first time from any party, proposes a strong policy around border adjustment tariffs. There has to be an equivalency between the burden imposed on Canadian producers and the import adjustments that are taking place. We should not be creating a tilted playing field in which we are actually creating an advantage for those producing greenhouse gas emissions outside of the country.

We have raised this issue of perverse incentives: incentives in the policy that actually encourage the wrong kind of behaviour. In the case of border adjustments, we are talking about an incentive that the government has created, in its approach to environmental policy, to move production outside of the country.

If someone is making products for the Canadian market right now in Canada, that person is paying carbon tax. If someone is producing those products outside of Canada in a jurisdiction that does not have a carbon tax and then selling them into Canada, they are in an economically advantageous position, at least vis-à-vis the carbon tax.

This should be fixed so that we have a fair environmental policy that encourages improvements to environmental performance, but does not encourage the wrong kinds of adaptation, such as moving work outside of the country. As other colleagues have talked about as well, in the case of this bill we are talking about another case of perverse incentive. In imposing the carbon tax on certain kinds of fuel and not others, as the system is currently structured, there is an incentive for farmers to use fuels that may be more expensive and that may produce more in the way of emissions.

I think we can do better. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has quite rightly seen the opportunity to do better and has thus put forward a bill that seeks to adjust the incentive environment. That is why I am very supportive of this bill. I would encourage all members to be supportive of it and to push the government to recognize something. It has been a talking point of the Liberals for a long time. They say the environment and the economy go hand in hand, yet they impose restrictions and taxes that hurt our economy and provide no benefit to the environment.

It does not make any sense that they would impose obligations on Canadian producers and not have the corresponding adjustments happening at the border. It does not make any sense from an environmental standpoint. If they really believed that there was a unity of objective that could be pursued between the environment and the economy, they would be supportive of the plan that we have put forward, which includes these kinds of border adjustment measures.

In general, in our environmental plan as announced by our leader, the money that is gathered through the deductions paid when people purchase products that emit carbon is put back into their pockets to also pay for adaptation. Our plan is not just about taking money away from people who are producing: It is about giving those resources back to them to invest in adaptations that improve their environmental performance. Our plan is very different from what we see from the Liberal government. The government is trying to use the environment often as a way to raise extra revenue. Our approach is to target measures that are going to improve the environment, while also supporting our industry.

On this side of the House, we recognize the important role of our farmers. We recognize the value of having agricultural production in Canada. We want to strengthen farming communities. We recognize that from a basic security, food security and well-being perspective, it is important to have strong agricultural production happening here in Canada.

We have championed this position, as a party, from the very beginning. We understand that it is not enough to just say it. Within every party we hear members saying flowery words about the agricultural sector, but the Conservative Party has always been there to stand with our farmers, and Bill C-206 is another example of that.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful Monday morning. After listening to the earlier speeches, I would like to offer my thanks. My thanks to the Liberal Party member, who I just heard speak about the importance of this bill. Then there was my friend from Saint-Jean, and I did not know that she grew up on a farm, so we have a few more things in common. My thanks as well to the member for Hamilton Centre.

This is something that we have to recognize, as it is so important to our farmers. They are the ones who produce our food. They are the ones who, throughout this entire pandemic, have been working to support Canadians. Looking at this bill, I think it is absolutely exceptional.

I would really like to thank my great friend, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I actually drove through parts of his riding yesterday on my return to Ottawa from Elgin—Middlesex—London. The one thing I see in southwestern Ontario is beautiful agricultural land. There are lots of different commodities and sectors, but it is a big farming community. There are some big pockets of cities, but surrounding all of those big cities are acres and acres of great farmland where they are producing necessary commodities and food.

I am going to start with a very simple quote, which actually comes from the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. He said this at committee, and I want to put it in the record of the House of Commons because this is a very valuable debate.

These are things that are very, very important to my riding, so I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this bill for the farmers who are living in Elgin—Middlesex—London. I can tell members that, according to Statistics Canada, in 2016 there were 1,930 farm operators in Elgin and 3,260 farm operators in the county of Middlesex. These are things that are very, very important to my riding, so having the opportunity to speak to this bill is an honour.

To quote my good friend, at the agriculture committee he said:

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.

That is why I wanted to talk about propane. I have quite a bias, to be honest. The former chair of the Canadian Propane Association is a resident of Elgin—Middlesex—London. He is also the CFO for Dowler-Karn, which is probably one of the biggest distributors of gasoline and fuel products to multiple farmers in the southwestern Ontario region. I can sit down with him, and when I call Dan Kelly with a question, he will answer. If he does not have the answer, he will find it, because he is out there working for Canadian farmers.

He brought this to my attention as well. He said that Bill C-206 is excellent and what we need to do. He was actually hoping that we would not have to put through Bill C-206, and that the Liberal government may recognize the issue and put it in the budget, but we did not see that. The government does not recognize that it is going to take more than just two or three years for farmers to transition to greener fuels.

I was really happy to see this bill continuing on to third reading, but as the member for Saint-Jean indicated, these are the final days, so I hope that today we can get through this. After we return to Parliament, hopefully this is a bill that the Senate will look at very quickly. This is what our farmers need and what they are asking for.

Continuing on to the Canadian Propane Association, I would like to read a statement I received from it. I am sure everybody has received it as well. It explains why we should support this bill and the importance of the exemption that would come to our farm operators.

This statement, I believe, was put out after the vote on second reading of Bill C-206, a vote of 177-145. All opposition parties actually agreed and recognized that this is something that needs to be done. We saw that the Liberal government was not good with that, yet it may have had to do with it coming from an awesome Conservative. We may never know. However, I will read out the Canadian Propane Association's statement, which says:

“Discouraging the increased use of carbon-intense fuels such as gas and diesel in favour of low-emission energy like propane for agriculture applications would be a win-win for the environment and for farmers’ bottom line,” said Nathalie St-Pierre, President of the Canadian Propane Association....

“The principle of the GGPPA is intended to encourage a reduction in the use of carbon-intense fuels,” said St-Pierre. “By exempting gas and diesel but not allowing the same exemption for propane, the law actually encourages the increased use of gas and diesel – this is environmental nonsense.”

Just moments ago, we heard my friend from Hamilton Centre say the exact same thing, which is that, because of this, people are beginning to use diesel. The government has established the carbon tax, but it is actually giving an exemption to a dirtier fuel. We have an option here. The statement continues:

St-Pierre said that CPA members are also hearing from their customers in the agriculture sector about the significant added cost due to the federal carbon tax. According to an estimate provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer last December, over the next five years about $235 million will be collected from farmers for using natural gas and propane.

I will note that statistic. I was speaking to Dan about this. On behalf of the farmers in our area, he sent a cheque for over $1 million for just a few months for carbon tax collection. That $1 million that could have been used for so many other things, perhaps new technology, workers or new things on farms, but instead, that money is paid to the government.

We are talking about $235 million. I have heard people say that the government is going to lose $235 million. To me, the government should not be taking that $235 million in the first place, so it would not be losing revenue. This is revenue it should not be taking, so we have to look at this as not being a loss of revenue for the government.

The government had no business taking the $235 million in the first place because, at the end of the day, who pays for it? It is going to be the farmers. After the farmers, who pays for it? It is going to be people sitting at their tables, eating their cornflakes or their eggs from the local chicken farm. These are the people who, at the end of the day, are going to be impacted.

Yes, this bill is good for farmers, but it is also good for Canadian consumers who want to support the agricultural industry in Canada, especially that in Elgin—Middlesex—London, which is so important to me.

We have talked about inflation. In the last few weeks, inflation has been really key. We have talked about how much the price of wood and lumber have gone up. Housing is a big issue. In my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, there has been a 46% increase since last April in the cost of a two-storey home. Inflation is an issue, and the government is adding more costs to our goods.

If we talk about poverty reduction strategies, we need to see what we are doing that is creating more barriers. I look at not giving this exemption as just another barrier to reducing the high cost of our goods right now. Farmers know that, when they are paying all this money, it affects their bottom line.

I am so fortunate to work with Scott at the Grain Farmers of Ontario in my area. He is the zone manager there. I thank Scott, who always works with me. The Grain Farmers of Ontario is the province's largest commodity organization, representing over 28,000 barley, corn, oats, soybean and wheat farmers, and it has been very supportive of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act regarding qualifying farming fuel.

The Grain Farmers of Ontario is supporting this bill because of its exemption of the carbon tax for on-farm fuel and calls on all MPs to consider the tax on grain drying and its impact on the agriculture system in Canada. It is quite simple. The government should not be making money off a tax that negatively impacts a farmer's ability to market viable grain. The carbon tax does not make that happen.

Brendan Byrne was the chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario on February 22, 2021. There are a lot of AGMs going on, so that may not be his position now.

As we have always indicated, farmers have been doing great work in our communities. They are the stewards of our land. I think of some of the great projects that have been done in the back of farmers' fields with wetlands conservation. Those settlements are being taken back.

I love farmers, so I am very supportive of Bill C-206, and I thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing this bill forward.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had many occasions to rise with privilege to share a bit about my own family history. I have spoken a lot about my father and the African Canadian diaspora, but I have not had the privilege of speaking about my mother's side of the family, a family that settled not far from here, about an hour from here in the South Mountain area. It is a place I have fond memories of, stories of my grandfather with a grade-six education being told by his father that the world and that road ahead is as long as he can make it.

My grandfather, Nelson Scharf, in fact had a cheese factory in Russell and Haliburton. It was a connection we had to the supply chain and the agricultural sector here. My grandmother, Doris Forward, had a family farm in Winchester. My cousin, Tom Forward, is still on the land and works within the dairy sector today.

I think about those early memories of visiting those farms, visiting the cheese factory, being up close as a child and seeing these hard-working people, folks who often do not get enough credit for the number of hours they work and for what they provide this country.

I rise today with the honour, on our 60-year anniversary as New Democrats, of being from the founding party of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, which aimed to alleviate the suffering that workers and farmers felt and endured under capitalism. We are, in fact, the only party that was founded by farmers, so it is an honour and a privilege to be here today with that family background and that party background in support of this bill.

I want to take a moment and thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, a gentleman whom I have gotten to know in my committee work and somebody who I know has brought with him the good intentions of supporting the constituents within his riding.

For those who are tuning in and trying to get a sense of what this is all about, this bill, Bill C-206, seeks to amend the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to include natural gas and propane. Of course, this issue is complex. I will not pretend to be an expert, and there is certainly a lot of room for improvement at the committee stage, but this legislation stems from an unseasonably wet autumn in 2019, which was called “the harvest from hell”, when grain farmers were using propane and natural gas heaters to dry their grain. Without these grain dryers, grain rots and becomes worthless as food or as a cash crop contributing to our GDP.

There is currently no viable alternative to the use of propane or natural gas for the operation of these dryers, and because propane and natural gas are currently not covered under the act qualifying for farm fuels, grain farmers are forced into a situation of contributing more CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of carbon taxes on the cleaner fuels. The Grain Growers of Canada has confirmed, as of February of last year, that many of them have turned to higher-CO2-emitting diesel fuel, which is listed, ironically, as qualifying farm fuel in the act, for grain dryers to avoid the higher-taxed propane or natural gas heaters.

As our very learned critic for agriculture, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, has stated, ultimately what we want is high-CO2-emitting industries to be contributing less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if we penalize the agricultural sector with a higher price for choosing a cleaner fuel option, we are running entirely counter to our ultimate objective of combatting climate change by reducing GHG emissions. Our critic for agriculture, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, states quite rightly that farmers are not only well aware of what the effects of climate change will be, but they are also one of our greatest tools for fighting climate change.

When we are looking at this bill, I think we have heard this false dichotomy between Liberals and Conservatives about carbon taxes being the defining feature of climate change. The Liberals would suggest this is a market solution and Conservatives would suggest this is yet another tax. As New Democrats, we recognize that reducing greenhouse gas emissions ought to be our objective, and we do not feel that providing this in this particular way meets that objective. While the intent of the bill is sound, making it easier and more affordable for farmers to burn cleaner fuel should be a no-brainer, and using no fuels whatsoever or existing clean technologies is just not a viable option.

I think of my family who are still in this sector. My cousins, the Weagants, sold farm equipment throughout Ontario. I also think about the hard-working farmers in my city. I am a very proud MP representing Hamilton Centre, and many people do not know that while we have close to 600,000 people, the geography of our city encapsulates a very large portion of rural areas in the greenbelt and into some of the tender fruits land.

We are here today hoping to see a better outcome on this particular issue, to ensure that we are not adding to the complexities of the food supply chain and that we are cutting through the noise into a bit of a more intelligent argument about, again, a party founded by the CCF and about supporting our farm workers. Those who are out there across Ontario, Quebec and, indeed, across the country know that the New Democratic Party was founded on those principles.

The Regina Manifesto, right there in our founding documents, says, “The security of tenure for the farmer upon his farm which is imperilled by the present disastrous situation of the whole industry, together with adequate social insurance, ought to be guaranteed under equitable conditions.” It is right there, in the foundation of the CCF, which, 60 years later, would become the NDP of today.

I hold that position, and I support our agricultural sector. I know that farmers are on the front lines of climate change, and I know that they will play a key role in our food security and our ability to adequately adapt to the changing climate, which will have a direct impact first on them, and of course, in the spirit of the hard-working people of my own family, those who continue to this day to work the land and to acknowledge our precious connection to the land, the food that we have and the food supply chains.

In closing, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who, on the technical aspects of this, has been absolutely incredible for me and our caucus to help us better understand the nuances, because we want to see a just recovery. We want to see a just transition for workers. We acknowledge that farmers are indeed some of the hardest-working people, and that includes the migrant workers who work alongside them in our fields.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the House for allowing me to rise with the deep privilege that I have in the waning days of this Parliament to be able to share a little about myself, my family and our ongoing support for workers as New Democrats.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to Bill C‑206 today, as I did at second reading. Today, we have come full circle. I propose that we look at the bill by asking five basic questions, which we should ask more often in these cases: who, when, how, what and where. It is very simple.

I will start with who, in other words, those we are proposing this bill for. Unlike other political parties, we in the Bloc Québécois do not tend to give gifts to people who do not need it.

Farmers kept the agriculture sector going in a crisis, which is not easy. We know that farm owners had a very tough time on the labour front. This hurt food security, supply and, in some cases, animal health. Management of issues surrounding the arrival of foreign workers has been problematic, and, a few days ago, assistance from the government in support of quarantine was cut in half.

However, even before the crisis began, our farmers were already struggling. Climate change is causing even greater uncertainty around crops and harvests. Furthermore, it is getting harder and harder to find young farmers to take over, particularly because the price of land keeps going up year after year.

People who grew up on the land and worked with their parents will find it increasingly difficult to take over the farming operation. There are rare occasions when parents can afford to be generous and gift the farm to their children, instead of using the value of the farm business they have built up their entire lives to fund their retirement. In other cases, given the rising cost of land and quotas, it is hard to find young farmers to take over.

Why are we doing this, that is, why are we debating Bill C-206? We must remember that the bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, including section three, which lists the products that are not taxed, in particular those for farming purposes. Natural gas and propane were missing from the list of exempt products. Why does Bill C-206 seek to add them to section three?

A carbon tax discourages people from taking a certain action and encourages them to choose a behaviour over another. However, in order for that to happen, people must have options, and that is exactly the problem.

There was an example of this in my riding during the rail crisis. CN just stopped delivering propane for two weeks when farmers had to dry their crops, which was a critical time for them. The moisture level in crops was very high that year, and had farmers not been able to dry them, they would have rotted, which would have resulted in the loss of an entire year's income.

In this particular case, propane was the only option, since any alternatives are still in the pilot-project stage and are not a viable option for large-scale farming businesses. When I asked farmers, who were worried about not getting the propane they needed, they told me that there was no alternative to propane, but that they would like to have one.

The existing power grid would not even have the capacity to generate enough heat for drying grain. It is as though people expected to one day have electric hot air balloons—they are very popular back home—but this is not going to happen overnight. Technologies like biomass are still too new, and there is not enough incentive for us to expect quick changes in carbon pricing.

That brings me to my third point: When will it happen? This is the part I find unfortunate, because we are three days out from the end of the parliamentary session and the summer recess. This Parliament could end up being replaced with a new one, based on the election rumours we are hearing.

It is really unfortunate that we are debating a bill this important and necessary at the eleventh hour, knowing that it could end up dying on the Order Paper, just like Bill C‑216, the bill on supply management introduced by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, or the bill on farm succession planning, which the Senate just started studying.

On this third point, I want to say how disappointed we are with the government's management of the legislative calendar, because we are currently debating a great bill that, unfortunately, may never see the light of day.

How is Bill C‑206 being dealt with?

This part is a bit nicer. As I was preparing for my speech on my drive in to work this morning from my riding of Saint-Jean, I listened again to what happened and what my other colleagues said, particularly those who are members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I was very happy to hear how well people are working together on this committee. There is no excessive partisanship since everyone is serving the same cause, that of farmers and those who feed us. It is in that spirit of co-operation that a key amendment was proposed to improve Bill C‑206. This amendment is really worthwhile, because it addresses the concern that some might have about the fact that there is a gap in the bill, the ultimate purpose of which is to try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendment sets an end date for the exemption for natural gas and propane. In other words, natural gas and propane will be exempt from taxation for 10 years in the hope that, a decade from now, there will be new technology that will enable us to stop using natural gas and propane. That is our hope, anyway, but the government needs to get cracking because farmers do not want to be passive witnesses to these changes. They want to be part of it, but they need help. Contrary to what some people think, farmers do not wake up in the morning thinking about how great it is that they can go out and pollute. They just want help finding alternatives that are commercially viable, because they operate in a global market and cannot pass costs on to their customers. They would no longer be able to compete internationally, so we have to give our farmers that support.

The final point is, where is that supposed to happen? People might think that it is obvious it should be done in the House of Commons and Parliament, because that is where bills are passed and amendments made. That seems obvious, but nowadays, very few things that should be obvious are.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who contributed to the parliamentary spirit that has characterized Parliament during the pandemic. I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the interpreters, the support staff and the tech support who made it possible for us to function relatively normally, despite COVID‑19.

I also want to express my hope that, despite everything, we will get back to normal quickly, so that we can have accountability, so that there is someone in the House who answers questions, and so that reporters can do their job and ask parliamentarians questions as they leave the House. I also hope that we can go back to normal sooner rather than later so we can get parliamentarians working co-operatively, apart from the occasional stormy question period.

When we parliamentarians are working together face to face, we are able to move files along more efficiently, understand one another better, and remember for whom, why, how, where and when we create bills. It is fundamental to remember that, and that is what we are reminded of when we sit in the House in person.

With that in mind, I want to acknowledge the work of the House, but I also want to take a moment to remember the farmers. I wish Bill C‑206 could have gone forward. I cannot help but think of all the people I have known since I was a little girl growing up in the country. As members can imagine, it has been quite a while since I was “little”.

My thoughts are with our farmers, in the hope that, if not this time, Bill C‑206 can come back sooner rather than later and eventually be passed by the House and the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise virtually in the House today to speak to Bill C-206.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I am sure he has had many discussions with farmers.

I also want to thank Michel Dignard and Réjean Pomainville, two farmers from my region I greatly respect and who informed me of the impact that the changes could have on farms. I am very grateful to them.

Personally, I supported the bill because I made a commitment to those two farmers. I want to thank them. They did the right thing by telling me about the potential repercussions this could have on farming.

The bill seeks an exemption to the price on pollution. There are computerized grain dryers, but they are still rather rare in Canada. Most farmers have to use propane dryers, and those who are lucky enough to have a natural gas connection can use a natural gas dryer.

Given that the price of the carbon tax will increase to $170 by 2030, we hope that new technologies will be available on the market by then. I am sure that our government will present potential solutions and that it will invest to enable our farmers to take advantage of those solutions, which must, of course, be market solutions.

Climate change is real. For example, we know that the oil and transportation sectors account for approximately 52% of greenhouse gases produced in Canada, the heavy industries account for about 10%, and the agricultural sector accounts for roughly 10% as well.

We are trying to reduce the effects of climate change in the agricultural sector. The goal is not to penalize our farmers but to decarbonize their suppliers.

I supported Bill C‑206, and I also support the objectives and changes that our government presented.

The rebate program for farmers, which will allocate an estimated $100 million to the four provincial jurisdictions that have decided not to put a price on pollution, is a recognition by our government that we have to decarbonize the way we dry grain. However, right now those technologies may not be available to the majority of farmers. Obviously, by 2030 the price on pollution will rise to $170 a tonne, which sends a market signal to those who create new technologies to adapt technology so that it is not necessarily carbon heavy. That is where I believe we need to go. It is the only way to decarbonize our economy.

We know the ag sector contributes 10% of our greenhouse gases. However, I know that farmers have done a tremendous job, such as our egg farmers, who are able to produce more than 50% of what they used to 50 years ago while reducing their carbon emissions by 50%. There are positive stories out there. Farmers have adopted new technologies, whether they are biodigesters, solar panels or those to make their dairy barns extremely energy efficient. They are doing a fantastic job. What we are trying to do now is decarbonize the majority of their suppliers.

I was happy to hear that there is now a $200-million fund to help with the adoption of cover crops. I think that is an extremely important domain of science. If we could reward farmers so that cover crops play an even bigger role in capturing carbon, it would be an extremely good news story. The world will be looking at our net-zero products, and whether it is our produce or the other things that farmers grow, farmers will always be there. However, I think cover crops have a major role to play. I have started seeing farmers adopt it in my riding. Not everyone is, but some surely are, and the $200-million fund that was presented in budget 2021 will be there to help and guide them.

Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food launched the agricultural clean technology program, which has a fund of $165 million. There will be some money there to help farmers improve their green energy and energy efficiency, and help them further adopt precision agriculture. When we think about precision agriculture, we know there used to be days when farmers would just lay fertilizer across the land. Nowadays they can actually pinpoint, to the plant and to the row, where they need to put fertilizer, should they need it, to help improve plant health. That is the way of the future. The fertilizer industry has a role to play, and it is stepping up to play that particular role. Soil health is another important conversation we need to have in this country, and I think farmers want to be part of this particular conversation.

To get back to the matter at hand, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I have supported Bill C-206 because of a simple commitment that I made to two farmers back home. I certainly do not support an exemption that would last forever, but I do know that technologies will be available to our farmers. With the funds that were announced through budget 2021, there will be some dollars to help farmers adopt new technologies on the farm.

Grain drying is something that I will be looking at in my riding to see who has the most efficient method. It is part of my summer pet project to visit farms once it is safe to do so. It will help me better understand where farmers could make changes and where they might not necessarily have to rely on traditional technologies.

I want to raise another issue. Earlier we talked about cover crops and our government's $200 million fund for cover crops. There are a lot of trees on our farmland, and deforestation of private lands is a major problem.

I am not trying to single out farmers, because I know they are doing what they have to do to earn an income and support their families. However, part of that $200 million our government announced is for a reverse auction program, which is a really interesting initiative that encourages farmers to conserve existing wetlands and trees on their private property to capture carbon. These are all measures we announced in budget 2021 to help farmers reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important thing to do because that is where the industry is heading.

I think we would be sending a wonderful message to the rest of the world if we could produce food while having a positive impact on the environment and limiting our greenhouse has production. We would be the envy of the world, and I think that is how Canada should position itself.

Again, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for his bill, which I support. I wish him luck. Even though this bill will not help the green transition, it is an important part of the conversation.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), be read the third time and passed.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Canada's track record, as testified to us by AAFC officials, is that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have remained steady since 2005 despite production increases.

If carbon taxes were further exempted, as proposed under Bill C-206, for grain drying and things like that, would you expect greenhouse gas emissions to increase all of a sudden? What would you expect to happen over time, given the adaptation of the 4Rs and things like that?

Again, this is to Farmers Edge, please.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, be it through the use of more intensive use of cover cropping or rotational grazing, recently we had officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada testify at committee. They acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have remained steady since 2005, despite increased production.

By my own personal experience farming in a sandy vegetable production area, it was not uncommon to experience sandstorms in spring as the soils were being plowed to prepare them for potato, tomato and other vegetable seedlings. Having to turn on headlights to drive at midday happened more than once, I am sorry to say, in the mid-1980s. That does not happen anymore. Windbreaks have been planted, cover crops are managed far more intensively, and the use of strip tillage has virtually removed wind erosion as a concern.

Third, ag has a strong record of innovation, of adopting new technologies, such as the use of GPS technology on the farm, the growing adoption of variable rate application, both in seeding and in crop protection products, robotics in our dairy sector, automation and climate controls in our greenhouse sector and many other innovations.

Why is this? It is because farmers know they have to compete. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this industry has often been described as one of the few that buys their inputs retail, sells their outputs wholesale and pays the freight both ways. This leads me to my final framing point.

By and large, farmers are price takers. They cannot effectively pass along imposed cost increases to their buyers. Let these four points set the stage for my remarks of Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), adding propane and natural gas to be exempted qualifying farm fuels from the carbon tax.

We have heard much in this House about the harvest from hell in 2019. Particularly, in Western Canada, this very difficult harvest, which saw extensive and prolonged rainfall, as well as early snowfalls and frost right before and during harvest, necessitated the use of natural gas and propane to dry the grain into a storable condition. Farming in Ontario requires the use of grain dryers every year, particularly for grain corn, though it is often also needed for soybeans, wheat, barley, oats and canola.

During a recent conversation with Dr. Alan Mussell, he reminded me that farmers have been extremely focused on their use of energy since the very beginnings of organized agriculture. They have focused on maximizing yield and quality, and maximizing the feed conversion as plant energy is converted to protein. They have been focused on the 99% of the energy used on the farm, the energy received from the sun, solar energy. By maximizing the efficiency of this energy, by maximizing yield, quality and conversion, and by achieving greater plant growth per hectare, as a consequence, they have also increased carbon sequestration.

In fixing CO2 as a consequence of driving yield, it is heavily influenced by the management techniques employed by progressive farmers. It has only been in the last decade or so that there have been whispers about agriculture as being a dirty industry. Since the use of electrical and fossil fuel energy sources comprises only a small component of energy use, farmers have rightfully been historically focused on maximizing efficiencies through increasing the yield and quality of their crops by maximizing the use of the sun, by driving yield and consequently, sequestering carbon.

Incidently, the movement to reducing or eliminating tillage provided improvements in moisture retention and a reduction in erosion and, of course, increased sequestration, all without the imposition of a tax, something also not acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. However, then to increase agriculture's focus, even on the relatively small use of energy from fossil fuel sources, does it not make sense that adding a carbon tax would drive a reduction in its use? The answer is no for three reasons.

First, imposing a carbon tax on farm fuels used for grain drying could induce a logical response by the industry that reduces yields and then is at cross-purposes with the goals of the tax. Particularly, with respect to the growing of corn, farmers have chosen varieties that require the most growing degree days that can be grown in their region with acceptable risks to maturity so as to maximize the conversion of solar energy into yield, which then also maximizes carbon sequestration.

They could choose to grow shorter-season varieties, which would be drier at harvest, to avoid carbon tax costs. This would require less energy to dry the crop into a storable state. However, this comes with a corresponding reduction in yield, less fixing of CO2 and requires more land to grow the same amount of grain for their markets.

Second, commercially viable, scalable alternatives to using natural gas and propane simply are not available today. Because there are not any viable alternatives, the demand for fuel tends to be unaffected by price, making additional fuel charges in the form of an additional tax an ineffective policy tool to lower emissions. The additional fuel charge as presently applied is punitive. It taxes our farmers, with little to no benefit for the environment.

It has been mentioned that the recent budget did contain some funding, with $50 million for research to explore and develop viable alternatives. This initiative can be supported. If and when viable alternatives are commercially available, they are usually more expensive than the status quo. Incentivizing their adoption rather than taxing a present practice with no alternatives is a far better policy tool.

If possible, use the carrot rather than the stick. As mentioned earlier, farmers cannot pass this additional cost on to consumers, and this leads me to my final point, which is basic fairness in the market.

Our Canadian grains compete directly with American grains and are priced off the Chicago Board of Trade. Our own farm is primarily a processing-vegetable farming operation, but Lycoland Farms also produces grain and oil seeds. Because our volume of production is too low presently to warrant an investment in drying and storage facilities, we deliver our grains to Tec-Land, a farming operation and elevator in Wheatley, and receive a price based in U.S. dollars off of Chicago plus a local basis.

This basis takes into account the exchange rate, local supply and demand factors and freight considerations to market. Tec-Land has options for marketing to customers such as Hiram Walker or ADM in Windsor, Greenfield Global, an ethanol producer in Chatham here in my riding, Cargill in Sarnia or Ingredion in London, but none of these customers will pay more basis to Tec-Land to cover the carbon tax and drying cost. Why is that? Each of these end-users can also buy American corn or soybeans, and they often do, and these grains do not incur a carbon tax on the drying or on the farm fuels used to produce them.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act did exempt gasoline and diesel fuel, and Bill C-206 is looking to correct the oversight regarding natural gas and propane used for drying.

Many of my neighbours and most farmers in our riding, unlike Lycoland, have grain and oil seeds as the focus of their operations. Many have invested in their own drying and storage facilities. I recently spoke with neighbours, such as Paul Tiessen, Tom Dick, Walt Brown, Doug Mills and many others, who have all had the same experience as Tec-Land: When they were marketing last season's crops, they were unable to pass along any additional carbon tax costs to buyers.

Recent research from the Grain Farmers of Ontario has estimated that by 2030 the carbon tax on fuel used for drying will cost the average farm an additional $46 an acre. On an average 800-acre Ontario grain farm, it is a tax of $36,800 that cannot be passed along.

In conclusion, I urge all members of the House to support passing a bill that would remove the potential of being at cross-purposes with the goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Please support the removal of a tax for which users have no viable options, and please support basic fairness in the market for the ag sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to once again speak to Bill C-206. For those who are just catching the debate tonight, this bill would make an amendment to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and specifically broaden the definition of what a qualifying farm fuel would be. In this case, it is about adding natural gas and propane to the definition. This is important, as I will elaborate later on, because propane and natural gas are two fuels that are quite important to farmers for specific uses.

As I made mention in my second reading speech on the bill, it is also important to underscore the challenges that will be faced by our agricultural sector in the decade ahead from the effects of climate change.

I have heard from farmers both in my own riding and at committee about how they are on the front lines of climate change. I represent a rural riding. The riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is roughly 4,700 square kilometres in size. It is a beautiful piece of real estate on southern Vancouver Island. Also, the Cowichan Valley has a very long and storied history in agriculture. We are very proud of the climate we have, which allows us to grow an abundance of amazing produce and fruit. I know the farmers here are very cognizant of the effects of climate change just as they are right across Canada.

It is important that when we are crafting policy, we keep in mind what is going to be the greatest challenge of the 21st century and we really start to focus our efforts on combatting this great threat. It is not just having environmental concerns, not just causing environmental damage, but it is going to have significant impacts on our future tax dollars. The amount of money that we are going to have to pay out of future tax revenues in dealing with the damage from climate change, in trying to adapt to it and mitigating its effects, is going to grow if we do not significantly reduce our emissions. I understand the purpose of carbon pricing and I, for one, am absolutely in support of it.

I also want to acknowledge that too often in debate farmers are treated as bystanders and that is a gross mistake. Farmers are not only very well aware of what the effects of climate change will be, but are also one of our greatest tools in fighting climate change.

I have heard some of my colleagues make mention in their speeches on how good agricultural practices can be a major source of carbon sequestration. We need to take carbon out of the atmosphere where it causes havoc and put it into the soil. When we put it into the soil, we have healthier soil, we need less input through better agricultural methods and we get better yields. We also have soil that is better able to withstand droughts, flooding and it just builds a resilience into the system. There is nothing but positives with healthy soil management.

We have to look at those agro ecological practices and regenerative farming techniques. I am glad our committee is engaged in this study, but we really need to focus federal government policies, and I acknowledge the budget is starting to do that, on making this a priority and putting farmers front and centre as one of our greatest allies in combatting this threat.

I want to take time to acknowledge the important work that our agricultural sector is already doing and the potential it has not only in renewable energy generation and the significant possibility on farms of harnessing the wind, the sun and biomass, but also what farmers are doing with their careful soil management.

The bill is back before us after spending some time at the agriculture committee. I have been a proud member of that committee for over three years now, and I will echo the previous speaker's comments. It is a wonderful committee of which to be a part. We are probably the most non-partisan committee in the House. A lot of what we do there is reached by consensus, and it is always a very respectful dialogue.

I think every member of the committee realizes that no matter what our partisan political stripe is, we all represent farmers in our ridings. We have New Democrats, Conservatives, Bloc members, Liberals and Green Party members. We all recognize the importance of the sector, not only to our individual ridings but to our country as a whole.

It was one of those rare moments when we as a committee finally got to study a bill, and we did a thorough job in investigating Bill C-206. We had six meetings and heard from 29 witnesses, and eight briefs were submitted. These witnesses included quite a variety of people from across the spectrum. We got to hear from several federal departments, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, Farmers for Climate Solutions and the Grain Growers of Canada, just to name a few.

I have heard a lot of the debate about the intention of the carbon price. It is meant to establish a price signal to encourage people to change their ways to a less expensive and more environmentally friendly method. The focus of today's debate is the subject of grain drying, because that is where propane and natural gas are used quite frequently.

I mentioned this in my second reading speech, but it was confirmed time and time again: If the intention of the carbon price is to change behaviour, we need a viable alternative that we can change our behaviour to. I only recently made a switch to a zero-emission vehicle, and I know that many people in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are doing the same. They made the switch because there is a price signal. It is a lot cheaper to operate a zero-emission vehicle, an electric car, than it is to operate a gasoline-powered one. However, they also made the switch because there were viable alternatives. We have so many options to choose from in the zero-emission vehicle market right now that it is quite easy, especially with government rebates, to find something that is practical for day-to-day use.

When it comes to grain drying and alternative technologies, farmers do not have that option. We did hear that there are some emerging technologies with respect to electric heat pumps and possibility the use of biomass from crop residue. However, we also heard that those technologies are still many years away from being commercially viable and efficient enough to actually replace natural gas and propane. If we have no viable alternative to force farmers into and are simply levying a carbon tax on their activities, the price is not going to do what it is intended to do.

I do respect the fact that the government is offering rebates, which I think were placed in the budget on page 174 in response to Bill C-206. Bill C-206 did have an impact, I guess, in helping to rewrite a part of the budget. However, we did hear from farmers that they would prefer not to have the price in there at all until we have viable technologies.

That brings me to the amendment. I would like to thank members of the committee, because the one and only amendment that was passed to the bill was brought forward by me. I was trying to find a reasonable halfway point between the two sides to this argument by establishing a sunset clause of 10 years, after which the definition in this bill will revert to the original. I felt that 10 years was a long enough time to allow for these emerging technologies to become commercially viable so that hopefully by the year 2031 farmers will have a choice to go to. I think that is incredibly important when we put it in the context of carbon pricing.

I would like to thank my colleagues again, reflecting on what a joyful committee it is to be a member of, for agreeing to the amendment and allowing us to get to a stage where hopefully we will see the bill passed in the House and sent to the other place.

In conclusion, I think we need to remember, as has been detailed by the National Farmers Union, that Canadian farm debt has nearly doubled since the year 2000. It is made up of billions of dollars and, increasingly, farmers are paying more and more money in fertilizer costs, machinery fuels, new technologies, credit services and so on. They are really only left with a very small portion of gross farm revenues. I think the measure contained in Bill C-206 is going to help them out, and it gives us an opportunity to give them some price relief on a very important aspect of their business.

I appreciate the time. I look forward to hearing other speeches on Bill C-206.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank again the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for highlighting the key role that our farmers play for our economy, our environment and indeed our very well-being.

However, since this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak in this House since the finding of 215 bodies at the Kamloops residential school, if you will permit me, Madam Speaker, just for one moment I would like to touch on that. I have three indigenous communities in my own riding, including Sipekne'katik, Annapolis Valley First Nation and Glooscap, with particular emphasis that the Shubenacadie Residential School system was the largest in Atlantic Canada.

I had the opportunity to join members of the indigenous community in my riding on Sunday. We know that we had an important emergency debate yesterday. I was not able to be recognized, but I look forward to speaking on this in the days ahead, including, perhaps, tomorrow with the opposition day motion. I continue to work in concert with our indigenous communities, as I know all members of this House will do with their respective constituents.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and our farmers are on the front lines. Canadian farmers are both innovators and environmentalists at heart and they farm their land with an eye to future generations: farmers like Jacques Lamontagne, who is working with researchers to explore the benefits of planting trees along the river that runs through his dairy farm in Quebec's Eastern Townships; or Manitoba's Robert McNabb who was inducted into the Canadian Conservation Hall of Fame for being a pioneer in zero-tillage; or Alberta's Deer Creek livestock winners of the 2020 Environmental Stewardship Award for their efforts to conserve species at risk and use solar-electric fences to keep cattle off riverbanks and preserve grasslands. Let me also say that my own farmers in Kings—Hants are doing tremendous work to ensure that they are being environmental stewards of the land and to reduce their respective environmental and GHG footprints as a result.

Thanks to innovators like the ones I have mentioned and others, over the past two decades, Canadian farmers have doubled the value of their production while stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. In that time, the amount of agriculture emissions per dollar of GDP generated by the sector has dropped by half.

However, we know that there is more work to be done and we have to be there to work with industry in the days ahead. Our government has ambitious emission targets, with the goal of cutting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% by 2030 in comparison to 2015.

One of the things that I asked my hon. colleague about during his remarks was the fact that he did not touch on the budget investments that were made in budget 2021. That is an important nuance for members to consider. This well-intending legislation was introduced, but really our government has responded in a way to try to ensure that there are mechanisms and tools in place to support our farmers in their transition to reducing emissions. I want to highlight some of them for the members of this House.

Grain drying was one of the key central points that was raised by the member opposite as being a raison d'être of his PMB. Our government recognizes that there are emerging technologies, but we are not at the point that there is a whole host of opportunities to be able to move forward.

That is why, in budget 2021, we are investing $100 million to be able to rebate farmers who are in the federally backstopped jurisdictions, such that we can make sure that money is returned to farmers and we can still maintain the price signal of the price on pollution, which was deemed very important by a number of witnesses in our committee study on this particular piece of legislation. There is also $50 million dedicated solely toward supporting innovative technologies around grain drying, and I will speak more to that in a moment.

The clean agriculture tech fund is $165 million of support that the government has, in the days ahead, to roll out. One of the key elements in this is the opportunity to work with farmers to adopt renewable energy on farm as a way to offset fossil fuel practices. We know farmers are already doing good work. The member opposite talked about the means to be able to make this transition. Farmers want to be part of this, but we want to be a government that is working with farmers to be able to help make this transition. Programs like this are going to matter.

Finally, the agriculture climate solutions program will have $385 million dedicated to it over the next 10 years to help farmers transition to do this important work. This includes programs such as the living labs, where there are opportunities for farmers, researchers and innovation experts to come together to make important investments and do important research on what else can be done.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about some of the opportunities that exist. I know the debate in the House will include measures that farmers are already doing. We as a government agree. We look at things such as the clean fuel standard and the opportunity that exists for the canola sector. We look at the offset mitigation efforts, essentially the offset credits, that Environment and Climate Change Canada is working toward. This presents an incredible opportunity for our sector to reward the practices that are being adopted. It is important that we continue to support these practices and ensure that farmers have the opportunity to benefit from the environmental stewardship they are already taking on.

I want to give some reflections from my perspective as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, where we had conversations with experts on Bill C-206. One of the elements in a lot of testimony that I thought was particularly important was the importance of maintaining a price signal. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford introduced an amendment that is reasonable, but misses the point that we want to keep that price signal now to continue to make innovation possible and help drive technology and innovation in this space.

The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South mentioned in his remarks that farmers would make the transition to the most efficient grain dryers today if they had the means to do it. Our government is focused on maintaining that price, being able to hub the support programs that are in place, such that we are able to help farmers make the transition today because we need to continue to move in this regard. That is is extremely important.

I would also talk about the fact that the agriculture committee is doing a study right now on environment, agriculture and the intersection between the two. One of the things that was pointed out yesterday by witnesses is that there are opportunities for things such as wood pellets to help drive the energy that is necessary to support grain drying.

This is something that the ECCC is looking at in conjunction with the industry because the life-cycle analysis of these types of products is significantly lower than fossil fuels. These are the types of innovative practices that we can continue to do to help support farmers, so they are able to get around the price on pollution and lower their own costs and support rural industries at the same time.

I mentioned in my question to the member opposite that one of the things we heard loud and clear was that, although it is laudable in its intent to open up natural gas and propane as eligible fuels, because this was about grain drying, at least as I understand it, there is no explicit mention in the proposed legislation that would change the definition of the eligible farming activity. I take notice that the member opposite feels that, under the interpretation he takes, this would be included, but we have heard from the Department of Finance Canada that they do not share that view. That is one part of the fatally flawed elements in this bill.

Simply put, our position as a government is that we are going to continue to maintain a price. We are going to rebate where it makes sense, where it is difficult to find the innovative technologies that exist. The intent of this particular legislation was well-meaning, but it was introduced before the government made significant investments to partner with industry to get to the outcomes we all know are so crucial and important.

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

moved that bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to be in this House. It is an even greater privilege to be here with respect to Bill C-206, which of course is my private member's bill. Although I misspeak when I say it is mine. It really belongs to the farmers. That is what this bill is all about.

Our agriculture workers are tremendous. They produce some of the best agriculture products in the entire world. They work so hard every day. They get up early, go to bed late, and in between, continue their fantastic work.

Of course, we have all been challenged by the pandemic, and farmers are the same. Farmers have pushed through, even through the pandemic. Through all the barriers and challenges of the pandemic, they continued to plant their fields, tend their crops and take care of their animals, so we could always have a full belly here in Canada. During the pandemic, and really at any time in the recent past, farmers and Canadians have never had to worry about their food supply, and that is because we have the best farmers in the entire world.

Talking about the importance of agriculture, it is more than 7% of our GDP. More than that, farmers are really the heart of our community. They are the engine of our economy. Nearly one in eight Canadians are employed in agriculture and agri-food. That is an important statistic. That is the type of impact this industry has. On the whole, it employs more than 2.3 million Canadians.

We are one of the world's largest producers of flax seed, canola, pulses and durham wheat. We have some of the best beef, poultry and pork in the entire world produced right here in Canada, the greatest country in the world.

However, farmers have done this not in easy circumstances. In fact, in 2019, they had to go through what was dubbed, and I excuse the language, the “harvest from hell” when their crops were incredibly difficult to harvest due to the moisture and rainfall of 2019. This was an absolute challenge. Farmers had to run their grain dryers for nearly 24 hours straight at some points to save as much of their agriculture product as they could.

In 2019, the rain out west was not the only weather condition that farmers faced. That year a hurricane flattened fields in Atlantic Canada. Fields in Quebec faced unprecedented rainfall during harvest and planting times. There were snow-covered fields out west earlier on. Manitoba was in a state of emergency. Alberta and Saskatchewan faced drought.

In my riding, the fabulous riding, and I might say, perhaps the best riding in the entire world, Northumberland—Peterborough South, we faced an almost unprecedented late frost. Generally, after May 24 is the frost-free zone, but we had frost in our riding, and in other parts of southern Ontario, and if farmers had planted, they had to deal with that as well. As we can see, farmers are not without their challenges.

It goes beyond weather. There are issues that farmers are facing such as global trade issues. Currently, there are various trade issues where farmers in Canada are not getting appropriate, equitable treatment. They are often at the short end of the stick and in a highly subsidized industry. It is subsidized nearly throughout the world, in the EU and the United States. During the pandemic, the EU and the United States of America stepped up for their farmers. They gave millions, if not billions, of dollars to farmers to help them get through the pandemic.

In Canada, I would love to say it was the same, but that is just not the case. Unfortunately, the current government went through its tried and true strategy of making an announcement, having that policy or platform item fail and then reannouncing it again. It recycles failed announcements over and over again, and our farmers got precious little compared to other farmers around the world.

That, in a nutshell, is why I am so passionate about Bill C-206. When we boil it down, it is about giving farmers a fair shake. They need to have the same opportunities as farmers around the world. The carbon tax here in Canada is not imposed internationally, and because of that, they face barriers that other farmers in other countries simply do not face.

Bill C-206 would give those farmers a fair shake, an opportunity to compete globally. What would it do?

Currently, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act absolutely exempts certain types of fuel. It exempts gasoline and diesel, but it does not currently exempt natural gas and propane. In the spirit of team Canada and non-partisanship, I would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt that perhaps this was an oversight. This is the government's opportunity to correct that oversight. In fact, I would like to invite it to do so.

There is no logical reason why natural gas and propane would not be exempt when gasoline and diesel are. Natural gas and propane are cleaner fuels than diesel and gasoline. In fact, in my humble estimation, natural gas and propane are actually part of the solution.

For example, if we were to take all the coal-producing power plants in China and convert them to natural gas, the savings from that, the amount of carbon savings, the reduction in output, would be dramatically more than if we were to take Canada to net zero. If we were to convert China completely to natural gas from coal, that would be much more beneficial to the environment than even if Canada went to net zero tomorrow.

Natural gas and propane are a part of the problem and they are arguably cleaner than the exempt fossil fuel equivalents, which are diesel and gasoline.

When I look at natural gas and propane, who do we impact if it is not exempt? We are affecting a wide range of farmers, but particularly our grain farmers. As I said, we are among the leaders in grain farmers in the entire world. Those prices are set by international markets.

By having this bill in place, we will give those grain farmers a break. The Saskatchewan Association of Agricultural Societies and Exhibitions, the Manitoba Association of Agricultural Societies and the CFIB have various numbers, as does the PBO, but those numbers range anywhere from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in costs for farmers. I saw them. I was emailed droves and droves receipts for the carbon tax, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. Then to add insult to injury, they are charged GST on the carbon tax.

When I was at the public accounts committee, I asked the assistant deputy finance minister how the government could justify charging the GST on top of carbon tax, that the carbon tax was punitive enough. He said that it was not. He was wrong. The government does not even know how much damage it is inflicting on our farmers. To me, that is so damaging and so challenging.

When we look at this, we know farmers want to, and I definitely want to, fight climate change. Is there a more environmentally friendly way? Is there a better way than burning natural gas and propane?

We had session after session of expert witnesses. While they said that perhaps there were fledgling technologies and that there were opportunities for the future to perhaps burn biofuels or use other types of more environmentally friendly fuels and energy, right now there was not. The Grain Farmers of Ontario said, “there are no readily available grain drying technology replacement alternatives that are cost effective. Drying grain is essential for marketing grain.”

From these witnesses, we learned that farmers greatly care about the environment. For those folks who maybe are not in an agriculture setting, like I am, a one degree difference in temperature can make the difference for a season. An entire year, whether it is profitable or not, can be based on whether there is frost or not. That can be the difference of one degree.

There is no one more sensitive to environmental changes, to environmental concerns than our farmers. That testimony came out again and again. When I think about the environmental impact, and I will talk a little about that, it really affects them.

I was actually sleeping at six a.m. in my house. I rent out my property to a farmer. Of course, farmers, because they work immeasurably harder than politicians, were not asleep at six a.m. I heard a “rap, rap, rap,” and I came down to the door in my pyjamas, with the farmer knocking at my door. He rents the field from me. He said there was a tree down and asked if I have chainsaw. I asked him to give me five minutes so I could get changed and get my chainsaw. We went ahead and cut up that tree. In there, I started off a conversation with one of our local farmers, a great guy.

Members might wonder what we talked about. Did we talk about the fact that the Leafs are definitely going to win and that this was their year? No, we did not talk about that. Maybe we talked about Montreal and that maybe it would be their year. No, what we talked about was actually the GPS in his tractor and how he had two different GPS options, and he picked the one that was one inch as opposed to five inches. It was calibrated to one inch, and he said he had to do that, because it made his farms and fields more productive and because he did not want to use one extra ounce of chemical or fertilizer that he did not have to use. This is how much our farmers care about our environment. I think that is a bit of an undersold issue.

Of course, farmers are some of the first stewards of our lands. They protect so much. Other technology they have been involved in includes no-till technology, precision agriculture and satellite-driven agriculture. The farmers want to get this right. They want to do everything they can to preserve that land, because, quite frankly, their livelihood and the livelihood of the coming generations depend on it.

There is great news, too, with respect to farmers. They are actually ahead of the curve. What do we hear about from industries, even the oil industry and, of course, the government here? It is net-zero, and this is a fabulous concept and something we can all drive to, but most industries say “net-zero, 2050; net-zero 2060; net-zero 2040,” or, maybe if they are really ambitious, “net-zero, 2030”. How about, “net-zero, now”? That is what farmers are. They are net-zero now. They plant millions of these little devices, these terrific, amazing little carbon-capture devices. I like to call them “plants”. There are millions of them every single year, and they sequester this carbon. It is unbelievable. It is such an advance in science. They sequester this carbon in their fields, and yes they burn some fossil fuels in their tractors and in drying grain and keeping their barns heated, but overall they are net-zero and above, and farmers want to do even more.

I am so passionate here, I am happy to hopefully get through half of my speech here. I just could talk about this PMB all day.

When we look at the overall picture, we see farmers who want to do the right thing. We see Canadians who want to do the right thing and protect the environment, but we have to do it in a way that makes economic sense, as well. First, we have to make sure that farmers stay competitive in the global market and that we do not make our farmers pay an undue burden, as opposed to other industries and other countries around the world. The other part is that farmers want to do the right thing. The challenge is that agriculture has been, and is even more so now, an undercapitalized sector of our economy. In testimony at the agriculture committee, one of the the individuals said that if money was not an object, they would put in high-efficiency grain operation tomorrow, but they simply do not have the capital. Farmers are stretched out more thinly than they ever have been before, so that is why.

The idea of the carbon tax is that we are going to make less environmentally friendly solutions more expensive, so that we will naturally be pushed, in a free market system, to those that are more environmental. However, in this situation the reverse is true, because farmers want to do the more environmentally friendly thing. Members can trust me, as I was talking to my farmers on Saturday morning. They want to do that; they just do not have the money, so when we take more money from them, and it can literally be tens of thousands of dollars, they do not have the money to invest.

Farmers want to do the right thing. We want to do the right thing. Let us collaborate together. Let us vote together. Let us pass the PMB, Bill C-206.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act with regard to qualifying farming fuel. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

I don't want to belabour the point too much more. It's just that when I was first approached with the idea for a fix in this section, I think it was back in January 2020, the “before” times, before the pandemic hit us. I can remember speaking with the Keystone Agricultural Producers. A number of farmer organizations had identified the need to exempt natural gas and propane. There was a lot of conversation about the “harvest from hell”.

When Bill C-206 came about and I devoted a considerable amount of my second reading speech in support of the bill, the intent behind the bill was always to address the substantial grain-drying costs that farmers had. I've never, ever heard any arguments, up until this point, made in favour of expanding it to include aviation gasoline. Perhaps I could have been convinced back then, but we've gone so far along the process on Bill C-206 that to have this suddenly come forward like this doesn't give us a lot of time to really consider it fully.

That's my counterpoint, that I have yet to see the evidence that was presented at committee where substantive arguments were made in favour of adding aviation gasoline. As I said, I did a word search of all the witness testimony. There was only one mention of the word “aviation”. It wasn't aviation gasoline, and it was made on April 29. Unless I'm missing something from briefs, I understand the rationale behind it, but we haven't had the witness testimony really underlying and making the case for it up to this point.

I've always understood that it was for grain drying, and grain drying was the sole impetus behind this bill. In my opinion, this just seems like a bit of mission creep.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome, all of you, to meeting number 32 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 on Thursday, April 22, the committee is commencing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in regard to qualifying farming fuel.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

I will take this opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. The microphones of participants in the room will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Remember that all comments by members and witnesses must be directed through the chair. When you aren't speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

We'll get into the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-206, and just to let you know, once we've done that, we'll go in camera. There's another link, so we'll have to disconnect and come back to go in camera for the business portion of this meeting.

We will start with Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lawrence, you have submitted an amendment, so I will give you the floor if you want to move that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 10 and the motion adopted by the committee on April 15, the committee is beginning its study of Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act.

Today's meeting is taking part in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25. Therefore, members can attend in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind all participants in this meeting that screenshots or taking a photo of your screen is not permitted.

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute your mike. For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer.

Just a reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute.

Before we get going, I'd like to remind members that amendments to Bill C-206 must be sent to the clerk by Friday, May 7—tomorrow—at 5 p.m. eastern time.

Now I'd like to welcome the witness, who has seven and a half minutes for his opening statement. I'd like to welcome John Barlow, the member of Parliament for Foothills.

Mr. Barlow, you have the floor for seven and a half minutes. Go ahead.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put some thoughts on the record with respect to Bill C-30. I want to thank my colleague from Foothills for splitting his time with me.

In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, or CKL for short, agriculture, agri-food and agri-food processing is a bedrock element of our local economy, just like for the previous speaker.

I want to begin my comments here. Before proceeding, I would also note that as a father of four daughters, my desire is that they face no glass ceilings in their careers. I want to congratulate the finance minister on being the first female finance minister to deliver a budget. My youngest daughter Kiana just completed her masters in economics, and so maybe, one day, she, too, will deliver a budget, hopefully one based on solid economics rather than election politics.

Back to agriculture, the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system is a key driver of our economy and generates $143 billion, accounts for 7.4% of our GDP, and provides for one in eight jobs, at least in 2018, and more than that this year.

This budget does include some provisions for up $100 million for rebates from the carbon tax for on-farm natural gas and propane use. At the agriculture and agri-food committee, we are presently finishing a review of Bill C-206, sponsored by my colleague, the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South, which proposes an exemption from the carbon tax for on-farm propane and natural gas.

No doubt the existence of this private member's bill influenced the government's decision to include this measure. We discussed, and continue to discuss, at committee the utility of a rebate versus an exemption system. Farmers in my riding and indeed farmers all across Canada can thank Conservatives for this initiative appearing in the budget. Nevertheless, it is good to see that this issue is acknowledged, and that is a positive.

I also want to acknowledge monies targeted to agriculture in the form of incentives as part of programming to address climate initiatives. Practically speaking, though, the costs alone of fossil fuels, of nitrogen fertilizers is enough to encourage their judicious use. Despite that, innovation and environmental responsibility have always been hallmarks of our ag sector.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has acknowledged, present viable, scalable technologies that reduce agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions are presently lacking. Given that, incentives to encourage development and innovation are far better tools than punitive taxes, as many witnesses at the committee have testified.

However, if there is one measure that has the potential to move the needle in the adoption of technology in the ag sector, it is the expansion of high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. The further adoption of precision agriculture, a key technology to build on ag's strong track record of environmental responsibility, is so often hindered by the lack of high-speed Internet access, and the previous speaker echoed these comments.

While the $1 billion amount announced for the universal broadband fund pales in comparison to other funding promises, it is the increased use of this technology that does have the potential to lower ag greenhouse gas emissions.

Given all the attention that the deficit of connectivity in rural and remote areas has attracted over the years, all of the promises, all of the election pledges, even before COVID-19, should have led to the ag sector, and indeed all rural Canadians, using world-class broadband infrastructure by now.

To quote a recent Western Producer editorial, “They didn't and we don't.” The parallels between promises of increased high-speed access and national child care programs are eerily similar, often announced and seldom delivered.

Specifically, I want to point out the situation in my riding of Pelee Island. While the most southerly inhabited point in Canada, it can be considered as remote as, if not more remote than, many parts of our north. There is no reliable 911 service. As it currently stands, Pelee Island has no broadband Internet available to the public. Internet speed on the island is either dial-up or slow cellular hubs for existing businesses, residents and visitors with huge costs associated for small amounts of data. Stormy weather disrupts this service. Pelee Island is the very definition of remote, with only boat and air access in summer, in good weather, and only air access in winter, again, in good weather.

My riding lies in southwestern Ontario, a region serviced by the Southwestern Integrated Fibre Technology, or SWIFT for short. Ten per cent of Canada's underserved broadband area resides in southwestern Ontario.

Therefore, under the government's previous connect to innovate, CTI, program, SWIFT's share of funding should have amounted to $58.5 million, yet the amount received was zero, not a penny. Similar to the structure of the previous CTI program, the government has chosen to administer the present universal broadband fund with no pro rata share provisions for under-serviced areas. This budget contains spending measures of $509 billion, over half a trillion dollars, but Canadians were looking for a budget with a plan for growth, for investment in infrastructure and a budget with a debt management plan to recover from the huge impacts of COVID.

I recently surveyed my constituents on a host of issues. Specifically on the statement that small businesses are the key to economic rebound in Canada, and 87% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Only 13% agreed or strongly agreed that multinational corporations were the key to our economic recovery. My constituents and all Canadians were looking not for a government-led spending plan, but a budget investing in infrastructure and creating the climate for a business-led recovery. The small businesses that I relate to in Chatham and Leamington, Blenheim, Ridgetown and many other towns in Chatham-Kent—Leamington need the confidence that their government will manage the country's finances well, so that the climate into which they invest is stable and predictable.

While this budget talks about some small investments in infrastructure and necessary measures to support small businesses affected by government, what this budget does not contain is a plan to pay for all of the election promises. There are no tax reforms, no financial guardrails anchored to fixed thresholds, no targets and no path to balance. These are the kinds of measures that give small business the confidence to invest and lead our recovery, and that is this budget's greatest failure.

Is this the spending legacy that we want to leave to our children and grandchildren? Last June I had the pleasure of announcing in the House the birth of my first grandchild. I also stated at the time that it was estimated that her share of the federal interest-bearing debt would be over $39,300 at fiscal year end. I was wrong. According to the budget just tabled, her share of the debt as of March 31 is over $43,300 and the budget predicts that her share of the debt five years from now will grow to over $50,700.

Here is what really scares me. Today's budget has assumed an average interest rate-carrying cost on our present debt of 1.2%. Yes, today's interest rates are low, but these budget assumptions assume that the average carrying cost will only rise to 1.9% five years from now. This assumption is inconsistent with how the government is funding its annual deficits. The government is printing money to finance its spending and every time in the past when governments have done this, the economy experiences inflation. In fact, we already are.

Asset inflation is here, as anyone who is trying to buy a house or a two-by-four already knows, and the Consumer Price Index is sure to follow. What follows inflation? It is higher interest rates as the government tries to rein in inflation and prop up its currency, so I have very little faith that interest rates will average 1.9% on the government debt five years from now.

Who does this hurt? People who have assets with low debt like this scenario, but for those working for a paycheque, their wages seldom keep up to rising costs. Everyday Canadians do not want this inflationary future, so this budget, with so much unfocused inflationary spending, cannot be supported. We will hear the usual refrains from government members that we Conservatives want to have our cake and eat it, too. Conservatives have supported and will continue to support measures to support Canadians and small business, but not the reckless, uncontrolled spending without a plan for our grandchildren.

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Buy, thank you for joining us today as we study Bill C-206.

In its brief, the council states that the exemption proposed in Bill C-206 should be permanent, since the temporary measures deter capital investment.

Wouldn't it be advisable to discourage investment in equipment, such as grain dryers, if that equipment will become obsolete during the transition?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Talking about alternatives, there are some alternatives on the horizon. Can you talk to me about the efficiency, and how the agriculture community responds to incentives, be they financial incentives to explore alternatives versus taxes or punitive measures? For example, can you talk about the efficiency of an exemption considered under Bill C-206 versus a pay and rebate program?

[Serge Buy, Chief Executive Officer, Agri-Food Innovation Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me again to appear in front of your committee. The last time I presented was in February. There was a snowstorm, and I think I reflected on the challenges of the Internet in rural regions. I am proud to say that we've had an upgrade in our region, so I should be fine on my Internet today. As well, there is no snow.

When I appeared the last time, it was to discuss processing capacity. I note that your report has come out, and I would really like to congratulate the committee on a great report that came out, with substantial recommendations. My hope is that the government will reach out to stakeholders in order to discuss implementation—stakeholders such as us.

That would be great to see, but I'm here to discuss Bill C-206, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to mention first that the intent of the draft legislation is to extend the exemption on the carbon tax to some farming operations that use propane and natural gas. As you know, reducing GHG emissions is a priority. It's a priority for Canada. It is a priority for farmers. However, when there are no viable options, farmers shouldn't be penalized for doing what they do best: feeding Canadians and contributing to our economy.

We are certainly supportive of this legislation, and we are supportive for the following reasons.

At this point, there are no viable options that are scalable to serve the whole sector. While there are some new technologies, they still need to be researched, especially in terms of how they adapt to our particular conditions in Canada.

The scalability of those new technologies is also an issue. We're simply not there yet, and we must be realistic that we will not be able to scale up those new technologies in the near future.

We've researched the issue, Mr. Chair. We've consulted our members, and there was an almost unanimous response from our members on this issue. Increasing the costs for farmers will lead to some abandoning agriculture, and this will have a negative impact on our jobs, on the trade balance and also on our food security, an issue that we should really consider specifically.

The AIC recently held a webinar on agrifood and climate change. It included international experts such as Dr. Ould-Dada, deputy director at the UN food and agriculture organization; Dr. Ringler, who is with the International Food Policy Research Institute; and Dr. Sally Rockey, a long-time senior civil servant in the U.S. and now executive director of the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research.

They all agreed with the following statement: It is important to consider food security when implementing measures to reduce GHG emissions in agriculture, and sustained investments in research and innovation are essential to support reductions in GHG emissions in agriculture and adaptation to climate change.

We certainly agree with those two statements from our experts, and we believe that the committee should reflect on those and pass [Technical difficulty—Editor]. However, we also believe that the exemption should go to other types of farming.

The exemption right now is limited to some types of farming, and we believe that it is not fair to penalize other types of farmers, such as farmers who have barns and need heat for animals. It's not fair for them to be left aside. There are other types of farmers who also do important work and provide Canada and Canadians with an important service that is required, and we believe that they should also be considered in and supported through this legislation.

As well, Mr. Chair, we believe that the measure should be permanent. This was a topic of some discussion within our council, but ultimately the great majority of our members who responded to the survey indicated that it was important to extend the protection on a permanent basis.

The rationale for this is simple. Farmers make significant investments in material and equipment. For them to have a temporary measure will increase concerns and affect their ability to plan financially and get new machinery. As no machinery and no technology is scalable at this point to enable them, in a viable manner, to have other sources of fuel, such as clean and renewable fuel, we believe that the measure should be permanent to give them certainty—and I stress the word certainty—that there will be no changes in the near future.

Mr. Chair, there are greener alternatives, and there are various alternatives such as gasification systems, low-temperature pyrolysis, anaerobic digesters and battery-based equipment. There certainly are different alternatives, but there are several factors that work against those alternatives. I mentioned that they're often not viable. The price is simply too high and the price to scale them is not feasible.

We also have to remember that our farmers compete internationally against the U.S., Russia, Brazil and other countries. We have to be careful on that—

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I have one quick, last question. I believe this would be for Mr. King.

If Bill C-206 passes, what message does this send to other sectors?

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

I'm asking you how could you possibly conceive of grain drying not being included in Bill C-206, when it's clearly a farming activity done on a farm with a machine. Are you saying that a grain dryer is not a machine? Are you saying that growing grain is not farming?

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

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.

Mr. King, I just want to follow the line that Mr. MacGregor took earlier.

When we look at the definitions of Bill C-206, to me it's absolutely clear, in fact it's crystal clear—and that's in fact what our parliamentary lawyers have all said as well—that grain drying is included.

If we look, in fact, and we ask, what's the definition of farming, it almost certainly includes the growing of grain. What is “eligible farm activity”? That includes the operation of eligible farming machinery. What is “eligible farming machinery”? It is an industrial machine or a stationary or portable engine.

All of that fits grain drying to a T. I don't understand how you could possibly conceive that grain drying is not included in this, and I think it's just silly to say otherwise.

Mr. King?

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

Thank you, Chair. Maybe my question will be for Mr. Parry, with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

I don't really have many more questions on Bill C-206 per se, but I am interested in whether or not the Government of Canada has done an analysis of the carbon sequestration potential in Canada's farms.

I know in budget 2021 there were $60 million dollars allocated over the next two years for the nature smart climate solutions fund, and that's really to protect existing wetlands and help save trees on farms. However, I'm just wondering, overall, whether we have done an in-depth analysis of Canada's agricultural soils and really what our sequestration potential is if we're really going to be depending on them to act as a carbon sink as a part of our overall fight against climate change?

I'm just wondering if you could give the committee an update on that.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. King, I'll maybe start with you.

In the previous exchange that you had with Mr. Blois, you expressed some doubt as to whether Bill C-206 was drafted in a way that would give the CRA clarity about its intended purpose.

When I look through the existing definitions in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, it's quite clear that growing grain and harvesting fall under the definition of farming, and that the machinery used for drying it, I think, could be found under “eligible farming machinery”. It's a stationary machine; it's an industrial machine on the property.

Are you still quite sure that, even if we're just making this narrow definition as to what a qualifying farm fuel is, there will be a misconception as to what its intended purpose is?

[Phil King]

I can certainly give you my view as an official from the Department of Finance. I want to give you a caveat first, though, which is that the administration of the GGPPA, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, is the responsibility of the Canada Revenue Agency.

Ultimately, formally and officially, it would be the CRA that would have to opine on this. However, I am happy to share my view. We designed the program. We know its intent. We drafted the legislation, so we are reasonably familiar with it.

That caveat aside, you are correct that we don't believe that Bill C-206 is specific enough or that it discusses eligible farm machinery. It just talks about the fuels involved, not the machinery that those fuels would be involved in.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

I'll start, perhaps, with Mr. King or someone from Environment.

When I look at the actual Bill C-206, it's relatively straightforward. It's just trying to amend the definition of qualifying farm fuel.

My understanding, when we look at the entire Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, is that there are definitions for eligible farming activity and also eligible farming machinery that qualify, which this particular bill does not address at all. Would it be your position that the challenge, despite the noble intent from Mr. Lawrence in relation to this bill, is flawed in the sense that it doesn't actually address the activities and the machinery that are perhaps needed to capture grain drying or the heating of barns and other facilities?

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

When we look at this, we have these farmers, and I've seen their bills. They're literally for tens of thousands of dollars. Farmers are price-takers. They have very thin margins. As the family farm seems to struggle out of existence, are we just going to put it all on the farmers until we get the credit system for maybe some novel technologies? Until then, will we just wait for the farmers, or will we pass Bill C-206 and give the farmers a break right now? The government can at any time repeal it, if there's a great breakthrough in technology.

[Phil King]

I think that's a question you'd have to pose to the minister and to the government.

I can explain the policy that's being put forward in the budget and maybe talk about Bill C-206, but I couldn't answer that question. I'm sorry.

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

Thank you.

This is for whichever witness wishes to respond. If it's all three, that's fine with me.

Thank you very much. I agree with you that climate change is a real, serious and pressing issue. I think that is the consensus in this panel and in this committee. That's not in doubt and not in discussion.

One issue is with regard to what the stakeholders have said to me. Stakeholder after stakeholder has said that they prefer Bill C-206 for a number of reasons. One of the primary ones is that the money is an exemption. It stays in their pocket. It's having a real financial impact. While the credit system may be better than nothing, the idea of it coming to government, coming back, and they don't have the details on it really isn't enough. If the government is so generous and they do a fantastic job with the credit, there's nothing stopping them from repealing Bill C-206 in the future, once they have this credit system up and running.

Wouldn't you want to give the farmers a break with respect to Bill C-206? If it is up to the government's discretion, they can of course repeal it if their credit system is so generous that farmers no longer require the exemption.

[Matt Parry, Director General, Policy Development and Analysis Directorate, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As mentioned, my name is Matt Parry. I'm the director general of the policy development and analysis directorate at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about Bill C-206 and the government's initiatives related to carbon pollution pricing in the agriculture sector.

I'll start by noting that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Addressing it requires engagement from all parts of Canadian society, and Canada's farmers and ranchers are a part of the climate solution.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is actively engaged on many fronts to support the agriculture sector in reducing emissions, from scientific research to direct support for farmers across the country. We are working to develop solutions that are effective and efficient and that ensure farmers can grow their businesses while reducing emissions.

Greenhouse gas emissions from Canada's agriculture sector have been relatively stable since 2005. According to Canada's national inventory report for 2021, greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector in Canada were approximately 73 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2019, the last year for which data is available.

Most of these emissions—about 60 megatonnes—are from biological emissions from livestock and crop production. The remaining 13.6 megatonnes are from on-farm fuel use, which includes fuel for machinery such as tractors and combines, as well as heating sources. These emissions have remained relatively stable since 2005.

Of the fuel emissions, about 10 megatonnes are from on-farm transportation like gasoline and diesel, which are currently exempt from pollution pricing. About 3.6 megatonnes are from stationary combustion, including grain drying and barn heating operations, which are not exempt.

Based on how the carbon pollution price is structured, this means approximately five per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production are currently covered by pollution pricing.

Carbon pollution pricing is considered the most efficient means to drive innovation and energy efficiency in order to reduce emissions. Since 2019, every province and territory in Canada has had a price on pollution. Provinces and territories can design their own systems, aligned with minimum national standards, or opt for the federal system. The federal carbon pollution pricing system has been specifically designed to account for the agriculture sector's unique circumstances.

The government announced in February 2021 that it would commit to new rebates for on-farm fuel use such as grain drying, in order to support food producers and encourage new investments in clean technology.

As announced in the budget, the government intends to return a portion of the proceeds from the federal fuel charge directly to farmers.

This will apply to farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, the provinces where the federal fuel charge applies. It is estimated that farmers in those jurisdictions will receive $100 million in the first year, and this figure is expected to increase as the price on pollution rises. Further details will be provided by the government later in 2021.

Also announced in budget 2021, $50 million of the recently announced $165-million agricultural clean technology program will focus on grain-drying technologies, and $10 million will focus on powering farms with clean energy.

These two components of the agricultural clean technology program will help farmers invest in more efficient and new technology that further reduces on-farm fuel use.

Work is currently under way to develop and launch these initiatives as soon as possible.

Through these programs, along with existing initiatives under the Canadian agricultural partnership, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working with farmers and other agricultural stakeholders to reduce emissions and fight climate change.

In closing, the measures announced in budget 2021 will provide relief for farmers in backstop jurisdictions while also supporting the sector in reducing fossil fuel use through improved efficiency and new technologies. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working to support farmers today, while developing and implementing policies that will help reduce emissions tomorrow.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 30 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 committee on March 9, 2021, the committee is resuming 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 are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. As you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

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

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

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. The microphones of participants in the room will be controlled as normal by the proceedings and verification officer. Remember that all comments by members and witnesses must be directed through the chair. When you aren't speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

Before welcoming our witnesses, I'd like to remind members that amendments for Bill C-206 must be sent to the clerk before Friday, May 7 at 5 p.m.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. From the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have Mr. Warren Goodlet, director general, research and analysis directorate, strategic policy branch.

Welcome, Mr. Goodlet.

Also from the department, we have Matt Parry, director general, policy development and analysis directorate, strategic policy branch.

From the Department of Finance, we have Phil King, director general, sales tax division, tax policy branch, and Mr. Gervais Coulombe, senior director, excise, sales tax division, tax policy branch.

Welcome to both of you.

From the Department of the Environment, we have Judy Meltzer, director general, carbon markets bureau, environmental protection branch.

I understand that there will be just one opening statement for all departments, and it will be for five minutes.

For whoever wants to do the opening statement, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll pose both my questions to the CFIB.

First, Bill C-206 is a pretty narrow bill. It's not a lengthy read or anything like that. Are you satisfied with the bill in its current form or are there any amendments you think could be made to it?

Second—and this comes from my last question—you did mention farmers are very proud of the work they do in being environmental stewards of the land. I agree with you. We know the pride that farmers have and that they depend on a healthy environment to raise good crops. Have you heard any feedback from your members on how that pride translates into effective federal policy?

Do your members want to see federal incentives for better agricultural practices being rewarded for carbon sequestration? As an organization have you ever received any feedback on those fronts?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ghatala, I want to follow up on what we were discussing. You said that you thought that it was quite possible to incorporate 15% renewable gas into the fuels used for grain drying and other purposes by 2030, without changing the current equipment. It would be quite ironic to continue to tax producers who make that effort for the other fuels that they use.

I gather that you're suggesting that we pass Bill C-206. I have many questions, but we don't have much time. Let's try to proceed quickly.

If Bill C-206 were passed, would you propose an amendment to encourage producers to use biogas?

How else should the government encourage them to do so?

[Virginia Labbie]

As you mentioned, we're on the ground every day, talking to our members about these issues and consulting them through our various member surveys. When we talk to farmers, they all say the same thing: Exemptions are preferable to rebates. That's why we're here today to support this bill.

Certainly, we have to wait to see what that looks like in terms of the details of that rebate—how they would qualify, who would qualify, how their business can participate, those sorts of things—so we would need more information before commenting on any kind of rebate system, and we would need to consult our members, as we always do. We always go to our members in terms of their views.

We are encouraged that the federal government has recognized that the federal carbon tax on natural gas and propane is a problem. We've seen that in the budget. We're encouraged that all opposition parties showed support for Bill C-206 at second reading, and when we talked to farm members, we found that they support exemptions, which is one of the reasons why CFIB is supporting Bill C-206.

[Neil Ellis, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

At the last meeting, we had Farmers for Climate Solutions testify. I assume you are familiar with them. They released a press release on the federal budget that said it brought “good news” for Canadian agriculture “as farmers begin preparing for the upcoming growing season.”

The government has allocated unprecedented funds to support Canadian farmers in adopting climate-friendly practices, a move that is expected to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are generated on farms. “Ottawa will invest $200 million in new funding over two years to support farmers to reduce emissions”, “$60 million over the next two years to protect existing trees and wetlands”, and “$10 million over the next two years to power farms with clean energy.” Those are some of the things in the budget.

Farmers for Climate Solutions are happy with the budget, and I believe they do not support Bill C-206. They have over 20,000 members, and one of their members, Ian McCreary, a grain and livestock farmer in Saskatchewan, commented:

Our national and international customers want us to grow food more sustainably, and with only nine seasons left to achieve Canada’s 2030 target under the Paris Agreement, this investment will support farmers across the country to scale-up practices that are proven to reduce our sector’s emissions. Climate change poses the single largest threat to our sector, and this investment is an imperative for our ongoing success.

I guess my question is this: If Bill C-206 fails, what are the suggestions of your organization's members? Are they willing to do grants and rebates moving forward on what they pay for pollution?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses. It has been a very informative hour.

For the CFIB, I think you've emphasized some of the numbers and the costs for farmers that are associated with the carbon tax. My question is twofold. I will try to sneak in two questions here and ask if you have any comments.

One is on the fact that farmers are leading the way in innovation surrounding environmental stewardship and low-carbon practices, but the way this bill is structured is, specifically, to ensure that farmers, during a difficult year, have a bit of a break at a time when generally costs have gone up because of challenging weather and scenarios like that.

Would the CFIB have any comments on that and the impacts that Bill C-206 would have?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm a bit of a numbers guy. We hear different implications about the cost of Bill C-206. You've estimated $14,000 per average farm, but that's carbon tax across the board. We heard AAFC say $290 to $810, and that is specifically for grain drying. However, the denominators that they used were all farmers—all census farmers—as opposed to grain farmers.

Do you have any more data on the actual cost for the average grain operation, the carbon tax for grain drying on the average farm?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ghatala, I'll start with you. I think I may have missed it in your conversation and referral to the committee of what the state of the industry is like for advanced biofuels. Could you clarify your position on Bill C-206?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

The agricultural sector representatives whom we hear from almost unanimously state that they don't have an economically viable alternative for their business at this time. We're trying to apply the principle of group decision-making. Sending the bill to producers, who, as price takers, are simply seeing their profit margins shrink, seems very punitive. It would be possible to pass Bill C-206 while implementing an incentive program.

I'm glad that we have an expert on biofuels here.

What are our options, Mr. Ghatala? In your opinion, how soon could we implement an economically viable alternative for businesses, especially when it comes to grain drying?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Do you think that this could be done through an incentive program, even if Bill C-206 were passed, which would exempt propane and natural gas for now?

[Jasmin Guénette]

We are here today to express our support for this particular bill. We want to see policies implemented that are fair to small businesses, that help small businesses cope with the cost and cope with the current pandemic. When we take a position and when we present that position to a committee such as the one today, we do so based on our members' views. Our members believe that the system currently in place needs to be more fair to them and they hope to see Bill C-206 pass—

[Virginia Labbie]

As you heard in my opening comments, we know that farmers on average paid about $14,000 in the first year it applied to them. I think you heard from testimony earlier today that going to $170 per tonne is a real game-changer, according to Professor Charlebois.

As we mentioned when we surveyed our members, $14,000 for the first year it applied to them, this was when the carbon tax was set at $20 per tonne. As we know, the federal carbon tax is scheduled to rise to $170 per tonne. This amounts to an increase of more than 325% from today and a 750% increase from when this data was collected.

I think it's fair to say there's a significant impact on farm income, on their competitiveness. That's why we believe Bill C-206 offers the opportunity to provide some much-needed carbon tax relief moving forward.

[Virginia Labbie, Senior Policy Analyst, Agribusiness, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Jasmin.

CFIB regularly surveys our farm members on issues that impact their agribusiness. It is clear that farmers care about the environment. In fact, almost 80% of farmers have taken action in the last several years to lessen their environmental impact, including 85% of those in the field crop sector.

When asked what motivates their business to implement measures to improve environmental quality, 87% of farmers said they were motivated by their own personal views.

CFIB continues to hear from farmers that the federal pricing backstop plan has already had a significant impact on their bottom line. When CFIB surveyed our farm members, 82% of respondents agreed that the federal carbon tax is negatively impacting their business.

When analyzing the data by sector, 94% of farmers in the field crop sector, and 93% in the livestock sector have been most negatively impacted. When asked to estimate how much their business expected to pay in federal carbon taxes in the first year it applied to them, farmers, on average, paid almost $14,000.

It is important to note that these costs were incurred when the federal carbon tax was set at $20 per tonne of CO2. As you know, the federal carbon tax is scheduled to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030. This amounts to an increase of more than 325% from today and a 750% increase from when this data was collected.

One of the recurring themes in the member comments in our surveys is that farmers cannot pass these additional costs on to their customers. In fact, 83% in the field crop sector said they would be able to pass on less than 10% of the federal carbon tax cost to customers. Over 78% said they would have to eat the entire cost of the federal carbon tax.

Given that most farmers are price-takers, the magnitude of these increases in federal carbon taxes will hamstring farmers' ability to compete and invest in their business and in new technology. In addition, the ripple effect throughout the agriculture sector has ratcheted up indirect costs for farmers from the carbon tax applied to farm inputs and transportation services such as railways and trucking.

It is clear that even an incremental annual increase to the price on carbon emissions is worrying to farmers. When the federal carbon tax was set to increase from $30 to $40 per tonne on April 1, almost three-quarters said it would have a significant impact on their agribusiness.

It is fair to say that farmers are deeply concerned about what these costs will escalate to by 2030. This is why it is important to provide carbon tax relief now, and why Bill C-206 is an urgently needed, positive first step in addressing this unfair burden on agriculture.

CFIB believes that a carbon tax on propane and natural gas to dry grain punishes businesses for utilizing a product for which there are no practical alternatives. In the context of the pandemic, we must look for ways to help farmers and ensure the agriculture sector is competitive and performs to its potential to help lead Canada's economic recovery.

Therefore, CFIB urges all members of Parliament to support Bill C-206.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee today and present our farm members' views on Bill C-206.

[Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Jasmin Guénette. I'm the vice-president of national affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB. I'm joined by my colleague, Virginia Labbie, a senior policy analyst for agri-food. I'll give my short presentation in French and my colleague will give her presentation in English.

I want you to know that we're very pleased to be here today. You have been emailed a PowerPoint presentation, which will serve as the basis for our comments.

I want to remind you that CFIB is a non-partisan and non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of SMEs to governments. We have 95,000 members across the country who work in all sectors of the economy, and 6,000 of those members work in the agricultural sector.

As you know, the pandemic has been very challenging for small independent businesses. Our most recent survey shows that only 56% of SMEs have fully reopened. The situation is even more worrisome when we consider that only 29% of SMEs have normal revenues for this time of year. This isn't the time to add costs or to increase taxes for businesses that are already struggling financially. Instead, it's the time to find ways to lighten their tax burden.

We're here today to support Bill C-206. My colleague, Virginia Labbie, will provide several pieces of information that substantiate our position.

Ms. Labbie, the floor is yours.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

You're maintaining your position that passing Bill C-206 is a good idea. Are you also saying that the parts of the country not covered by the bill, such as Quebec, should at some point do the same thing and use more incentives up front?

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

I'll stop for a comment. You raise some fair points, but I think when it comes to agricultural emissions, we can be concentrating our efforts in far more efficient ways. Madam Turcotte already illustrated the release that comes from inefficient fertilizer use and the production of fertilizer. There are so many other emissions coming from farms that I think can be tackled. Also, we should give farmers recognition for good agricultural practices, regenerative farming, use of cover crops and no till. There are so many ways we can start giving them credit for the work they do. In my opinion, this is a very small and narrow band.

Professor Charlebois, I want to turn to you because there has often been a comparison between Bill C-206 and the measures that were announced in budget 2021 last week. Looking at the rebates being offered through budget 2021 and at what Bill C-206 is offering, can you, in the last minute and 15 seconds I have, give us your opinion on those two measures and which one you think is the best?

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Mr. Green, maybe I'll start with you. I very much agree with you that carbon pricing is there to send a powerful signal that we need to change our ways and that it creates an incentive to find a less costly and ultimately less polluting way for people to operate in their lives. It has worked for me. I moved to an electric vehicle, and I'm already celebrating the reduced gasoline costs from that purchase each and every month.

I guess the problem I've had is that, in terms of the alternatives, your testimony has been refuted by farmers who actually dry their grain. If we're trying to incentivize farmers into alternatives, I agree that's a very worthy goal, but right now, for farmers who dry tonnes and tonnes of grain every year.... I did reference the biomass system that exists, and they said they're not really aware of that, and they're not sure that it can be scaled up to the level they actually need. It would also require them to take the crop residue off their fields each year, which would be an additional cost, but it would also rob their fields of that important carbon content that is needed to feed next year's crops.

I know that you've had versions of this question from my colleagues, but if there are no viable alternatives at this moment—this is what we're hearing first-hand from farmers—wouldn't Bill C-206 serve a useful purpose in giving them a financial break in the meantime, until these technologies come into existence?

[Isabelle Turcotte, Director, Federal Policy, The Pembina Institute]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am Isabelle Turcotte.

The Pembina Institute is a non-profit think tank, and we advocate for strong, effective policies to support the clean energy transition. We've worked a lot on carbon pricing at the national and provincial level.

Much has changed since Bill C-206 was introduced in the House in February 2020. The U.S. administration now recognizes the existential threat to our well-being and prosperity that climate change represents. The legal debate on carbon pricing has been settled, and with a new climate plan that acknowledges the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing, the Conservative Party of Canada has ended the political debate.

This is all great news for Canadians.

The conversation on raising climate ambition is picking up momentum following the Leaders Summit on Climate on April 22. Around the world, thousands of people mobilized to make this meeting a meaningful stepping stone to COP26, including here at home, where Canadians want to see more action on climate according to a recent survey by ECCC on Canada's “nationally determined contribution”. This will require steep and sustained emissions reductions across the economy.

Agriculture accounts for 8% of Canada's emissions, at 59 megatonnes, and enteric fermentation and agricultural soils really represent the lion's share of that. I provide some data in my submission on the breakdown, for those who have the written document, but essentially the point is that the 59 megatonnes excludes combustion emissions, which represents approximately 13 megatonnes of emissions.

The climate emergency and the increasing demand for low-carbon products, including in the agricultural sector, require that we address all of these emissions.

Let's first consider combustion emissions. In the provinces where the backstop is applied, the federal fuel charge does not apply to gasoline and diesel used in tractors, trucks and other machinery used on farms, so there is a lot of relief that is supplied there to farmers. A study that was conducted in 2019 estimates that the impact of the cost of carbon pricing in relation to grain drying, which is not exempt, ranges from 0.05% to 0.38% of net operating costs for an average farm, equivalent to $210 to $774. These results do not include the carbon pricing rebate offered to farmers, which has increased with budget 2021. It is also worth noting that the study highlights that heating fuels and electricity represent the smallest sources of costs for farmers.

A cost-saving strategy for farmers should really focus on reducing fertilizer and lime use, as suggested by this study.

We are sensitive to the fact that farmers cannot pass on costs to consumers. We're also of the opinion that the best way to shelter farmers from the price on carbon is to reduce carbon emissions. Canadians value their farmers and the essential work that they do, and we want them to thrive.

We support measures that help farmers make investments toward that goal, and we welcome the budget 2021 announcement to return more carbon-pricing revenues to farmers and make $50 million available for the purchase of efficient grain dryers.

It is worth noting that domestic grain dryer alternatives and technological innovations are already occurring in response to the carbon pricing. For example, a Manitoba company, Triple Green Products, produces biofuelled heating, composting and dehydrating systems used in mining, agriculture, industrial and other applications.

Let's quickly consider agriculture's largest sources of emissions. These sources are not priced under the federal carbon pricing system.

Budget 2021 also puts in place measures to support non-combustion emissions reductions, including $200 million for on-farm action improving nitrogen management, increasing adoption of cover cropping and normalizing rotational grazing. There is money, as well, for wetlands and trees on farms, and moneys for clean energy and moving off of diesel.

In conclusion, to echo my colleague Karen Ross at Farmers for Climate Solutions, who presented to this committee before me, Canadian farmers want to lead on climate change. Conversations that narrowly focus on diluting the price signal that is needed to promote investment in innovation and emissions reduction do not support this ambition.

We believe that farmers and Canadians more broadly would be best served by building on the recent announcements of measures supporting farmers, and to support the innovative farmers across the country who are already reducing emissions, increasing our climate resilience and preparing for that global decarbonized economy.

Thank you.

[Tom L. Green, Senior Climate Policy Advisor, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

Canada faces a climate emergency that is resulting in more extreme weather—from heat waves to droughts to floods. I was moved by the testimony before this committee last week from Karen Ross of Farmers for Climate Solutions on challenges that farmers face as climate change exacerbates extreme weather events.

The David Suzuki Foundation has long advocated for pricing carbon pollution, and we have played an important role in advocating for B.C.'s precedent-setting carbon tax. We also intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in a recent reference case. The court affirmed the importance of ensuring carbon pollution is priced across the federation. The court acknowledged that climate change poses a grave threat to humanity's future and described it as “a threat of the highest order to the country, and indeed to the world.”

Why put a price on carbon pollution? As Clean Prosperity explains, putting a price on carbon “sends a powerful signal across an entire economy to reduce its carbon footprint, and unlocks the zero-emissions technologies we need.”

I'd like to acknowledge that we've reached a watershed moment when we have achieved consensus across the political spectrum on the need to price carbon pollution.

However, Bill C-206 would erode the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. It is the wrong solution. It sends the wrong signal and is likely to create pressure from other sectors to get their own carve-outs.

We appreciate that many farmers are already working hard to mitigate emissions, use soil management practices to help store carbon and rebuild local biodiversity. To stay on course for 1.5° C of temperature change between now and 2030, we need to be reducing emissions by about 7% a year across the economy.

Bill C-206 has been presented as a way to support farmers by reducing their energy costs, particularly grain drying costs, in federal backstop jurisdictions. However, the effect of this amendment is to introduce a new, inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. In 2009, Canada and the G20 leaders agreed to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Adding a new subsidy in 2021 is particularly problematic. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this fossil fuel subsidy would cost the federal government $47 million in 2021, rising to $60 million by 2024-25.

We note that since this legislation was first proposed, budget 2021 was announced, and it specifically attends to the energy costs faced in the agricultural sector and its unique transition. It provides $10 million to help farmers adopt clean energy solutions and to begin transitioning off fossil fuels, $50 million to help farmers purchase more efficient grain dryers, and approximately $100 million of the money that farmers currently pay in carbon levies on natural gas and propane will be rebated back to farmers.

Such grants and rebates are a better solution than Bill C-206. It preserves the price signal, rewarding agricultural producers and innovators who come up with ways to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in agricultural operations. It will better position the sector to compete as climate ambition ramps up around the world. Bill C-206 may reduce energy costs in the short term, but it doesn't help position Canada's agricultural sector to the inevitable need to ratchet down fossil fuel consumption, improve energy efficiency and switch to clean energy sources.

Replacing a price on carbon with an additional fossil fuel subsidy sends precisely the wrong signal. At a time when all of Canada's main political parties have declared their support for pricing carbon pollution, it is an approach that will add to our mitigation challenge and the threat of climate change. It is also misaligned with our commitment to eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

In conclusion, the David Suzuki Foundation urges the committee to vote against this bill, the effect of which is to create a new fossil subsidy and erode carbon pricing.

What we've seen in other sectors is that there is this idea that the technologies are not available that would reduce reliance on fossil fuel subsidies or be more energy efficient. We need the price on carbon pollution to create the incentive, and already these kinds of solutions are starting to appear across the economy.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Good afternoon and welcome to you all.

I would also like to welcome Mr. Regan, who is replacing Mr. Drouin.

I'll call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 29 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 March 9, 2021, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, regarding qualifying farming fuel.

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

The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

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

I would like to remind you of a few rules in order to ensure an orderly meeting. Please wait until I call on you before speaking. If you are participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to unmute your microphone. As usual, the microphones of the participants who are in the room will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer. I would also remind you that all comments from members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Please mute your microphone when it is not your turn to speak.

I would now like to welcome our panel of witnesses for our first hour.

Today, our first witness is no stranger to this committee.

Mr. Sylvain Charlebois, welcome.

He is a professor and the director of the agri-food analytics lab at Dalhousie University. From the David Suzuki Foundation, we have Tom L. Green, senior climate policy adviser. We also have, from the Pembina Institute, Isabelle Turcotte, director, federal policy.

We'll start with opening statements—five minutes per organization.

Mr. Charlebois, we will start with you. You have five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor, and thank you, Mr. Ammeter.

This concludes our second panel.

I really want to thank the Canadian Canola Growers Association—Mr. Mike Ammeter and also Mr. Dave Carey—for being here today.

Also Mr. Kelly from Dowler-Karn Limited, thanks for coming in today to share your thoughts on our study.

That will conclude this. I'd like the members to stick around for a few minutes so we can finish a few items of business.

We'll start with Bill C-206. The officials have been invited. They've agreed to do one opening statement for all of them—not each. We have three departments. We have agriculture, environment and I believe we have finance as the third one. They'll have one opening statement and then we can go into the questioning rounds after that.

Hopefully that's agreeable to everyone. I don't know if there are any issues with that. If not, we'll adopt that model. I don't see any opposition.

The next thing we have to do is approve the press release.

I think you've all received a copy of the press release from the processing capacity report. If it's okay with everyone, we'll approve that and we'll release it as soon as we have a tabled report. Are there any comments on the press release? Is it all good with everyone?

Okay, I don't see any comments, so I think we're all good with that.

Finally, we have to approve the budget for Bill C-205. I believe everyone has received a copy of the budget. It's pretty standard practice. The total is $3,350 for that budget. I don't know if we need a motion, but we need consensus to approve the budget.

Are we all okay with the budget? Just show your thumb or wave your hand....

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

That's the response I was expecting. So as I understand it, as an energy distributor, you will be charging your customers for the carbon tax that you have to pay.

Mr. Ammeter, how will your business or industry be impacted if Bill C-206 does not pass?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Kelly, it has been made clear that you consider having a clean fuel that is part of the solution. What would be the impact on your industry if Bill C-206 is not passed?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I congratulate you on that, by the way. Not all producers have reached this point.

That was precisely the point of my question. There is no alternative right now. Now, if there was investment in research and development, if there were alternatives that could be developed and there was state support to put them in place, I think you would be pleasantly surprised and would want to participate.

A witness who appeared last week told us that the fact that Bill C-206 did not set a limit on how long the exemption would last was a deficiency. He was concerned that this exemption would continue when we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What are your thoughts on this? What do you think about the possibility of the exemption being limited to five or 10 years and the government committing to support you in the transition?

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

Great. Thanks.

I know we are talking about Bill C-206, but, Mr. Ammeter, would you welcome partnerships with investments from the government to say, “Okay, let's look at the pain points where the carbon tax is costing you”?

Obviously, what we're trying to do is not necessarily to penalize you. We're just trying to decarbonize the economy.

Would you welcome some investments in partnerships in order to find some new technologies to try to decarbonize the agricultural sector?

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The number would be based on 2018 usage rates and prices. That is the analysis we did internally.

We are now in the final stages of getting third party analysis done by the accounting firm MNP, which will be canola-specific using verified third party methodology that will look at everything. We're here talking about Bill C-206 specifically, but as soon as the price of carbon goes up, the price of freight goes up, the price of custom-haul trucking goes up and the price of everything goes up, so all of that will be accounted for.

The $18 billion is not on the back of a napkin. We stand by it, but we will have a robust report from MNP very soon that articulates all of those things.

[Dan Kelly, Chief Financial Officer, Dowler-Karn Limited]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to acknowledge that I'm speaking from the traditional territory of the Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee, Ojibwa and Chippewa peoples. This territory is covered by the Upper Canada treaties.

I'm here today as the chief financial officer of Dowler-Karn Limited, a third-generation, family-owned company founded in 1943. We are distributors of gasoline, diesel and propane, serving our customers in southwestern Ontario for almost 80 years, with our head office in St. Thomas, Ontario. In particular, a significant portion of our customers are farmers, from small family farms to large operations, farming cash crops, livestock or a combination of both.

I am also the past chair of the Canadian Propane Association. The CPA represents the entire supply chain for propane: extraction, refining, distribution, marketing and delivering to end-users across Canada. We represent over 400 member companies that participate in the propane industry, from large refiners to independent distributors that serve Canadian consumers.

Propane is a low carbon-intensive fuel. It generates up to 26% fewer GHGs than gasoline, and 98% less particulate matter than diesel fuel. Propane is an abundant, 100% Canadian fuel that has been energizing Canadians across the country for decades. It is clean, affordable and readily available and can provide solutions today in the discussions for Canada's clean energy future.

In the spring of 2019, Dowler-Karn registered as a distributor under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and has charged, collected and remitted the federal fuel charge since its inception on April 1, 2019. In that time, we have collected and remitted $19.8 million in respect of the federal fuel charge. In particular, we have collected and remitted approximately $1.7 million in the federal fuel charge in respect of propane that's been used in farming. These amounts come directly from the bottom line of farmers.

The original regulations in the act recognized the uniqueness of the agriculture sector and provided relief from the federal fuel charge for farm fuels, specifically exempting gasoline and diesel fuel directly used in farming. Although gasoline and diesel fuel are necessary for planting and harvesting crops, propane is just as vital to a farming operation. However, propane has not been granted the same relief as high-carbon fuels such as gasoline and diesel.

In the most recent budget, the Minister of Finance announced some relief for farmers who are incurring the costs of the federal fuel charge for propane and natural gas. Although we applaud the government for recognizing the oversight, we have concerns with the proposal for a targeted rebate program.

Rather than providing a rebate to address the issue, we believe that propane should be afforded the same treatment as gasoline and diesel. Simply extending the exemption to propane would provide the following: an equitable treatment for a low carbon-intensive fuel as afforded to those that are much more carbon-intensive; relief for all propane used in farming operations, not just for drying crops; and removing the need for bureaucracy in managing the rebate program.

Currently, we charge the federal fuel charge at the time of invoice and then remit same to CRA at the end of the following month. We are reimbursed when the farmer pays his invoice, including the federal fuel charge. Should propane be exempt from the FFC, as is the case with gasoline and diesel, there would simply be no charge on the invoice. The farmer would issue a form L402 exemption to Dowler-Karn, which we would keep on file.

Should a rebate program be instituted, we would need to invoice the farmer, charging the FFC, which they would pay to us and we would remit. At some point in the future, the farmer would then be required to submit a rebate application, which would need to be reviewed, approved and processed by CRA, which would then issue payment to the farmer for the same FFC they paid at the time of purchase. The rebate would then be subject to audit. This much bureaucracy doesn't seem necessary when an exemption would meet the same goal.

Another issue facing farmers centres around the focus on propane for grain-drying purposes only. Propane used in farming extends beyond simply grain drying, as livestock and dairy farmers use propane to keep their livestock warm in winter. In fact, Dowler-Karn sells as much propane to heat barns for livestock as we sell for grain drying. Some regions of Canada may have greater needs for propane to dry crops, but the need for heating barns is just as critical. Imagine the impact on a poultry operation with hundreds of chickens if they couldn't keep the barns warm in the dead of winter.

In addition to barn heat, propane is also used for backup power generation, protecting farm operations against power outages.

We at Dowler-Karn and the CPA support the approach prescribed in Bill C-206, and believe it is the most efficient, cost-effective and reasonable approach. We applaud the government for recognizing the need to correct the regulation, but believe an exemption for a much cleaner, cheaper fuel is the more equitable approach.

I'd now be happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mike Ammeter, Chair, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you.

My name is Mike Ammeter. I'm the chair of the Canadian Canola Growers Association. I farm at Sylvan Lake, Alberta, which is an hour and a half north of Calgary. I grow canola, pulses, wheat and barley on 1,400 acres. With me today is Dave Carey, CCGA's VP of government and industry relations.

CCGA is the national organization representing Canada's 43,000 canola farmers. Canola is Canada's most widely seeded crop, generating the largest farm cash receipts of any agricultural commodity, earning Canadian farmers over $10.2 billion in 2020. Canola farmers export over 90% of our crop. The industry we support contributes 207,000 jobs and $29.9 billion to Canada's economy every year.

Canola farmers are committed to a sustainable future and have established goals to support that commitment. By 2025, they will reduce their fuel usage by 18% per bushel, increase land use efficiency by 40% per bushel, sequester an additional five million tonnes of CO2, use 4R nutrient stewardship practices on 90% of canola production acres and continue to safeguard the more than 2,000 beneficial insects that call canola fields and surrounding habitat home.

CCGA is pleased to support Bill C-206. While we were pleased to see the budget include a commitment to return part of the funds collected from the price on carbon to farmers, we view this bill as a more direct and efficient way to provide farmers with an exemption for propane and natural gas used on farm for grain drying and irrigation.

For my farm, grain drying is important because it allows me to get my crop off the field when time is short at the end of the harvest season and the weather turns to rain and snow. Sometimes I cannot wait for my crop to dry in the field. When a crop sits in the field with excess moisture, it loses quality and volume, which in turn means I will have to sell it at a discount. If wet grain is put into storage, it can spoil in a matter of days.

In the last 15 years, my farm has experienced increased weather variability not seen since the 1960s. It has become more and more difficult to harvest my crops due to rain and snow, even at the end of the growing season. This means I have to run my natural gas grain dryer more often than not. That dryer is a piece of farming equipment that is central to my operation now. Since I purchased it, I have invested approximately $20,000 upgrading it to make it as energy efficient as possible. If there was a way for me to make my dryer more efficient yet, I would do so, but there isn't anything currently on the market that can help me reduce my drying costs.

I understand that the government's objective with the price on carbon is to change behaviour and to transition operations to an alternative fuel source. However, farmers do not have viable alternatives available to us.

Global competitiveness is critical to our industry. Canadian canola farmers are price-takers on a global market with no ability to pass additional costs on. These additional costs will impact our ability to remain competitive and will threaten the viability of our farming operations.

I appreciate the government's recent budget announcement that they will provide $50 million in funding for projects like retrofitting grain dryers. While these types of programs may be useful to farmers who have not already retrofitted their dryer, as I have done, this will not address the fact that our energy infrastructure in western Canada is carbon based. If there was a way to transition from carbon-based inputs, our industry would do so. Fuel is one of my largest input costs. To keep pace with international competitors, farmers are constantly looking to become more fuel and energy efficient, but in order to achieve the BTUs necessary to properly dry my grain, I require carbon-based energy.

There's been concern that Bill C-206 may not accomplish what it's intended to do. To ensure that it does, we recommend that fuel used in grain drying and irrigation be properly accounted for in the bill as exempt from the price on carbon.

CCGA remains optimistic about the future of Canada's canola farmers and their ability to continue to contribute positively to both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Canadian agriculture should be viewed as a strategic partner in this dialogue. Canola farmers are committed to building on our environmental successes.

Thank you.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ward, in my two and a half minutes I'm going to ask you two questions and then give you the remainder of the time to answer.

First of all, in the existing act, we already have gasoline and diesel fuel that are exempt. They are “qualifying farming fuels”. Do you have any thoughts on those two fuels because, of course, they are used quite a bit in farming activities and it seems to me that Bill C-206 is just following that precedent and then allowing natural gas and propane.

Second of all, if you can also.... I think it's important. We keep on talking about the cost of the carbon tax, and I think you just briefly answered this, but can you also just illustrate what the costs are if we don't address climate change, because I have heard at this committee in the three years that I've been sitting at it that farmers are on the front lines of climate change. Can you just give us a sense of what the economic costs of doing nothing in tackling climate change are going to be for farmers?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

All right. Thank you.

Ms. Ward, you were saying that Bill C-206 might not be necessary if the exemptions in the budget were effective.

Wouldn't producers rather have an exemption and not be dependent on receiving a cheque from the government, which could involve delays or very cumbersome administration?

I would like to hear from you, and I would ask Mr. Coristine to respond afterwards.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for contributing to our discussion on Bill C-206 today.

I'll start with the Canadian Horticultural Council. Mr. Coristine, you mentioned a few things. You were going over the existing Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, and you did correctly mention that the existing definition section on “eligible farming activity” goes through a few definitions there. However, when it comes down to “eligible farming machinery”, it specifically excludes “property that is used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure”.

We've already been informed that Bill C-206 is pretty narrow, and it may be beyond our ability to expand it. If C-206, as it's currently written, is not going to apply to greenhouses.... I'm worried we're using this as a proxy for a larger conversation about the carbon tax, but I really want to focus on C-206. If the bill passes, can you tell the committee, as it's currently written, by just changing the “qualifying farming fuel” definition, are there any tangible benefits that will apply to your industry?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What do you think of Bill C-206?? Do you agree with Ms. Ward that it is incomplete? Do you think it is a good first step toward helping you?

[Katie Ward]

Thank you for the question.

Our concern is that in our understanding Bill C-206 as it stands right now does not necessarily accommodate for barn heating the way that the budget rebate is intended to cover, and for the recategorization of heating fuels in particular. We're envisioning that there would be a fair amount of work to do in terms of amendments to make Bill C-206 as beneficial for farmers as the mechanisms that were explained in the budget as we understand them right now.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being with us.

I will continue with Ms. Ward.

Ms. Ward, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that you support the carbon tax, but you would like to see a fuel rebate. In addition, you mentioned that Bill C-206 may no longer be needed given the new budget.

What is your organization's official position on the passage of Bill C-206?

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Ms. Rood.

My question is for Ms. Ward. Thank you for your actions in fighting climate change.

Although I too was pleased to see that the government at least acknowledged that this is an issue for farmers, it may in fact take them years, especially in a minority Parliament. It might be three or four years.

Could you not see putting this solution in place, Bill C-206, to help farmers in the interim, as some are paying thousands and thousands of dollars, even if you do believe in the government solution?

[Katie Ward, President and Farmer, National Farmers Union]

Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to present today. It's a welcome break from the lambing barn.

My name is Katie Ward and, in addition to being a sheep and hog farmer in the national capital region, I'm in my third term as president of the National Farmers Union. The NFU is Canada's only national direct membership general farm organization, representing thousands of farmers from coast to coast, engaged in all commodities across a wide range of scales—everything from market gardens to large-scale export grain operations—and utilizing a variety of practical approaches from organic and biodynamic through to regenerative and conventional.

No farm organization has thought longer and deeper about climate change and reducing agricultural emissions. The NFU has been advocating for climate change mitigation and adaptation policies for over two decades. Climate change and emissions reduction was the theme of our 2003 national convention, but our policy and educational work on the connections between agriculture and the climate crisis goes back as far as 1997.

In 2019, the NFU published a discussion paper entitled “Tackling the Farm Crisis and the Climate Crisis”, which laid out a road map for a 30% reduction in agricultural emissions alongside policies to increase net farm incomes. The NFU has called for a transformation of Canadian agriculture: a future with lower emissions, more farmers, higher net incomes, lower debt, more use of renewable energy, more young farmers and production systems based on agroecology, food sovereignty and protecting and regenerating soils, water and biodiversity.

The NFU is the only farm organization that intervened in support of the federal government in the Supreme Court challenge on the carbon levy. I bring this up to clarify that, while we do not advocate having a carbon levy on farmers and the fuels we use on our farms and ranches, we do strongly support the constitutional right of the federal government to implement strong and effective national measures to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2018, we became one of the founding members of a coalition called Farmers for Climate Solutions, which advocates for agricultural practices and policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture as the most effective way for farmers to avoid paying a price for emissions. In 2019, delegates at our 50th annual convention passed a policy resolution supporting a rebate on fuels such as propane and natural gas for dryers and other agricultural uses such as barn heat, because we believe that farmers face enough of a challenge to our bottom line already and that the erratic weather patterns caused by climate change, which disrupt our harvest catastrophically as happened in 2019, should not mean that farmers face financial penalty on top of the weather risks that impact our very livelihood.

I would like to thank the government for the rebate announced in last Monday's budget for the backstop provinces where the federal pricing is in effect. A simple rebate mechanism would be for farmers to document eligible or non-household use of natural gas and propane and attendant carbon levies paid and to request a refund, perhaps as part of a tax or GST filing.

In light of the budget announcement, it may be that Bill C-206 is no longer needed, especially since we understand that the budget rebate mechanism may cover barn-heating fuel usage in addition to grain-drying fuel usage and would, therefore, be more expansive than the bill under consideration here today.

I want to note, however, that we are here today to talk about removing a measure, admittedly flawed, that could reduce on-farm emissions. While it is necessary to ensure that farmers are not financially penalized while low-emissions technology catches up to the extreme weather challenges we're already facing as we grow food here in Canada, it is more necessary to introduce a suite of measures to partner with farmers, support farmers and incentivize farmers to reduce emissions so that agriculture is not increasingly seen as a high-emissions sector, while other parts of our economy are reducing their emissions on the way to our Paris targets.

Last Monday's budget introduced a number of very positive programs and spending measures that the NFU and Farmers for Climate Solutions have called for, and we're grateful to see financial support for farmers and ranches to actually implement practices that will reduce farm-related GHG emissions. Assistance to transition to low-emission technology and practices on our farms means that we don't have to face the financial risk of such a transition on our own and helps to level the playing field when we're in competition internationally with farmers receiving far more agri-environmental support, such as in the EU and the U.S.

Given market demand and potential border pricing measures under discussion internationally, everyone knows that we must go further, so we need additional programs to support farmers.

I'd like to highlight for you what we are suggesting could be called a Canadian farm resilience agency, or CFRA, modelled on the prairie farm rehabilitation administration, which the federal government administered across the prairie provinces for 70 years—

[Aaron Coristine]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide testimony on Bill C-206. My name is Aaron Coristine, and I'm the science, regulatory affairs and government relations manager at Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers.

Today, I'm here to represent the broader fruit and vegetable sector as chair of the Canadian Horticultural Council's energy, environment and climate change working group.

By way of introduction, the CHC is an Ottawa-based national association representing over 14,000 fruit and vegetable growers across Canada involved in the production of over 120 different crops with $5.4 billion in farm cash receipts in 2019.

Canada's fruit and vegetable growers are committed to being a part of the climate solution while also playing a major role in food security and Canada's economic recovery.

CHC and our members have consistently and actively engaged with the federal government to ensure carbon pricing policies connect the dots between the cost of carbon pollution and desired behaviours and outcomes versus unintended impacts and overall lowered emissions. Our consistent request has been for federal leadership to ensure that carbon pricing exemptions and relief are extended to the full range of farmers, including greenhouse growers, across all main fuel types, including natural gas and propane, used in common agricultural machinery.

In short, carbon pricing policies need to better reflect the modern agricultural practices across Canada, support increased security of food production and sovereignty, and minimize competitiveness impacts across provincial boundaries and with our major international trading partners.

CHC is interested in more information on the delivery of the government's commitment in budget 2021 to return a portion of the proceeds generated from carbon pricing directly to farmers in backstop jurisdictions. With regard to concerns with other GGPPA definitions, CHC supports Bill C-206 and its expanded definition of “qualifying farming fuels” to include natural gas and propane.

Although it falls beyond the specific scope of this bill, we also believe it is critical to amend other definitions in the GGPPA to ensure Bill C-206 achieves its intended outcomes. More specifically, in the legislation “eligible farming machinery” is defined to explicitly exclude property that is used to heat or cool buildings. As a result, certain farm machinery, when used to heat and cool buildings would, regardless of the fuel type, necessitate regulatory inclusion as a “prescribed property” to attain carbon pricing relief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Welcome, everyone, to meeting 28 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 March 9, 2021, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, regarding qualifying farming fuel.

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

The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

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

To ensure this meeting runs smoothly, I would like to share some rules with you.

Before you speak, please wait for me to recognize you. If you are participating via video conference, click on the microphone to unmute it. The microphones of participants in the room will, as usual, be monitored by the proceedings and verification officer.

I remind you that all comments from members and witnesses should be directed to the chair. When you do not have the floor, please mute your microphone.

Before welcoming our witnesses, I'd like to ask the members to remain in the meeting once the second panel is over. We'll go over the press release for the processing capacity report and approve the budget for the study of Bill C-205. This will only take a couple of minutes.

Now I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We have today, for our first panel, from the Canadian Horticultural Council, Aaron Coristine, chair of the energy, environment and climate change working group; and Linda Delli Santi, chair of the greenhouse vegetable working group. From the National Farmers Union, we have Katie Ward, president and farmer.

With that, we'll start our question panel. With the first panel, we have six minutes each, and we'll start with Ms. Rood for six minutes.

I jumped over the opening statements. I'm sorry about that. Let's go back to the Canadian Horticultural Council and whoever wants to take the opening statement for five minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr Chair.

I had one final question for Mr. Viau.

Mr. Viau, we are more or less on the same wavelength. The producers don't want to depend on the government. They would rather have an exemption at the source and a transition incentive that would make for more innovations.

I have a question for you. It does not necessarily represent my position. If we tax producers, we reduce their financial and investment capacity. Rather than tax them, we could allow them a temporary exemption, as allowed in Bill C-206, which would give them a little more financial leeway. We could add an incentive, such as a modernization investment program.

As you mentioned, the budget announced yesterday includes a plan to invest $50 million on dryers. That's wonderful, but it's not much for all of Canada. That's often the problem with politicians. There's a lot of fine talk, but the amounts are minimal and rapidly run out. More resources would therefore be needed.

What do you think of this option?

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

Yes, absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.

When you look at the budgetary announcement yesterday, you see that they are announcing that $100 million in the first year. Bill C-206 has a very narrow scope; when you look at it, it really is essentially about grain drying. I guess the government is recognizing that some money has to be returned to farmers during this transition phase. When you're holding up the budgetary announcements of yesterday and Bill C-206, couldn't you plausibly argue that Bill C-206 is in fact an interim measure while we help farmers in the transition?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

I understand, and to some extent I'm at where you are on this. There's still hesitation about dropping the price on pollution. It's a principle almost everyone agrees with. However, we can look at the current measures and strike a better balance.

For example, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act currently has some exemptions, for things like fuel for tractors. Bill C-206 could include propane and natural gas, which in fact create less pollution than methods that are already exempt, and for which producers tell us that they have no economically viable alternatives.

No one is talking about eliminating the carbon tax, Quebec's carbon exchange and things like that; far from it. But might there not be an interim solution in the form of an exemption for these fuels, combined with massive investment in support of energy transition, and R and D to improve the processes?

You mentioned extending the three-phase network. Consideration could also be given to developing smaller infrastructures to deal with biomass, for use on a seasonal basis.

I'd like to know what you think about this.

[Marc-André Viau]

I'd like to remind the member that I'm not here to play politics, but to talk about this bill.

As we mentioned, we've been working with farmers to find solutions to the climate crisis and greenhouse gas emissions. If you listened closely to our comments, you would have understood that we were saying that the problem described in Bill C-206 was indeed real.

What we are saying is that the solution being put forward in this bill is not the right one. We agree with compensation. However, placing a price on carbon emissions serves a purpose, which is the need to reduce carbon pollution. That's what we understood from the Supreme Court decision, for example.

[Karen Ross, Director, Farmers for Climate Solutions]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thanks so much for inviting me to present today. My name is Karen Ross. I'm the director of Farmers for Climate Solutions, or FCS. We're a national coalition of farm organizations who know that agriculture must be part of the solution to climate change.

Launched in 2020, our coalition has grown quickly and includes 20 farmer-led and farmer-supporting organizations that now represent over 20,000 farmers and ranchers from coast to coast. Many of them already use farming practices that reduce emissions, increase resilience to extreme weather and improve their livelihoods. With the right government support, we can rapidly scale these kinds of practices and dramatically reduce emissions from agriculture.

FCS recognizes that putting a price on carbon pollution is essential to achieving Canada's emissions reduction commitments, and this is a fact that is now recognized by all parties in the federal Parliament, but we also understand the economic concerns behind Bill C-206. Many farmers sell in internationally determined markets, and any additional costs can make already tight margins even tighter.

Ultimately, FCS believes that the best way for farmers and ranchers to avoid the price on pollution is to produce less pollution. By transitioning away from fossil fuels, farmers will pay less tax and will be better positioned to compete in the new low-carbon economy. However, adopting practices and technologies that use lower amounts of fossil fuels comes with a lot of risk and a lot of high upfront costs, so farmers can't and shouldn't make this transition alone.

In recent history, our international competitors have dramatically scaled up investments in agri-environmental programs while Canadian farmers have been far less supported. Furthermore, many Canadian industries are receiving ample government support to re-skill and adapt for the clean economy, but agriculture has been largely left out, which means that we are not leveraging the full potential of farmers to contribute to our climate solution.

As a result, our sector's emissions have and will continue to rise unless we act now. This is why the funding announced yesterday in budget 2021 to directly support farmers to immediately adopt lower GHG practices is so heartening. The government has just made an important and unprecedented investment to support farmers to adopt practices like cover cropping, rotational grazing, improved nitrogen management, wetland and tree conservation and the adoption of low GHG machinery, which are all known to reduce emissions and build resilience.

This investment directly responds to FCS's pre-budget recommendation and is precisely the type of support needed to help our sector address the urgency of climate change while making smart business decisions.

The budget also includes a carbon tax rebate for farmers and support for energy efficiency retrofits of propane and natural gas dryers. Taken together, these investments reflect the fact that the government recognizes the potential for farmers to reduce emissions and is ready to support us to leverage our sector's full potential. There is more that still can be done and needs to be done, but that funding is an essential down payment for a resilient and low GHG farm future.

These investments also reflect the fact that on-farm technology to transition to a clean economy already exists. When it comes to grain drying, propane and natural gas dryers are already being retrofitted in Canada to increase efficiency. Also, alternative technologies that don't use any fossil fuels are on the Canadian market already. These alternatives all reduce energy bills for farmers and allow them to avoid some or all of the carbon tax, and their high upfront costs are now shared with the government.

The transition to low GHG agriculture is inevitable because domestic and international buyers are increasingly demanding low GHG products, and farmers won't be able to meet that market demand unless we start reducing our emissions now. That's why strong government support for innovation will benefit farmers more than exemptions to the carbon price.

In conclusion, the investments made in budget 2021 recognize that farmers need support to confront the single largest threat facing our sector, that of climate change. Those are critical investments that will jump-start emission reductions this season. They also lay a foundation for making agri-environmental support a core component of the next agricultural policy framework in 2023, which must further support farmers to compete in a clean economy of the 21st century.

The investments also provide a better path forward for reducing emissions from, and maintaining the affordability of, grain drying than does Bill C-206. Canadian farmers want to lead on climate change, and FCS is ready to support the design and implementation of these important new programs so that they are widely adopted, work for farmers and start to reduce our sector's emissions immediately.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[Marc-André Viau, Director, Government Relations, Équiterre]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. My name is Marc-André Viau and I'm Équiterre's Director of Government Relations.

I'm going to share my speaking time with my colleague Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, the Climate Policy and Ecological Transition Analyst at Équiterre.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to comment on Bill C-206.

Before addressing the subject itself, I'd like to say a few words about our organization. Équiterre is a non-governmental environmental organization that founded the Family Farmers Network in Quebec. We are currently working on a technological showcase project on health and soil conservation and on regenerative practices. We have also just published a report on soil health in collaboration with the Greenbelt Foundation. We have been working with producers, institutional buyers and decision-makers to come up with ways to build more resilient and sustainable forms of agriculture.

I'd like to say a word about our climate expertise because it's related to today's topic. We recently defended federal jurisdiction over a carbon pricing system before the Supreme Court with our colleagues from the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement. We're pleased to see that all parties represented in the House support the carbon pricing principle.

As for Bill C-206, things have changed a lot since yesterday and, to be sure, since the bill was initially tabled. First of all, the government announced yesterday in its budget presentation that a portion of the revenues from pollution pricing would go directly to farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario beginning in 2021.These are the provinces that do not have a carbon pricing system and that have a federal safety net. An estimated that $100 million will be sent to these provinces in the first year and the amount would increase as carbon pricing rises.

Most important is the fact that the government has also announced that its priority will would be to pay a minimum of $50 million to farmers across Canada to help finance more energy-efficient grain dryers. Eventually, these investments will compensate for carbon pricing on fossil fuels because producers will be able to make a gradual transition. The announcement was very favourably received by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union.

I'm sure you'll agree that the federal budget addresses the very real problem raised by this bill, without weakening the carbon pricing principle. We encourage parliamentarians to continue to pursue this path rather than the direction under study today. We agree that farmers need help, but we cannot agree on the systematic erosion of carbon pricing mechanisms. According to the most recent inventory, greenhouse gas emissions are still increasing. The transition needs to begin soon.

We know that farmers are experiencing growing stress because of the pandemic and a number of harmful climate events. We suggest compensation for income losses resulting from the use of fossil fuels in ways that would allow incentives for energy transition to continue. I hope that this option will be offered by the government. Bill C-206 is in my view incompatible with what the government has just proposed in its budget.

I will now give the floor to my colleague, Émile Boisseau-Bouvier.

[Bob Lowe, President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee on Bill C-206.

My name is Bob Lowe, and I'm the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and a rancher from Alberta. With me is Fawn Jackson, director of policy and international relations with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

The beef industry contributes $17 billion to Canadian GDP while generating over 225,000 jobs. It is the largest Canadian conserver of the great northern plains, in which I would note is a very large store of carbon. In regard to climate pricing policies, we recommend Canada's farmers and ranchers be exempt from direct carbon taxes, but we want to make sure our policy position, shared by leading economists, isn't confused with our very real commitment to being a partner in tackling climate change.

Canada's beef industry has recently set very significant and ambitious environmental goals, such as reducing the sector's greenhouse gas footprint by 33% by 2030.

As agriculture is a trade-dependent and complex industry, it can be very difficult to correct for competitiveness and trade impacts due to carbon pricing. It is extremely unlikely that farmers and ranchers will be able to pass along the carbon tax, as we are price takers and as there are no real alternatives for farmers. Increasing the price of propane and natural gas will not decrease the use of these energy sources.

For these reasons, we have seen agriculture commonly exempted from the direct costs of carbon pricing schemes, as recommended by policy experts. It's not the right tool for the job. We do recognize that the initial act exempted most direct taxes on farmers and ranchers, and we appreciate those exemptions, but as identified by this private member's bill, it is important to cover all direct taxes, and we have examples why.

Example one is a farm that uses natural gas to heat a calving shed and a small shed for holding a couple of tractors and their work bench. On another farm, they have a steam flaker that uses propane to flake corn to improve the digestibility of the feed. The first farm will have a $6,500 annual carbon tax, while the second will have a $63,000 annual carbon tax once the carbon tax reaches the expected $170 per tonne.

These are taxes on family farms that currently operate on very small margins in an international marketplace. I point to the study that found the average long-term margins for a 200-head cow-calf operation provides an annual income of about $20,000 and that 74% to 85% of the cow-calf sector relies on off-farm income. Furthermore, a study completed by Dr. Schaufele at Western University looked at the impact on the beef sector when farm fuel is exempt and when it is not exempt. The study found that even when exempt from the fuel tax at $40 per tonne, the carbon tax has a negative $25 per animal impact at the feedlot level and a negative $11 per animal impact at the cow-calf level.

The probability of unintentionally pushing food production to other jurisdictions is very real, and with Canada having one of the lowest greenhouse gas footprints per kilo of production at 50% of the global average and being the key conserver of the grassland ecosystem, this pushing of production to other jurisdictions would have serious economic and environmental implications.

CCA strongly supports Bill C-206, however we need to ensure the act covers all areas where a direct carbon tax could impact farmers and ranchers, including heating of buildings, irrigation and machinery such as grain dryers and steam flakers. We recognize that the budget acknowledges a rebate, but to avoid additional red tape, the exemption should be straightforward and not a layer added to the already complex accounting required to operate Canadian farms and ranches.

The Government of Canada is also working on carbon pricing protocols, and we are keen to see these move forward, as it provides opportunity for agriculture to further contribute to fighting climate change. One of the biggest challenges we have in the beef sector regarding climate change is the loss of grasslands and subsequently the carbon stored in them. We must make sure that either through the offset protocols or other policy tools, the very real possibility of further grassland loss is taken into consideration and the conservation of these grasslands within the agriculture ecosystem is appropriately recognized.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll go back to a comparison between Bill C-206 and what was announced in the budget yesterday. The Department of Finance is estimating $100 million in the first year, and then it goes on to say that returns in future years will be based on proceeds from the price of pollution. It says that the intention is to return a portion of the proceeds. I know policy like this doesn't just occur in a vacuum.

In the lead-up to the budget, did the government, specifically the Department of Finance, ever have any consultations with you?

This is to all of the witnesses. I'll start with the Grain Growers. Did it ever have any consultation with you on developing this policy?

Did it give you any idea as to what the portion of the proceeds would be?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Okay.

If Bill C-206 doesn't pass, how will that prevent you from rotating your crops? You'll stop growing certain crops because they won't be cost-effective and will be used solely for rotation purposes. Is that correct?

[Lyne Bessette, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you.

My question is for Mr. Annau.

You said you'd also like to see the exemption expanded to include activities such as heating, livestock pens and irrigation. As my colleague Mr. Drouin said, that change may be beyond the scope of Bill C-206, but I nevertheless wanted to ask you whether greener options exist for heating and irrigation.

[Christian Overbeek]

We've already begun discussions with Quebec government representatives to ensure fairness between Quebec growers and other Canadian producers.

So far, we're the only ones paying a tax. If Bill C-206 passes, we'll be looking at another tax, but one that, in a way, will be rebated to us. We'll be resuming our talks with Quebec authorities to secure fairness between Quebec growers and other Canadian producers.

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

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the constitutionality of the federal carbon tax. I believe that has provided some impetus to provincial governments to start formulating their own carbon pricing schemes. Is that going to make your job harder? Have you already had conversations with provincial governments on trying to use what Bill C-206 is trying to achieve federally to apply to possible future provincial models in some of the prairie provinces?

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

Okay.

With the $100 million announced in budget 2021, are you still firmly committed to having Bill C-206 passed by this Parliament?

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for helping to guide this committee on this journey with Bill C-206.

It appears to me from reading budget 2021 that the government actually paid Mr. Lawrence a big compliment by devoting a good section to the costs of grain drying, with $100 million in refunds in that first year, and also by devoting $50 million specifically for more efficient grain dryers.

My first question is for the Grain Growers of Canada. I really want to dig down into what alternatives to propane and natural gas are available.

I've been looking on the Internet and there is a company called Triple Green Products that has a BioDryAir dryer, which uses crop residue as a fuel to help dry their grain. They're exempt from the carbon tax because they're using residue that comes from their own farm. Is this a viable technology? Is this the kind of place we want to start investing that $50 million in trying to find that efficiency? If we leave the carbon tax aside, farmers are still paying a lot of money just for the propane and natural gas itself. I just want to find out from you where this technology will go in five to 10 years from now.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

That's the part we don't control at all. We've already discussed this together, and I understand you're nevertheless in favour of Bill C-206, based on that principle and provided it comes into force.

Some say there aren't any other options. What about biomethanization, biomass and geothermal facilities, for example? Have those kinds of options been explored? I know the costs are currently prohibitive.

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

Okay, and just to manage expectations, that's a discussion our committee's going to have, but we're not sure if we can do that, because Bill C-206 seeks to amend the eligible fuels and not necessarily create that exemption in another part of the law. That's a discussion we will have to have because that an amendment could be deemed inadmissible. Your point is taken, but I would like to manage expectations and tell you right away that this could be the case. It's not a partisan issue; it's simply a matter of procedure in the House, just so you know.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues because I know these speakers very well.

I'll begin with Mr. Overbeek.

You're a Quebec farmer. You know that Bill C-206 wouldn't apply to your region. Do you understand that?

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

All right. You are of the same belief as me and the parliamentary drafters, namely, that grain drying is included in Bill C-206.

[Frank Annau, Director, Environment and Science Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you so much.

I'm just checking.... Can everyone hear me okay? Perfect.

I'll leave my video off to give myself some more bandwidth here to accommodate my audio.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you to the chair and the committee for inviting us to appear today.

My name is Frank Annau. I'm the director of environment and science policy. Our vice-president, Keith Currie, should be joining us shortly.

We greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel). The CFA is Canada's largest general farm organization, and we represent approximately 200,000 farmers and farm families nationwide. We are dedicated to promoting best management practices that reduce on-farm emissions to help Canada meet its goals under the Paris Agreement.

However, the carbon tax has significantly increased farmers' cost of business. As price takers, farmers cannot pass on these costs to customers or to the national market. To that effect, our members greatly support the bill's goal to extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.

As everyone is aware, Bill C-206 arose largely in response to the 2019 wet harvest, when extreme rainfall put increased burden on grain drying, which is made even more expensive by the carbon tax. The Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association has reported that some farmers paid over $10,000 in carbon taxes on their grain drying bill that fall alone.

These price hikes led the Green Party and the Conservatives to both comment that carbon tax relief for farmers was justified and necessary and [Technical Difficulty—Editor]. During the bill's pandemic hiatus, the government released a report estimating that the carbon tax had only increased grain drying costs by an average of $210 to $774 in 2019. The CFA did not endorse this downplaying of impacts, as the low range estimates were provided by the Government of Alberta, a province that was not under pollution pricing for the 2019 harvest and had no real-world data to contribute to the report. As such, this report does not rebut the need for exemptions under Bill C-206.

The Liberals have since raised a very valid concern that the bill might not provide the intended relief for grain dryers, as dryers are not considered eligible farming machinery under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. To ensure that the bill provides the intended relief for farmers, the CFA is recommending that it cover exemptions not only for grain drying but also for machinery used for livestock heating and cooling, and for irrigation as well. The rationale is that these tools are critical for mitigating the increasing on-farm impacts of climate change.

Canada's changing climate report shows that annual precipitation has increased in all regions since 1948, especially during the fall and winter seasons, the very months that harvesting and grain drying take place. With each passing year, this trend results in a higher risk of conditions similar to or even worse than what we saw in 2019. The same report further states that temperature extremes have also increased since 1948, which will raise the severity of heat waves and droughts and will bring a higher risk of crop damage and livestock heat death. While extreme heat has yet to have its carbon tax watershed moments, it is only a matter of time.

When that time comes, farmers should not be penalized for relying on tools needed to mitigate these impacts. We, instead, believe that the money paid in carbon surcharges would be better spent on participating in programs that increase fuel efficiency, such as those announced in yesterday's budget. While the CFA is currently analyzing the budget, these programs do appear to offer avenues to obtain these efficiencies. However, it must be noted that these avenues are often administered as cost shares, with farms required to contribute up to 50% of expenses.

As such, it is in the best interest of government to ensure that farmers have the cash needed to invest in and deliver these programs. While the carbon tax's driving up grain-drying bills to $10,000 does add incentive to reduce emissions, it also reduces the amount of cash that farmers have to buy into these cost shares. That is the reason why the exemption is still required. As it stands now, carbon surcharges have the very unintended effect of taxing the very mitigation measures needed to respond to droughts and extreme rainfall.

As an incentive to drive down emissions, the tax is an added and unnecessary burden. Even with exemptions for natural gas and propane, the price of those fuels is still scheduled to increase under the clean fuel standard in 2023. This, combined with cost savings from fuel-efficiency programs, is more than enough incentive to reduce emissions.

In closing, the CFA shares the government's vision of a future with zero-emission energy sources that are scalable and adopted by the agri-food sector. Until then, the upward trend of climate impacts will place continued strain on even our most innovative fuel-efficiency gains. That is why the exemption for natural gas and propane must be applied to grain drying, irrigation, and livestock heating and cooling.

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to engage. We welcome any questions that you may have.

[Jonothan Hodson, Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Hello, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Jonothan Hodson. I am a member of the board of directors of the Grain Growers of Canada. On that board, I am a representative of the Manitoba Crop Alliance, a producer group representing wheat, barley, corn, sunflower, flax and winter cereal growers across Manitoba. I am joined today by the Grain Growers of Canada executive director, Erin Gowriluk.

I farm near Lenore in southwestern Manitoba. Our family farm is fifth-generation. We have a diverse crop rotation of corn, spring wheat, barley, canola, soybean, peas and forages as well as a cow-calf operation.

I'm here today to express our support for Bill C-206. This legislation would expand the existing exemption from the price on pollution for qualifying farm fuels to include propane and natural gas. The expansion of this exemption is critical to grain farmers like me, because we often need to dry our grain prior to marketing it.

In yesterday's budget we were pleased to see the government's intention to return a portion of the carbon tax collected back to farmers in backstop jurisdictions beginning in 2021-22. We look forward to additional details. However, we continue to support the passage of Bill C-206, as it remains the most straightforward, cost-efficient way of providing a full exemption for grain drying where no alternative fuel source exists.

Canada is truly blessed with a large agricultural land base right across this country, but many areas have to deal with a short growing season in combination with a changing climate. We are increasingly feeling the impacts of wet harvests and early snowfall. When we experience a lot of moisture and unpredictable weather, we have no choice but to dry our grain to make it suitable for the markets who rely on us, both at home and abroad.

Canadian producers grow and market some of the best-quality grain in the world. In many regions of Canada, one of the tools we use to ensure that quality is the grain dryer. The reality is that putting grain with too high a moisture level in the bin isn't an option for us. It needs to be dried to the correct level or we risk losing part of, if not the entire value of, that product. When compounded by the rising carbon tax, this represents a real blow to the profitability of my farm.

A couple of years ago, we made a significant investment of over $100,000 to upgrade to a more efficient grain-drying system. There were no programs available. Just like many other farmers, we spent the money ourselves to improve our drying efficiency. If there was a grain dryer that ran off something other than fossil fuels, we would look at upgrading again, but that option just does not exist right now.

Each year our farm spends between $15,000 and $25,000 in propane to dry our grain. Of our total expenses, this is not the largest, but as a necessity after harvest, money spent on drying my grain is money out-of-pocket. Each year the carbon tax goes up, that is more money straight off my bottom line. As a farmer, I am a price-taker, not a price-maker. Unlike other businesses, I cannot pass on these extras costs to the consumer. However, the increased costs of production for my inputs and equipment and the rising rates for rail and road transportation do get passed on to me.

This legislation is not a remedy for the increased costs that the carbon tax adds for us. However, it is an important recognition that the spirit behind the carbon tax cannot be achieved in this instance. The desired purpose of the price on pollution is to drive a transition to alternative fuel sources, but in the case of grain drying, there are simply no viable alternatives available.

There are other environmental considerations beyond just taxing unavoidable emissions. Certain crops that are common across all of Canada, such as corn, are generally harvested with high moisture and must be dried. Corn has become a valuable part of my crop rotation, which in and of itself is a critical tool in the environmental sustainability of our operation. Crop rotation provides many benefits, including improved soil health, reduced erosion and disease prevention. If the costs of drying become too high and eat away at potential profits too much, that will be one less crop available for our rotation and a potential loss of those environmental benefits.

We were very encouraged to see support for this legislation from the Bloc Québécois, NDP, Green Party and a number of independent MPs. It is important to recognize that where the carbon tax is ineffective in its aim, changes like those proposed in Bill C-206 should be made. I hope this legislation will receive unanimous support to pass through this committee and be on a path to become law in time for this year's harvest.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would be happy to answer any questions the members may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.

I'll call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 24, and the motion adopted by the committee on March 9, the committee is resuming 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, and therefore members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is 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 usual by the proceedings and verification officer.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

When you aren't speaking, please mute your microphone.

We'll now start with the witness list.

Perhaps I'll start with the Producteurs de grains du Québec, but I don't know if they're here yet.

With us we have the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with Mr. Keith Currie, vice-president, and Frank Annau, director of environment and science policy. From the Grain Growers of Canada, we have Erin Gowriluk, executive director, and Mr. Jonothan Hodson, director. From the Producteurs de grains du Québec, we have Monsieur Christian Overbeek, president.

Let's begin with the Producteurs de grains du Québec.

Mr. Overbeek, you have the floor for five minutes. We are listening.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Actually, the AAFC is not the right department to gather that data.

I know that the committee will be studying the issue around Bill C-206. We will be interested in getting that data from all of the different organizations or groups that will be studying the subject.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, it's good to see you again. The last time we had a chance to interact, we talked about the carbon tax and its impact on our farm community. We talked about the figures that came out. The charges were between $210 and $819 per farm, which are fairly low, and those were the average costs reflected in the federal backstop of $50 a tonne.

I do note that at our last meeting we had our colleague Philip Lawrence here talking about his bill, Bill C-206, which would further exempt some carbon costs on some farm fuels. I also note, for the record, that the Liberal Party voted against that bill. If it's a minor cost, perhaps it's understandable. I wonder if I could ask this, then. Why would the government consider a fairly expensive and bureaucratic rebate program if the cost to the average farmer is so small?

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.

Agriculture Day

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's Agriculture Day, when we show our appreciation to our resilient and hard-working farmers and farm families. I have heard first-hand from farmers in my riding how they have overcome immense adversity since the start of the pandemic, with processing delays and border restrictions affecting the movement of workers and products.

The government has the opportunity now to take action and reduce the burdens on our farmers by implementing rapid testing at the border, to reduce the isolation period for temporary foreign workers, thus allowing workers to start on time; by adopting Bill C-206, which would cut costs for farm families by exempting propane and natural gas from the carbon tax for farmers; and by adopting Bill C-208, in order to maintain the strong tradition of family farms in Ontario and Canada. Finally, the government must stand up for Enbridge's Line 5, as it is a crucial lifeline for our farmers, other industries and the environment. Replacing this pipeline would require 2,000 trucks or 800 rail cars daily to meet the current need.

On Canada's Agriculture Day, I urge the government to implement these tangible measures to support our farmers. For all they do for us, it is the least we can do for them.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking all the members who studied Bill C-206 and spoke about it.

I would like to thank all the members who have spoken for their tremendous support with respect to the legislation, particularly the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who has been a terrific partner working in the public accounts committee. I thank everybody for their time and consideration. We have even heard positive reports from the other side of the aisle, particularly from the member from Prince Edward Island, and I would like to thank him for his great comments.

Getting directly into the rebuttal, I want to address the comments from the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have the opportunity once again to enlighten him, which I am sure he will appreciate.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act actually says that eligible farming machinery means “...an industrial machine or a stationary or portable engine”. That would include a grain dryer 100 out of 100 times. I would encourage the member to research perhaps before he gets up to speak.

It is an honour to speak about my private member's Bill C-206, which seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I have had the opportunity to talk from coast to coast to coast with farmers. Every single one of them has supported the bill, and they have been absolutely terrific. I give a big shout out to the grain growers, who have been tremendous supporters, and I really appreciate their support.

As has been outlined, currently there is an exemption for some fuels for farmers with respect to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, or the carbon tax. This includes diesel and gasoline, but it does not include, I think through an oversight, natural gas and propane. Natural gas and propane are actually cleaner fuels, so why would we exempt gasoline and diesel, which are dirtier fuels, and not natural gas and propane?

All I am trying to do with this proposed legislation is help our farmers and clean up another Liberal mess. Quite frankly, our farmers are being let down. They have been let down now for months and months, if not years and years, by this government, and this is our opportunity to help them a little bit. We are competing globally and our farmers have to take their goods all around the world, while many countries do not have to fight a pollution-price barrier or a carbon tax. We need to give our farmers every opportunity to compete.

The minister and the government have said again and again, unfortunately, that the carbon tax has no really big impact on farmers, which is just not true. That is not the reality. The problem with the Liberals is not that they do not know things, it is just that they know so many things that are not true. That is the reality.

Many farmers have sent us bills that show us that the carbon tax is costing them $10,000 to $30,000. The Saskatchewan Association of Agricultural Societies and Exhibitions has said that the carbon tax is 8% to 12% of agricultural producers' net income. This is the difference between our farmers making it and not making it. This is the difference between our farmers competing in global markets and not. This is the difference between our farmers holding on to their farms and losing their generational farms.

Although Liberals do not want to admit it, the reality is that, for farmers, the carbon tax is not revenue-neutral. The non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Office said that our proposed exemption would save farmers tens of millions of dollars. Farmers live in a world of extremely slim margins. These tens of millions of dollars spread to our farmers could make a tremendous difference, not just for our farmers but for our rural communities. Our rural communities are struggling through the pandemic. These farmers bring money and drive the economy of our rural communities. They pay for tractor dealerships, they pay for restaurants and they pay for the families that they support. We need to rally behind our farmers.

Our farmers are among the first environmentalists, along with our indigenous people. They have stood up for our land time and again, and the plants and the animals that exist. They are the ones standing up and protecting us. Agriculture, farming, was net zero 40 years before this Liberal government would achieve net zero. Our farmers have already done it. We need to stand up for them as they stand up for us and our environment.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-206, introduced by the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I will not keep anyone in suspense, as my colleague has already announced that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-206.

However, people may be wondering why the Bloc Québécois is intervening on this bill, since Quebec actually already has its own carbon market and is not subject to the federal carbon tax program. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we speak to this issue, since there seems to be some question as to whether agriculture and environmental protection are compatible. It is a problem that we have noticed with regard to several topics on which the Bloc Québécois has been called upon to intervene in the past. We know that there are serious challenges for both agriculture and the environment, and there is often a delicate balance between the two.

Consider, for example, all the pressure on farmers, particularly regarding riparian buffer zones, a problem that is often raised. Riparian buffer zones help protect rivers that border farmland, but they sometimes hurt profit margins. However, it is important to understand that farmers want to do the right thing and help protect the environment. When we take the time to speak with farmers, we learn that buffer zones can be narrower in some places because of the nature of the soil. Some riparian buffer zones can protect the environment while also generating revenue. For instance, some farmers plant fruit trees along these buffer zones. Collaboration can lead to good solutions.

The same question has been raised about the use of certain pesticides. Again, farmers do not get up in the morning excited to generate pollution and put hazardous chemicals into the environment. Rather, they are forced to use certain pesticides because of a lack of resources or alternatives.

One-size-fits-all measures are not necessarily the best. For example, if the government were to ban a particular pesticide, farmers could just end up having to ask agronomists to prescribe even more dangerous pesticides. On certain issues, farmers need to be treated as collaborators.

As for the carbon pricing issue specifically, I would remind members that it was designed as a way for Canada to combat climate change by taxing pollution to discourage the use of fossil fuels. The problem is that farmers do not really have any other options for drying grain.

This reminds of an experience I had. In late October, after the 2019 election, I spent some time riding along with my father as he trucked grain from the fields to grain dryers for some local farmers. It was a wonderful day of father-daughter bonding. I remember that a huge snowstorm hit the region after November 1, making the grain very wet. On top of that, it had been an unusual season. Planting had been delayed for three weeks due to cold spring temperatures. Then, in early fall, September was very cold, so the grain did not have time to mature, and the harvest was quite late. The grain had to be harvested in the snow, so it had very high moisture levels.

Because it never rains but it pours, a propane shortage occurred right after that, on the heels of the CN strike. I started getting phone calls from many farmers who were devastated because they had no other way to dry their grain. Grain has to be dried before it is stored, or it will rot. Although the moisture level may seem all right, if it is not low enough, mould may be present without anyone realizing it. In some cases, animals that eat this grain can fall ill. Distraught farmers were calling me, and I was working with them to find solutions.

Climate change aside, they would like to move away from fossil fuels such as natural gas and propane. As I talked with them, I realized that there are very few alternatives. It is impossible to heat storage facilities sufficiently and dry grain with hydroelectricity alone. The demand for energy would be too great. The other problem is that the Hydro-Québec power grid cannot deliver so much energy.

Other alternatives do exist, such as freeze drying, where the grain is stored in large dryers. The problem is that this method cannot always be used because the weather has to be perfect for it to work. That was not at all the case in 2019, when planting was delayed, there was a snowstorm, and the harvest was late. Using fossil fuels is therefore an option.

Some farmers have also turned to biomass, but it is not yet suitable for large-scale farms. Those who have switched to biomass are mainly poultry farmers. They can use biomass to heat the barns where the animals are kept and to dry the quantity of grain needed to feed them. These tend to be small-scale farmers. For larger producers, fossil fuel energy is unfortunately still necessary. Given that there are no real alternatives, it is important to understand that increasing the price of propane and natural gas will not decrease the use of these energy sources, since farmers have no choice. The only thing this will accomplish is to continue eroding farmers' profit margins, which are often already razor thin, especially when the weather conditions are not good, as was the case in 2019.

Even if the government increases the price on pollution, farmers do not have any other consistent options available to them. In light of this, farmers are not the right target. If we maintain the tax on fossil fuels, there is a risk that even more farms will not be passed down from generation to generation, which will diminish our ability to have food sovereignty. That means we would have to rely more heavily on other countries to support us, although they do not have the same standards as Canada does. Ultimately, the quality of our food would suffer.

Farmers are already making great efforts to protect the environment. They want to help protect the environment, but they need the right kind of help. It is important to consider that they are not always the right target when it comes to addressing climate change.

I would like to draw a parallel with a news release that the Bloc Québécois recently published on tax havens. It reads, and I quote:

Canada is a world laggard when it comes to addressing tax avoidance by multinational enterprises. Before contributing to the global fight against tax havens, Canada first needs to stop making the problem worse by allowing these companies to legally use tax havens.

That is a rather interesting parallel because the government is not focusing on the right thing when it targets farmers. The first thing we need to do is to turn off the tap where the impact is greatest, for example, by refusing to continue to fund certain fossil fuels and, more importantly, by putting an end to projects like Trans Mountain. We need to go after these major players first, rather than attacking agriculture, which is already a collaborative partner. Farmers already want to do a better job of fighting climate change because it has a direct impact on their own culture.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to take part in the second reading debate on this private member's bill, BillC-206. The bill proposes to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in order to modify the definition of what qualifies as farming fuel. It would further modify and expand the definition to include marketable natural gas and propane, in addition to gasoline and light fuel oil.

The sponsor of the bill hopes to provide relief to grain drying farmers. While I appreciate the goal of the bill as written, it would not provide relief for fuel costs of grain drying while also balancing the importance of executing Canada's climate action plan.

Allow me to explain. The bill adds natural gas and propane to the eligible fuel list, but does not add grain drying as an eligible farming activity under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Because of this, it would not provide relief for grain drying activities. This is why I think it is important that we take a closer look at the implications of the bill.

Our hard-working farmers are an integral part of our economy and indeed cultural fabric. They do important work in helping grow, store and sell crops that Canada and indeed the world rely on. Our government will continue to support Canadian farmers as they work to bring their goods to market.

As it stands, this act provides relief for farmers for gasoline and diesel, subject to certain conditions. In particular, to qualify, all or substantially all of these fuels must be used for eligible farming activities. Relief from the fuel charge generally applies to the operation of farming equipment and machinery, such as a combine harvester. Only limited emissions from the agricultural sector are covered under the federal pollution pricing system, such as those resulting from the use of natural gas or propane for heating or cooling a building or similar structure.

During the past year, as we have been fighting the pandemic, we on this side of the House have not forgotten the serious implications of climate change. It remains one of Canada's and indeed the world's most important long-term challenges. We continue to see the impacts of climate change through extreme weather events.

Right now, Texas has been dealing with winter storms that have posed severe problems to its power grid. In the Indian part of the Himalayas, the melting from a glacier has resulted in several deaths and many more missing because of floods. From the threat and after-effects of wildfires in western Canada, California and Australia to the increasing powerful hurricanes, typhoons and storms that batter communities around the world, these continue to have an impact. It is not increasingly a question of whether or not an extreme weather event will happen; it is a question of where it will happen.

Our government is serious in its commitment to confront and address this generational challenge. Canada needs to play an important role in this global fight. We need to act now to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe and a strong and healthy economy.

Canada's work to combat climate change is built on four pillars: pricing pollution, complementary actions to further reduce emissions across the economy, measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change and build resilience, and actions to accelerate innovation, support clean technology and create jobs.

Pricing pollution is central to the government's pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. A price on pollution reduces pollution at the lowest overall cost to businesses and consumers. A well-designed price on pollution provides an incentive for climate action and clean innovation while protecting business competitiveness. It is efficient and cost-effective because it allows businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce their emissions.

The federal pollution pricing system has two components: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels and an output-based pricing system for large industrial facilities, which provides a price incentive to reduce emissions and spur innovation.

All direct proceeds from pricing pollution under the federal system are being returned to the jurisdiction in which they have been collected. Returning proceeds from pollution pricing helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but does not change the incentive to pollute less. Every time a consumer or business makes a purchase or investment decision, they have a financial incentive to choose greener actions.

Our government has been clear that it should not be free to pollute in Canada. In addition, I want to be clear that the federal pollution pricing system is not about raising revenues. Indeed, as I have said many times, this is not a tax. The government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system. A pollution pricing system is about recognizing that pollution has a cost, encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future.

Canada has been a leader in this regard. In its most recent article IV mission report for Canada, the International Monetary Fund noted that pollution pricing “is the most efficient policy for reducing emissions while returning the revenues to households in transparent tax relief helps with acceptability.” The IMF specifically mentioned, “At the global level, Canada's carbon price floor could be a valuable prototype for an international carbon price floor arrangement among large emitting countries.”

These are all important considerations that Canadians will expect us to take into account in assessing the potential merits of Bill C-206. I want to thank the hon. member for raising this very important issue.

As I said earlier, the bill adds natural gas and propane to the eligible fuel list, but it does not add grain drying as an eligible farming activity under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. As written, it would not provide relief for grain drying activities.

Should the bill go to committee for study, I would recommend that the committee hear from a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, environmental non-governmental organizations, officials and industry associations, to fully evaluate the impact that the bill would have. This wide-ranging consultation would allow the committee to examine the bill in its entirety and evaluate the legislative and legal implications of moving forward with it.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. It is the private member's bill of my Conservative colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

First, as the official opposition shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, I want to congratulate the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and thank him for this bill. The member is well aware of the challenges faced by farmers and producers in his riding and is clearly in touch with their concerns. I believe his constituents can look forward to his long and fruitful service on their behalf.

I have heard many concerns from farmers and producers in my own riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and how the carbon tax negatively affects their cost of production and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against imports coming from our neighbours to the south, especially given our close proximity to the U.S. border.

I turn now to the bill itself. If the government refuses to support this bill, it will send a clear a message to Canadians generally and to Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers in particular. The message the Liberals will send is that they do not care how their carbon tax negatively affects Canadians and our domestic food security and production. The Liberals will also show how sadly out of touch they are with Canadian farmers.

I want to point out to this House the current situation with the Liberals' carbon tax and producers. Farmers are already exempt from paying the federal carbon tax on gasoline and fuel oils, which includes diesel fuel, where these are used for agriculture production on the farm. Let me be clear: This bill is only proposing to extend this existing federal carbon tax exemption for farmers to include propane and natural gas.

Last March at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and again on a video conference last June, the agriculture minister suggested that the farmers' federal carbon tax payments on propane and natural gas are less than 1% of their expenditures and insignificant, but that is just not the case. As one might imagine, the Liberals' carbon tax on propane and natural gas is far more than that. Many farmers and producers use propane or natural gas to heat their barns and dry grain and oilseeds.

Last November, the parliamentary budget office released a report on the carbon tax showing that farmers, ranchers and producers would pay $9 million for the remainder of just this fiscal year, plus $226 million over the next four fiscal years, for using propane and natural gas in their operations. For that period of time, that is a total of $235 million. It appears the Minister of Agriculture has a problem not just with math but with arithmetic, so let me press further on the arithmetic and math.

The profit margins for most Canadian producers are very narrow. For most Canadian farmers, there is very little room for error or additional input costs. For Canadian farmers, the Liberals' carbon tax is an input cost on their production, and most producers are price-takers, not price setters. That means farmers have no way of recovering what they pay in the Liberals' carbon tax from the next stage of the supply chain. To be clear, the Liberals' carbon tax takes from most Canadian farmers' profits and from their families' standard of living.

Canadians count on a reliable supply of food on their grocery shelves, and this just in: Food must come from a farm. If a farm is not profitable, the farm must shut down and the farmer must leave the land. As Canadian farmers are driven off the land and out of business, less food is produced here in Canada. A reliable supply of food must be found elsewhere and Canadian food sovereignty is put in doubt.

By bringing forward this bill, my colleague has shown he understands the challenges farmers face, but the minister's resistance to extending an exemption to the Liberals' carbon tax shows just out of touch she is with farmers.

The Minister of Agriculture's problems do not stop there. The minister has recently suggested that farmers should innovate so as to avoid using propane and natural gas in their production, but for many farmers, using propane and natural gas is the only option. Propane and natural gas are widely used by producers and farmers for heating their barns and drying their grains and oilseeds, and there are no other options available currently.

Ironically, at a recent meeting of the Keystone Agricultural Producers in Manitoba, the minister indicated that farmers could finance the purchase of a new, more efficient gas or propane grain dryer using the climate action incentive fund, so on the one hand she is telling farmers to find a viable alternative and on the other she is proclaiming that her government will pay for it. Which is it? Could the minister be any more out of touch with farmers?

The existing federal carbon tax exemption for farmers' use of gasoline and fuel oils raises another question. Compared to gasoline and fuel oils, both propane and natural gas are very clean fuels in respect of their emissions.

According to the United States Energy Information Administration, the carbon dioxide emissions from diesel and heating oil are 16% higher than for propane. The CO2 emissions for diesel and heating oil are 37% higher than the emissions for natural gas. The CO2 emissions for gasoline are 13% higher than for propane and 17% higher than for natural gas.

According to the Canadian Propane Association, “Studies have found that propane can emit up to 26% fewer GHGs than gasoline in vehicles, 38% fewer GHGs than fuel oil in furnaces.... Propane's end-use GHG emissions are significantly lower than gasoline, diesel, coal and heating oil. When upstream life-cycle emissions are taken into account, the case for propane becomes even stronger.” That is the science.

Here is the question: Why is the government refusing to extend the federal carbon tax exemption to propane and natural gas when they emit less carbon dioxide than gasoline or fuel oil? This is clearly not a science-based decision. Not only does the government have trouble with mathematics and arithmetic and not only is it out of touch with farmers, but it has trouble with the science too.

Let me draw to the attention of the House the wider consequences of the government's failure to be in touch with Canadian farmers and producers. Let me underscore the problems with the Liberals' inability to understand the issues around farmers' profit margins.

As farmers' profit margins move toward zero or cross over to become losses, it becomes more and more difficult for farmers and ranchers to stay on the land and in the business of producing food and feedstocks. How many times on this side of the House have we heard from farmers and ranchers whose families have been on the land for generations, but who now can no longer afford the uncertainty of knowing whether this year would see profit or loss? How many farm families who have been on the land for generations have shut down operations because their children saw little future in staying on the land with losses year over year? How many farm families have seen their standard of living gradually fall as costs pile up and the market prices for their commodities are static or in a downward trend?

Some of these Canadian families have been on the land for three, four, five or more generations. Despite producing a reliable supply of food for all Canadians, Canadian farmers are faced with a Liberal government that seems to think that food security is only about food banks. The Liberals are wrong. They are putting the ability of Canadians to produce food and Canadian food sovereignty in doubt.

Despite being prudent managers of the land they hold, Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers see little recognition from the Liberal government for their contribution to maintaining a safe, clean outdoor environment. Despite being conscientious taxpayers who contribute to the treasuries of their municipality and their province and the federal treasury, Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers are faced with a government that believes they should pay even more in the form of the Liberals' carbon tax.

On this side of the House, we say, “Enough.” On this side of the House, Conservatives believe that the challenges Canadian farmers face should be top of mind. Conservatives know that agriculture producers may be Canada's most important natural resources producers. Conservatives know Canadian families rely on Canadian farmers for a steady, secure and reliable supply of food on grocery shelves. Conservatives understand that farming is both a way of life for many Canadian families and their business.

Conservatives understand that the way of life requires that farming be profitable. Conservatives understand that ranchers pay property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes. Conservatives understand that agricultural producers cannot afford to pay the Liberals' carbon tax on fuel used for production, including propane and natural gas. Conservatives offer Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers a bright future for their families and for the generations that will follow in their steps.

For those reasons, as the official opposition's shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, it is my honour and privilege to support the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and his bill, Bill C-206.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House this morning to participate in the debate at second reading on Bill C-206, which is sponsored by my Conservative colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South.

I want to stress how pleased I am, because I consider this colleague to be not only a friend, but also an ally in our work on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I know how much energy he puts into defending his constituents and all taxpayers, because of how rigorous he is when it comes to our committee work. His bill reflects how much he cares, which is very admirable and does his constituents proud.

I also want to point out that he takes a collaborative approach in all his undertakings, which, despite our profound political differences, allows us to engage in courteous discussions and, above all, to move forward on issues that are important to us. That is ultimately reflected in the work we do for the good of the population in general.

Bill C-206 proposes to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which is currently referred to as the federal carbon tax.

We all know what the Conservative caucus thinks of this act. Even so, my colleague's goal is a worthy one deserving of our attention. His bill would directly affect the agricultural sector, which the current government believes is firmly on side despite all evidence to the contrary.

My colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South's Bill C-206 contains one single clause, one simple, short amendment to the existing act that would allow a whole lot of our farmers to stop paying huge amounts of money to the state just so they can run their farms and feed the people of Quebec, as well as people in the rest of Canada and even around the world.

As it stands, the act mandates a blanket charge on fossil fuels to be paid to the government by the supplier at the time of delivery. Sales that meet certain criteria, such as eligible fuels sold to a farmer, are exempt from payment of that charge.

Technically, for all those watching us, the current legislation defines qualifying farming fuel as any “type of fuel that is gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel”. This is where my colleague shows some real foresight.

Bill C-206 seeks to amend this definition by adding marketable natural gas and propane. Anyone who has ever used a barbeque knows what propane is. Marketable natural gas is a fuel that consists of at least 90% methane and that meets the specifications for pipeline transport and sale for general distribution to the public. It is the same natural gas that heats and cools thousands of homes, buildings, and facilities of all kinds.

My colleague's bill is crystal clear and deserves to be passed by the House. We hope that the Liberals will take the time to study it properly. We will also find out at the last minute where the NDP stands. They might yet again betray their principles to ensure their survival. We will see what happens when they vote.

That said, I remind members that all farmers, without exception, depend on propane and natural gas to run their operations. Grain producers are even more reliant on these fuels. I would remind everyone of the CN strike in November 2019, when rail deliveries of propane to eastern Canada were interrupted creating a crisis that the Liberal government utterly failed to resolve. Grain must be dried quickly so it can be stored in silos without rotting. That is pretty obvious, and every day counts when trying to save an entire harvest.

Although some grains are grown in Quebec, agriculture in that province focuses on other products. In Quebec, we produce the best milk in the world, the most delicious pork on the planet and the most nutritious eggs, not to mention the plump and tender chicken that our farms have been producing forever.

No matter what they produce, all farms rely on propane and natural gas fuels. If the government keeps forcing farmers to pay a fuel charge for these fuels, there is no question we will all lose. In my view, this bill needs to be passed because farmers' profit margins are already too low for the hard work they do.

Farmers need this tax exemption so that they can get us the highest quality products, which are envied around the world. All we need is for the Liberals to step up and amend a few words in the existing legislation to give the entire agricultural sector a little breathing room and to ensure the sustainability of family farms.

Farms are a key economic sector, key even to our very survival. I have a strong relationship with farmers in my area, the Lower St. Lawrence, so I know the farming sector well enough to know that, despite the ideological considerations that guide the Liberals, they should admit they were wrong and fix things while there is still time. My colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South is giving them the opportunity to do just that. I hope they will recognize the huge sacrifices made by grain producers in particular and farmers as a whole.

Before closing, I want to point out that the carbon tax is a tool for action meant to incentivize all industries to change their behaviour, but that means technology needs to be accessible and affordable in rural areas. It is not, so propane and natural gas are still the only options.

We have a common duty to support all of our farmers, but the Liberal government does not currently have the best track record in that regard, to be honest. However, we have an opportunity to fix that, and a simple amendment to the existing legislation, as proposed by our Conservative colleague in Bill C-206, would be a step in the right direction.

I could talk for hours about specific farmers in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques who would benefit from this measure. All of them would say that the environment is a daily concern because it is essential to their work. These people live off the land and its bounty. We have a responsibility to help and support them. The current markets are fiercely competitive, and a simple tax break to support them would show that we appreciate everything they produce and their contribution to our economy, not to mention the food they put on our plates.

Because the Bloc Québécois supports farmers, because we are extremely proud of their work and because they are as reliable as we can be, we will support Bill C-206. The Liberals should do their part. If not, they will have to answer for it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to address the chamber.

This morning I would like to provide some thoughts in regard to Bill C-206. Its intent is to ultimately expand fuel charge relief provided for farmers by making some changes to the definition of “qualifying farming fuel”. Specifically, I understand the bill would add natural gas and propane to the eligible fuel list.

As we continue to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, it is really important to recognize that we are not in a position in which we can afford to ignore the real and immediate threat that climate change poses to our environment and our economy. I think it is important to recognize that fact, even in these very trying times.

We will continue, as we have in the past, to work to support Canada's farmers as they attempt to also fight climate change. I think it is also important to recognize that our farmers, and the farming industry as a whole, have contributed so much with they way they are fighting climate change. The modernization and technology that is being used on our farms is absolutely incredible, and every year it continues to get better.

I can recall the days in Saskatchewan of running on to the fields with the big John Deere tractors and cultivators. When we compare the way farming was back then to today, we see some significant changes in the way farms operate. We need to acknowledge that. We will support farmers, ranchers, food businesses and food processors because we recognize the important role they play in our economy, our society and our lifestyle.

It is also important that we recognize that pollution pricing is the most effective and efficient way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change, and we have been saying that since the very beginning. In fact, all the direct revenues from the price on pollution go back to the jurisdiction that it came from.

That has been the goal of the government, and Manitoba has benefited from that significantly. We are getting into the tens of millions of dollars. The majority of the constituents I represent get a net gain as a direct result of the price on pollution.

I think if we look around the world, we would see a huge amount of support for having a price on pollution. We can look to the Paris Agreement or talk about other provincial governments. In fact, British Columbia's government has led the way. Ironically, we would have to go back probably over 15 years to see when even the Province of Alberta initiated the idea on some form of price on pollution.

Instituting a price on pollution across Canada has been a priority of this government, and it has been, for the most part, very effective. For those jurisdictions that do not have something of a similar nature, Ottawa steps in to ensure that there is that sense of equity, in that all Canadians are contributing. We saw legislation that was brought in earlier with regard to net-zero emissions. This legislation is a first of its kind and was introduced by this government.

Again, we are very sensitive to the farmers. We will see what happens when this bill goes to committee, but the government, even during these trying times, has been there to support our farmers. We can talk about the $5 billion in additional farm credit that was unlocked, or the $100 million for the new agriculture and food business solutions fund. We also increased the Canadian Dairy Commission borrowing capacity by $200 million.

There was also an additional $35 million to improve health and safety on farms. We spent well over $100 million for agricultural recovery initiatives, which will ultimately support a national approach to responding to some of the huge additional costs people in farm businesses have had to incur. Also, from what I understand, we launched a $75-million emergency processing fund to help modernize and automate some of these facilities.

Our government knows and understands our Canadian farmers. They are a part of the climate change solution, and we will be there to continue to support them in the months and years ahead.

The House resumed from November 23, 2020, 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.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Albas, as you can appreciate, M-34 was sent by the House, just like Bill C-206, I believe, or Bill C-208 was sent from the House. Those are two separate things. This is a Liberal Party motion, just like the other parties are putting in other motions, but the other two studies referred to are from the House, not from a particular political party.

Health of Animals Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to also offer my congratulations to the member for Foothills for bringing forward Bill C-205 for the House's consideration and debate. I enjoyed working with the member for Foothills when he was previously a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have now been a member for almost three years, going back into the previous Parliament. Maybe we will be able to invite the member back to the committee, this time as a witness to defend his bill.

I am quite excited about this because in the almost-three years that I have been a member of that committee, I have not yet had the chance to examine any legislation at the committee. It is actually exceedingly rare that the agriculture committee gets to examine legislation, and we may in fact now have two bills headed our way, both Bill C-206 and Bill C-205, so it is going to keep us quite busy in the short term.

The legislation that we have before us, Bill C-205, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, is essentially centred on the danger that exists from potentially exposing animals on a farm to disease or to a toxic substance. Before I get into the particulars of the bill, it might be helpful just to spend a few moments talking about biosecurity and why it is so important for farms. Therefore, I will talk a bit about the experiences I have personally had here in my riding.

I have had the pleasure of visiting a couple of farms in my riding, and I will identify two of them: Lockwood Farms and Farmer Ben's Eggs. They are both fantastic egg producers in my riding.

Because I have a small flock of chickens myself, one of the strict requirements was that I have no contact with my own chickens for an entire week before I visited those farms because there is a very real danger that I could unwittingly, or through negligence, transfer diseases like avian flu. I also have a flock of ducks. For anyone who manages fowl, there is a real understanding that disease is prevalent and it is quite a danger, so there was that requirement before I even visited the farm. Of course, when I was there, we had to take great care to make sure that our footwear was clean, that we put on disposable booties and wore the gowns and the hairnets, before we actually went into the barn to look at their egg production facility.

When in the barn, we get a sense of why this is necessary. First, avian flu is a very contagious disease and if it were to go through the flock, it would be absolutely devastating. Any farmer whose livelihood depends on animals, whether livestock or poultry, will tell you that their first and primary care is focused on the well-being of their animals. They literally stay up at night wondering about all the dangers that could come, and biosecurity is a huge part of that.

Another experience I had, going back a few years to a previous life, was when I was a tree planter. One of my tree planting contracts was near Merritt at the Douglas Lake Ranch. It is one of the largest working cattle ranches in the interior of British Columbia and their lands are so vast that they actually lease them out to logging companies. They do selective harvesting of their lands and, as a tree planting company, we were brought in to reforest. When I was doing the reforestation, there was a real danger of foot and mouth disease, so before we were allowed entry onto the lands, we had to have our vehicles wiped down, the wheels hosed off and all of our footwear hosed off with cleaning agents to make sure that we were not inadvertently transferring the disease.

All of these examples just help to illustrate the very real concern that exists out there with biosecurity.

Given the fact that international trade is such a huge part of agriculture, we have seen many diseases and pests come from other parts of the world, diseases and pests that are novel to the Canadian environment and pose a very real risk. I have spoken to researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the number of new diseases and pests entering our borders every year really does keep them up at night. It is an ongoing battle to try to make sure that they're coming up with the best practices and best defences against those diseases.

I also want to highlight the important role that animal rights organizations play. As the member for Foothills correctly noted in his speech, the vast majority of them have the best interests of the animals at heart. Their ultimate goal is to make sure that we have a farming system in place that is treating our animals with respect and making sure that the standards of care are there.

What we face, and I think the member illustrated it very well in his speech, is the balance that we have to have between the public's right to know, the transparency we want to see and the right to protest, and the rights of a farmer to secure his or her property from trespassers, people who may not know how the farming operation works and may not know about the dangers they might be carrying, just simply on the soles of their feet. They could be transporting diseased soil or something in some food they are carrying, and these are all very real dangers for the reasons that I illustrated previously.

That is the balance we are confronting through the legislation we are considering. In Canadian law, when it comes to animal welfare, it is primarily our provinces that have jurisdiction over protecting the welfare of animals. Here in British Columbia, depending on what the case is, we have the B.C. SPCA. They do farm inspections. We also have visits from officials from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture.

Going to Bill C-205 and what it is doing, for the the next part of my speech, I just want to highlight the provisions that currently exist in the federal statute that is the Health of Animals Act. If we go through the existing act, we can see that there are number of sections within the act that are already seeking to prohibit. For example, people are not allowed to conceal a reportable disease or toxic substance. People are not allowed to keep diseased animals. People are not allowed to bring them to market or to dispose of them improperly, or to let them out. These are all prohibited actions and they come with some pretty severe fines and penalties, because we are essentially trying to prevent those types of actions from occurring.

Where Bill C-205 steps in is that it is going to insert a new section 9.1, which is aiming to prohibit the entry of persons into a building where animals are kept, if by knowingly doing so or if they were reckless in doing so could potentially expose those animals to disease or a toxic substance. This is important. If the ultimate goal here is the welfare of animals, a person may have noble intentions and may want to see if the animals are being taken care of, but by doing so they may in fact be doing more harm than good.

Again, I understand the struggle that is out there, the debate that is going on with the public's right to know, but it has to be balanced against the very real consequences that those actions bring about. As the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, I support the bill. I support the principle behind it. I believe that the bill does merit further study at the committee. That is why I will be looking forward to voting for it.

In closing, I have received correspondence from concerned people from across the country who are worried that the bill might serve as an effective gag against their right to protest. What I would say in reply to that is that if we look at the specific wording of this act, it is talking about a person entering without lawful authority or excuse. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a whistle-blower, like a farm employee, who is already lawfully there and who witnesses something that they believe is wrong or contrary to animal welfare laws, from blowing the whistle and raising the alarm on that.

Perhaps what the bill may serve to do is to have a broader conversation on how we instill that public trust and build that kind of transparency so that people understand what farming is all about and the struggles that farmers go through, and also give farmers a chance to inform the public of how a farm operates and what measures they try to put in place to look after their animals.

I will conclude there. I will just congratulate the member for Foothills again for bringing forward the legislation. I hope it is sent to committee so that we can take a further look at it.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-206. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, for bringing it forward and addressing what is a very serious concern within our agricultural sector.

Our farmers across the country understand that certain things are outside their control: weather, droughts, floods and commodity prices. However, they continue to work extremely hard for Canadians' health in making sure we have food on our tables, and there is anxiety and mental health stress that go along with that. Farmers do that because they are passionate and love what they do.

However, there are some things they rely on the government to provide. They want to ensure they have the infrastructure to move their commodities to market. They want to ensure they have a competitive tax and regulatory regime. They want to ensure they have trade markets around the world in which to sell their commodities. One area where the current Liberal government is failing Canadian agriculture is the tax and regulatory regime, and Bill C-206 tries to remedy that situation.

In my opinion, the COVID pandemic has had a devastating impact on our economy. As parliamentarians and as Canadians, we are going to be looking to sectors of our industry and relying on them to help us pull ourselves out of this very deep financial hole. I would argue that agriculture will be one of the key sectors that can help us do that.

There are going to be food shortages around the world, and food security in our own country is going to be an issue. Canadian farmers, ranchers and processors are willing and able to take on that burden, but for them to do that we have to ensure they have the resources not only to survive this pandemic but to thrive afterwards. Asking them to pay the burdensome cost of a carbon tax, which other industries do not have to pay or have exemptions for, does not make sense. The bill would address that.

What is frustrating for our farmers and ranchers is they are not getting the credit they deserve for what they have already done. They are not getting the credit they deserve for the carbon sequestration and carbon sink that agriculture is. Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba has done a study showing that Canadian agriculture is a 30-megatonne sink on the positive, yet we continue to attack agriculture with the misinformation and misperception that is out there.

Canadian agriculture is not part of the problem when it comes to climate change. In fact, it is part of the solution. It is decades ahead of every other industry in Canada, and no one has made people in the agriculture sector do this. There has been no carbon tax there forcing them to do this. They have done it because they know it is the right thing to do. Very few Canadians are as passionate about their soil, their water, their livestock and their grain. It is their livelihood, so of course they are going to do everything they possibly can to take care of things.

I found it interesting that my Liberal colleague, who was speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, was saying that farmers need to find a more equitable solution to this problem. If there were a cheaper and more efficient way to do it, farmers would have found it.

I want to ensure that my colleagues across the way understand what we are talking about and the impact this is having on agriculture. It is unfortunate that my Liberal colleague was blaming farmers for climate change. Again, as I said, farmers have done everything possible to ensure they have done their part in the fight against climate change and in protecting our environment.

I am not going to name the person, but a Liberal colleague said, last year, “Why do farmers not put solar panels on their combines?” This speaks to what we are up against here in the misunderstanding around agriculture. They harvest 24 hours a day, seven days a week when harvest time comes, from sun up to sun down. When people say farmers should be looking for alternatives, we really have some work to do in understanding what farmers are doing and what limitations they already have.

The Kielstra family has a poultry farm in my riding and I toured their poultry operation earlier this summer. Mr. Kielstra was very upset about this carbon tax. He showed me his bills and gave me his Excel spreadsheet. He paid $51,526 in carbon tax last year, just to heat his barns. He has no other choice. It is winter.

He has to heat those barns to protect the health and safety of his birds. If not, he is going to be charged with animal cruelty. There is no other alternative. He cannot build a fire in the barn to protect his birds. He is using natural gas and propane to do that because they are clean fuels, they are inexpensive and they work.

When the carbon tax in 2022 goes to $50 a tonne, that $50,000 he is spending now will be close to $100,000 a year. We are not talking nickels and dimes here. We are talking about the difference between ensuring this operation is viable or going bankrupt. What makes it different for this sector is that farmers cannot pass on those costs to their customers. Agriculture is a price-taker. It is not that he can just increase the price of his birds by $50 a pound or kilogram.

The same goes for grain farmers. A grain farmer in northern Saskatchewan sent me his carbon tax bill for one delivery of propane to dry his grain. For one delivery of propane, his carbon tax bill was $800. That lasts him one week, not a month or a year. That is $3,200 a month he is paying to dry his grain and, once again, he has no other choice.

There was the harvest from hell last year, which we spoke a great deal about in the House, and northern Saskatchewan had a huge snowfall again this fall. Again he is going to have to dry his grain, and farmers from Saskatchewan to Ontario all had to do that last year. They had to take on costs they never expected. Again, as a grain farmer, he cannot pass those costs on anywhere else. He is absorbing those costs himself. The agriculture minister said last week that she understands that farmers work on very tight margins. Yes, that is right. Therefore, when the government has an opportunity to do something about it, why would it not please step up and do that?

Farmers are those who kind of keep their heads down, work hard and do everything they possibly can, but over the last year, year and a half, they have become very outspoken about the impact this carbon tax has had on them. I am very concerned about the position the Liberal government is taking on this. The previous agriculture minister said that all of the Canadian farmers he talked to were very supportive of the carbon tax. I can say exactly how many farmers I have spoken to who are supportive of the carbon tax. It is very close to zero.

When I asked the current agriculture minister, in an Order Paper question, what the cost of the carbon tax was to Canadian farmers, her answer was that the information was secret. Champions of agriculture, as Liberals profess themselves to be, should not be hiding the truth. We know what the cost of the carbon tax is to Canadian agriculture. It is crippling. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said the carbon tax is costing Canadian farmers about $14 million a year.

Conservatives are offering a very easy solution. There are already exemptions for purple gas and diesel. There are exemptions for the greenhouse industry. Why not expand that definition to include propane and natural gas, which are the cleanest fuels, the least expensive fuels and would offer Canadian farmers an opportunity to keep their heads above water through this very difficult time?

As I said at the beginning, Canadian agriculture has a unique opportunity to carry the burden, to help Canada dig itself out of a very deep financial hole, not only here in Canada but around the world. However, it is also important that we protect the security of our food supply and our supply chain. If our farmers cannot survive this, we do not have food on grocery store shelves.

With no farms, there is no food. That is imperative. Bill C-206 would help to alleviate the burden, the mental health stress and the financial crunch that Canadian farmers are feeling right now. I would urge my colleagues across the floor and throughout the House to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing the bill forward for debate. He has substituted on the agriculture committee a few times and I have sincerely enjoyed working with him. I look forward to having him join us again in the future, this time as a witness to defend his bill.

Before I go into the specifics of the bill, I want to say that the NDP believes there should be a price on pollution. The fact that human-caused climate change is occurring is no longer in dispute; it is a verifiable scientific fact. Canada is facing a climate emergency, one that will manifest itself in increasingly costly ways to our natural environment and economy.

A change in climate will bring more extreme weather events, and it is our farmers who will suffer. Changing precipitation patterns will bring increased frequency and longer durations of flooding and drought in different regions of the country. Fluctuating temperatures could have devastating impacts on livestock production. There will always be the increase of deadly forest fires. There will be real and catastrophic economic costs to this, both in adapting to the changes and in doing our best to mitigate them.

This will indeed be the fight of the 21st century. Unfortunately, the continuing political fight over the carbon tax ignores these realities and sidelines the leadership we as a country need to take against climate change.

I want to talk a bit about farmers and the important role they play in this conversation. This centres on carbon sequestration. The only way we are going to solve climate change is if we significantly reduce the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere and find new and innovative ways to sequester the carbon that is already there.

One of these ways is through good agricultural practices and giving farmers recognition of agriculture's potential for carbon sequestration. It is estimated in scientific literature that agricultural soils have a storage capacity of 30 to 50 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Ecological, agricultural practices, which include low tillage, no-till and intercropping, already sequester more carbon in soil than farmers are currently given credit for.

Recently, I took a trip to the interior of British Columbia to talk with ranchers who had won sustainability awards. They were using proactive management of their grasslands with their cattle herds. This is the leadership we need to see, and farmers are indeed taking it. We can all use this as a good example of what Canada is doing right. Also, our farms in Canada have great renewable energy potential, both in harnessing the sun and wind, and of course in their production of biomass for biofuels.

Despite the advances we have made and the potential that good agricultural practices offer in the fight against climate change, it is still an inescapable fact that farmers today depend on fossil fuels. This is especially true when it comes to drying grain.

The unseasonably wet autumn of 2019 was called the “harvest from hell”. It saw extensive and prolonged rainfall right before and during harvest time in many parts of Canada. Early snowfalls and frost also ruined many crops. Farmers had to use propane and natural gas heaters to dry their grain. Without the use of these grain dryers, their cash crops would have become worthless, as rot would have set in. That would have been a huge economic hit. As it stands, there are currently no viable alternatives to the use of propane and natural gas for the operation of these dryers.

With a changing climate, the new reality is that there will be many future years during which significant amounts of grain drying will be necessary for farmers across Canada. As certain pockets of western Canada are losing workers at harvest year after year, grain drying is now moving from something nice to have to something they need to have.

Let me outline the value of this sector to the Canadian economy.

Canola alone is worth $26.7 billion and pays out $11.2 billion in wages, and 90% of it is exported. It is Canada's largest agricultural export.

Let us look at other grain sectors, wheat in particular. We exported 20.5 million tonnes of wheat in 2017, and that was worth $21 billion in export sales.

This is a significant part of our economy. If farmers are suffering, as they have been with recent harvests, I believe, through the spirit of the bill, that they require some help.

Now let me turn to a more specific discussion on Bill C-206.

As the NDP agriculture and agri-food critic, I can say that the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading. I believe the principle of the bill is sound and that it deserves to make it to committee for further examination. In fact, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture in February to bring this particular issue to her attention.

Let us look at what the bill does. The bill makes amendments to the interpretation section of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to broaden the definition of what a qualifying farm fuel is. The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought about through the enactment of an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-74, in the previous Parliament. Bill C-206 would add natural gas and propane to the definition, which is currently limited to gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel.

This is important because the term “qualifying farm fuel” is used in several important sections of that federal statute. It is referred to in section 17 and again in section 38, as two examples. This is important because those sections specify that a charge for the carbon tax is not payable. If we list these two additional fuels, natural gas and propane, as qualifying farm fuels so they are understood to be used only on the farm for farming purposes, the charge for the carbon tax would not be payable.

As my colleague, the sponsor of the bill, correctly noted, there are provincial precedents. In my home province of British Columbia, coloured fuel purchases can be made, such as coloured gasoline and coloured diesel. These are exempt from both the motor fuel tax and the carbon tax in British Columbia. British Columbia also lists propane as having an exemption from the motor fuel tax. It is understood that propane is going to be used by a qualifying farm for a farm purpose if certain conditions are met.

I believe there is strong provincial precedent, and that is why the bill deserves to go to committee for further examination. Hopefully we can hear from some qualified witnesses there.

Seeing that my time on the bill is wrapping up, I believe that Bill C-206, at this second reading stage, does deserve to go to committee. I am happy to be supporting it for that discussion.

As part of the broader discussion on the bill and the costs that farmers are bearing, we need to recognize, as has been detailed by the National Farmers Union, that Canadian farm debt is now listed at over $100 billion and has nearly doubled since 2000. Since 1990, the corporations that supply fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, fuels, technology services and credit have captured nearly all farm revenues, leaving farmers with just 5% of the total revenue.

While the measures provided in Bill C-206 would have a measurable impact and benefit, especially when farmers are having to dry their grain, I hope we can use the bill to broaden the discussion on the other costs that farmers are having to bear. As a country, we all need to come together to tackle the farm crisis. It is going to required a sustained effort to actually put our support in the farmers' corner.

I will conclude there. I would like to again thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing the bill forward. I hope the House sees fit to vote in favour of it at second reading so we can have a more specific discussion at committee.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge farmers for their hard work and day in, day out dedication. Every day, from dawn to dusk, these people are out in nature working the fields. If anyone in Quebec and Canada cares about protecting the environment, it is farmers. I take my hat off to them.

My colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South said that we need to reduce the burden on farmers, and I have to say I agree with that in principle. We all want to reduce pollution, but we must always carefully consider the best approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have two options: the carrot and the stick.

The carrot here is incentives to encourage people to change their behaviour. The stick is using punishment to achieve that goal. Every time we implement one of these measures, I think it is wise to ask ourselves whether it is effective and meaningful. That is not clear in this case.

This proposal would add propane and natural gas to the list of exemptions, since they are essential to drying grains. We all remember the CN strike last fall and the wave of panic that swept through our rural areas.

As this point in time, propane and natural gas are still the most efficient way to dry grain. When we talk about protecting the environment, we also have to think about minimizing the impact of changes on those who are hardest hit by the effects. Farmers are amongst the first to be affected by climate disruptions. If crops are extremely wet, more fuel is needed to dry the grains. This is not a personal choice that can be easily changed at this time.

Should we be looking for other heat sources that would be equally efficient and that could replace current fuels in the medium and long term? Yes, of course. Biomass is just one example that comes to mind. However, there are significant development and implementation costs to consider.

We have to think about providing support to the agricultural industry to make these changes as soon as possible instead of punishing our grassroots people. The problem is that Liberal polices often put the responsibility on the public and the grassroots. We see very few measures that target big business, the oil industry and the coal-fired electricity sector in western Canada. The Bloc Québécois knows that those are the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions, because the numbers prove it.

Of course, that does not mean that we can ignore agricultural pollution, on the contrary. We have to recognize, however, that the use of fossil fuels is not the primary source of agricultural pollution. That would be livestock emissions, the use of fertilizers and a whole lot of other things we need to look at if we want to effectively reduce greenhouse gases.

If we want to meet the Paris Agreement targets, which were clearly endorsed by this government, then we have to tackle the big polluters. So far we have seen only mediocre programs that certainly will not allow us to meet these targets.

In Quebec, individual transportation is currently the main source of greenhouse gases. We are fortunate to have hydroelectricity. I cannot say the same for the west. This is not a rebuke. I would like westerners to understand my comments. If we look at Canada as a whole, since 1990 the west has been the primary source of all increases in greenhouse gas emissions, in particular from oil sands operations. Our view is that projects such as the Trans Mountain expansion should be abandoned. That is where we should be hitting harder.

I want to come back to agriculture. There is another reason for the Bloc's support of Bill C-206, and that is obviously the desire to help out the agricultural sector. In addition, Quebec is not affected by this bill because the carbon tax was created by the federal government to compensate for the fact that certain provinces and territories had not adopted any such program. Quebec has the carbon market and its system has been tied to that of California since 2013. It works well. This program exempts agriculture, which is not affected.

Still, when it comes to fuels, there is a part that cannot be measured, and this has an indirect impact on farmers in Quebec. Members of the Union des producteurs agricoles estimate that farmers have paid roughly $40 million in indirect taxation through the carbon market. Talks are currently under way with Quebec about returning this money to that sector. I think that is the right thing to do, and in that spirit, it just makes sense that we recognize the contribution made by the farming community, as well as the difficulties it is experiencing. We therefore plan to support Bill C-206.

We have to keep one thing in mind. We think it would be unfair to demand immediate efforts and changes from those who are the primary victims of the crisis in the energy sector and the challenges posed by climate change, beginning with the farming community and their families. We therefore need to start with the most polluting industries.

The federal government has a responsibility here to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and to stop giving tax breaks that are much bigger compared to those given to other sectors. I could also mention Quebec's forestry industry, which has been woefully underfunded, even though this sector is an extremely sustainable source of materials if managed wisely. The key word here is “wisely”. When a government imposes a tax like the carbon tax, it needs to consider whether this tax will work and whether it will change people's behaviour.

I think we need to do a lot of research and development to find alternatives to using oil and natural gas for drying grain. Farmers do not currently have other options, and this remains the most effective method.

What is the objective of the legislation? Section 3 of the act sets out the farming fuels that qualify for an exemption: gasoline, light fuel oil and fuels set out in a regulation. The bill introduced by our Conservative Party colleague simply wants to add marketable natural gas and propane to that list. I think that respects the spirit of the act, which was designed to put a price on pollution without penalizing the agricultural sector.

In conclusion, we are choosing to spare farmers from having to take on the environmental tax burden, which I think is a good thing. However, the western provinces must start working on an energy transition to diversify their economy. The Bloc Québécois will always support western Canadians. We stand with them and we support them. We do not want to shut down their industries and let them go hungry.

What we are saying is that they need to start transitioning. That is where they need to do some work. It is the way of the future. The burden should not be placed on the most vulnerable workers.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.

The bill before us attempts to alleviate potential costs borne by Canadian farmers. Let us take a closer look at the implications of the bill and what our government has already done to reduce the burden on Canadians as we safeguard the natural environment.

We continue to see the impacts of climate change through extreme weather events, from wildfires in western Canada to the increasingly powerful hurricanes, typhoons and storms that batter communities around the world. It is increasingly not a question of whether an extreme event will happen, but where it will happen.

Our government has made a serious commitment to address this major generational challenge. Canada must play a significant role in this global fight. We need to take immediate action in order to ensure that our children and grandchildren have clean air to breathe and a strong, healthy economy.

My constituents are very concerned about climate change, as am I. In recent months, I have received many emails from them asking me not to abandon the environment during this pandemic and telling me that we need to make the environment a priority. They are absolutely right.

This is why, in December 2016, Canada's first ministers adopted the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. The pan-Canadian framework is the country's plan to meet our emissions reduction target, grow the economy and build resilience to a changing climate.

The framework is built on the following four pillars: pricing carbon pollution; complementary actions to further reduce emissions across the economy; measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change and build resilience; and actions to accelerate innovation, support clean technology and create jobs.

Pricing pollution is essential to the framework. A price on pollution reduces pollution at the lowest overall cost to businesses and consumers. A well-designed price on pollution provides an incentive for climate action and clean innovation while protecting business competitiveness. It is efficient and cost-effective because it allows businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions.

We are making sure there is a price on pollution across the country, while also taking steps to maintain affordability of households and ensure Canadian companies can compete and succeed in a competitive global marketplace.

The federal pollution pricing system has two components: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, and an output-based pricing system for large industrial facilities, which provides a price incentive to reduce emissions and spur innovation.

All direct proceeds from pricing pollution under the federal system are being returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected. Returning proceeds from pollution pricing helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but does not change the incentive to pollute less. Every time a consumer or business makes a purchasing or investment decision, there is a financial incentive to choose greener options, regardless of how the proceeds are rebated or returned.

Our government has made it clear that nobody should be able to pollute for free in Canada. I also want to make it clear that federal pollution pricing is not meant to generate revenue. Its goal is to help everyone understand that polluting has a price and to support cleaner growth and a more sustainable future.

I repeat, the government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system. In Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta, the Government of Canada is returning the bulk of the proceeds from the federal fuel charge directly to households through climate action incentive payments. Most households have been getting more back in climate action incentive payments than they pay in increased costs due to pollution pricing.

The remaining proceeds from the federal fuel charge are used to provide support to key sectors in the federal backstop provinces including small and medium-sized businesses, municipalities, universities, schools, colleges, hospitals and not-for-profit organizations, as well as indigenous communities.

It is important to note the agriculture sector already receives significant relief under the federal pollution pricing system compared with other sectors of the economy. Most emissions from agriculture are from biological sources and are not covered under the federal pricing system.

The act as it stands provides significant upfront relief to farmers for gasoline and diesel, subject to certain conditions. In particular, all or substantially all of the fuel must be for use in eligible farming activities. Relief from the fuel charge generally applies to the operation of farming equipment and machinery, such as combine harvesters. Only limited emissions from the agriculture sector are covered under the federal pollution pricing system.

In short, this bill needs to be carefully considered to ensure it would not introduce complexity and unintended consequences. As it stands currently, the act's strength is that it is simple and straightforward in targeting a reduction in emissions.

Those are important considerations, and Canadians expect us to take them into account as we assess the potential benefits of Bill C-206.

The federal pollution pricing system is about recognizing that pollution has a cost, empowering Canadians and driving innovation. Putting a price on products that are more polluting and returning the bulk of direct proceeds to individuals and families in the jurisdiction of origin enables households to make cleaner and more environmentally sustainable choices.

I would be happy to support C-206 if it is sustainable and if there are no other ways to help the agricultural sector. However, I do believe that if we do make exceptions in certain industries, such as the agricultural industry, then we are really taking a step back and it would be open to other industries to also ask for exemptions.

I do understand that considering the pandemic, a lot of the burden has been on Canadian farmers. They have been affected a lot more than other sectors, not necessarily economically because they have been doing quite well, but a lot of the burden has been on them. Thanks to them, Canadians have been able to have food during this time. That said, I am still not 100 per cent sold on Bill C-206 and I would need to see more. I would wait before I give an official position.

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, our farmers are the backbone of our community and the engine of our economy. They are the hard-working men and women who take to the fields every day in the searing heat and, lately, the snow and freezing temperatures. They make sure we have food on our tables and, literally, the clothes on our backs. Our agriculture industry represents more than 7% of the GDP, and it still bears repeating how important, vital and essential our agriculture community is and its impact on our economy.

Farmers contribute over 2.3 million employment positions, including people who own farms and those who are involved in farming. That is one in eight jobs that is there because of farmers and the great work they do. We are an agriculture dynamo.

We are a leader in many categories. We are number one in the world in maple syrup. We produce 75% of the world's maple syrup, so let us hear it for maple syrup. We are in the top five in many agricultural productions, such as flax seed, canola, pulses, oats and durum wheat.

During the pandemic, and in fact, at any time in recent history, Canadians have not had to worry about food supply. Canadians have some of the least expensive, highest quality and safest food in the entire world, and that is because of our terrific farmers and agri-food workers.

During the pandemic, farmers kept going. As we all battled the pandemic, they kept making sure that their fields were planted and their animals were fed, so we could be fed.

As we start contemplating what a stronger Canada looks like going forward, one of the questions we will no doubt think about is self-sufficiency. One thing I can tell the House about the future is that, as long as we take care of farmers, we will always be able to feed ourselves here in Canada.

Unfortunately, farmers have had difficult times in the recent years. Whether it was due to difficult weather conditions, global trade wars or pricing disputes, there have been numerous challenges. This includes, unfortunately, the latest free trade agreement with the United States of America, CUSMA, where there was a watering down or a reduction of the market share for many of our farmers, which is disappointing.

Different governments have responded to the pandemic differently in how they have supported the agriculture community. Our neighbours to the south have literally given billions of dollars to farmers to help them bridge to a better day and get the farms through this. Unfortunately, here in Canada, our farmers have not had the same benefit. Instead, our farmers are getting recycled funding announcements and endless platitudes. Farmers deserve better.

Even in our domestic marketplace, farmers are facing challenges. Multi-million dollar grocery stores are setting record profits. However, they are doing it, at least in part, on the backs of Canadian farmers. We need to give Canadian farmers a break.

Farmers are not asking for a handout. In fact, they are not even asking for a hand-up. They just want a level playing field because they know, as I know, that our farmers are the best in the world. Where they have an opportunity, they will be successful and they will win.

In 2008, before the government even contemplated a federal carbon tax, in British Columbia the government put in place a carbon tax. In fact, many commentators have highlighted the fact that our current carbon tax is built on the chassis of the British Columbia carbon tax. However, there are notable differences, one of which is that before that British Columbia carbon tax was ever put in place, its government contemplated deeply the effect it would have on agriculture.

The result was more fulsome exemptions for Canadian farmers and fairer treatment for B.C. farmers. They have a full exemption on all farm fuels, including natural gas and propane, which is exactly what my private member's bill calls for. As well, in British Columbia, most commentators have said this exemption actually strengthens the carbon tax and helps farmers. Why would we not do this federally?

In a world where much of our competition is not subject to pollution taxing, the carbon tax is an unfair barrier for our farmers. The government has hummed and hawed, saying, “Maybe it costs this much, or maybe it costs that much.”

We do have numbers on the cost of the carbon tax, but they are not from the federal government, unfortunately. They come from from producers, such as the Saskatchewan producers, who calculated that an unbelievable 8% of net income will go to the carbon tax for Saskatchewan producers.

In 2022, because of set escalators for everyone out there, there will be an automatic increase without parliamentary consent to the tax. It is a nefarious regime, no doubt. By 2022, because of those escalators, that tax will actually go to 12%. That means, to put it in the language of my neighbours, that one in ten cows that farmers raise would go to pay the carbon tax, one in ten pigs would go to pay the carbon tax and one in ten tonnes of grain would go to pay the carbon tax.

Many farmers have sent my office their bills. These are exorbitant bills, particularly during last year's harvest when the grain was wet and they had to spend extra time and money drying it. I have numerous invoices that show that the carbon tax was $10,000 to $20,000.

To add insult to injury, the government decided to charge HST on the carbon tax. Come on. What we are seeing is that this tax is not only making our producers less competitive, it is also reducing their margins.

Although the government will not admit it, the carbon tax is not neutral for farmers. The claim that the carbon tax is neutral is in dispute, but what is not in dispute is that, for farmers, as a particular sector, it is not revenue neutral. Farmers' prices are not set by themselves, but rather by governments and international markets. They cannot just push that cost along. It is coming directly out of the pockets of our farmers, and that is money they could be using to reinvest in their farms, invest in clean technologies and help support their families.

I come from a small town called Orono, Ontario. I think it is one of the prettiest towns in Canada. In this town, our economy is based on farming. Farmers go out and buy food at the local restaurants. They go to the feed store and buy feed for their stock. They go to the tractor dealership and buy tractors. There are countless jobs that are created by the farmers, and when we take this money out of rural Canada, we take this money out of Canadians' hands. Rural Canada does not need more taxes. What we need is more support.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act currently includes a partial exemption on fossil fuels for farmers. It exempts diesel and gasoline. For whatever reason, and I still have not been given a good explanation of why this is, it does not exempt natural gas and propane. However, natural gas and propane, by nearly every environmentalist's account, are actually cleaner fuels.

I do not understand why we would not exempt cleaner fuels but exempt dirtier fuels. It does not make sense. This impacts all of the agricultural sector, but it has specific impacts on grain farmers, who have to dry their crops with natural gas and propane. There is nothing that our farmers would rather than to not have to do that, or to find an alternative way of doing it using renewable energy, but the reality is that that does not exist right now.

Now, if we could pause, give the farmers a break from the carbon tax and let them reinvest that money into innovation and clean technology, maybe that would occur. Maybe the free market could come up with some great ideas that could clean our environment, but as of now, the carbon tax is a continuing burden on farmers. It is slowing innovation and making our environment dirtier.

As the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South, I have the great pleasure of representing some of the best farmers of all of Canada. I have had numerous conversations with our farmers, and whether we are at the back of a tailgate, out in the fields or in the boardroom, they tell me over and over that they spend more time in the environment than anyone. They tell me that of course they want a clean environment, of course they recognize that climate change is real and they want to fight climate change, but they do not want to do it by being taxed.

What we want to do is to come up with innovation: clean tech to have us go forward. Examples of that are already happening. Farmers are among the leading environmentalists in Canada. They have advanced technologies such as no-till farming and precision farming.

One thing that I have gotten to know about from talking with some of our farmers is precision farming. It seems like it is out of the Jetsons, for people my age. It actually uses satellites. The satellites beam down GPS coordinates so that every inch of productive farm area is used and so that no extra drop of gasoline, diesel, natural gas or propane is used. This reduces emissions. The farmers are working hard to be environmental stewards for us.

The reality is that the grain growers have done analysis based on Statistics Canada's numbers. They emit about 66 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, which is not good. However, on the other side of equation are the crops they plant: their carbon sinks. These actually absorb over 100 megatonnes of carbon dioxide. Farmers are already carbon-neutral, 20 years ahead of the government's schedule. However, farmers, unlike nearly every other industry, are not given credit for this. They are not given an offset for the great work they do for the environment. We are just asking that we allow farmers the same playing field as other industries.

Why would we not get support for this private member's bill? In B.C. the NDP have done the same. The province strengthened its carbon tax. From an environmental perspective, I give it a check. It will help farmers be more competitive. There is a check. It will help our economy be stronger. There is a check. I do not see any xes.

I know that this cannot be true and I am hoping it is not true, but the only reason to oppose this bill would be pure politics. I know that the members on the other side want to support this. Whether they are from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Liberal Party, members want to go back to farmers to tell them they are proud of having voted for a bill today that will make their lives a little bit easier and make things a little less difficult for them. We have to get beyond this.

I was in the House about two weeks ago, proudly speaking for small business owners and asking for a simple pause of audits during the pandemic. We were opposed. Only one party voted against us. I think we have had great amendments for a number of bills that were being legislated, but every time they are opposed, opposed, opposed.

I am calling upon my great friends across the aisle to do what is right for their constituents. Put down your sabres, extend your hands and work with our government-in-waiting to develop constructive solutions for Canadians. We want to work with our colleagues. We want to make life better for Canadians. Please join us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ginette Petitpas Taylor]

No. Thank you so much for that. That's great.

Perhaps now we can proceed through each item. To be efficient with our time, we could maybe just go through them item by item, and if there are no questions or comments, we can dispose of them fairly quickly. We'll be able to address the ones for which there is debate.

Does that sound appropriate to everyone?

We'll start off, then, with Bill C-210. Does anyone have any issues or comments about that one? No.

Next is Bill C-238.

I see there are no comments, so we'll move right along to Bill C-224. Good.

Next is Bill C-215. No comments.

Next is Bill C-204, and now Bill C-229.

I'm not going to jinx it, but we're on a roll.

Now we have Bill C-218 and a motion, M-34.

Next we have Bill C-214, Bill C-220, Bill C-221, Bill C-222 and Bill C-213.

I love working with women.

Next is Bill C-223, followed by M-35.

Now we have Bill C-206, Bill C-216, Bill C-208, Bill C-205, Bill C-237, Bill C-225, Bill C-228, Bill C-236, Bill C-230 and Bill C-232.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel).

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege today to introduce an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Agriculture is a pillar of our economy and it is part of the fabric of our society. Agriculture, though, has been having a particularly difficult time. Our farmers are struggling out there. They are now facing multiple blockades in addition to pricing instability and trade disruptions. The pressures on our farmers today are innumerable. Therefore, it is with great satisfaction that I am introducing a private member's bill that would provide some relief to our farmers.

One of the things I heard when I was travelling my riding, from farmers and non-farmers, is that the carbon tax is impacting the way they operate their businesses. In fact, the carbon tax is taking away up to 12% of their net income, so this is having a significant impact. There is currently an exemption for farmers, but only for gasoline and diesel. For whatever reason, both propane and natural gas were left out. That left many grain growers and farmers out in the cold, as they were drying their grain and paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax.

Our friends in the government like to say that the carbon tax is revenue neutral. However, for farmers that simply is not the case. Their rebate may account for less than 10% of the carbon tax. Many are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in carbon tax every year, making their prices higher and making it more difficult to compete.

My private member's bill would allow an increase in the exemption, to include both natural gas and propane, making life just a bit easier and more affordable for our farmers. This would allow farmers to invest in technologies to fight climate change, such as sequestering carbon and other sustainable practices that would make life a bit better for all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)