Bill C-234

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, they cannot even help but heckle the Speaker when that member is so desperate to try to defend the indefensible, and that is the Liberal corruption that is costing Canadians and is forcing them to skip meals.

The Liberals' inflationary spending is not for legacy projects. It is not to build bridges or build homes. It is to line the pockets of insiders. While we have tent cities that did not exist eight years ago and while we have food bank use in numbers that did not exist eight years ago, we have corruption the likes of which has never existed in this country, except for under the current NDP-Liberal government.

It is clear that after eight years of this Prime Minister he is not worth that cost. He is not worth the cost of record food bank usage. He is not worth the cost of record food price inflation. He is not worth the cost of scandals. It is hard not to be disappointed in the government when every day there is a new scandal. These Liberals just cannot help but jump up to defend the indefensible.

We saw it today, in fact, when the industry minister stood up and was very animated in defence of all of the conduct at the billion-dollar green slush fund. These are Liberal appointees who are under investigation. I understand that there might be an initial instinct, but many months have passed. The Liberals have seen the evidence. The Auditor General has now launched an investigation. That is the stage that we are at.

We are at the stage where we have many millions of dollars go missing and instead of saying they are going to get Canadians their money back and they are going to make sure that everyone who had anything to do with it is held fully accountable and that of course they are going to clean house and everyone is fired, they have fired not a single person. They have not sought to recover a single dollar. I have to say that my first call would be to the RCMP because with Canadians who are starving and struggling and freezing in the dark, that is the kind of reaction that we should have to misappropriation and embezzlement; not looking to jump up and, as I said, defend corrupt practices.

That is why we have put forward common-sense solutions, like Bill C-234. It is horrible to have seen the pressure that the PMO and his radical environment minister used, to have senators amend that bill before sending it back here. It is brutal. It could have provided real relief to Canadians. It could have had a real effect on food price inflation and could have contributed to food security for Canadians. While the Liberals may have given up on doing the right thing, we are always going to stand up for Canadians and we are going to bring home lower prices and food that people can afford.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

It is a very challenging time for Canadians. We have food price inflation that we have never seen before in this country. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. A third of all food bank users are children. We have seen reports from experts that the inflationary policies of the NDP-Liberal government are contributing to food price inflation.

As we move into the holiday season, Canadians are getting ready for Christmas and are struggling. Rents are up. Mortgage payments are up. The interest payments that people are paying on everything they borrowed, whether it is through a line of credit, a credit card or their vehicle loans, are up. They are looking for a little relief.

When we talk about food in particular, the food that we get does not come from the grocery store. That is not its point of origin. Food comes from the farmers who grow it. One way that we could address food insecurity and food price inflation is by reducing some of the pressure on our farmers and producers.

Conservatives put forward common-sense Bill C-234. It would remove the carbon tax for our farmers on their grain drying and on the heating and cooling of their buildings. When we have farmers paying an average of $150,000 for their carbon tax bill, which is set to quadruple with the Liberals, it is incredibly concerning what the downstream effect of that is going to be for Canadians when they go to the grocery store. Our farmers have two options. They can either cut production to cut their carbon tax bill or pass the increased costs on to consumers, who are already feeling the effects of food price inflation. This is after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government and the unsustainable path it has put us on.

What we hear from Liberal members is that the alternative, Canada's Conservatives, would cut. What we will cut is Liberal corruption. What we will cut is Liberal taxes. I could list a few of the areas very quickly where the Liberals have found no dollar that they are not willing to take from Canadians' pockets in the form of taxes. Instead of helping Canadians out, the Liberals help out friends and insiders.

We had the infamous $54-million arrive scam. This is not a project that Conservatives support, and we would cut that kind of spending. There is the billions of dollars that Liberals have given to their friends in high-priced consulting fees. In true Liberal fashion, when they were called out on their high-priced consultants, no one ever having spent more on consulting than the Liberals, they hired a consultant to tell them how to spend less on consultants. That cost taxpayers three-quarters of a million dollars. We would cut that.

We can look at the $1-billion green slush fund, which is mired in scandal. We had a whistle-blower at committee just this week talking about $150 million. The Liberals allowed that money to line the pockets of well-connected insiders. We have two Liberal appointees now under investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for voting to give themselves $600,000 between the two of them. We would cut that kind of spending. Of course, we would root out that kind of corrupt behaviour.

Another director on that board has also been identified as having furthered their own interests—

Prohibition of the Export of Horses by Air for Slaughter Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I begin this debate a little heavy-hearted, because this is an issue that is near and dear to me and I just want to reiterate what I just heard.

I just heard the member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview advocate against jobs in his own riding in the Calgary airport, jobs of shipping horses. This is from a bill from the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Apparently this is the pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga. It is not affordability. It is not any other issue, like day care, crime or violence in our communities and streets or people using food banks; the most pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga apparently is what some Métis people in Alberta are doing, and a few farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec are doing, when it comes to horses.

It is a niche market, as I will freely admit, and my constituents admit that, but it is an important issue. I am referring, obviously, to this notion of somehow singling out horses for export from our agricultural community. In essence, the government and its acolytes in the Senate have launched a two-pronged attack. The first bill here is Bill C-355, which we are debating today, and the second is Bill S-270. Both of these bills would prohibit the export of live horses from Canada for the purpose of slaughter. The primary difference is that Bill C-355 would only restrict that export by air, while the Senate bill would do so more generally and broadly.

Since this issue is not often discussed in the public domain, other than in misinformation campaigns, I would like to begin my speech today with a few statistics and some key information about this valuable industry.

There were only 347 exporting breeders in Canada, and they exported a total of 2,600 animals for slaughter in the last year, 2022. For the education of my colleague for Calgary Skyview who just spoke and said that we used to export 7,000, that was because we used to have PMU barns and we used to produce a lot more horses because of that pregnant mare urine, which is a biotic used for the creation of birth control. As that was phased out in favour of therapeutics, the number of horses has gone down.

However, we still need a market for these animals, but that member would not know that. I do not think there are a whole lot of horse breeders or horse raisers in Calgary Skyview, which is fine. I always find a lot of humour in listening to my Liberal colleagues from urban areas talk about how much they clearly do not know about agriculture. That number is complemented by another 10,840 live horses that are also exported, but not for the purpose of slaughter. Basically, a five-to-one ratio of horses that are actually exported are not for slaughter, but who is going to know what the motives are of the buyer of that particular horse when it is purchased in Canada and shipped on an airplane?

While the distribution of this industry, as I said, is spread across the country, the greatest number of these animals comes from my province of Alberta, as well as Ontario and Manitoba. It should be noted that 25% of these horses come from indigenous herds. I remember when this government used to say that there is no relationship more important to it than the relationship with first nations people; a quarter of this industry is actually providing income and stability to the economic viability of first nations, primarily the Métis in Alberta.

Canada consumes 1,000 to 1,200 tonnes of horsemeat every year. This is mainly in la belle province of Quebec. As well, over a billion people—16%, so almost two in 10 people on this planet—consume horsemeat, so almost 20% of human beings on the planet consume horses. That is an astounding number, but apparently it is not good enough for those who do not know the industry, do not know anything about agriculture and never represented anybody in agriculture, and they are just going to shut down this industry.

It is also very healthy meat, with 20% more protein than beef, 25% less fat, 20% less sodium and double the iron of a beef sirloin, so I do not know why my colleagues across the way are protesting so much.

Now that we have a picture of what this industry looks like in this country, I would like to stay with what the Liberals propose to do with Bill C-355, and it is nothing short of shameful. The bill would require an unreasonable regulatory process to be undertaken prior to any flight being allowed to depart with a horse on board. This includes a signed declaration, to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, that the horses are not being exported for slaughter.

Can members imagine? The pilots have about five minutes when the plane pushes back from the gate when the pilots have the authority to get their documentation, get everything signed, push back and take off.

Now, we would have to have an approved letter from the Minister of Agriculture just before push-back. I am sure that would be an interesting bureaucratic hoop to jump through. This declaration must then be in the hands of the pilots of that aircraft and the chief customs officer of the airport. If it is contravened, the consequences of this act would be devastating. On the higher end, fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or both may result.

One gets less for violating a gun prohibition order in this country. This is the way the folks across the aisle think about these particular issues. There is nothing more damaging to Canada, apparently, than a farmer.

This is not speculation. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, for Canada has expressed concerns. It represents 95% of the unionized pilot workforce employed at 21 airlines.

The result of this bill would be to essentially restrict the air transportation of all horses in and out of Canada for all purposes. Not only would this bill impose an unfair burden of proof on the pilots and exporters, who cannot always be assured of what the end use is of the horse that is on board, but it would also dissuade them from even taking any live horses as cargo because of the overly punitive fines.

As previously mentioned, Canada exports 10,840 live horses for purposes other than slaughter. This bill would inadvertently hurt those producers as well, as it would make it harder for them to find air shippers that are willing to take their cargo.

For example, this may cause delays for those who need to fly horses engaged in Olympic or other equestrian competitions, as well as horses that are simply sold for their genetics and used in breeding programs elsewhere in the world.

These delays could jeopardize their opportunity to compete and represent their country internationally. We would lose things such as the Spruce Meadows and show jumping. We would have all kinds of problems, even applying for an Olympic bid in this country, because somebody would bring their horse here and would like to take it home with them. “Not a chance in Canada,” say the Liberals.

I must say that this bill is not just about the export of horses. It is part of a larger issue, which is the general assault on the Canadian farmer, who is already burdened by costly carbon taxes and excessive regulations.

We saw this disregard for farmers again recently, when the Liberal-controlled independent senators blocked Bill C-234's passage through the Senate. Finally, when they did pass it, they amended it to gut the bill of its impact. Instead of healing the urban-rural divide, the government is still stoking division.

This debate is personal for me. The horse export industry is prominent in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe. A testament to this importance can be found in some of the feedback I have received from constituents and stakeholders. As one can imagine, in mixed and rural ridings such as mine, the impact of such legislation can be of outsized importance. This includes a member of an Alberta Métis group.

As part of a larger statement to us, they have stated, “There has been no consultation with indigenous producers and people on the plan to ban the export of live horses. The Canadian government has a history of stepping on indigenous farmers.”

There is a duty to consult in the Constitution, and they have not done that with this bill. I would also like to point out that the rationale for banning the bill, based on the so-called premise of animal welfare, is all based on misinformation and untruths.

This is especially the case when it comes to claims of mistreatment and abuse of these animals during their transportation. I can tell members that I grew up on a farm. On the farm, our animals are the most important thing we have. They are part of our business. We have to treat them well and with respect, because our business and livelihood both depend on the health and viability of these animals.

Since 2013, over 41,000 horses have been exported. The mortality rate at all stages of transport, not just on the airplane, is 0.012%. Basically, this is statistically insignificant. I want to highlight that no deaths as a result of the transportation of these animals have occurred since 2014.

We have veterinary oversight. We have very stringent transportation rules for animals. This is a clear campaign by misinformed individuals who simply want to make an emotional argument to try to shut down an industry that they disagree with ideologically.

This is absolutely frustrating, not only for my constituents but also for all farmers. It is a slippery slope. I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.

Carbon Tax

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister wants to punish farmers for being incredible optimists and doing the fantastic work they do every day on our behalf. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, farm input costs are ballooning out of control. Bill C-234, a common-sense Conservative bill, would reduce the cost of food for Canadians by removing the carbon tax on farmers. I spoke to farmers in my backyard, who said that any of those major inputs have just been skyrocketing in price, with almost double the fuel bills, as well as fertilizer that has doubled, if not tripled, in price.

On annual expenses of $2 million, almost 20% or $400,000 is due to the punishing carbon tax. That will mean $1.6 million when the Prime Minister quadruples the tax. The other concern is that the tax is so hidden that this estimate is probably low.

Does the Prime Minister think that farmers need to raise prices on Canadians, or should Alex cut back production so that Canadians are forced to import food from polluting foreign farms?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, farmers work tirelessly to feed Canada and the world with some of the highest quality produce available, yet the NDP-Liberal government continues to punish them at every turn.

Instead of giving them a much-needed break on the carbon tax through common-sense measures like Bill C-234, the Prime Minister is quadrupling the carbon tax, hurting the livelihoods of the very farmers who are putting food on the tables of Canadians. One farmer in the regional municipality of Estevan is paying over $150,000 in carbon taxes a year. Once quadrupled, this will go up to over $600,000 annually for his 15,000-acre farm. How does the Prime Minister expect him to cover this cost: by raising prices on Canadians, cutting back his acreage or bringing in more costly food from polluting foreign farms?

Conservatives know that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who ships the food, Canadians have to pay more to buy the food. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

Carbon Pricing

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are arguably worse off than they have ever been before. In fact, the government would rather penalize a single mother for commuting to work to earn for her family than face the fact that its carbon tax is not working, not for the environment and certainly not for Canadians.

The consequence of the Liberals failing to work with the facts is that the cost of everything is skyrocketing: the cost of gas, home heating and groceries. Everything is going through the roof. Farmers are being punished just for growing crops and feeding Canadians. Meanwhile, indigenous folks are taking the government to court, suing them because the carbon tax is incredibly punitive and discriminatory in nature.

Our ask is simple. It is that we pass Bill C-234, unamended. This would serve Canadian families best. It would be for the sake of families, for the sake of first nations and for the sake of farmers. At the end of the day, we are asking that Bill C-234 be passed and that we axe the tax to get Canadians back on track.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for staying a little longer, Minister. I appreciate your acknowledgement of calling senators regarding Bill C-234.

I'm just curious. Given that you were so adamant about not giving another carve-out to Canadian farmers and therefore having lower food prices, and given the first nations of Ontario and the Chiefs of Ontario and their stated opinions....

I know I'll get ahead of you. You're going to hide behind the Bank of Canada, so you're either going to say you believe the Chiefs of Ontario, who are suing your government, when they say life has become unaffordable because of the carbon tax, or you're going to say you don't believe them, but will you possibly think of giving another carve-out to first nations communities that are taking on the undue burdens of your carbon tax?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair. I certainly look forward to hearing what Dr. Lewis has to say about this. I know she has a great familiarity with this subject matter.

Chair, perhaps I could continue, because I do want to ensure that this is added to the record. I just mentioned how telcos will not be compensated, and I believe I provided a brief interjection about some of the commentary that has been provided at other committees in relation to compensation for financial losses.

Certainly, in the highly regulated telecom environment that Canada finds itself in, that would be a massive conversation that we could have at some point, but that would be venturing into the territory of not being relevant, so I wouldn't want to go there.

I will, however, continue with this summary, which talks about how:

The Amendments introduce new enforcement powers for the Minister of Industry to monitor the Telcos' compliance with the orders or future regulations, including investigatory powers and issuing AMPs of up to $25,000...per day for individuals (such as directors and officers)....

Chair, that summary relates to a significant ability and discretion, and this summarizes from a legal perspective some of the commentary that was in the brief Mr. Strahl provided. I want to ensure this is part of the record, because they're endeavouring not to take a specific position but rather to ensure theirs is non-partisan. As hard as that is for certain members of the committee to believe, if they have seen my debates in the House, it's important and valuable that such a perspective be included.

It then goes on to say, in regard to information sharing and secrecy:

The CCSPA and the Amendments require Designated Operators, Telcos, and any other person to share confidential information with the Appropriate Regulators, and Governor-in-Council and Minister, respectively, in furtherance of the objectives of the Bill. This confidential information may be shared with multiple federal government organizations, provincial and foreign counterparts, as well as international organizations, to pursue the objectives of the CCSPA and the Amendments. While these information exchanges will be governed by agreements and memorandums of understanding between the parties, the Minister may disclose the information if [it] is necessary in the Minister's opinion to secure the telecom system.

Given the national security purpose underlying this Bill, the secrecy of the orders is paramount. The orders from the Governor-in-Council and Minister may be subject to non-disclosure requirements. Moreover, for the sake of secrecy and expediency, the orders and directions of the Governor-in-Council and Minister do not follow the complete process outlined in the Statutory Instruments Act, and thus, are not registered, published, or debated in an open manner.

Certainly when it comes to that relationship, it's important to acknowledge—I know we've had a number of discussions, including on one of the clauses we passed here when I think there was a desire for further debate, but it ended up being moved forward—that a tremendous amount of latitude is being given to executive government when it comes to some of the powers that are associated with Bill C-26 as it relates to Bill C-33, and one has to be aware of the granting of power to executive government. That is certainly something that Parliament is able to do under our Westminster system.

However, it's important to keep in mind the larger tension that needs to exist to ensure that we do not forget at the very foundation—and this is incredibly relevant, not only to this but to everything we do here—that the government is only a function of Parliament.

I know that's something that can be a bit lost in the midst of conversation. I know that this very statement has even been deemed controversial at different points in time. Earlier this week we celebrated the Statute of Westminster, the point at which we brought home the Constitution, and I would note that it was an incredibly significant moment in Canadian history. That is relevant to the conversation here today, because it's Parliament that enacts laws that give the government its authority.

I would just note how we have seen various instances throughout our recent history—in particular the last eight years—where there has been more latitude given than I would suggest is appropriate. There are times when we could ensure that Parliament is able to better fulfill its job by a government that respects the fact that whether it's committees, or whether it's the role that the House of Commons and the Senate play in terms of our bicameral Parliament in ensuring that it is the ultimate arbiter of the land....

In fact, our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually ensure that that is, in fact, the case with the notwithstanding clause, which I know the Liberals have.... In fact, I believe it was Paul Martin in a previous election—I was getting back to that. I couldn't even vote at the time, if members around the committee table can believe that. It was Paul Martin who, during a press conference, announced that he was looking at getting rid of that. I'm not sure that he understood the consequences, both in terms of the constitutionality or the amending ability of Parliament to be able to do that.

However, when it comes to the relationship to the issue before us, we have these wide-sweeping powers being given to executive government. If there is not the appropriate accountability, as the American Bar Association, in this article, is highlighting, it would be the.... We need to have clear direction to every element of what government is, to ensure that there is that check on executive government.

I do find it interesting. I'll get right back into the ABA. This article has a number of recommendations. I would just note that there are two quite distinguished lawyers who put together this article, which gives this overview of Bill C-26, and how it applies in the context of where Bill C-33 is.

Specifically, Chair, one can never assume that one will be in power forever, whether that's the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. If we have the honour—and I certainly hope we do—we look forward to those days when we'll have the opportunity to govern on behalf of Canadians.

However, I find one always needs to look in the mirror. In fact, I've asked in the House quite a number of times about what the government would think, if they were in the opposition benches, about something that they were doing. It would not necessarily be the policy, because policy is one thing. You can disagree with policy. However, you need to be very mindful about how you approach the ability for a parliament to function in a manner that respects the very basis of what our democratic system is meant to be.

Chair, when it comes to the wide-ranging powers that are given to executive government, we do have to be very mindful that there's certainly a role that executive government needs to play in the administration of infrastructure, the administration of security and intelligence, and all of the aspects of what we're talking about here. However, when it comes down to it, Parliament is supreme in our country. We cannot forget that.

To ensure that I don't venture off into an area that would be deemed not relevant, I certainly won't spend time talking about a few examples of that, but there are some very pressing issues—one of which would be the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Parliament spoke on that, yet we have an executive government that refuses to acknowledge.... I use that as an emphasis, not to get into the details of that issue, although it's certainly one that dominates a lot of our time in light of the atrocities that took place against Israel, and how Iran, and the IRGC specifically, funded and supports Hamas as a terrorist entity.... The fact that there's that disconnect is the point I'm making here. That speaks very closely to why we need to be very circumspect in the way we approach the role of executive government. There's that understanding. It has to come back to respecting Parliament.

If I had had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-234, I certainly would have, at length, talked about how that bill saw a great deal of support, including Liberal support by a few brave Liberals who were willing to support that bill.

Unfortunately, it was not able to get the support that it, I believe, should have received from the other place. Again, I wouldn't want to go into the area of not being relevant. When it comes to recommendations, I would—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's interesting that the member says to keep it serious. I would suggest that when he shut down my earlier conversation about Bill C-234 and the impact that has on my constituents, that was of the utmost seriousness. That member refused to allow that discussion to take place, about the impact that has on my constituents. He should look in the mirror if he thinks it is simply a joke that there are farmers going bankrupt in my constituency and across Canada because of the imposition of that party's carbon tax upon Canadians.

When it comes to the issue at hand and specifically how Bill C-26 has a clear relevance in relation to the—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the remarks that my colleague Mr. Strahl made, especially in light of the interconnectedness of Bill C-33 and Bill C-26 and how, in light of those connections, it becomes incredibly relevant.

To address a few of Mr. Badawey's previous points, I find it perplexing myself how the Liberals seem to have this tendency to find concern with anyone who is unable to buy what they're selling hook, line and sinker.

Certainly when I hear from constituents, which I do on a very regular basis, they encourage me to do everything I can to ensure I am being their voice in the nation's capital. When it comes to some of the legislation that may not always garner the headlines it deserves—and certainly Mr. Strahl mentioned it in the brief he presented before this committee—I think it is important for Canadians to know how, with the discussions we have, whether before the transport committee or the various other duties that all of us undertake on a regular basis in the nation's capital, there are important connections that do in fact take place.

Just to note, if you would permit me, Mr. Chair, I endeavoured to have a discussion—and I even had an object lesson—on 2019 rural Alberta special areas wheat. I looked forward to discussing that in the context of Bill C-234. Now, I wouldn't want to be off topic from the conversation around the bill we have before us today, but certainly I would express my disappointment that we didn't have the opportunity to discuss that common-sense Conservative bill that would have brought needed relief to families and support to our great farmers from coast to coast.

I want to ensure that I stick to the conversation we have before us when it comes to the way that the bill this committee is studying and the impact that some of the.... As Mr. Strahl stated, when you have a bill that references a previously passed bill, one of the concerns that were highlighted—and certainly it's not limited to this one—is that when briefs are submitted, sometimes they don't get the due opportunity to be engaged in. The fact that Bill C-26 is currently being studied at committee, I think, speaks to this interconnectedness. I know that Conservatives have endeavoured to—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I had six hours of subject matter on Bill C-234.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, climate change is causing wildfires, natural disasters and other extreme weather events to become more frequent and more severe. The effects are widespread and devastating for communities across Canada. Of course, that has a price that our farmers will have to endure.

The impact of climate change on farming is terrible. We simply cannot afford not to fight the climate crisis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees that the impact on a hundred dollars of groceries is significantly higher considering the impacts of climate change.

The reality is simple. Bill C-234 would delay much-needed programs while farmers should start transitioning toward greener technologies. I have seen first-hand the damage that is caused, with the loss of infrastructure and housing, specifically in indigenous communities, which are at the front lines of this. We cannot go backward. We have to keep moving forward.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

As we know, Bill C-234 would remove farmers' obligation to pay a price for the greenhouse gas emissions they generate when they use propane and natural gas for farming activities, including to dry grain.

The government, of course, appreciates that farming is critical to our country. Of course, we must safeguard our ability to feed our citizens and many more around the world. However, Canada already has a host of programs to support and assist farmers. For example, we have supply management systems for milk, eggs, chicken and maple products. We have insurance programs for crops, and we have trade protections. In addition, we have financing programs for farms and farm equipment, and we have laws to prevent the seizure of farming assets.

The reality is that we are facing a climate crisis and we need to act now to mitigate a more serious situation.

Unfortunately, climate change already threatens farming operations, biodiversity and the health and well-being of so many individuals in Canada and around the world. As we all know, Canada can suffer deeply from the catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis. Just in the last few months, we have had to deal with historic wildfires, floods and storms. Canada simply cannot afford to not take decisive actions to fight climate change. In 2018, damages to Canadian farms resulting from severe weather reached $2 billion, the fourth-highest cost on record. For Alberta crop farmers, we must not forget about 2019, the “harvest from hell”. The Western Producer noted then that the estimated total value of unharvested crops in Alberta, due to the severe weather events, was $778 million. Clearly, not acting on climate change now would not help our farmers at all.

Experts tell us that the best way to tackle the climate crisis is through carbon pricing. That is what we are doing here in Canada.

Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a logical way to induce behavioural changes that will lead to widespread reductions in emissions. When it comes to farming, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act contains specific provisions to support Canadian farmers. In fact, most fuel used on farms is already relieved from the fuel charge, which would otherwise apply.

Furthermore, recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, the government already implemented a refundable tax credit for farmers in provinces that are subject to the fuel charge, starting for the 2021-22 fuel charge year. The three-year-long exemption proposed in Bill C-234, as amended by the Senate, would eliminate an incentive to promptly adopt clean technologies that would undoubtedly emerge during that period.