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.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today and add the voices of the people of Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte to today’s debate.

Residents in my riding, in places such as Midhurst, Elmvale, Minesing, Shanty Bay, and Moonstone, all beautiful little communities, know very well that Canadians are getting less and paying more. They are struggling to pay rent, feed their families and heat their homes.

Before I discuss my concerns with the specifics of this budget and the concerns I am hearing from residents in my community, I want to take a moment to reflect on how we got into this cost of living crisis and how it is affecting Canadians today.

During the pandemic, the Liberals used historically low interest rates to justify record spending and record deficits. The Prime Minister then stated he was not worried about the cost to service Canada’s increasing debt, because rates were very low. The Governor of the Bank of Canada stated that borrowing rates “are very low and they’re going to be there for a long time.” He went on to assure Canadians, “If you’ve got a mortgage or if you’re considering to make a major purchase, or you’re a business and you’re considering making an investment, you can be confident rates will be low for a long time.”

Thousands of Canadians locked in their mortgages at a variable rate, believing that when the government and the Bank of Canada said rates would be low for a long time, they meant it. Fast-forward to today, and we have seen the Bank of Canada raise its policy interest rate eight times to 4.5% in less than a year. Families that bought typical homes five years ago, with typical mortgages that are now up for renewal, will pay an additional $7,000 per year. This is thanks to the Liberal government’s inflationary spending.

How has this government responded to the crisis it has created? In this year’s budget presentation, it responded by recklessly adding $4,300 in new spending and debt for every household in Canada. It is driving up inflation, raising taxes and harming Canadians.

Last year, the finance minister stood up in the House and stated that the debt-to-GDP ratio was her government’s “fiscal anchor”. She promised that our debt-to-GDP ratio would decline and that our deficits would be reduced. We see plainly now that promise to Canadians has not been kept. In fact, our debt-to-GDP ratio will increase from 42.4% this fiscal year to 43.5% in 2023-24.

Furthermore, the cost to service Canada’s debt is up. This year, the government will spend almost $44 billion to service our debt, which is double the cost from the last fiscal year at $24.5 billion. The more this government spends to service our debt, the less money it can spend on programs that help Canadians. To put this number in perspective, the defence department’s budget is currently $27 billion, and this year’s budget includes just over $30 million of new defence spending over the next five years, at a time when our country is under pressure from our allies to increase spending.

Leading up to the tabling of this year’s budget, Conservatives had three clear demands in order to lend our support to the government’s fiscal plan: lower taxes for workers, an end to the inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of goods, and the removal of red tape that prevents homes from being built for Canadians.

We were hopeful the government would listen to Canadians and move into an era of fiscal prudence. However, the Liberals have presented us with yet another irresponsible deficit and they plan to keep us there until at least 2028. The assertion from this government that it is showing any fiscal restraint is demonstrably false.

I would like to take some time to point out what is missing from this document, namely that the budget fails to deliver any measures that would meaningfully address the rising costs of housing, groceries, and home heating. It fails Canadians who desperately need a break.

First, one of the top concerns for residents in my community is housing affordability. Make no mistake; we are in a housing crisis. Since this government came into power, rents have skyrocketed. In 2015, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $973 a month. As of last month, in my riding, a one-bedroom apartment costs almost $2,000 a month to rent, on average.

Under this government, Canada has the fewest homes per capita in the G7. A recent report by RBC found that we need over 300,000 new rental units in the next three years to restore normal vacancy rates. Canadians need bold leadership in this sector. Amid sky-high housing prices and increased immigration numbers, we need to do everything we can to increase housing supply.

Home ownership is completely out of reach for most Canadians. A recent survey found that nine out of 10 young Canadians who do not own a home think they never will. On average, those who do have a mortgage are spending 62% of their income on monthly payments on the average house.

While the government's previously announced first home savings account offers Canadians the opportunity to save $40,000 for their first home, the Liberals have failed to acknowledge that most Canadians will be unable to put money into the account. Thanks to the government’s inflationary spending and taxes, young and new Canadians are spending most of their hard-earned paycheques on rent and groceries, with nothing left over to save.

The housing crisis is policy and leadership failure from the federal government. It has had eight years to address this issue. Unfortunately, this budget offers no new support for Canadians who feel that their dream of home ownership is farther and farther out of reach.

I will go on to an issue that is directly affecting families in my community, which is the rising cost of groceries. The high cost of groceries is exacerbating food insecurity, and many Canadians are turning to food banks to make ends meet. It is heartbreaking to see how many families are using food banks in my riding and across Canada. In March 2022, there were nearly 1.5 million visits to food banks in Canada. That is a 35% increase from 2020 and a 15% increase from 2021. One-third of those food bank clients are children.

Locally, the Barrie Food Bank is supporting close to 4,000 individuals every month, including 1,300 children. It has seen the number of families with children accessing the food bank rise by 56%. Sharon Palmer, the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank, which serves residents in my riding, told a local newspaper that she is seeing residents who have historically donated to the food bank now using it to feed their own families.

Despite the government’s inaction, Canadians are finding innovative ways to attempt to tackle this issue and help their neighbours who are struggling during this cost of living crisis. For example, Leah Dyck, a resident in my riding, launched a community initiative called Fresh Food Weekly to tackle rising food insecurity in our community. Fresh Food Weekly partners with local farmers and businesses to deliver fresh meal boxes to community members in need.

Canadians simply cannot afford 10% yearly food inflation. To address this issue, the government has touted an increased GST credit as a grocery rebate. The grocery rebate will give a one-time $467 payment to a family of four. To put that number in perspective, it amounts to roughly $39 a month. Canada’s Food Price Report 2023 predicts a family of four will spend up to $16,000 on food this year, or over $1,300 a month, which is $1,261 more than the rebate they will receive. We know that this top-up does not actually address the food insecurity Canadians are facing.

The fact that this year’s budget has no financial commitments to food security initiatives is unacceptable at a time when six million Canadians, including 1.4 million children, are food-insecure. I urge the government to act swiftly to address this issue.

Finally, I have received countless calls, emails and letters from residents in my riding who are concerned about the inflationary pressures they are facing.

One area in which families and businesses are feeling the pinch the most is the government’s costly carbon tax. On April 1, the Liberal carbon tax increased to $65 a tonne, increasing the price of gasoline, home heating and other fuels. This tax disproportionately affects our agricultural sector. Canada’s Food Price Report 2023 found that, by 2030, a typical 5,000-acre farm could see taxes of over $150,000 a year, which will definitely hinder an owner's ability to make a profit. The report also notes that these added costs will trickle all the way down the supply chain to consumers as producers struggle to make a profit. I am proud to represent a riding that includes a strong and vibrant agricultural sector. This year’s increase and the government’s plan to eventually triple the carbon tax by 2030 are simply too high a price for farmers in my riding and across Canada to pay.

Conservatives have proposed a real plan to remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane used on farms, through Bill C-234. This legislation would save farmers tens of millions of dollars on upfront costs when it comes to the use of natural gas and propane for necessary practices. Unfortunately, when presented with a proposal to make life more affordable for our hard-working Canadian farmers, the Liberal caucus voted against it.

Despite the Liberal government’s claims that Canadians will be better off with a carbon tax, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that most households will see a net loss when the broader economic impacts of the carbon tax are considered. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the carbon tax will cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, even after rebates.

Let me be very clear: The carbon tax is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan that places an undue burden on families, small businesses and farmers. Meanwhile, the Liberal government has failed to meet a single, solitary emissions target after eight years in power.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that can bring home powerful paycheques, lower their taxes, and build more homes. Only a Conservative government can provide the relief that Canadians so desperately need.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I am hearing from my constituents is that they are hurting and the cost of groceries has gone through the roof. The Liberals are promising a grocery rebate in this budget, but really it is just a GST rebate rebranded as a grocery rebate, and that would not do anything to help Canadians who are struggling right now.

We need to offer Canadians some hope, and I have been championing a grocery code of conduct to help Canadians' grocery prices go down by holding our big grocers accountable for their actions and how they nickel-and-dime farmers, which, in turn, passes on extra costs to consumers. We will continue to support Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax for on-farm use and the restrictions on fertilizer, because we need fertilizer to grow food. We will not support restrictions on fertilizer. We need to make a real difference.

The NDP-Liberals want to leave people hungry. They like big socialist governments where that has happened before. If we are not careful, we are going to see serious problems in our agriculture industry in the near future.

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, despite the Liberal Party, this House passed Bill C-234, which exempts farm fuels, grain drying and farm heating from the carbon tax. However, the carbon tax does not just apply to the farm. It applies to the entire food value chain, from the mining and manufacture of fertilizers to the delivery of farm inputs to the delivery of farm production to the packaging of farm inputs, farm production and groceries, at every step of the way. The result is that now a family of four is going to pay $1,100 more for their groceries in 2023.

When is the costly coalition going to get the facts and stop the tax?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-234 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join the proceedings virtually to talk about Bill C-234, but let me start by saying it has been a difficult day for my family. This morning, we had to put down our beloved Bernese mountain dog, Sulley. If you would permit me, I would like to put his memory on the record in Hansard.

As all of us do as colleagues, I have what I call the “grand bargain” in terms of the partnership I have with my wife in order to be able to pursue this job to the greatest extent that I could. Back in 2019, when I first got involved in public life, that was the bargain, that we had to get a dog. My wife said that if I was going to be away participating in debates, she needed someone at home with her. Sulley has been with us ever since my first day in public life. He was a special dog. I know everyone who has an animal would say that, but with his demeanour, his poise and his presence, he is going to be missed. This is a small way in which I can make sure his memory is on the record and in Hansard for life.

It has been a difficult morning, but let me also reiterate the importance of working virtually. My colleagues know that if there is any opportunity for me to be in the House, I will be there, but this morning gave me an opportunity to be with my wife and my dog and also be able to speak to this really important bill. It is not without its challenges, but the virtual tools are extremely important for parliamentarians to be able to do their work.

Let me get to Bill C-234. This bill would expand existing exemptions under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. When this government was developing its carbon price plan, there was considerable thought given to exempting on-farm fuels from the carbon price. Let me just say that I have had a front-row seat to this particular bill as the proud chair of the agriculture committee. We have had the opportunity to study it and to hear from witnesses, and that was one thing that was covered.

There are a number of existing exemptions for those involved in the greenhouse sector for on-farm fuel use. There is already no carbon price applied. However, at the time the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was developed, it seems as though there was not necessarily a lot of thought given to grain drying and, particularly, to barn heating for livestock. That is exactly what this bill tries to do. It would extend to what a number of policy-makers feel was a small oversight at the time of the original drafting of the legislation that brought the carbon price into force.

At its core, carbon pricing is about changing behaviour and driving innovation to be able to get around what is a market signal around the price. Sometimes that is easier said than done. In the case of grain drying, we have heard repeatedly from witnesses who have knowledge on this subject that although there may be some techniques down the line and there is work being done, there is nothing commercially available to Canadian farmers at a scale that is needed right now to be able to meet that demand.

On barn heating, certainly it is a little less objective that there are no alternatives, but the committee unanimously amended this legislation to make sure that we were focused on just barn heating for animals. When we think about poultry barns, propane and natural gas are often used to make sure that even in the coldest winters the animals are protected and are in a comfortable temperature. That source is needed and although technologies are forthcoming, they are not readily available at this time.

That brings me to my second point, which is around the sunset clause. Parliamentarians are not saying that this is forever. This is an eight-year exemption sunset clause, which is anticipating that some of the technologies that carbon pricing, government policy, and innovation in the private sector alone are driving are going to make it perhaps more plausible by around 2030-31 that this bill will not necessarily be necessary and farmers can be making those important investments accordingly.

That brings me back to the point that it is difficult for farmers to be able to get around this carbon price, in the sense that there are not those technologies. Of course, we would all want to be able to do so, but if there are no readily available techniques to do so, it does have a punitive measure to a certain extent.

I am sympathetic to the government position, to a certain extent, because for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, the carbon pricing regime is seen as a way to incentivize major transitional projects and investments to reduce carbon emissions, by economists and governments around the world. There are 46 other countries around the world that have some form of carbon pricing.

There are people, organizations and groups all seeking exemptions along the line. I can appreciate the concern from the government's side that if we give an exemption in one particular area it may create a cascading impact to suggest that more should be done for other industries. That may be the case, but on this particular issue, as it relates to the evidence we heard, the government is well within its right to move in this direction without necessarily opening the door to other exemptions where the technology may not be available. We are talking about something quite fundamental, which is input costs associated with farmers across the country, which plays into the price of food.

The government, to its credit, has sought to redress this issue. It was in what was formerly Bill C-8. What happens is that all the revenue collected under the carbon price at farm level is aggregated and then brought back to farmers on the basis of the size of revenue on the said farm, so there is a return model.

However, as has been noted in the debate, this does not take into account the actual elements of what a farmer may produce. For example, a dairy farmer may not actually be grain-drying and may not be incurring some of those costs, so there is no ability to return it on an equitable scale that actually takes into consideration the farmers who do not have the readily available tools, to be able to return that in a way that is not being punitive to certain industries.

This bill is the best pathway to be able to move forward.

The second thing is around the affordability of food. There have been lots of conversations about that. Our agriculture committee is studying the price of food right now. We have had the opportunity to hear from grocery CEOs, farmers and industry stakeholders. I do not think this should be overplayed, but even though it will not be a silver bullet in a moment when food prices are high, it will be a small step toward alleviating some of the costs that may be incurred, at a moment when there is not really an ability to actually innovate and drive the technological change we may want to see.

The member for Timmins—James Bay kind of suggested the government has no programs in place to help incentivize technological change and innovation on farm. I would disagree, respectfully, with the hon. member. This government has put nearly a billion dollars over the last two budgets toward just that: measures that help drive down emissions on farm. This government is supportive. This government has put money back to farmers to do exactly that. In this particular instance, it is about correcting a small miscue that would have happened back in 2018 when this legislation was originally drafted.

Mr. Speaker, you and I, both in the Annapolis Valley, share one of the largest agriculture ridings and concentrations of farms in Atlantic Canada. It is the largest concentration east of Quebec. With the federal pricing coming into effect in Nova Scotia by July 1, this bill has added importance for my constituents and the farmers in Kings—Hants. It is reasonable and sensible public policy, and I will be supporting it when it comes up for a vote on Wednesday.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill and the opportunity to memorialize our boy, Sullivan. I will leave it at that. I look forward to seeing members in Ottawa later this evening.

[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.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

We've talked a great deal about carbon pricing, and you support Bill C‑234, Mr. Terrazzano.

We've often been told in the House of Commons that it doesn't apply, especially to Quebec. On the contrary, I think it has a direct impact, because we have our own tax system in Quebec. When we purchase products like propane or natural gas, we add a surtax.

Do you feel it will be a lose-lose situation for Quebec because we're going to be taxed twice?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd also like to thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Terrazzano, I got the gist of your speech about carbon pricing. Countries obviously need to strike a balance between imposing measures to reduce pollution and, as you explained it so well, not bringing up the inflation rate by imposing a tax when there's no other alternative.

The committee has considered Bill C‑234, and it's currently on third reading in the House. If it passes, the farming community will have access to more exemptions for things like drying grain and heating certain buildings.

Do you feel the bill will address some of the issues?

[Ian Boxall, President, Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan]

Good evening.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for this invitation today to discuss the views of farmers on food inflation.

As you mentioned, my name is Ian Boxall. I'm the president of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, which represents around 15,000 farm and ranch families. I'm also a farmer from the community of Tisdale, in northeast Saskatchewan.

I want to focus my comments today, first, on inflationary factors affecting our industry, and second, on the importance of a grocery store code of conduct to promote certainty and transparency throughout the food supply chain.

As committee members know, Saskatchewan farmers do not set the price of our products, or the price for the inputs we buy to grow them. We are impacted by inflation on both ends, when we purchase our farm inputs, and when we purchase food, yet the causes of inflation are many: geopolitical issues, weather-related events, the pandemic and inefficiencies in our system.

On food price inflation, farmers are very sensitive to the current environment affecting consumers. We are at the forefront of food production, and it is often easy to point to the price of the commodities we produce as the cause of what is happening at the grocery store.

This is why APAS is undertaking work to highlight a farmer's share of the food dollar. We want to help educate the public and build a better understanding of the impacts farmers have on the price consumers see today. I anticipate this to be negligible, given the rapid rise in food prices. We plan to have this work completed in April.

We also support the importance of a Canadian grocery code of conduct to improve efficiencies, collaboration and transparency throughout the supply chain. The code will help ensure that processors, wholesalers and large and small retailers play by the same rules, adhere to standards and ensure fair transactions throughout the value chain.

In 2021 Saskatchewan farmers experienced their most expensive crop ever for livestock and grain production, spending $11.5 billion on farm expenses. That's 11% higher than 2020. The year 2022 wasn't any better. Saskatchewan farmers are concerned about the lack of price transparency and supply, and about certainty for critical farm inputs, such as fertilizer, fuel, seed and chemicals.

The cost of production inflation creates added risks for producers. In 2021, Saskatchewan farmers spent $2.67 billion on fertilizer purchases alone, which made up 24% of cash operating expenses, exceeding the previous year's fertilizer purchases by 30%. Since 2019, glyphosate has increased 62%, fuel is up 52%, the price for urea has increased 112% since May 2019, and anhydrous ammonia is up 113%.

These inputs are critical for food production and security at a time when the world needs Canadian agricultural products. We know that inflation and the cost of living are a major concern right now for everyone. At the same time, costs are especially volatile for essential farm inputs, which make up a huge portion of farm costs. A lack of transparency on what's causing price spikes is very concerning and requires further investigation.

I'd like to close out my remarks by making these observations for your consideration.

First, food production and security should always be of the utmost importance in policy development. No policy should limit, restrict or reduce food production, or decrease food security.

Second, it is important to support and recognize innovation. Farmers have adopted or produced some of the most innovative technologies, which have positively contributed to food production while increasing the biodiversity of the land and reducing our carbon footprint. We will continue to do so.

Third, efficiency, accountability and transparency of transportation systems, to help limit supply chain restrictions so that agriculture products reach their destinations, are critical to reducing inflationary costs.

Fourth, a grocery store code of conduct can be a useful policy instrument to achieve better collaboration and efficiencies to help address food costs.

We feel these measures will help reduce supply chain friction and improve dynamics.

Finally, Saskatchewan farmers are encouraged by the progress of Bill C-234 to exempt natural gas and propane for on-farm use. This bill will help reduce costs that farmers should not have to bear and cannot pass along.

With that, I will stop there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity. I look forward to the discussion.

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly admire the member's passion for putting a price on pollution. One will not hear an objection from this side of the House; it is the only way to go. If I am quoting her right, she said “polluters must pay”, yet I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the NDP has been supportive and plans to vote in favour of Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill would specifically remove a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, from certain sectors. If the member is such a huge fan of pricing pollution, why would she vote in favour of Bill C-234?

[Mary Robinson, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello. My name is Mary Robinson. I am from Prince Edward Island. I am a producer on Prince Edward Island and the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

The CFA is Canada's largest general farm organization. We represent over 190,000 farmers and farm families across this country. We and they are the heart of the Canadian agri-food system, generating just under $135 billion of Canada's GDP.

As you know, food inflation is outpacing all other commodities, and we are seeing these price increases reflected across the board in sectors such as fresh fruit, vegetables, dairy and eggs, to name just a few. This is illustrative of the fact that farmers have seen their bottom line costs increase tremendously over the past few years, with a sharp rise in expenses through 2021 and 2022.

The increased costs of production in the ag sector are being driven by several factors, including critical inputs such as fuel and fertilizer, which have seen drastic price increases over the past year. According to Farm Credit Canada, “fuel costs [have] increased more than 80% since the first quarter of 2019” and the average fertilizer and feed costs have very nearly doubled. In addition, machinery, pesticide and labour costs have also increased substantially over the same period.

Farmers have no lower-cost alternatives to turn to for these inputs and their absence has dramatic implications for Canada's agricultural productivity and Canada's food security. For most farmers across Canada, 2022 was the most expensive crop they have ever put in the ground. As a result, many farmers are required to make tough decisions around whether to delay investments in their operation that would otherwise make them more efficient and environmentally sustainable, because they simply do not have the margins.

The bottom line is that inflation represents several challenges for Canadian producers, who are price-takers in global markets and subject to weather- and climate-related risks that are outside our control.

There are some immediate steps that can be taken to reduce potential short-term impacts on Canadian food production.

First, our members are very encouraged to see the progress of Bill C-234, which would exempt from the federal carbon price natural gas and propane used on farms for drying grain and heating and cooling barns in backstop provinces. We are thrilled that this is on its way to third reading in the House of Commons. It holds the potential to remove one more cost that farmers shouldn't have to bear and cannot pass along.

Second, according to Stats Canada, the federal government collected $34 million in tariff income on fertilizer imported into Canada in 2022. We feel that revenue from these tariffs should be redirected into programming that helps to alleviate some of the impacts of rising costs—for example, fertilizer and fuel—and helps to build resilience in the ag sector.

Finally, in July 2021, federal, provincial and territorial—FPT—ministers called for an industry-led process to improve transparency, predictability and respect for the principles of fair dealing within the supplier-retailer relationship. Following this announcement, a steering committee comprised of individuals from 10 key stakeholder groups, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, was formed to facilitate and develop an industry-led grocer code of conduct.

The objective of the code of conduct is to enable a thriving industry; promote trust, fair dealing and collaboration throughout the value chain; increase commercial certainty; and develop an effective and equitable dispute resolution process. While not explicitly targeting food inflation, we do believe that it will help to improve supply chain dynamics, particularly where one link in the supply chain is unduly shouldering the costs and risks of inflationary pressures.

We were pleased to see the minister's positive reaction to the most recent progress report of the committee earlier this year and look forward to the government's continued support for this initiative as it approaches implementation.

Thank you. I'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Huron—Bruce for getting Bill C-234 to this stage in the legislative process. It is important to underline we would not be at this stage if not for the co-operation and collaboration of all opposition parties. It kind of highlights how delightful it is to work in a minority Parliament when we can outnumber the government at times and control policy.

As the agriculture critic, and I have served now on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food since the beginning of 2018, I have to say that of all the standing committees of the House the agriculture committee absolutely, despite some of our policy differences, is a fantastic place to work. It comes from a recognition that ridings across Canada, this great country of ours, have farmers and agricultural activities represented by Liberals, Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and by New Democrats. There is a desire at that committee to put aside some of our more confrontational aspects to work really on behalf of farmers and try to make sure we are presenting good policy on behalf of farmers.

The great theme we need to talk about of course is the threat climate change poses. Farmers will tell us right away they are on the front lines of the battle with climate change. They are the ones who have had to deal first-hand with irregular weather patterns, intense amounts of precipitation, wild forest fires and heat domes. I have often talked about my home province of British Columbia that, in 2021, in the space of three months went from a heat dome to an atmospheric river. The term “atmospheric river” is now part of our lingo, and no one ever really had experienced that kind of torrential downpour. It was particularly brutal in the Lower Mainland, in what it did for many farmers.

Farmers are absolutely trying their best and are going to be a key part of the solution, not only from the carbon sequestration or the different farming techniques they are employing but also just from the efficiencies that have been generated. If we look at the amount of fuel that is burned now to take off harvest from the land, our farmers have definitely been some of the leaders in taking up new technologies in trying to make their farms more efficient.

If we look at the volatile nature of prices for fossil fuels, it is absolutely in farmers' best interests to try to find alternatives to that. If we look at the very tight margins many of our farms operate by, they absolutely are trying everything they can to save money.

With Bill C-234, I have heard the arguments from the government against this bill. I understand concerns with any attempt to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I believe a price on pollution is important. It is important to try to get that innovation to alternative fuel sources. However, that only works if there is a viable alternative. What we have heard repeatedly at committee from members of the agricultural community is that when it comes to drying grain there currently are no commercially viable alternatives. That was said repeatedly and it was presented with evidence. Sure it might come in time, but at present there just simply is not an alternative.

I listened to the Liberals talk about their concerns. It is important to understand that, when they first brought in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in 2018, when they authored that act at a time of a majority government, they took the time to identify in the definitions what a qualifying farming fuel was. They took time to define the activity of farming, what eligible farming machinery was and what eligible farming activities were. They did that so in the bill, their original act, they could carve out exemptions for agricultural activities.

The Liberals, in 2018, realized that for certain agricultural activities exemptions needed to be carved out from the application of a price on pollution because there were no alternatives that were commercially viable. That is an important fact we need to remember within the context of our discussion on Bill C-234.

The agriculture committee had about 30 witnesses, and the overwhelming majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee were in favour of Bill C-234. Going back to the collaboration and co-operation of all opposition parties, I was glad to see some of my amendments pass. They were very helpful in narrowing the scope of the bill so that it applies specifically to buildings that have a verifiable agricultural purpose.

To send a signal to agricultural producers that this is a temporary measure, it was very important to have the sunset clause. The provisions of this bill would expire in eight years, and at that time, Parliament can take up the cause to review the state of the technology in the industry and decide whether further amendments are needed. It is very important to underline the fact that this bill is going to be in effect for eight years only. That, in itself, is an important price signal and is going to encourage the development of alternative forms of fuel and energy.

We did our due diligence at committee. Language was put into the bill. It was amended in a way that has tightened its scope, and it has an important sunset clause. I know from having spoken with many agricultural organizations that there is widespread support for this, and I am happy to continue my support for the bill. When we get to a vote, I will definitely be voting to send it off to the Senate. Hopefully the other place will make short work of it.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my third time speaking to this bill or the previous version, which was practically identical. I took the time to reread my speeches to make sure I was being as consistent with myself as possible, because sometimes I am not consistent with others. While rereading my speeches, I realized that, when the previous version was before us, I was already fretting about election rumours that gave us reason to believe the bill would never be passed, even though it had achieved broad consensus.

People always talk about how expensive elections are. I often explain that to young people when I am giving presentations about politics. When they tell me the latest election cost $130 million, I say that it actually cost a lot more because there are costs associated with our work as parliamentarians. We have to redo all the work on bills that died on the Order Paper because of the election. This bill is a prime example of that.

It costs farmers, who have had some tough years. The exemption for propane, which is pretty expensive, was extended for two years.

These are the same farmers who had to go through the propane crisis of 2019, when there was the strike at CN. These are the same farmers who had labour challenges during the pandemic. They had to wait a long time to get work permits for temporary foreign workers to finally arrive. Crops were lost. These are the same farmers who had supply issues during the pandemic. More recently, they have been burdened with additional fertilizer costs because of the war in Ukraine.

All of these problems could have been alleviated if this bill had been passed quickly, but no, an election had to be called so we could go back to square one. Again, all parties have exactly the same number of seats as when the election was called.

There are these problems that could be described as situational, and this is in addition to the structural problems that farmers are experiencing. It is getting harder and harder to recruit the next generation of farmers. Parents are having to work longer and longer, without knowing who will take over the farm. It was really tough for children who wanted to take over the family farm, until just recently when we passed a bill that provides for a tax exemption for those children. The Deputy Prime Minister had to grant an extension.

On top of everything else, there is climate change. Farmers are increasingly affected by climate change. That is precisely what this bill is all about. The Bloc Québécois is generally not very supportive of bills that would erode the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, but we are not dogmatic about it.

With respect to the application of the carbon tax to farmers, we recognize that it would be fair to remove the carbon tax from certain fuels essential to crop and livestock production. This is because the alternatives are still very expensive or in the early stages of development.

The Bloc Québécois generally adheres to the principle of a fair environmental and ecological transition. That means that we recognize that it would be unfair to require that all of the effort be made at once by the primary victims of the energy sector crisis and the challenges associated with climate change. I am talking here about farmers.

In recent years, farmers have had to deal with rather unpredictable weather conditions, trade disruptions and volatile world prices. The carbon tax is adding insult to injury because it reduces the net income of farmers by approximately 12%. The passage of the bill now before us could therefore help farmers to save millions of dollars.

What would this bill do essentially? It would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, commonly known as the carbon tax. The act currently provides for the general application of a fuel charge, which is paid to the government by the distributor on delivery. There are already exemptions set out in the legislation for farmers for qualifying fuels. A “qualifying farming fuel” is defined as “a type of fuel that is gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel”.

What Bill C‑234 proposes, on one hand, is to expand the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include heating equipment, including for buildings that shelter animals. The definition of “eligible farming machinery” specifies the inclusion of grain dryers and we know that grain dryers operate primarily on propane. On the other hand, it expands the carbon tax exemption to products such as natural gas and propane, which we know are used in grain drying. In summary, two key farming activities are targeted: grain drying and building heating.

As we have already mentioned, we agree with this exemption being applied because farmers currently do not have any real alternative. There are plans for using biomass in heating and grain drying, but the technology is still in the early stages. It is expensive and does not apply to field crops and major cereal and grain production operations.

We could also consider the power grid, which at present is not really suitable as a realistic alternative. There would be so much pressure on the power grid that it would not be able to meet demand. We see that it takes several attempts with Hydro-Québec to get a grid that can adequately heat a small farm. Therefore, the transition cannot take place.

Generally speaking, the role of the carbon tax is to have a deterrent effect on the people who use it. However, what we have found is that it would have no such effect. Based on what representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture have told us, the agricultural sector's demand for fuel is not really affected by the price of fuel. Consequently, the tax would not be effective, because it is supposed to act as an incentive for changing energy behaviour and adopting clean technologies and energy. Therefore, if the carbon tax on agricultural fuels is not an incentive for change, the only thing it does is place another financial burden on farmers. In the view of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, having to use fossil fuels is an additional financial burden.

I mentioned that farmers are feeling the effects of climate change. During the propane crisis immediately following the election, I remember it well, I was with my father on a combine—I indirectly come from a farming community—and the snow had covered the crops. They remained stuck in the machinery. The grain was extremely humid because of the rather poor climate conditions. Farmers were having a hard enough time with the prices because there was a propane shortage as a result of a strike and we could truly see the impact of climate change on crop yields.

Committee members worked to improve the bill, and I appreciate that. I think the MPs who worked on the bill worked well together. One amendment comes to mind that was put forward by the NDP and agreed to. They wanted precise wording in the bill so the exemption would not apply to anything and everything. The NDP suggested amending the bill to ensure that the subject buildings would not simply be buildings located on a farm, which would have included a principal residence that ought not to be exempt from the carbon tax. The members clarified the wording, and it was unanimously agreed to. It made sense. MPs managed to ditch the dogmatism and work together.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, a sunset clause was added to the exemption, which was reduced from 10 years to eight years, so that there would be an incentive to change how we do things, to change production methods, to invest more in research and development in order to come up with alternative solutions. The aim was to ensure that we would not think, “Oh well, now there is an exemption, so there is no need to change how we do things.” We know that, at some point, the exemption will come to an end and all the necessary work will have had to have been done beforehand. There is a desire to ensure that the carbon tax will, at some point, be effective again, that it will be a deterrent to using fossil fuels. All of this was done in relative harmony between the parties, and I applaud that.

I hope that the timing is right and that another election will not be called, killing the bill yet again, much to the chagrin of farmers.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to take part in today's third reading debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234.

As our government has made clear over the course of this debate, ensuring the strength of Canada's agricultural sector is of crucial importance. Canadian agriculture is a cornerstore of rural communities across the country. It feeds and sustains our urban centres and is fundamental to our overall economic performance. Our farmers also help feed the world.

I will tell us that this issue is very close to me personally. My father and mother both grew up on farms and I visited our family farm every summer.

The supply chain and inflationary aftershocks of the global COVID pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine have underscored the importance of ensuring that Canada's farmers remain competitive and that our agricultural production continues to grow.

Our government is delivering effective support to Canada's farmers to make that happen.

However, contrary to what is being proposed in Bill C‑234, we are doing so in a way that does not negatively impact important objectives such as fighting climate change or ensuring that the tax system treats Canadians fairly and equitably.

An official from the Department of Finance explained how this will work in his testimony at committee stage of private member's Bill C-234. As he explained, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act currently provides upfront relief from the fuel charged to farmers for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. He added that the GGPPA also provides relief of 80% of the fuel charged for natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.

He went on to explain that recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, Bill C-8 introduced a refundable tax credit in order to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in the backstop jurisdictions of Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, starting with the 2021-22 fuel charge year. I would note that since this statement was made, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are being added to those backstop jurisdictions.

However, what the Department of Finance official said at the time still applies today. He said, and I quote:

Through the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas in heating and drying activities in backstop provinces. This ensures that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount expected to increase as the price on carbon pollution rises.

He went on to say, and I quote:

In this manner, the credit aims to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers, while also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

This is a different approach than that proposed in private member's Bill C-234. Bill C-234 would directly relieve fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities and thus would completely remove the price signal intended by the carbon pricing regime.

As he concluded, if fuel charge relief for farmers was extended through Bill C-234, farmers in backstop jurisdictions would receive double the compensation by benefiting from the refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. Such double compensation would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces. This would not only be unfair to other taxpayers, but it would also undermine our efforts to address climate change, which itself is a grave threat to the viability of our agricultural sector and a key reason why we are taking action to address it.

Letting climate change run unchecked is simply not an option for our government. We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, like droughts and floods. It is hitting their bottom line, and to their great credit, they are taking action to address it. Farmers have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices, like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques, which could help reduce emissions and save them both time and money.

Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million in remaining amortization to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It proposes $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and address other environmental co-benefits, with the details of this to be discussed and worked out with provinces and territories.

It also proposes to provide $100 million over six years, starting in 2022-23, to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that would allow for net-zero emission agriculture, and it proposes to provide $469.5 million over six years, with $0.5 million in remaining amortization, starting in 2022-23, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.

Moreover, the budget proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with both provincial and territorial governments.

Each year, these programs provide $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. This includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2 billion of support on average per year. At the same time, as pointed out by the finance official at committee stage, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors.

These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

Our pollution pricing system simply seeks to recognize that pollution has a price and to encourage cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. The federal government will not keep any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. Under our plan, any proceeds from the carbon pollution pricing system are returned to the jurisdictions from which they were collected.

Our pollution pricing system is simply about recognizing that pollution has a cost and encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, not just farmers but also consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.

Canada has been a world leader in fighting climate change through pollution pricing. We should not do anything that would undermine this achievement, as Bill C-234 would, for the reasons I have set out here today.

I am thankful for the opportunity to make the government's position clear in this regard.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Jill Verwey]

I think the one thing to emphasize is that the tax was put in place to change behaviour and to discourage the consumption of carbon-based products. The two things that have been highlighted in Bill C-234 with regard to natural gas and propane use are two things that are needed on our farming operations that we can't change.

The care of our animals and drying of grain are two things that have to be done in our operation. Unfortunately, with the carbon pricing in place, they pose inhibitive additional costs on a farming operation. It is just one more thing adding an expense to our bottom line. It also reduces the amount of money we have available to make any further changes or innovation in our farming operations and while continuing to do our daily operations.

[Jill Verwey, President, Keystone Agricultural Producers]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for having me here today to present on behalf of Manitoba farmers for the 2023 federal pre-budget consultations.

My name is Jill Verwey. I'm the president of Keystone Agricultural Producers. I operate a multi-generational mixed farm with my husband and children near Portage la Prairie, including approximately 8,000 acres of grain production, a beef herd and a dairy operation. I'm joined today by our manager of communications and stakeholder relations, Colin Hornby.

Keystone Agricultural Producers is Manitoba's general farm policy organization, providing a unified voice on issues that affect agriculture. We're also members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the lead national advocating organization for our sector, which presented to your committee in October of 2022.

Today I'll briefly discuss our top three recommendations for the 2023 federal budget. These three recommendations have been reiterated by other farming organizations, including the CFA, indicating their importance to farmers across Canada. These recommendations highlight the need for the federal government to address gaps in the agriculture and agri-food value chain.

Our first recommendation is to increase the technical support and funding for implementing 4R nutrient stewardship to ensure more farmers can participate in reducing their emissions from fertilizer use.

The 4R nutrient stewardship is a framework that optimizes efficient fertilizer use through best management practices and is something that we promote to our members. This recommendation relates to the government's voluntary target of reducing nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer by 30% below 2022 levels by 2030.

Progress has been made by Manitoba, with farmers employing sustainable farm practices to reduce these emissions, such as using enhanced-efficiency fertilizers and inhibitors, cover cropping, precision agriculture, nutrient management planning and transitioning from fall- to spring-applied fertilizer. However, if the federal government is looking to farmers to further reduce their emissions to help meet national environmental goals, there must be additional resources to enhance the adoption of advanced practices and technologies. These emissions targets must be supported by ample federal funding and technical support for farmers.

Our second recommendation is to exempt from the carbon tax the use of propane and natural gas used to heat and cool livestock buildings and to dry grain.

KAP has been advocating to the federal government for an exemption from carbon pricing on this issue since it took effect in 2018. If the intent of carbon pricing is to change behaviour by discouraging the consumption of carbon-based products, its application on farmers is misguided, as the areas it's applied to are unavoidable components of our operations.

First, producers are price-takers when selling their livestock and grain: They have little influence on the prevailing market price of commodities. Second, in Manitoba, farmers operate livestock buildings in extreme temperature ranges, and the inside temperature must be maintained at a safe level to ensure the best management practices of animal welfare. Third, grain drying keeps the moisture levels down, preventing food safety issues such as the development of mycotoxins, and protecting Canada's brand. These exemptions for natural gas and propane are included in Bill C-234. We would welcome the inclusion of this legislative change in budget 2023.

Our third recommendation is for the increase and expansion of the agricultural clean technology fund's adoption stream, including funding for smaller projects, and increasing government cost-sharing for smaller operations.

This stream was doubled in the budget of 2022. While our sector is appreciative of this, the funding should be supplemented in this year's budget to include smaller-budget projects and farms that are not eligible under the current requirements. These are farms that cannot generally afford the adoption of the latest technologies, and accessibility barriers have been created due to the current program structure and funding limitations. Increased funding would capture many of these farms while enabling them to incorporate practices and technologies to reduce GHG emissions.

In conclusion, as we move into the future, we must recognize that agriculture has the answer to many challenges we face, but the government and policy-makers must be committed to working collaboratively with our industry. Farmers and others in our sector need the opportunity to provide input and to be involved in the decision-making process as we tackle these challenges that we face. Our organization, along with other farm groups, is here to work with government and industry on advancing our common interests.

Thank you again for your time. We would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to rebut some of the things my colleague from Kings—Hants said.

In terms of my question, which was pretty direct, from 2019 to 2021 Canada had the second-highest increase in its gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries covered by the IMF, behind only Japan. Our gross debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 87.2% to 112.1% in 2021, an increase of 24.9 percentage points. Given that the Canadian government has accumulated more debt as a share of our economy than nearly every other country in our peer group, the expectation would be that Canada's economy fared better than others during this period. This is incorrect.

Despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th-lowest real GDP growth, 5.2%, in 2020 and the 12th-lowest real GDP growth, 4.6%, in 2021. Canada also did not outperform its peer group by achieving lower unemployment during the pandemic. Canada had the third-highest unemployment rate, 9.58%, out of 33 industrialized countries and the eighth-highest unemployment rate, 7.43%, in 2021.

I get that these numbers are a lot of numbers that just came out at everyone, but I put these numbers on the record to debunk the myth that the Liberals keep on trying to portray, that they somehow went into the pandemic later than everyone else and came out sooner. That is simply not the fact.

They spent more than every other country in the world but Japan, and our citizens are not better off. The proof is in the pudding, as 1.5 million Canadians in one month used a food bank to put food on the table for their families. That is a failure of leadership by the Liberals.

Students at universities across our country are staying in hostels or needing to use a food bank to eat or, like in my alma mater, the University of Regina, actually fundraising so students do not go to bed hungry, asking alumni for money to help feed students.

Another thing I am looking forward to is splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris and hearing what he has to say about a private member's bill he brought forward last Parliament, which still has not been implemented.

On the topic of not doing what Canadians need, I would like to talk a bit now about agriculture and the agriculture file.

My colleague from Kings—Hants left a bit of wiggle room on Bill C-234. I know he had some positive things to say about it, and I am very interested, because all the Liberal members voted against the bill in committee. As the chair, he did not have to vote, and I am really excited to see how he votes and if he is going to stand with the agriculture producers in Kings—Hants or with his party whip, whether he will be voting along the party line or voting for the people who sent him here.

I am very much looking forward to that vote, because I think that over the last couple of weeks a few members on the Liberal backbenches are starting to feel a bit of pressure when it comes to either supporting the carbon tax or supporting the amendments at the report stage of Bill C-21. I am looking forward to seeing if some of the rural members from the Maritimes or Newfoundland or some of the members from Alberta and Manitoba are going to support these gun amendments that criminalize law-abiding firearms owners, or if they are going to support their constituents and make sure their voices are heard in the chamber. There are a few votes on which I am really looking forward to seeing what some of the Liberal members in the back rows are going to do.

This motion is about making life easier and more affordable for Canadians. We hear in our offices across the country that one of the biggest strains now on families is going to the grocery store and trying to make sure they have enough food to put on the table.

Some of these increases are staggering. I get pictures sent into my office of what $100 buys now at a grocery store. It does not go a long way for a lot of these families. Some of the reasons are that fish is up 10.4% to purchase; butter is 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls, buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, 32.4%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; and the list goes on: lettuce, 12.4%; potatoes, 10.9%.

These are a lot of staple foods for families. Our household is no different from anyone else's. We have three growing children. They are five, seven and nine, and they are starting to eat more and more. Like a lot of other families, we are seeing our grocery bills continue to climb, and these are the things that we need to have solutions for.

As members of the House of Commons or as public servants, we have to look for how we can ease this inflationary pain. One of the things we can do is get together and take some taxes off the prices of these fruits and vegetables and everyday essentials.

We also had a motion brought forward a couple of weeks ago to take the carbon tax off home heating, which is quite reasonable. Some of the members across the way voted in favour of that motion, and I thank them, including the member for Avalon, for voting in favour. I appreciate that very much, because he was listening to his constituents. It is incumbent on us to remember who brought us here. Former premier Wall always said that these are not our seats, that these are the seats of the constituents and we are just caretakers for a while, because someone else will come and take them. I think a few members are remembering that, and we appreciate that support very much.

When it comes down to erasing the carbon tax on the price of groceries, it is pretty much unanimous in the House of Commons that the price of groceries is too high. We are just trying to figure out how to deal with that situation. Also, the price of groceries is high because that carbon tax hits our producers; it hits the farmers and it hits the trucking industry. At each link of a supply chain, the carbon tax continues to increase the price of goods. That is something we are trying to get through to the members across the aisle and get through to our Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues. It is not just a one-time hit; it continually makes things more expensive.

We saw from a recent report that a 5,000-acre farm, by 2030, will pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year. I grew up on a small family farm in southwest Saskatchewan. We had dairy and beef, and we made our own hay. We had 2,000 acres that we combined. They are not big farms. I do not know anyone who farms 5,000 acres who can take a $150,000 hit year after year. Unless common sense prevails, the only outcome for these family farms is bankruptcy.

The Minister of Agriculture was at the agriculture committee, and I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The minister was there for ministerial estimates, and I asked her to give me a definition of what a family farm is. She could not. Some Liberal members have not been on a farm and do not know agriculture. They see it as big corporate agriculture and big business, but 95% of the farms in Canada are still family farms.

The minister was taking the family out of the family farm and said that families are still okay, but it is the farm that is getting taxed. That is not a thing. The family farm is one unit. It is a package deal. Those two cannot be separated. Some are incorporated and some are not. One thing we learned through CERB was that sometimes a family farm that is not incorporated missed out on some programming.

I will leave members with this, when it comes to the rising cost of inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said himself that the increase in spending by the government has had an effect on inflation.

One more thing that is really going to hit us hard, now that the interest rate is 4.25%, is that people are going to start losing their homes. I have friends whose mortgages have gone up $750 to $800 per month. That is over a $10,000 increase in what they will have to pay for their mortgages over a year. Families, farm families and everyone in between are squeezed hard enough. They cannot absorb that $10,000 hit. They cannot absorb that $1,000 hit on their grocery bill. We in the House of Commons are going to have to come to the realization that one cannot get blood from a stone. We have to give tax breaks to Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the opposition motion today. As I usually do, I will go over the parts of the text and address each part accordingly.

First, the Conservatives keep saying that the price of pollution will be tripled, but they fail to mention two very important things. First, the money collected will be given back to individuals and businesses and, second, the price will increase progressively over the next eight years until 2030.

The second part of the motion is on the estimated increase in the price of food in 2023. I think that the Conservatives failed to illustrate and quantify the role that the price on carbon plays in this increase.

When one actually reads through the report, it makes clear that the key drivers to food inflation we are seeing, both in 2022 and what is being projected next year, are because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia represent 27% of the global grain market, which has been restricted and we have has seen access challenges. We are seeing rising prices on oil and gas as a result of the war as well.

Supply chains are also being affected. We have just gone through COVID and there is still a zero-COVID policy in China, one of the major manufacturers and distributors of products for around the world. I know there can be a really important foreign affairs discussion on the Canada-China relationship, but right now, the supply chain is still being affected.

There is labour as well. We have a million unfilled jobs in Canada, and western countries around the world are dealing with similar challenges with demographics. As baby boomers retire, that large demographic works its way out of the system of workers. For me, that is what is driving this, and that is what the report says, at page 15, which is extremely important. However, the Conservatives are laying this all on one policy choice, and I do not think they have been able to illustrate how that represents a significant increase whatsoever in the price increases we are seeing.

It is also important to recognize that nearly all farm inputs are exempt from the carbon price. Yes, transportation fuels and other indirect costs can and will have an impact, but with Bill C-234, which is before the House right now, as it has been reported back from committee, we might see an exemption altogether on direct farm costs associated with any type of carbon pricing. That is because there is a recognition that, yes, we are encouraging farmers, and farmers are taking on great innovation themselves. The government has put almost $1.5 billion in the last couple of budgets to help make that transition, but some of those commercial technologies are not readily available. That is the balance that we have walked thus far.

The third and fourth part of the motion concerns the challenges in financial affordability. On this side of the House, as I have already said, we are concerned about the cost of living and we are bringing in measures to address that. This gives me the opportunity to talk about the current economic situation, the days to come and what we need to do to find a balance between supporting vulnerable people and maintaining our solid financial position.

It does give me an opportunity to talk about where Canada's economic and relative debt position is. It is important because there might be some folks in the public gallery who have been watching this debate or watching it at home, and my God, they would think that things are completely broken in this country. That is the message the leader of the official opposition sends and it is very problematic. Canada actually has one of the strongest records in the G7 on economic performance. As I mentioned, I do not think any parliamentarian in this House would somehow suggest that there are not challenges and that there are not affordability difficulties, but when we look at our economic position to comparative countries, we are extremely strong.

I find it ironic that members of the Conservative Party stand up and talk about government spending when they were supportive of many of the measures that this government took during the pandemic. Now that the Conservatives have been in place and now that there has been a cost to the Canadian treasury to make sure we were protecting Canadians and protecting businesses, they talk about how government is spending too much money. It is that hyprocrisy.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said it far better than I can in saying that the Conservative Party actually ran on a carbon price just 13 months ago during the election in 2021. He is right. Thirteen months ago, the Conservative Party said this was a good idea. Now the Conservatives stand before us saying they never would have thought up such an idea. It is that mixed messaging that creates challenges in terms of Canadians believing whether or not the Conservative Party is authentic in its beliefs.

Also, we just passed the fall economic statement. The third reading vote happened about an hour ago. It is important to recognize that not only is this government walking a key balance between making sure that vulnerable Canadians have the supports they need during this difficult time, but we are also maintaining a strong fiscal position. We are not being irresponsible with government spending.

Again, I want to go back to those comparative numbers. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We also have the lowest actual deficit as a proportion of our debt in the G7 as well. When we look at other comparable countries, the Conservatives would paint a picture that somehow things are very poor in this country. Actually we are doing very well in an international context.

I want to talk a bit more around some of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party as it relates to the things we talked about. There is a Parliamentary Budget Officer report that talks about some of the money the government has spent during the pandemic as we try to collect money from some individuals who might not have been eligible. The Conservatives voted on those measures in this House and supported them at the time. We have heard comments this week that somehow this is terrible and that the government should have had more accountability. We have been very clear that, had the program been tightly designed, so much so that it would have taken weeks or months on end to get that program money out to the individuals in question, they would have been in a much more dire situation. In fact, that same PBO report said that if the government had not done what it had done, poverty would have doubled in this country.

I want to remind my Conservative colleagues, when they reference that report, that if their suggestion is that we should have been even more bureaucratic and put in even more program requirements at a time of incredible instability, and the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about what would move forward, we wanted to be able to act quickly. We knew there would still have to be an accounting on the other side, and that is something this government will be taking forward in the days ahead, but we did it to protect Canadians. We did it to make sure that the economic principles of the country were strong, and that Canadians knew we had their backs, and that is exactly why I am proud to stand on this side of the House.

The last thing is on carbon pricing, because that is the topic of the day. The member for Kingston and the Islands did a good job when one of my colleagues joked about just cutting that 10 minutes and playing it again. Maybe we would, but there have been a lot of questions about Atlantic Canada. I want to remind my constituents, indeed those in Atlantic Canada, that notwithstanding the Conservative Party making the pitch that it is going to apply this winter, the carbon price will not apply to home heating this winter in Atlantic Canada.

I want to really highlight the programs that we have put in place.

There is the $500 million that we have put out. Today in question period, the Minister of Immigration talked about this program providing $5,000 grants to help homes transition off home heating oil. First and foremost, that is about affordability. That is about saving thousands of dollars a year in energy bill costs. That matters to my constituents and people across the country, but particularly in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it also is beneficial for the environment.

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. That is one of my favourite parts of this, so I will sit down and look forward to taking them.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Lethbridge for her excellent and heartfelt speech on agriculture.

Today, I rise to speak to the Conservative Party's opposition motion, which seeks to cancel the carbon tax on food inputs and production. There is a great deal of partisanship and many different points of view in the House, but today I hope we can shed light on the situation that farming families are facing in Canada.

Everything has become more expensive in this country. Canadian families are struggling to put food on the table. Seniors and low-income Canadians are having a hard time paying their bills and heating their homes. They are even finding it difficult to keep the lights on because they have so little money. The cost of food is at a 40-year high. I find it hard to believe that the current government cannot see that its policies have caused the cost of food to increase here in Canada. The Liberals cannot blame the pandemic or the war in Ukraine. It is a problem that they have created. The carbon tax is preventing family farms from being viable. With the government's plan to triple the tax in January, things will only get worse before getting better.

According to “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, a typical farm will pay a carbon tax of $150,000 per year when the tax increases in the new year. Family farms simply cannot afford this punitive tax.

The Liberals and New Democrats seem to be fine with bankrupting our farmers to feed their selfish ideology. Canadians need to eat. The data speaks for itself: This carbon tax does not work. This government has not met a single one of its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this country. We are far behind the rest of the world when it comes to finding tangible ways to limit pollution in this country. We currently rank 58th out of 63 countries, according to the latest studies.

I found the questions asked by the Liberals and other opposition parties today quite amusing. For those parties to stand up and say that our party does not believe in climate change is very comical. We are very much aware of the impact climate change is having around the world and in our country. My family has been farming for over 175 years on our family farm in Beauce.

In committee, all parties supported Bill C-234, a bill from a member of our party that seeks to add natural gas and propane for heating buildings and drying grain to the carbon tax exemption. However, this motion does not go far enough.

We cannot just pretend that our country is not facing food insecurity and poverty. Many families can barely put food on the table these days. Food bank use is at an all-time high in Canada. There were 1.5 million visits to food banks in March 2022. It is frankly a disgrace. Why can we not find solutions to the problem of food prices without being accused of denying climate change?

After seeing a massive 20% increase in people using its food bank, Moisson Beauce in my riding noted that one-third of its clients were children. We Conservatives are compassionate. We want to find a way to bring down food prices across the country, and that begins on the farm by eliminating the carbon tax. Not only has this government messed up with its carbon tax, but it has also decided to impose an extremely unfair 35% tariff on fertilizer needed by farmers. It also plans to limit fertilizer emissions by 30% without even analyzing the impact this could have on our farmers' yields.

This government is so out of touch. People in my riding are skipping meals to stay afloat financially. That is outrageous. I am starting to get the measure of this government, since I have been here since 2019.

After I finish my speech, a Liberal member will no doubt stand up to tell me that I do not know what I am talking about because the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change loves reminding me about that in the most condescending way possible. I actually have a very good understanding of how it works in my province, and that comment is not even remotely true. Our province does business with every other province in the country, and they are all subject to this tax on food production. Whether the Liberals want to believe it or not, this tax affects every province and territory in the country because it affects the goods we import from other provinces and the transportation of those goods to put on our tables.

Now I would like to take a moment to thank our Canadian farm families and share some interesting statistics about their work. One study found that only 8% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector. Does anyone know the average in the rest of the world? It is 26%. Our farmers are very advanced. They care deeply about the environment and are constantly adapting and adopting more environmentally friendly practices. Instead of thanking these hard-working Canadians, the government continues to demonize farmers collectively.

The Liberals recently outlined their plan to reduce fertilizer use in Canada by 30% by 2030. However, as I mentioned earlier, no studies have been done to show what impact this will have on our yields in the future. This will ultimately be an extremely expensive and unscientific plan that could not come at a worse time for Canadian agriculture and its consumers. The reality is that farmers are already outperforming the rest of the world in terms of sustainability. In fact, Canadian farmers are already up to 70% more efficient in their use of fertilizers and fertilizer supplements than other countries, on average.

Food prices have risen by more than 10% in the last year, and these avoidable increases will eventually make things worse. Grain drying and other sectors will be seriously affected by the Liberal carbon tax increase. Canadian grains are a very important commodity for our country. They are a major source of nutrition, but also one of our major exports. When natural gas and propane are taxed on top of other taxes, farmers have to wonder if they will even bother planting those crops the next season. Their margins will evaporate, and it will be no longer profitable for many of them to do business here in Canada.

In conclusion, we need to seriously re-evaluate many of these Liberal environmental plans. We need to clear the way for our farmers to feed our nation healthy, affordable food. The only way to reduce food inflation is to lower input costs, not triple them. Families want to shop local and eat Canadian products, but lately local produce has become increasingly expensive due to this government's mismanagement of priorities. How can local strawberries cost more at the grocery store in the summer, here at home, than strawberries from California? Our system is broken. Meanwhile, other countries are supporting their agricultural sector. Considering these foreign products are shipped to Canada, whether by plane, train, ship or truck, how can the government not see that this is what is really causing climate change?

This country needs to be more self-sufficient and more competitive. We need to look after Canadians by voting in and implementing meaningful changes in appropriate sectors. I therefore invite my colleagues opposite to carefully consider this motion. They can even propose amendments. The fact is, Canadians need lower food prices, and farmers need our help to remain profitable so our family farms can keep operating and feeding our people.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the member.

First, is she aware that under the current Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, there are already wide exemptions in existence for farming fuels? That is written in the act.

Second, the member's colleague from Huron—Bruce sponsored Bill C-234. The only reason that bill on grain drying made it through committee and was reported back to the House was the support of the NDP. It would be nice to see some acknowledgement from the Conservatives that some of their measures are getting through because of the support of other opposition parties.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to add my thoughts to the debate. It is shocking to watch the mental gymnastics taking place in the House to say that the rising inflation, which every Canadian is feeling, and the carbon tax have nothing to do with the cost of food. I have heard that a number of times.

Anyone watching in this country right now is affected by the price of food. Regardless of all other important things we talk about in this place, if people cannot feed themselves, they cannot do anything else. If people are worried about feeding their families, they simply do not have the luxury, necessarily, of worrying about some of the other issues we discuss here. If kids are not eating, then their school, their growth and their health all suffer.

We usually think of things like mass food insecurity happening in other nations that simply do not have the bounty that Canada has, but we never think about it in our own country on such a mass scale. The sad state of affairs in Canada right now is such that more people are being driven into poverty by failed economic policy from the government. Many rely on food banks, and some are not eating at all. If that is not important, then I think we should all question why we are here.

How do we know this? Our constituents tell us every day. Just last week I got an email from somebody in Thornhill. He said that he has lived in Canada for eight years. He is a student. He works and pays his taxes. His rent is being increased and food is being increased. He is living on one student's salary and is in so much debt. Instead of building their lives here, they are being ruined by the piling debt because of government inefficiency. That is from constituents. I assume members in the House are hearing a similar refrain.

It is not just people in our communities who are telling us this. It is also the statistics. A survey from Angus Reid found that, not too long ago, nearly 60% of Canadians were having a hard time affording enough food for their families. Food Banks Canada recently revealed that food bank use in 2022 was at its highest level ever recorded and that nearly 1.5 million Canadians used food banks in one month. That is up 35% in two years.

I want to make something clear. We are G7 country. We are one of the richest countries in the world. When people cannot even afford food, there is something wrong in Canada. We should ask what it is. Then we should ask how we can make it better.

I have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side today about these two questions. The Liberals say it is all because of Putin's war, and it is all due to international phenomena. They say this even though we know that 0.3% of our trade is with Russia and Ukraine combined, and that inflation in this country was already two and a half times higher than the target rate when the war started.

It is always something else. It is always someone else. It is always somewhere else. It is a complete abdication of responsibility by the people in charge of this country. These are people who continue to want more control and less responsibility.

What do we see the NDP members saying? The entire inflation crisis is due to what they are calling greedflation. There are companies taking on unreasonable amounts of profits, and there is nothing else at play here.

They are missing the bigger picture. There is somebody else taking away more money than their fair share from Canadians' paycheques and hard work. That is the same Liberal government that they are propping up in their supply and confidence agreement. The greed that is making this crisis a crisis is the greed of the federal government, the greed of power and the greed of politics, because they are profiting from inflation.

The fall economic statement has shown that the government revenues went up more than $40 billion, because the cost of everything is going up. People are having a harder time making their paycheques last, and the Liberals want a share of that too. They are increasing the tax or the premiums on EI and CPP. Then there is the plan to triple the carbon tax. This is the tax they said they would not hike and the one that Canadians are paying more into than they are getting back. It is the one tax that has not met a single environmental target that the government has ever set.

We know that people are struggling and they are looking for hope. They are looking for real leadership and a real plan from the federal government. It is no surprise that the people who got us into this mess have no plan to get us out of it. What they are proposing is more of the same: tripling the tax on food, on gas, on home heating and on nearly everything else.

More than that, there are new fertilizer restrictions on Canadian farmers that are going to make it even harder for them to grow good, nutritious and affordable food here in our country. They are going to keep the reckless spending and the deficits. They are going to keep the waste, the tax hikes and the mismanagement. It is making inflation even worse.

Yesterday we saw another rate hike of 0.5%. That is the seventh in a row. How are people going to pay for this? We know that the Liberal plan is costing Canadians. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said so, and the previous governor said so too. It is not just because of them bringing us to where we are, but it is also where we are going. The latest “Food Price Report” released this week estimates that food prices are going up another 5% to 7%. That is $1,000 of after-tax income for a typical family to pay a typical grocery bill. Where do families find that money?

We have to do something, because this is not sustainable and it is not okay. If the Liberals are not going to listen to the millions of Canadians who are ringing the alarm bells, at least there is one party in the House, it seems after today, that is listening.

Conservatives are calling on the government to cancel the carbon tax on everything related to food production, including farm fuels, grain drying, fertilizer and transportation. To bring immediate relief, the Liberals can do something now. They hear it when they go back to their constituencies. They hear it from people who cannot afford to eat in a G7 country, in a rich country like Canada.

Conservatives have taken major steps already on this. Bill C-234, introduced by my colleague from Huron—Bruce, would exempt the carbon tax from natural gas and propane used on farms. I would remind colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc that they voted for that, and they can vote for this motion. They can do the right thing by their constituents.

There is even more that we could be doing. We could be growing more food right here in Canada. We could be supporting good-paying jobs. We could be lowering prices at the same time. If members in the House do not think this issue is important and they talk about it being Groundhog Day, then it might be the case for them, but this is what Canadians are talking about and struggling with.

When our neighbours are making decisions about feeding themselves, we have lost the plot. Canadians will remember that this is the government that told us interest rates would stay low. It told us that the carbon tax would not go up. It told us that the problem was deflation, not inflation, and that everything would be okay.

We have record inflation. There is a plan to triple the carbon tax. We have the highest interest rates since the 1990s, the highest in the G7, and everything is not okay. It is time that the inflationary taxing and deficits that have led to this stop. It is time that we put people back in control of their lives. Let them keep their own money. This is not our money.

We have to be able to do the very basic thing and help Canadians feed themselves in Canada. Reducing taxes, capping government waste and removing red tape are just some of the best ways to end the inflation crisis. We talk about it here every day. This has trickled down to people's ability to feed their families, to feed themselves and to be productive.

The solution is not going to be bigger budgets. It is not going to be higher taxes. It is never going to be more government. It is the exact opposite of what we are seeing. My time here is limited, but if I were to list all the things we could be doing better, I would be here all day. I want to be clear. This specific proposal today is not the silver bullet that is going to make all of the problems go away. It is not the magic fix, but it will help. Anything that we can do to help Canadians right now is something worth doing. They are watching.

When our neighbours' and constituents' ability to feed themselves is at risk, it is incumbent on us to act in this place, because it is too important not to. Supporting this is just a start, and I hope that members in the House will do the right thing and spare Canadians their support for a failed carbon tax, one that they said would not go up, one that they said would reduce emissions and one that is costing consumers by driving the cost of everything up.

Today, I hope members will find an ounce of courage to start with food and to start with the production of the very basic things we need to feed ourselves in this country. That is the least they can do by supporting this motion.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I like the revisionist history in my colleague's speech and the colleague across the way. Positions change. It was only in 2009 when the NDP leader in B.C. was going to scrap the carbon tax. She felt that it was going to be punishing for B.C. residents. It is ironic that there is this massive change in position now.

The New Democrats position on this upsets me a bit. They are going support Bill C-234,, and I appreciate that. It is an important message to our producers. This motion is very similar. We would be expanding the exemptions on the carbon tax. I do not want to see this dividing one area of Canada from another; people in B.C., Quebec and the rest of Canada who are paying the carbon tax. This would help B.C. farmers.

B.C. farmers are buying fertilizer. B.C. farmers are moving cattle from one area of the country to the other. Would my colleague not agree that his farmers will be impacted by the carbon price in 2030, which will cost every farmer at least $150,000 a year? How does he expect his farmers in Skeena—Bulkley Valley to absorb that cost?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about assumptions when the question itself contains one.

First, in 2030, transition measures will have reduced green house gas emissions. Will the carbon tax represent $30 an acre? Yes, but because of the reduced GHG emissions, that $30 an acre will be less significant because fewer GHGs will be emitted.

Second, I really hope that Bill C‑234, which we are studying at report stage, will be in force in 2030 and that for that reason, farmers will be exempt from the carbon tax.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion before us today is the kind of Conservative motion we have had to debate since this session began. The message this motion sends is one of goodness, of awareness-raising of the financial difficulties that people are facing now. These struggles are real. Consumer prices have gone up. I have no doubt about my colleagues' goodness and desire to raise awareness on this subject. I have no doubts whatsoever, and I want to clarify that.

That said, when we take the time to analyze the motion, looking at its contents in greater detail and checking the facts, what we find under this lid of goodness and awareness-raising is a pot of soup filled to the brim with pieces of political and electoral interests, bits of misuse of information and incomplete facts.

The first premise of the motion sets out some frightening numbers for farmers, who are already struggling to get a sufficient income. According to this first premise, farmers will have to pay $150,000 a year in carbon taxes when they triple. That is a huge, terrifying amount. However, the motion fails to mention some information. For example, by 2030, the amount of the carbon tax will triple from what it is now. Consequently, the motion does not refer to a current or even near event. It also fails to mention that by 2030, a host of transitional measures will be in place to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Yes, taxes are increasing, but if our GHG production is reduced, the amount to be paid in 2030 should be roughly the same as today.

Now let us talk about some inconsistencies. Concerning the first point, today's motion fails to mention one very important aspect. It boggles the mind that it could have been left out. I am talking about the fact that the Conservative Party, namely, the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, introduced Bill C-234, which is intended specifically to remove the carbon tax on agricultural facilities. The bill is now in committee, and everyone agrees that it should progress quickly. In short, it seems as though the right hand did not know what the left one was doing when it was time to write this motion today. The first premise of the motion could be described as misinformation, since the information contained therein is incomplete.

I want to take my colleagues back to their intro to philosophy class in college. Disinformation is caused by three main elements. The first is omitting to provide all the information necessary to understand the facts. That is what we have here. The second is distracting the reader from the information. That is what the motion does by blaming all the world's woes on the carbon tax, when rising consumer prices are the result of a multitude of factors. The third is deliberately sharing false information. The good news is that this is not the case here, but we do have two of three elements of misinformation.

The next few premises also contain big numbers, ones that are accurate. Nevertheless, because of the first premise, we might believe that the carbon tax alone is causing consumer prices to rise. However, as I just said, consumer price increases are caused by a multitude of factors, not just the carbon tax.

Now let us talk about what the motion calls for. The first two points are about eliminating the carbon tax on farm fuels. As I just explained, Bill C-234 addresses that. The right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. The third point is about eliminating the carbon tax on fertilizer. Bill C-234 does not cover that, which is too bad. A bill to that effect could be brought in quite quickly with all the goodwill that I know Parliament is capable of showing. Having said that, farmers are suffering the consequences of the sanctions imposed on Russia and its fertilizer exports. That needs to be addressed. Those sanctions have nothing to do with the carbon tax. They were imposed because of the war. The fourth point is about eliminating the carbon tax on transportation. What kind of transportation are we talking about?

It cannot be agricultural transportation, because that is already covered by the first point about farm fuels. Therefore, it must mean other modes of transportation. Does it mean heavy trucks, trains, planes?

In the case of trucks, technologies are already in place to reduce the pollution they create. Thanks to these technologies, which include diesel exhaust fluid, trucks will be emitting far less pollution by 2030, when the carbon tax will be $170 a tonne. Aircraft technology is also changing a lot in terms of fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. That just leaves trains. We need to figure out how to move beyond Canada's 19th-century rail system. I dream of high-speed electromagnetic trains, not high-frequency rail. I dream of real modern trains. That would be so amazing.

Lastly, the fifth point of the motion is overly vague. It calls for the carbon tax to be cancelled on all other appropriate aspects of the food supply system. What are all those other aspects? Does that mean electricity, coal, factories, oil industries? I have no idea. I will not dwell on this point any longer than necessary, because it is as blurry as a desert mirage.

As I said, inflation has multiple causes: labour shortages affecting agricultural businesses and companies in general; natural disasters, such as floods, drought, hurricanes and fires; corporate wage increases; and war, which we have to include in the list. By blaming the increase in consumer prices on the carbon tax alone, this motion blatantly oversimplifies a far more complex phenomenon, and that oversimplification amounts to disinformation.

There are viable and responsible solutions that I would have loved to hear my colleagues suggest. First of all, pensions could be increased to help seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. They should also be allowed to work, if they so choose, without being doubly taxed. They pay more taxes than a family, when they have already paid taxes their entire lives. Furthermore, their pension gets clawed back once their income reaches a certain threshold. That makes no sense. Second, a program could be implemented to support the people hardest hit by rising gas prices, such as farmers and truckers. I want to mention that since these people are dependent on gasoline, they are also at the mercy of fluctuations in gasoline prices. As part of the transition, we must provide these people with solutions so that they are no longer subject to fluctuations. Third, the supply chain could be stabilized by strengthening critical links and promoting local production.

Of course, Quebec does not pay a carbon tax because it participates in the carbon market. However, I would like to remind members, as did my colleague, that when Quebec became a member of this market it tried to convince all Canadian provinces to join as well, but it was met with outright refusal. Quebec was alone in finding this to be a good idea. Quebec was also alone in 1982 when the provinces stabbed it in the back by going back on their promise. Quebec was alone on child care, as well; Canada's provinces insulted us for 20 years by saying that Quebec could not afford it, but it suddenly become a good idea when the federal government agreed to pay for it. Quebec was also alone in standing up for aluminum compared to steel, the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries, and others.

Given that the premises of the motion are incomplete, that a bill to provide farmers with relief will be passed and implemented, we cannot vote in favour of this motion.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I appreciate him.

I welcome the fact that Valero Energy refines Canadian oil for domestic use. This further confirms that we do not need to increase production for export. I thank him for pointing that out. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that most days.

Second, they need to understand that abolishing the carbon tax in provinces that are not environmentally responsible creates unfair competition with producers of various goods in other provinces that do pay their carbon tax. Conservatives love competition until it involves oil.

Third, I would like to say hello to Claude, a member of the Union des producteurs agricoles in Sainte‑Scholastique. At a meeting two weeks ago, he thanked me for our support for Bill C‑234, which addresses the cost of propane used for drying grain. I want to tell him that I am very much looking forward to visiting him at his farm.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Mr. Speaker, I went to the cafeteria on the first floor yesterday to get a grilled cheese, and I was really hoping to see you there. You are very charming and I really appreciate you. In the end, upon reflection, it was just as well that you were not there, because I ran into a Conservative member who spilled a coffee on his pants and found a way to colourfully blame it on the carbon tax.

I thought to myself, yes, that is obviously the source of all evil. I knew today was going to be a Conservative opposition day, so I made a bet with myself that the Conservatives would move a motion to give the bogeyman a new name, the carbon-tax man.

I read the motion last night, and I am pleased to say I was right, because that is essentially what this is. This entirely predictable motion portrays the carbon tax as the source of all evil and its abolition the solution to every problem under the sun. This is not really a motion about buying power or the price of food. It is not really about helping our farmers. This motion is further evidence that the Conservatives are trapped in their ideological cage, an ideology that says abolishing the carbon tax is the only way to fight climate change and make a transition. It is an ideological cage, and they are imprisoned inside it. Public debate is also being held captive, but the premise is false. It is false to say that this is the only solution.

The Conservatives are talking about our farmers. I would like to talk about farmers in the Lower Laurentians. The Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA, recently held a convention in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I went to the UPA convention and talked to farmers. They thanked the Bloc Québécois for supporting Bill C‑234, which gives them a little GST relief on fuel for their tractors, agricultural equipment, propane and grain drying. They applauded our responsiveness, our pragmatism and our openness. They recognize that and told me so. That is always good to hear.

Instead of proposing a targeted approach, they are engaging in a generalized attack against the infamous carbon tax, which does not apply directly to Quebec, because Quebec has a cap-and-trade system. The basic principle of these systems is to increase the price of inputs or goods that pollute, while at the same time returning the tax-generated revenues to households. The relative price of these goods will be higher because they pollute more, but, in return, people will get help with their purchasing power. In the long run, it means that people will choose inputs and goods that pollute less. However, for these changes to be made, we must be realistic. There also needs to be a vision for the long-term transition. We must give people more options. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are offering that. That is why we are still stuck in our current situation. Bloc Québécois members are realists. We think it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time without getting stuck like the Conservatives.

This is why we supported the part of their motion that deals with agricultural fuels and which is the object of Bill C‑234. That is why we support the elimination of the tax on propane used to dry grain. At the UPA central union in Sainte-Scholastique-Mirabel, they looked me in the eyes and told me that it was important. However, that is the object of Bill C‑234, so the Conservatives do not need to waste time with their motion.

With respect to fertilizer, I would like to commend the extraordinary work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I myself participated in meetings where the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, our agriculture critic, had gathered everyone around the table, including farmers. There were meetings with firms to ensure that fertilizer supply contracts, which had been signed before the war in Ukraine, are not subject to sanctions. These honest farmers had the right to get their fertilizer at a predictable price. We were there for them.

The issue of transportation is important, because that is where we will have cut emissions the most over the next 10, 20 and 30 years, if we exclude electricity generation itself in most provinces. We have adopted a smart, focused and temporary approach that is compatible with the transition and shows compassion for the people who pay. This helps taxi drivers, truckers and those who are temporarily affected by the vagaries of the geopolitical tensions that we are currently experiencing.

I would remind our Conservative colleagues that the price of oil is currently determined by a cartel, by their friends in Saudi Arabia and their friends in Venezuela, who are communists. This is OPEC+, which includes Russia, which, again last week, decided to cut production to keep prices high, to the great delight of Alberta's public finances.

That is why we supported Bill C‑234. If we must point the finger at a party that does not support farmers, it is the Liberal Party. When we voted on Bill C‑234, I was there and the Bloc Québécois was there for farmers from Quebec and the whole country. I was the first of 338 members of the House to say on social media that even the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had voted against farmers. The central unions of the Union des producteurs agricoles noticed that.

The reality is that we must embark on a transition; this was not decided on a whim. The Conservatives have never tabled a motion that would allow us to assess and appreciate how we can embark on a transition that would reflect the ambitions of the west. They are still fixated on the carbon tax.

The International Energy Agency, however, believes that demand in energy will drop by 7% by 2050 because some countries are making a effort, although Canada is not.

The European Union believes that energy demand will drop by 30% to 38% by 2050. Why? It is because some countries are doing their part. Canada is not among them.

France expects its energy demand to drop by 40% by 2050. Why? It is because France is a G7 country that is making an effort. Here in the House, whenever a Conservative motion is put forward, the substantive problems are forgotten in the rush to score partisan points. I have no interest in going down that road. We deserve better in the House.

When faced with the kinds of things I am saying now, the Conservatives attack Quebec. Just last week, Conservatives posted misleading statements on social media, saying that a metric tonne of carbon is cheaper in Quebec, with our cap-and-trade system, than in the rest of the country. The reason is simple: Our system is based on controlling quantity, and prices fluctuate. A metric tonne is cheaper in Quebec because there is less demand. There is less demand for allowances because we pollute less.

This system was the Western Climate Initiative, which originally included Canadian provinces and U.S. states. Some of them dropped out because they wanted to pay less, because they do not want to transition and because they knew it would cost them even more. Today, they refuse to consider possible solutions. That is what put us in the position we are in today.

Let us get back to the issue of inflation. All of this does not mean that no one is facing higher prices for groceries or fuel. The people I meet on a daily basis are experiencing these difficulties. We must address the weaknesses in our supply chain. It is not because of the Bank of Canada that we are having a hard time getting Japanese cars. There is just one Conservative telling us that. It is not the Bank of Canada's fault that lumber is in short supply. Last time I checked, the governor of the central bank was not out cutting down spruce trees in the Saguenay region. I did not hear anything of the kind.

It is not Canada's fault that we have seen record prices for resources such as wheat, rice or commodities. At the Chicago stock exchange, a few weeks ago, no one cared about Alberta's carbon tax. There is just one Conservative saying that and misleading the public.

Over the long term, global warming will cause even more disruption and instability in the supply chain. There is just one Conservative telling us it is a myth. This week, I heard a Conservative say that the holes in the ozone layer were a myth. They are the only ones who think that way.

When the Bloc Québécois moves motions on the prayer in the House or on the monarchy and the fact that we kneel before entering the House to pray to a foreign sovereign who is up to his ears in monarchy, the Conservatives lecture us about priorities.

I would have liked to see the Conservatives move a motion about our dependence on oil and how we can reduce it in a way that is fair to workers. I would have liked to see them present a targeted plan for low-income individuals or targeted support for our farmers. That is what our farmers are asking for, to deal with the structural weaknesses of our supply chains.

I would have liked to see them present a plan for building social housing for those who need it. Trickle-down economics does not work for housing. We must build housing for people who are living on the streets.

I would have liked to see a motion proposing solutions to address the weak links in the supply chain. Quebec's seaports are telling us they need help.

The next time the Conservatives call our priorities into question, I will tell them to buy a mirror, because they are on sale at Rona.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion on the carbon tax, which, according to the Conservatives, is the enemy of humankind.

What is more, we have before us Bill C-234, which will give our farmers some tax relief on farm fuels and the sales tax on propane used for drying grain. We have many farmers in my riding of Mirabel. I would like to know what the government thinks about that. We know that, previously, the government and even the Minister of Agriculture voted against farmers. I am wondering whether they have changed their minds in that regard. This is very important for farmers in Mirabel. They have talked to me about it many times.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for tabling this opposition motion today as it shows our farmers, producers and ranchers, as well as consumers across Canada, that the Conservative Party certainly understands food security and their economic viability.

In my opinion, the Liberals have a stark decision to make in the next few months. The decision is either to continue on this activist, ideological agenda, increasing carbon taxes and taxes on producers, or to start to understand that food security and the cost of food should be a priority for all Canadians. For a government that prides itself on making science-based decisions, clearly the policies it is putting forward are not based on sound science.

What is stark and what is really the impetus for the motion is the new 2023 food price report. It showed that by 2030, when the carbon tax would be tripled by the Liberals, farmers of a 5,000-acre farm, not a large farm by any means but a typical one, would pay $150,000 a year in carbon tax. I would ask the government how it could possibly think a farm family is going to absorb that cost and still be able to produce affordable, nutritious food, not only for Canadians but to help feed the world.

How does the Liberal government possibly feel a farm family could absorb $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone and still remain economically viable? It simply cannot. That is the stark reality the Liberal government needs to understand sooner rather than later. When it makes these extreme ideological policies, there are consequences.

Part of that food report also stated that the average family of four would see its grocery bill go up more than $1,000 a year to a total of close to $17,000 a year in one year alone. The consequence of that, as we saw in March, is that 1.5 million Canadians were accessing a food bank, the highest number in our history. I cannot believe this is happening in Canada, a G7 country, where we are unable to feed our own people and where food security is at risk.

As my colleague said in response to the Bloc question, we did have the third-best harvest in our history this year. Why, if we had such a great harvest, are we talking about food insecurity and the economic viability of our farms, which are at risk? When there is a large harvest, the issue is that if the input costs far exceed the value of that crop, then the farmer is further behind at the end of the year rather than being ahead.

At committee yesterday, we had Rebecca Lee, executive director of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, say that 44% of its members are selling their products at a loss. Almost half of the produce growers in Canada are selling their products at a loss. They cannot afford the massive increases in fertilizer costs. They cannot afford the massive increases in fuel costs.

How long does the Liberal government expect these farmers are going to stay in business? If they go out of business, we have to import more of those foods from other countries around the world. What will that do to our GHG emissions? What will that do to the government's climate change philosophy and policies?

We had Dr. Sylvain Charlebois at committee, one of the most respected food scientists in the country, from Dalhousie University. I am paraphrasing a bit, but he basically said, and I quote this part, the carbon tax is a bad idea. The carbon tax is putting farms out of business and putting our food security at risk. That is one of the top food scientists in Canada. He is saying the carbon tax is a bad idea and we are losing farms as a result of it.

When we lose farms, food prices go up. When food prices go up, food security is an issue. As a result, we see what has happened with more Canadians having to use the food bank.

There is more to that as well. This is where I think the Liberals are missing the point when they make these decisions not based on sound science and data.

For example, we asked the Minister of Agriculture yesterday at committee why the Liberals are imposing these massive carbon tax increases on Canadian farmers when we are already more efficient than any other country on earth. The data show that out of Canada's total GHG emissions, which is about 2%, 8% of that comes from agriculture. That is 8% of 2%. That is infinitesimal on the global scale. The global average is 26%. That is a stark contrast when comparing where we are to the rest of the world. Why is the Liberal government not celebrating those achievements of Canadian agriculture?

Instead of punishing farmers with massive increases in the carbon tax, which is going to have a profound impact on food security in Canada, why is the government not saying to the rest of the world, “If you want to reduce your GHG emissions from agriculture, we are already there and we will show you how to get there. Use our technology and our practices, and we will export our manufacturing”?

We are already using zero till. We are already using cover crop. We are already using precision agriculture. We manufacture air drills in Canada that we are happy to export for other countries to use in their production. We use 4R nutrient stewardship. All of these things are already being used in Canada, but they seem to be ignored by the current government.

We asked the minister yesterday how she expects the family farm to absorb these types of costs. Her answer was that she does not understand what our definition of a family farm is. She is the Minister of Agriculture. If anyone should know what a family farm is, it is the Minister of Agriculture.

What makes it worse is the Liberals put forward Bill C-8, which included a rebate on the carbon tax for farms. We know from the Ontario grain farmers association that their members get back about 15% of what they spend on the carbon tax. Finance Canada said the average payback for a farm family is about $860. The government can compare that to the $150,000 that the farmers are going to be paying. They are going to get $1,000 back. Does the Minister of Agriculture not understand that? She was saying the families are going to get that back, but that the farm is a business. Ninety-five per cent of farms in Canada are family farms, owned by the family. Yes, they may be incorporated, but they are family farms. It is not possible to separate one from the other.

That is why we put forward our private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to help with grain drying, heating of barns and those operations that are integral to the family farm. We have the support of all the opposition parties on that private member's bill, including the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party. The opposition understands how important agriculture is to the Canadian economy and our food security not only here at home, but around the world.

I am hoping the opposition parties also will be supporting our opposition motion today. It reinforces the importance of Canadian agriculture, and that the decisions impacting our families must be based on sound science and sound data. Instead of apologizing for the incredible achievements of Canadian agriculture, a Canadian government should be going around the world, as proud as it can be, being a champion of what we do and not apologizing for it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

When appearing at committee on Bill C-234, finance officials stated that the average rebate for farmers through Bill C-8's farm carbon tax rebate was about $860. Was that statement accurate?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in relation to Bill C‑234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses, those who were involved and, of course, our clerk and analysts for their wonderful work in sending this bill back to the House with amendments.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and represent my constituents of Foothills on this important discussion today on the fall economic statement.

We have heard from the government since this statement was released, and we have certainly heard in many of the speeches over the last few days, that the Liberals are bragging about being fiscally responsible and having fiscal discipline when it comes to this statement. I do not know too many Canadian families, or Canadian businesses for that matter, that would define fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline, in a time of economic crisis, as increasing spending and going further and further into debt. That is not the right definition of fiscal discipline.

Canadian families across the country are struggling to heat their homes, struggling to feed their families and struggling to operate their businesses and their farms, and the Liberals' response to that is to continue inflationary spending at a record pace. We have seen inflation at a 40-year high, with many Canadians having to make difficult choices when it comes to their food choices at the dinner table and in their everyday lives.

When the Liberal government talks about making difficult choices, I do not think it really understands what the average Canadian is having to endure when it comes to those difficult choices. A difficult choice for an average Canadian family is not the difference between cancelling one's Disney+ subscription or having a decision to make on which $7,000-a-night room they stay in when they are in London. The difficult choices Canadian families are having to make right now are about whether they are going to be able to put their child in sports, whether they are going to be able to pay the grocery bill this month, or what sacrifices they are going to put into their family budget so they can afford to pay their mortgage this month and not lose their home.

It just shows the contrast in how out of touch the government is when it talks about difficult choices being only $40 billion in new spending to add to the $200 billion in additional debt that had nothing to do with COVID, in comparison to the tragic choices Canadians are having to make every single day just to try to get by.

Like, I would hope, many colleagues in this House, I found it quite tragic when I heard 1.5 million Canadians had to rely on a food bank in the month of March alone. That is a 35% increase over that same month prior to COVID and a record number of Canadians relying on a food bank. Those are the difficult choices Canadians are having to make, so when the Liberal government says it is practising fiscal responsibility and fiscal discipline by adding record debt to further spur record inflation and higher interest rates, those actions are having real consequences for real Canadians.

For example, I am now hearing from farmers across the country who, because of these higher interest rates, are unable to manage the debt on their farms. It was already at a record high, and these interest rates are making that situation much worse. Certainly I have heard from constituents who are saying their mortgage has gone up $500 a month and is crippling. My colleague, who I do respect, from Kings—Hants mentioned his conversation with his constituent, who said her rent is now at $1,500 a month. He said he is hopeful she will get the $500 rent relief. More than 60% of Canadians will not actually qualify for that rent relief program, and I would ask my colleague, if his constituent does qualify for that $500 a month one-time rent relief cheque, what she is going to do in January, February, March or April, when she is no longer getting that government cheque.

Canadians need long-term solutions, not a little band-aid for the hemorrhaging of their financial futures.

As a result of this, the Liberals have not been able to offer the most basic services, despite these massive increases in spending. Canadians are not seeing any bang for their buck, as we see an inability to get passports and a 2.4-million backlog in immigration applications. We have seen the veterans affairs minister under fire for the backlog in veterans' benefits. Zero infrastructure projects have been completed from the infrastructure bank. All of these things are having an impact on Canadians, who do not see the benefit of these increases in spending.

I want to get back to the impact this is having on the average Canadian and talk about Canadian agriculture as well. We talk about food inflation being at a 40-year high and the impact it is having on Canadians' everyday ability to buy groceries and put healthy food on the table. Considering that Canada is one of the countries that exports 80% of what it produces when it comes to food, it is frustrating to see these record-high prices. The cost of bread is up 17%; flour is up 24%; a head of lettuce is up 21%; potatoes are up 17% and pasta is up 30%.

As I have said before, these are not luxury items that one would get at a Liberal cocktail party. These are the staples that Canadians rely on every single day to feed their families, and they are no longer able to afford those critical staples. Inflationary spending, a tripling of the carbon tax and a fertilizer tariff are driving up the price of food, because they impact every aspect of the supply chain.

Those prices are difficult to swallow, but because of Liberal policy they are going to get worse. The fall economic statement did not say anything about listening to Conservatives and putting a cap on tax increases. The Liberals are moving ahead with tripling the carbon tax. That is only going to further drive up the cost of food.

The Liberals' undemocratic escalator tax is going to increase the tax on beer, wine and spirits by 30%. When the Liberals put in the escalator tax, they said they would index it to inflation. This tax is undemocratic because it does not come back to the House of Commons for debate and automatically goes up every single year, but when the Liberals put in the escalator tax, inflation was around 2%. They felt the industry would be able to absorb that, but no one could foresee what was going to happen this fall, when inflation was in excess of 10%. As a result of that, the escalator tax is going up more than 6%. That is significantly higher than what the industry was able to absorb year after year.

When our restaurant and hotel industry is struggling as a result of coming out of COVID, this puts a further burden on cost. This is going to severely impact our wine and beer industry, certainly craft brewers, who bring incredible economic development to rural communities, but also to farmers, who grow the barley and grapes for those products. This is going to impact them as well. This is a 30% increase on their costs, which they are going to have to pass on to the consumer. This is an undemocratic tax that is now going to further cripple our agriculture industry and have a massive impact on Canadians and consumers alike.

Conservatives asked the Liberals to put no new taxes in the fall economic statement. We are facing a financial economic crisis and for them to continue to pursue the tripling of the carbon tax is nonsensical, especially when food security is probably the number one issue we are facing, not only here in Canada but around the world. When we need our agriculture sector firing on all cylinders in order to reach its full potential to meet the needs here in Canada and around the world, putting these further burdens on Canadian farmers makes zero sense.

We already know that the carbon tax costs the average farmer about $45,000 a year. I have a propane bill from a farm family in St. Thomas, Ontario, for one month, and the carbon tax was more than $11,000. In one month, it was $11,000. Thanks to the opposition, the Conservatives, with the support of the NDP and the Bloc, Bill C-234, which will be a carbon tax exemption on propane and natural gas, got through committee, so farmers will get some relief. We need that bill to pass.

We desperately needed the Liberals to put resources aside to establish a vaccine bank here in Canada for Canadian agriculture. We will no longer be allowed to rely on the United States for vaccines for livestock. We have seen the impact the avian flu has had on the Canadian agriculture economy. Foot-and-mouth disease and African swine fever will have more than a $45-billion impact on our industries if we do not have the resources in place in Canada to address them. Conservatives are asking for $4 million to establish that vaccine bank, which was not in the fall economic statement but which I know every stakeholder has pushed the government to do. We need these critical resources to protect our food supply, food sovereignty and our agriculture industry in Canada.

Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise in the House to contribute to the second reading debate on Bill C-282, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).

It is a particular honour any time I get to speak to a bill where I can highlight the work that the hard-working farmers and farm families in Perth—Wellington and across Canada are doing not only to feed Canadians, but quite literally to feed the world.

Bill C-282 may sound familiar to some members and to some Canadians because it is an identical copy of Bill C-216 from the previous Parliament, which was introduced by another Bloc Québécois member of Parliament, the dean of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. Members will recall that the bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for the unnecessary summer election.

I recognize that both members who introduced this bill have a strong commitment to the supply management industry, which this party and many Canadians across the country certainly support.

I know there are some in this country who may not have the same vigour in supporting supply management, but I think it is important in a bill such as this one that we have a nuanced and thoughtful discussion on its strengths and weaknesses, how it may contribute to the situation, and how it may affect, negatively or positively, future trade deals in decades to come.

I want to talk briefly about food security. If we have learned anything during the past two and a half years of the pandemic, it is the importance of food security. When we have seen broken supply chains and shortages of goods on shelves across the country, it reinforces the necessity of a strong domestic production system.

We need to be able to feed the citizens in our country, but also to export the products that are created here in Canada across the world. I might add that when we have a country that is agriculturally as rich as Canada is, it is a crying shame that there are still Canadians who are food insecure. No Canadian, no person living in this great country of Canada, should be food insecure when we have the great natural benefits of our food production system here in Canada.

I have the honour of representing perhaps the greatest agricultural riding in this country. Perth—Wellington is home to the most dairy farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most chicken farmers of any electoral district in the country. It is home to the most pork producers of any area in Ontario, and it is in the top five for beef production as well.

Perth—Wellington has some of the most fertile farmland anywhere in the world. It is some of the most productive farmland that we will find anywhere in the country. The cost of that farmland reflects that, as we are now seeing land sales of over $35,000 per acre in Perth—Wellington and across southern Ontario.

I say that to emphasize the importance of the supply managed commodities, but also the non-supply managed commodities as well. Canadians and Canadian agriculture have certainly benefited from supply management, but there are also benefits from the world market that comes with international trade.

I would note that Perth—Wellington is home to more than 62,000 dairy cows, which is more than the number of people who voted in Perth—Wellington in the last election.

According to Statistics Canada, Perth—Wellington has over 350 chicken and egg farmers and produces over 28 million eggs. That is enough to make 9.3 million omelettes if one uses three eggs to make an omelette. We produce, in the combined counties of Huron and Perth, 542,270,559 litres of milk each year. That is enough milk for each Canadian to have a glass of milk for 56 consecutive mornings.

Those same dairy farmers and farm families provide over $1.2 billion to our national gross domestic product, and that is only in the counties of Perth and Huron. If we combine the counties of Wellington, Dufferin, Peel and Simcoe, which produce 385 million litres of milk, that is another $800 million added to Canada's GDP.

Let us remember as well the great influence of new technology on our agriculture sector. Agriculture is at the leading and cutting edge of technology. We have robotic milkers that have made advances in the dairy industry. We see folks in the beef industry making concrete efforts to increase sustainability and decrease greenhouse gas emissions within the industry. They are doing it on their own. They are doing it because it is the right thing to do. It is beneficial to farmers and the industry, who know the benefit and know they are the closest to the environment, the closest to the land on which they are stewards.

I have had the great honour and privilege to visit so many local farms in my community. I know the commitment these farmers and farm families have not only to feeding our communities, but also to playing their part in the great global supply chain and contributing to increased sustainability. It is important that these farmers have a fair and predictable marketplace where they can compete domestically and, for those who export, internationally.

All is not well in the agriculture industry. Certainly, farmers and farm families are facing the brunt of the inflation crisis and the challenges within the supply chain failures that have been caused by the Liberal government. Fuel, heat, feed, fertilizer, equipment, all of these costs are increasing at a rate that is not sustainable. One proposal from this official opposition is doing one small part to make that better. Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, would exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax for on-farm use. Canadians know that when farmers are drying their grains they need those things and for the government to apply the carbon tax just does not make sense. I am pleased that bill has finally made it out of committee and will be returning to this House for report stage and third reading debate. I am very pleased that my friend and colleague from Huron—Bruce was the one who was able to shepherd the bill through.

What we are seeing as well are the fertilizer tariffs. We still have not seen meaningful action from the government regarding the costs that were imposed on Canadian farmers for fertilizer purchased before March 2. In fact, just today I received another letter from the Minister of Agriculture, as I had begged her to address this, and once again she has failed to provide an encouraging response on this matter.

Farmers and farm families need support and reassurance from the federal government, not ongoing challenges, including, I might add, the unfair, unscientific approach to front-of-pack labelling labelling. The government was finally forced to back down from having it on ground beef and other single ingredient products.

The Liberal government unfortunately neglects too many farmers and farm families in the agriculture industry. In fact, if anyone had listened to the fall economic statement earlier this month, they would have found that a focus on agriculture was sorely lacking.

I recognize that this bill, Bill C-282, is largely a reaction to concessions that the Liberal government made in the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, the CUSMA, in which further concessions were made for dairy, poultry and eggs. I would note that it was under our Conservative government, under the strong leadership of the former minister, the member for Abbotsford, that Canada committed to trade deals with dozens of international countries, where we expanded our foreign markets, all while ensuring the supply management industry was properly protected. That is the approach the Conservative government has taken in the past and one that would be taken in the future.

Certainly, this bill has some challenges in how it would be implemented and how it would be dealt with at the negotiation table, but that is something that could be considered at the committee stage. It is important that the bill be given a thorough examination at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Recognizing that my time is dwindling, I shall move on to the final point, which is the importance of our agriculture and agri-food industry, which not only feeds our country, but helps to feed the world.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Stevens, one of the greatest costs that some farmers face is the carbon tax and, we've heard, the tripling of the carbon tax. We just passed Bill C-234 through the committee stage yesterday. Can you touch on that a little bit ?

I'll ask you this point-blank: If greenhouse growers didn't have the carbon tax exemption right now, what would that do to our growers in that sector? Would this bill help keep fruit and vegetable growers, in Ontario and beyond in Canada, in business?

[Dave Carey, Vice-President, Government and Industry Relations, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you for the invitation to appear.

I'm filling in for our farmer chair, Mike Ammeter, who is down the road presiding over a board meeting as we speak.

Global food insecurity is a complex, multi-faceted issue. It involves geopolitics, socio-economic factors and armed conflict. These are forces outside the purview of a farm group and, to a degree, even outside the control of the Canadian government.

Today, I want to talk to you about what I believe we can do from the Canadian farm group perspective to produce more food, feed and fuel to increase our agricultural exports to a hungry world. We have not realized Canadian agriculture's full potential, and many of the greatest barriers to increased productivity are domestic legislation, regulations and infrastructure, items that are within our control as a nation.

In my brief time, I will cover the top five factors that, if addressed, would mean that Canadian farmers would be well positioned to sustainably intensify their production and ultimately grow more products.

One is transportation. We need to increase transparency and confidence in Canada's railways, invest in adaptive and resilient infrastructure and take immediate steps to implement the recently released supply chain task force report.

The top recommendations that would benefit agriculture would be to expand the current 30-kilometre interswitching; to revise the Canadian Transportation Agency's mandate to provide the independence, authority and funding required to deliver on that mandate; to develop a transportation supply chain labour task force with strong agricultural representation; and to increase and improve the supply chain data—it's all for naught if we can't move our products to market.

The second would be around fertilizer. Next to water, nitrogen-based fertilizer is the second most important input to grow canola.

Any reduction in fertilizer emissions must remain voluntary and must focus on incentivizing farmers to adopt additional best practices to improve their already sustainable and efficient operations. Incentives for farmers must be made through the lens of a return on investment to get the best results. Emission reduction must also be measured on an intensity basis as farmers look to increase their yields using the same amount of land to meet current and future demand. We need to support Canada's innovative and sustainable farmers by focusing on increasing productivity, incentivizing best practices and measuring emissions on an intensity and efficiency basis.

Number three is about crop protection products. Canada has a world-class regulatory system and the products that the pest management regulatory agency, or PMRA, regulates have led to significant environmental and economic advancements on farm. These tools protect farmers' crops against pest pressures and disease and play an important role in canola sustainability. Effective weed control paves the way for conservation tillage, increasing soil health, reducing fuel use, sequestering carbon and eliminating up to 750,000 tonnes of GHG emissions per year.

The PMRA transformation agenda has created uncertainty and it challenges Canada's reputation and commitment to science and risk-based assessments. Assessments need to be done in a timely manner based on the best possible science to encourage investment and adoption of the latest technologies to sustainably grow more canola and keep our farmers competitive on the world stage. We need to champion science-based decision-making, restore confidence in Canada's regulatory system and avoid taking a European Union hazard-style approach.

Number four is around plant-breeding innovation. Plant-breeding innovation will play an important role in farmers' responses to global food security and climate change challenges. Farmers need access to the latest seed varieties developed using the latest technologies, such as gene editing. To benefit from these advancements, we need clear, transparent and predictable guidance documents from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to be released as soon as possible.

Number five is around working capital. Like any family business, farmers want to invest in their operations; however, the capital costs of farming are intensive, with most pieces of major farm equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. The CCGA strongly supports Bill C-234 and commends this committee for its work on moving that through committee stage on Monday. With no viable fuel alternatives and infrastructure in place for farmers to replace natural gas and propane, Bill C-234 provides much-needed economic relief on farm and will ultimately help the environment, the footprint of farmers and their economic viability.

The last piece of legislation we will chat about is Bill C-244, or the right to repair, currently in its second reading. Farmers also need their equipment to work in time-sensitive periods such as during seeding and harvest. The CCGA supports Bill C-244, as it will give farmers the choice of who can diagnose and repair their equipment, saving them critical time and money, and it would help reduce prices by allowing for competition.

In conclusion, it's vital that Canada focus on what we can do to sustainably intensify our primary agriculture production. To do that, we need a legislative and regulatory environment that is predictable and science-based and that fosters investment and innovation.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, Mr. Chair.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise today to speak to the government's bill, Bill C-32, which is an act to implement some of the measures announced in the fall economic statement just a few weeks ago before we were all home for the week of Remembrance Day in our respective ridings.

Many of my colleague from all parties have spoken about this, but this comes at a time of great struggle for constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Overwhelmingly, the correspondence I get in my office regards the high cost of living and the fact that their wages are not keeping up.

We know that the increase in food prices is forcing families to make very difficult decisions at the grocery store. For that reason I am very glad to have won the unanimous support of the agriculture committee to commence a study into that and to have also had a unanimous vote here in the House of Commons acknowledging that this is a very real problem and supporting our committee's work in the weeks ahead. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing representatives of large grocery stores speak to what their companies are prepared to do to address this issue.

There is, of course, the high cost of fuel. The war in Ukraine has sent shockwaves through the energy world. We know this because Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. Through their geopolitical manoeuvring and attempts to punish countries that are supporting the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and in their fight to halt Russian aggression, we have a situation where fuel prices for all sorts of fuels have spiked dramatically.

We have a very real problem of private companies involved in those industries engaging in what I would, frankly, call war profiteering. They are taking advantage of geopolitical tensions to rake in billions of dollars of profit, at a rate that we have never seen in this country before.

As for our health care system, and I think that this is the big sleeper issue in Canada that is only just now starting to get the attention it deserves, it has gotten so bad in my riding that, while it falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, constituents are now coming to me as a federal member of Parliament and pleading with me to do something.

We need to have a nationally focused amount of attention on this crisis. We need to have a Canada where people can be assured that they can have access to primary care when and where they need it. We need to find innovative solutions to help this crisis and address it. I am disappointed that the recent meeting between provincial ministers and the federal minister has yet to result in anything concrete to address the crisis.

Of course, while Canadians are struggling, they see a situation in which it was reported that we collected $31 billion less in corporate taxes than we should have last year. At a time when Canadians are struggling with costs to make their own family budgets work and are seeing more and more of the burden falling on their shoulders, they see Canada's largest and most profitable corporations getting away with it, through innovative tax schemes and hiding their wealth offshore to escape the burden of paying their fair share in this country. That is an issue that we absolutely must pay attention to.

In response to these big issues, my friends in the Conservative Party have focused a lot of their attention on the carbon tax. Yesterday, at the agriculture committee, I agreed with my Conservative colleagues in taking a small step to address some of the challenges that our agricultural producers are facing. We will be reporting Bill C-234 back to the House.

However, on the larger issue, I think that what is ignored by my Conservative friends is the fact that the federal carbon tax does not apply in all provinces. What they are advocating for will have no effect on residents in my province of B.C. because we, as a province, have chosen not to have an Ottawa-knows-best approach on pricing pollution.

We, as a province, have preferred to retain autonomy, so our policy is determined in the B.C. legislature in Victoria under the good and sound guidance of the B.C. NDP government. It allows our province to basically take that revenue and distribute it in ways that it sees fit because we, as a province, do not think that Ottawa should have control over that policy, so we, as a province, have decided to retain autonomy.

The Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax does not take into account the fact that the inflationary pressures we see in the world are the result of things that are largely beyond the control of Canada as a country. In the United Kingdom, the Labour opposition is blaming a Conservative government for the same thing Conservatives in Canada are blaming a Liberal government for. This is a problem we see in many of the G7 countries. It is not limited to one side of the political spectrum or the other.

Again, if one is going to talk about inflationary pressures and completely ignore the massive profits oil and gas companies are making, one is doing a disservice to one's constituents. One is not addressing the elephant in the room here, which is that corporations are using inflation to hide and to pad the massive profits they are making. We need to have a serious conversation about that.

If we truly want to help Canadians with the unexpected costs that come with heating their homes and fuelling their vehicles, we need to develop policies to get them off fossil fuels. It has always been a volatile energy source. If we go back to the 1970s when OPEC, as a cartel, decided to cut production, we see what that did to North America. It has always been volatile, and as long as we remain dependent on it as an energy source, no matter what the tax policy is, we are going to suffer from that volatility. If we want to truly help Canadians, we need to encourage things such as home retrofits, and encourage programs that get them on different sources of energy.

In the meantime, if we want a policy that is effectively going to help Canadians no matter what province they live in, why do we not go with the NDP policy of removing the GST on home heating fuels? That, in fact, would benefit residents in British Columbia, unlike singly focusing on a federal carbon tax.

When I look at Bill C-32, there are certainly a few good things. I appreciate that the Liberals are starting to see things such as a Canada recovery dividend are necessary. They are limiting it to the large financial institutions. We would like to see such a model be not only not temporary but also extended to oil and gas companies and to the big box stores. This is about putting fairness into the system because right now the free market, the so-called free market, is largely failing Canadians. The free market is trying its best, but the wages are not keeping up with rising costs.

One thing members have not yet mentioned either is that there is a critical mineral exploration tax credit in Bill C-32. Canada has a very troubled history with mining, and any projects that go forward need to absolutely be done in conjunction and in consultation with first nations. If we are truly going to transform our economy into the renewable energy powerhouse it should be, those critical minerals that Canada has an abundance of are going to be key to developing that kind of technology.

What I have often found with the Liberals over my seven years of being in this place is that there are a lot of good ideas but they are not fully fleshed out. They do not go as far as they could have potentially gone to make the full impact we wish they would have done.

There is a lot in Bill C-32 for the committee to consider, and I hope it takes a lot of feedback from a wide variety of witnesses. There are measures here that are building on what we, as new Democrats, have been able to force the government to do, such as doubling the GST credit, providing an interim benefit for dental care and making sure there is help for renters.

I am proud that a caucus with less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons has been able to achieve these things. This is what I came to Ottawa to do. I came to deliver for my constituents and bring tangible results that make a difference in their lives. Through this and other measures, I will continue to do that, to make sure they are getting the full benefits and assistance they need to weather these tough times so they can come out even more prosperous on the other end.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do want to discuss further the challenges with this piece of legislation.

Before I do, I do just want to go over a bit of process. Yes, certainly a government can't amend it at second...but they can pull the legislation, which has happened numerous times since Confederation. A government pulls their legislation and reintroduces it prior to a vote. That's happened numerous times.

My apologies for any loose language there. I am fully aware of how Parliament works.

However, I would also point to the fact that it was because Parliament didn't review it as in depth as they should have that the deferred prosecution for SNC-Lavalin got through. That was a failure of Parliament.

While I certainly understand and believe that everyone has the best interests of Canadians at heart, I won't back down for one second, no matter who it irritates or angers, from doing what I believe is right for my people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. That is to review this legislation.

Talking is part of democracy. In fact, “parliament" is literally a translation of “talking house”. That's what it means. What differentiates us from many other countries in the world is that we have the ability at committee in Parliament to share that. In fact, numerous times when former prime minister Harper was in charge, the NDP railed against time allocation as the greatest offence to democracy that man had ever known.

Members of this very committee have done that. I'd love to grab their speeches and go over them. I could read them word for word because they apply exactly today.

On a day when Motion No. 22 was brought forward, which is no doubt, in a way, to circumvent democracy, I will proudly stand up here and talk for as long as I have to, to stop this government's reckless spending. It's been proven over and over again that when a government taxes itself, taxes Canadians and taxes people of the world, it eventually leads to an equality—an equality of poverty. Everyone is poorer. The workers and the people who go to work every day are the economic engine.

This is meant as no slight whatsoever to our bureaucracy. We have many great women and men working every day, but ultimately it is the farmers in Saskatchewan, the miners in northern Ontario and the fishers on the east coast and west coast of this country who are driving our economy.

When we take money from those people, we take it from the productive engine and bring it to Ottawa and undermine economic growth. Economic growth is that magic elixir that fixes nearly every economic problem. You have inflation—economic growth. You have debt or deficit—economic growth. You have unemployment—economic growth. It is the answer to nearly every economic problem.

Ms. Dzerowicz talked about productivity and innovation and I agree with her. We are terrible at that. I think that's the only word I can use. We are terrible. We are near the bottom of the OECD and near the bottom of the G7 when it comes to innovation. This fall economic statement, other than repackaging one program, doesn't have any really strong, powerful things that could move us forward.

If it did, that might be a different ballpark. We might be able to have a discussion if we were serious about productivity.

We looked at countries like Ireland and Switzerland that have been serious about it. They've had full economic plans that involve policies from the left and the right and targeted tax cuts to encourage economic growth in targeted areas. There are certain areas where we can pretty much say that it is going to be a big part of our economic growth going forward.

Why don't we provide a series of technical benefits for artificial intelligence? Our SR and ED system is terribly out of date. It doesn't work like it's supposed to.

Why not take the opportunity and say, “Do you know what? We're going to have a slowdown.” We know that Canada's productivity, which is measured in GDP per hour, is worse than the United States' and Ireland's. Switzerland has nearly double ours, and it doesn't have the advantages we have, in terms of tremendous natural resources—just the sheer size of our country. Why would we not tackle that and go, “Okay...”?

By the way, there's all this talk about the subsidies that oil and gas get, which I'm not going to get into today. Do you know what? The average Canadian contributes $50 GDP per hour. Do you know what it is for oil and gas? It's $600. Their productivity.... It's the single thing the Canadian economy is struggling with most, and we are going to kneecap that industry.

Clean Canadian energy has to be part of the economic solution. It will drive our economy, going forward. As we transition to other fuels, we cannot simply disobey it and say, “We're going to completely eliminate an industry that is a productivity leader for our country.” We cannot abandon the workers across this country in clean, sustainable Canadian energy. When we look at this picture....

We need to enhance our innovation and productivity. I agree with Ms. Dzerowicz. There's nothing in the fall economic statement that will have a substantial impact. I've been saying this in the House since I was elected in 2019: We need to drive productivity, because, if we can make things and innovate more efficiently, effectively and quickly than the rest of the world, we win. We all win. You don't increase the wealth of a country by printing money. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity. It's never happened—not once.

It's absolutely frustrating to me. We see socialist nightmare after socialist nightmare—Venezuela, Cuba and the Soviet Union. We know where socialism leads. It leads to poverty. We tax and tax and tax and tax. We say to those Canadians working the hardest out there.... It's unfathomable to me that a Canadian starting at $14,000.... This government believes they should start paying tax on that—$14,000. What's the poverty line? Is it three, four or five times that? A simple way to help people is taking less of their money. This fall economic statement has nothing to relieve that Canadian.

I also agree with my colleague Mr. Blaikie when he says some of this money—he can correct me, as I'm sure he will, if I'm incorrect—should go to deficit and debt reduction. If I can tell tales out of school, he's told me that before. Having a strong balance book is important to him. We agree on that point.

If the government said, “We are flush with revenue. Here's what we're going to do. We are going to take that money and dramatically reduce the deficit or debt”.... However, they are not. It looks decent—I'll give them that. The deficit is going down. I hear that. However, that's because of inflation. They're just taking more money from the most vulnerable, enriching themselves, then sending that money back out. That's the reality.

They are spending $6 billion more. If they had followed what the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said, and followed the pay-as-you-go system, where every new dollar of spending was to be met by a dollar of spending reduction.... That's in a different ballpark. That's not what they're doing. There's more and more spending.

Let's look at the track record of this government's balance sheet. It was given a balanced budget by the previous government. They were given that, even after going through the worst economic crisis of a generation. The Harper government still managed to balance the books—bring that balance sheet in line. Then what happened? A hundred billion dollars of pre-COVID deficit spending—$100 billion. You were given the keys to the balance sheet and you drove it right into the ditch—100 billion dollars' worth.

They said, you know, “We're fine. We have strong...”. What was Bill Morneau's comment? I think “fiscal firepower” was the comment of the day. Well, it turned out that he was about $400 billion short of what they needed, so they engaged and embarked in an aggressive quantitative easing program. We can go through the machinations of it back and forth, but it really equates to money printing—$400 billion.

Every time this has been tried—back to the Romans—every time a government thinks, “We have a great idea. This is fantastic. We control the printing presses. We'll never have any deficit or debt problems. We can just print more money”.... It happened in Yugoslavia. It happened in Argentina. It happened in the Weimar Republic. It happened in the 1970s right here in North America where they turned the printing presses on high and, once again, we were faced with inflation.

We had $100 billion of pre-COVID spending. Then, according to this government's Parliamentary Budget Officer, there was another $200 billion in non-COVID-related expenditures. That's $300 billion. That equates to about $20,000 for every Canadian family of four or actually a little bit more than that. That's $20,000 that Canadians received in non-COVID deficit spending.

I talk to my constituents. They're not telling me that they're $20,000 to the good after the last three years of spending. I would not hesitate to say that if that $200 billion plus $100 billion was, instead, were either put to the debt or deficit, as Mr. Blaikie insinuated—he'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure—that would have put us in a much better position.

Right now, going forward, according to the fiscal statement, we're looking at debt charges of about $40 billion. I think that's roughly equivalent to the health transfers this federal government pays out every year. We would not have to be paying that if the $300 billion—instead of being spent on things like “ArriveScam” and other reckless Liberal projects, and to Frank Baylis, amongst others, through a series of companies—was left in the pockets of government and we paid down debt or the deficit, where we wouldn't have to pay the $40 billion in interest charges, or even better yet, if it was left in the pockets of Canadians.

What will happen is that if, in fact, we leave more money in the hands of our workers, of our job creators, they will invest that money. Ms. Dzerowicz was absolutely correct; for every dollar that an American company invests in capital investment, Canadians invest 43 cents. That's the statistic. That's what's real.

I don't understand how you cannot then take that as.... One of the major expenses for any Canadian or any Canadian business is taxes. It's directly controllable by government. If we reduce our share, it only makes sense that companies, that individuals, will have more money to invest in the technology of the future.

If we don't get this right—and I say this in all seriousness—we're going to have serious challenges down the road. We are not investing in capital as much as the United States. We are not innovating. We're not investing in our innovation like many of our OECD partners. In fact, we were last at the OECD in terms of capital investment.

The solution to that is not more taxation. That's the part I don't understand with the 2% tax on share buyback. I don't even know whether that will be meaningful. I suppose economists will contemplate that and will comment on that, and I'm eager to hear their expert testimony. However, at 2%, I suspect it won't even meaningfully impact anyone's behaviour.

Why is it...? There are always two options. There are a carrot and a stick with all of these policies. Why does government always go to the stick? Why could it not give a break to those companies that are doing things right with respect to productivity and innovation? Why could they not, even if they wanted to take a more traditional, left-wing approach, invest in research and education?

I have been studying Ireland's economy. They're moving ahead of us when it comes to innovation and productivity. In fact, they are ahead of us. They've been very nimble on economic policy. They're a unitary state, so granted it's a little bit easier for them. It's both on the left and right-wing sides.

They are investing dramatically and quickly into their education system. They see an opportunity for artificial intelligence, genetics research for the economy of the future. They started paying for education in those fields. They're paying for research and development.

Of course, to fill one of the big gaps that our economy has always had and continues to have, we need some of the brightest minds in the entire world. We attract so many great newcomers to our country, and we need an immigration system that actually welcomes folks. I can't tell you how many individuals come to my constituency office so disappointed and despondent by the treatment they've received from this federal government. Let me be clear, on the record, that we need newcomers. We need the diversity in our country. We need the brainpower that they bring. We need their labour. But we have to make it less arduous for them.

I'll give you one example. We had in our riding a machine that cost tens of millions of dollars. They needed a team from India to help install it. This was not even a long-term immigration issue; they were just coming for a couple of months to help get this machine off to go. It drives jobs and productivity. They had to wait for months and months. Every day the machine sat idle cost thousands of dollars, and employees had to be laid off, because we couldn't get out of our own way.

There are things within the bureaucracy, very left-wing ideas that could help move the ball forward. This government won't even do that. They won't even stay true to their own ideology.

The other thing that Ireland does, very smartly—and many other countries, including the United States and Switzerland do—is targeted tax cuts, tax relief systems, and updated regulatory systems.

Our Income Tax Act is way out of date. We need to have substantive reform there. Like I said, the SR and ED system is broken. Ask any expert and anyone in the technology industry. It's not working. It's not helping to innovate.

Instead of targeting a 2% tax on share buybacks, why not help these companies and provide them with targeted relief that will encourage them? Not relief—as the NDP have rightly pointed out—that will lead to them racking up profits or paying huge dividends while at the same time collecting corporate welfare in the form of wage subsidies or otherwise. We need to have targeted, smart tax relief.

We would not be creating new ground, here. There are all sorts of countries and jurisdictions around the world...even some of our provinces are leading the way with respect to that. I know Ontario has done great things. Alberta has done great things. Why not look to some of the Ontario and Alberta processes to help attract some of these businesses and grow productivity that everyone—it appears, around this table—agrees on?

This fall economic statement just didn't have anything.

My concern—hopefully in the short term—is the affordability crisis. When I look at the affordability crisis, I don't see anything in the fall economic statement on that. As I said earlier, no one in my constituency was calling up and saying, “Philip, what we need is a 2% tax on shareholder buybacks so that public companies can have more capital”. I didn't hear that once. Maybe it's different in some of the other constituencies, but in Northumberland—Peterborough South that was not even brought up.

What I have heard over and over again, is that the cost of living is just getting too expensive. These Liberals are pricing people out of their homes. They're literally pricing people out of their grocery stores and into food banks.

In the long term, the productivity and innovation piece is something I'm very passionate about. I've spoken numerous times in the House about it, but there's nothing really substantive in there.

One of the pieces that's missing, which I think most experts will comment on and talk about, is the fact that we have a gap between the great researchers we have, the great post-secondary education and the final product. It's not the research product part that.... Obviously, we could always use more research, but it's the development piece.

As part of the pre-budget consultations, I get to hear from many different industries and many different institutions about this gap in the Canadian economy. In everything from auto manufacturing to artificial intelligence and cancer research, they all say the same thing. We're not investing in that development piece.

What that means is.... They do great work at the U of T, at MaRS and at the University of Waterloo, and they come up with amazing ideas. Unfortunately, many times, the people, the ideas or both work their way across the border or to the EU and we, as Canadians, don't necessarily get the benefit of these great ideas as we should.

This is something that we could certainly work on together on a non-partisan basis. I think all parties...I think most experts see this as an issue with respect to the Canadian economy and, quite frankly, I've seen it for decades. This is something that I was hoping to see in the fall economic statement. I was hoping to see a real commitment to increasing the productivity and innovation of our country for the long term of our country.

When we get back to the process of this legislation and why I feel it's important to talk, I don't believe that hearing Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Beech, Mr. Baker or Ms. Chatel talk is ever a waste of time. I believe my colleagues have valuable input. I believe that they were put here, and the taxpayers spend those billions of dollars, so that we can talk out those debates and talk out those discussions.

As in Good to Great, if anyone's read that book by Jim Collins.... It's a fabulous book. I highly recommend it. I see I got a smile. One of the things that he writes in there is that a lot of ideas are bad ideas. If you propose an idea, it's more likely to be bad. Think about it. It's more likely to hurt than help. That's why Parliament is meant to be like this. It's meant to be a vetting process, so that we have those hedgehog ideas that get through and empower Canada to own the next century.

However, part of that is it's important to say no. It can't just be “Yes, yes, yes”, because if you have a hundred priorities, you don't have a priority. When we are going through this, it's our job as His Majesty's loyal opposition to critique this and to be the ones who fearlessly say no, that is not a good idea and, in fact, that is incorrect.

Like I said, as Jim Collins wrote in Good to Great, the chances are that we're right more often than we're not when we say “no”, and sometimes the best thing a government can do is say, “No, let's not do that”.

As Edmund Burke said many years ago, why would we just on a whim throw out the tried and true for something new and unproven? The hours that we spend in Parliament, I think, are incredibly valuable.

I will continue to discuss it unapologetically. Quite frankly, like I said, I don't care who I irritate or who I annoy. I'm here for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South and for Canadians, and if that means angering or annoying people, that's fine. I do it to my 7-year-old daughter all the time, and I'm happy to do it here in Parliament as well.

There's one element that I want to go back to, because I'm hoping it might actually be a fertile area for future discussion and amendments. I had a PMB with respect to propane and natural gas for farmers and giving them an exemption from the carbon tax. Actually, it's being carried forward by Mr. Ben Lobb, the member for Huron—Bruce. The private member's bill is Bill C-234. I think it will do some great things. I'm looking forward to it receiving royal assent, because some farmers are paying tens of thousands of dollars.

In the discussion on that legislation, the part that I actually found most shocking was the fact that we charge GST on the carbon tax. Like, how does that make sense? If a private corporation did that, the NDP would be absolutely losing their minds. The government is charging a tax on a tax. In what world does that make sense? The most bizarre part about that, though, is that as part of the PMB discussions, we had a member from the finance department come before us. I had some initial ground-setting questions. When I asked if we charged GST on the carbon tax, he said no.

This was the ministry of finance. They didn't know that they charged GST on the carbon tax. Of course, a couple of months later, without apology but just by a way of explanation and in as many words as possible, in as fulsome a word salad as you'd ever hear, he admitted that, yes, they do in fact charge GST on the carbon tax.

Later in my questioning about charging the GST on the carbon tax, as to why they did that...because I know that we have a number of individuals here who are experts on tax policy. They even worked for the federal government to great esteem and to high regard. They would be aware that nowhere in tax policy does it say that it's good policy to charge tax on a tax. There are different schools of thought that say where someone's wealth increases, they should pay their greater share. That makes sense. But your belief that you should be paying more GST because you pay more carbon tax doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense.

So an easy fix, and I think one that would be relatively consistent with what the NDP are calling for, along with us, would be the removal of GST on home heating. Let's at least reduce the carbon tax by the GST we pay on the carbon tax.

By the by, it also blows up the Liberal narrative that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral, because that GST you don't get back. You don't get that as part of the carbon tax rebate. That GST is just money that goes, through government greed, into the coffers of the government. Through the ever-expanding and insatiable greed of the government, it's getting more and more and more Canadians....

Let's also put this into context here. The single mom starts paying tax at $14,000. That's the personal exemption. However, then there are the trillionaires and the billionaires. Do you know how many people from the Panama papers have paid taxes on those claims? Zero. Do you know how many dollars have been collected from the Panama papers?

Of course, the Panama papers listed a number of Canadians with respect to tax evasion. These are not small numbers. Maybe the CRA could back off the small business owners trying to make their way. Instead of, in the fall economic statement, asking for thousands more dollars so they can have thousands more auditors, maybe they could focus on the Panama papers. That's now many years back and they have not collected a single penny.

I understand that it might be easier to audit a small business owner who's trying his best to earn money, but what about the billionaires and the trillionaires who are named in the Panama papers and are still not out one dollar? Not one dollar has been collected. Not one individual has gone to jail—not one—and these are serious, serious dollars.

Let's focus our guns where they should be instead of cracking down...as the former finance minister called small business owners when he called them tax cheats. Yet his friends, the folks he vacations with in the millionaire islands, the billionaire islands—they're fine; they're fine.

Let's just let the Panama papers and all the people who are evading taxes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.... Did we see any update in the fall economic statement about that? I didn't see any.

I know that I've certainly heard Peter Julian from the NDP and many others—and our Leader of the Opposition has always been clear—say that every Canadian should pay their fair share. I'm calling on this government again. Let's get an update. Before we shake down another innocent hard-working Canadian business owner with another needless audit, let's go after the trillionaires. Let's go after the folks who were named in the Panama papers for illegally avoiding Canadian taxation. It's those tax havens that this government should be going after if they're in need of that revenue.

When we have that revenue—right now, we have record revenue because of inflation and because we've taken so much more from hard-working Canadians as a percentage—let's apply that to debt reduction. Well, we have to start with deficit reduction, of course, and maybe one day, miracle of miracles, maybe we'll pull out Adam's sock there and we'll actually get a dollar of debt reduction, which will help all of us. It will help Canadians by reducing—hopefully—the tax burden going forward. It will also help social democrats, as they'd have more money to spend on the projects they would like, but a bigger deficit—a bigger debt—doesn't help anyone.

When we look at the future, we need to have a fall economic statement that I'm hoping.... In fact, I know that underneath a Poilievre government, we won't have a fall economic statement that is just a litany of failure after failure. When the Liberals fail, the good news is that they get to reannounce the same program over and over again, and that's what we saw in there.

After seven years of these Liberals being in charge, we have high interest rates that are driving up the costs for everyone and making it nearly impossible for many Canadians to afford a house. In fact, some are giving up the ability to ever own a home, which is just so sad.

We have continued high inflation, which drives up the costs of everything. Like I said, if you're a millionaire, a billionaire or a trillionaire, you're watching some of your assets continue to increase in value, but if you're a hard-working person, if you're like family members of mine, who are on the line or are working at a steel plant or in a mine or in a field growing crops, that inflation hurts, and it hurts a lot. It's not just a number on a spreadsheet. It's their ability to feed their families. Quite frankly, we've seen the evidence of that. We've seen record food bank usage. Food bank usage has increased by over 20%. In one month, 1.5 million Canadians went to a food bank, 500,000 of whom were children.

We have high interest rates and high inflation and the government says, “Oh, by the way, in order to counteract the inflation we created, which both the current Governor of the Bank of Canada and the future Liberal leader, Mark Carney, said is a Canadian phenomenon”—so we have the self-inflicted wound of inflation—“in order to fix that ailment, we're also going to slow the economy.” Of course, slowing the economy isn't just numbers either. It's not just GDP going down. It's good hard-working Canadians, women and men across this land, who are going to lose their jobs.

This is their document. They produced this document. What they're telling Canadians is that they have high inflation to deal with and high interest rates. There's no doubt that some Canadians will lose their homes, because those who are having to re-up their fixed mortgage or who have a variable, depending on how it's structured, have probably seen an increase in their payments.

Before this, Canadians were within $200 of insolvency, so guess what happens if your interest rate goes up by $200? It continues to increase. On top of that, you now have slowing economic growth. We have economic growth that, according to this projection, is either just on the knife's edge of being a recession or, in their downward projection, is indeed a recession.

We have high interest rates, high inflation and low economic growth. This is a triple economic nightmare that seven years of Liberal government has led to. It's increasingly pricing Canadians out of their own country.

Mr. Chair, who is up next on the speaking order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We can let the legislative clerk explain, or are we already into the vote and it's too far down?

Let me do my best to explain this to you. I have a little more discretion, perhaps, as the chair.

Essentially, Mr. Louis, what is being proposed in CPC-2 would be a second clause after what we've already adopted to date. Above and beyond Bill C-234, this is being proposed to be added as clause 2. Mr. Barlow moved that clause. Mr. Perron moved a subamendment to it, which would strike, under proposed subsection 2(3), the words “but may not be amended”.

The conversation—as best I can reflect it—that we've had today was in relation to the fact that Mr. Perron, Mr. MacGregor and others wanted to make sure that the hands of future parliamentarians are not tied and therefore the text of a motion introducing this type of conversation in the House could be amended. That, at its core, is what I believe is the intent of this subamendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

[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.

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

It's a good thing I misunderstood at first.

Can the legislative clerk confirm one last time that if amendments CPC‑1 and CPC‑2 are adopted and Bill C‑234 is passed, it will mean that in 10 years, we'll revert to the exact wording we're amending today through Bill C‑234, without expanding its scope?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I hope that the wording of this amendment is a middle ground. I don't quite agree with the approach that was taken with the previous amendment, but I do take the point that the current wording of Bill C-234 is too broad. In fact, when I was speaking with legislative drafters, they did confirm that as Bill C-234 is currently written, it could mean any building on a property.

Since the subject nature of this bill deals with agriculture and agriculture-related buildings, I thought it prudent to narrow the scope of the wording to specify that this is going to a structure that is specifically used “for raising or housing livestock or for the growing of crops”.

We did hear a fair amount of testimony from various organizations involved in livestock, but we also received a helpful brief from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. In a previous life, I worked on the construction of a large commercial greenhouse. Many of them still use gas-fired boilers, and we do want to see them transition, but these are systems worth millions of dollars, and it's not something that can happen overnight. I think that if we change this to narrow the scope and if Mr. Barlow is going to have a sunset clause proposed afterwards, we are narrowing the scope, but we're also narrowing the time that this measure would be in effect.

There's not much more to say. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, we have an amendment to the provisions that Mr. Lobb has in his proposed Bill C-234 from Mr. Turnbull. We now have a subamendment to that amendment from Ms. Taylor Roy.

Mr. Barlow, I saw your hand. I'll let you comment on either one of those elements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome back, colleagues. It's great to see you all. I hope you had a great break in your ridings.

This is meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It doesn't seem like we've spent that much time, because it's always lovely to be with all of you.

I'm going to start with a few reminders. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Of course, no screenshots are permitted.

Please be mindful of the Board of International Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

Colleagues, we know why we're here today: It's for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-234, and as the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill.

I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package. Each member will have received that package over the past week. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once you have moved an amendment, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill back to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I think that covers it.

I have a few more reminders just for your benefit. We're going to be asking for witness lists for the food price study by November 16 at noon. In speaking to folks during the last meeting prior to the break, we asked you to get prepared on that, so that should come as no surprise. If you're not able to have them right in on the 16th, this committee does generally work pretty well by consensus, but don't expect to have your witnesses up for the first couple of meetings if you don't have witnesses we can work with.

On the global food insecurity deadline—I've just seen this—we're going to be asking for recommendations by November 21 at noon so that the analysts can start to bring together that report accordingly.

Is there anything else, Madam Clerk, that I may have missed? Okay, we're fine.

We'll turn now to the actual amendments. We'll get started on the package.

(On clause 1)

I have first LIB-1, and that's from Mr. Turnbull. I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Turnbull, to introduce your proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll make sure that the clerk connects with you, Mr. MacGregor, because presumably it will be your amendment. We'll make sure that we move on that, but anyone else can go forward. So, we'll make sure that gets sorted out, Mr. MacGregor. It is by November 9 at noon that we need that amendment.

Colleagues, I want to assess your thoughts on where we are on the global food security study. We've heard from quite a few witnesses now. I would suggest that we're probably getting to the stage of the game where we could start to move to actually drafting a report and reporting back to the House.

I did have a conversation today with the clerk about possible scheduling moving forward. I've proposed, at least internally...and I would like to seek your feedback on whether or not the last session that we would have on this would be on November 16. For the first hour, it would be three or four witnesses, whoever we have left who has not been called, at the discretion of the analysts. That would be for the first hour. Then the second hour would turn into the opportunity for us to provide reflections back to the analysts on recommendations and key themes and to then really let them go to work to write the report. Does anyone have any issue with that? I'm curious to seek your feedback.

We're good. Okay. That's how we'll proceed. November 14 will be Bill C-234. The first hour on November 16 will be panellists; the second hour will be our feedback to the analysts.

The third thing—and Mr. Drouin reminded me—is that the supplementary estimates have not yet been tabled. I presume they will be at some point. I guess what I primarily will ask committee members is this: When the supplementary estimates are tabled, is it our wish to have the minister appear on the supplementary estimates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. MacGregor.

Colleagues, that ends our time on the panels, but please don't go too far. We have a little bit of committee business work to do.

Before we do that, to all of our witnesses—Ms. Sullivan in the room, Mr. Paul on the video conference and Mr. Beusekom—thank you so much for your testimony and the opportunity to engage with us today. I'll release you because we have about 10 minutes of committee business.

Madam Clerk, could you just release the folks online, and Ms. Sullivan, I know, will see herself out.

Colleagues, we'll keep this relatively quick. I have four things I just need to discuss with you.

First of all, we know that when we come back after the break week, on November 14, we are going to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-234. I have consulted with the clerk. We're asking for any proposed amendments to be submitted to the clerk and to legislative counsel by November 10 at noon, please. Thank you.

I need unanimous consent to adopt that. I don't foresee there being any issue.

Food Day in Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to bring the voices from Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber.

When I started farming professionally some three and a half decades ago, I am not sure if I would have personally supported a measure like the one we are debating today. I would have thought it unnecessary.

I live on a home farm, and I am a third-generation farmer. When my father began farming, everyone was either from the farm, had an uncle on the farm or had a personal farm connection. Today, it is much different.

We often hear of the 80-20 scenario, where 80% of a product or service is delivered by just 20% of a population, those who are providing that service. With food production, farming in particular, if we go back and look at census data, 2% of our Canadian population are farmers. Under the census, that means they produce more than 7,000 dollars' worth of farmed goods per year. In reality, half of 1% of our farmers produce 85% of the production grown on our farms.

If we look in the chamber, there are 338 members. With table officers and others, there are around 400 people on a full day. The means two people would be the represented population.

I do celebrate this day and the opportunity to speak because it provides us an opportunity to educate people and talk about local food. More importantly, we can talk about the whole food chain.

I want to credit Senator Black for his leadership in the Senate and my colleague from Perth—Wellington for shepherding it through this chamber. I also want to credit Anita Stewart from Wellington County who pioneered the first Food Day.

The member for Perth—Wellington said in his speech about a month ago, “Since that first Food Day in 2003, it has indeed grown into a wonderful celebration of the food our farmers grow and the food that all Canadians enjoy every single day, whether at their kitchen tables or at restaurant tables across the country.” I add my voice to that celebration and that encouragement of local production.

I live in a part of the world where we have access to fresh fruits and vegetables produced locally almost 10 months, or even more than 10 months, a year, depending on the vegetable, because of our innovative greenhouse sector.

Our roadside markets are plentiful, with direct lines from the producer to the consumer, which is great. However, for much of Canada, roadside markets are not accessible all year round, especially in the winter. We all know winter is coming.

Canada is a trading nation. We produce so many good foods, but our coffee production and our orange juice production is not top-notch. We do not have access to it and, as Canadians, we cannot eat all the wheat, canola or pork we produce. We are a trading nation. We rely on food chain systems, both here in Canada, for our own domestic production, be it at our kitchen tables or at restaurants, and with our international trade.

I wanted to say that to lead into three points today. The first is that this day offers us an opportunity to enhance food literacy to our general population. We rely on this agri-food value chain to feed us year-round, and because, as I shared earlier, such a small percentage of our population has a true connection to the farm, food literacy has dropped in Canada.

This gives us an opportunity to describe how complex our food system is. Given that it is so complex, and given the times we are in, food is becoming more expensive. September's food inflation rate, year over year, increased 11.4%, and that is growing. Here in Canada compared to much of the world, we are still lucky as Canadians.

In 2020, 11% of our disposable income was spent on food. In 2021, in calculations by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, it was 10.7%. They declare that day one day earlier, on February 8, 2022, when the average Canadian has spent their percentage of disposable income to purchase all the food they needed for the year. I suspect that will be much later in 2023. That is unfortunate for many low-income Canadians.

Why are food costs rising? I can share that the food inflation rate has certainly outstripped general inflation, and yes, the commodity markets are strong. A lot of crops that are negotiated in price relative to the strong commodity markets have also risen at the farm gate. The costs to our farmers have outstripped the prices they have received at the field.

Fertilizer tariffs and shipping costs have sky rocketed. There is an exemption for on-farm gas and diesel, but there is the carbon tax and everything else. There is carbon tax when it is shipped to the farm and on the barns being heated, and the grain is still being dried this year.

I would implore this House to pass Bill C-234. I had the opportunity to speak to it earlier.

Make no mistake. Farmers are conservationists. The fact they need an exemption so they can compete with the rest of the world and reduce the cost of producing food is not a reflection of their ability as conservationists. I could spend a whole 10 minutes just talking about the advances that our farm community has made on that.

I want to touch on another cost driver, labour, which is affecting every sector of our economy. I hear that from our farm community. I want to celebrate the fact that Canada has a temporary foreign worker program. It is critical to so much of our farming sector and is also of great benefit to the host nations from where many of these valuable workers have come. It is one of our best foreign aid mechanisms, and many parts of the world are jealous of this opportunity. Again, I could spend 10 minutes just on that.

Another cost driver is obviously the borrowing costs to finance assets and the growing cost of crops, which is another thing our farmers are facing.

Farmers are often called the first step in our food value chain. This leads me to the third and final point that I wish to make today.

We often hear our food system being described as field to fork, but that is a bit of a misnomer. Farmers are not the first step in our food chain. I note that the bill's title refers to establishing a national food day, not a national farming day. I think it is rightfully titled. As farmers, we have so many suppliers that supply us with our crop inputs and everything from steel to bearings to financing. We are not the first step. I want to acknowledge that. In this food value chain we have in Canada, and actually much of the world, food manufacturers and processors are next, and then it is on to food distribution, whether it be the retail or the food service mechanisms.

We hear two statements being bandied about, “record retailer profits” and “retailer margins are not changing much in percentage terms”, throughout the pandemic. Both those things have been in the news recently. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. Because the pandemic has shifted, somehow much of the food supply has come to our bodies more through home cooking and the grocery retail chains. The volumes being sold through retail have increased and food service has diminished. With increased volumes, even though the margins of our retailers have remained roughly steady within a certain range, between 2% and 4%, the profits have actually increased. Today we are in a state in Canada where we have an opportunity to address some of these mechanisms in our food value chain if we get it right.

What I am talking about is a grocery code of conduct. I had two excellent meetings last week with Restaurants Canada and Food and Beverage Canada. They mentioned labour availability as being their number one issue and talked about the temporary foreign worker program, but that is not where I want to go. Restaurants are telling me the very same things our farmers are experiencing. We have all gone out and noticed that the cost of restaurant meals has also climbed, but their margins are also shrinking because of the cost structures they are experiencing.

A grocery code of conduct actually gives us the opportunity to address some of the behaviours in the food chain, the fines, levies, listing fees, and the like, all those mechanisms that the value of our food production is being transferred from the food processors and manufacturers to the retailers. Manufacturers are spending on administrative costs and keeping an eye on that. Food retailers are spending on administrative costs in that mechanism.

The United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia have all gone down the road of a grocery code of conduct and have actually experienced greater profits throughout the transmission chain of food, the value chain. Most importantly, food costs for consumers have relatively dropped because costs have been stripped out of that system. That is the big point I want to make. Canada has an opportunity to get that right. I want to mention the 10,000 independent grocers across this country that are very critical to our rural fabric.

I know my time is quickly running out. I want to thank the sponsor of this bill.

I would just note that we have inflationary pressures driving up costs. We have an opportunity through a grocer code of conduct to address these inflationary costs.

An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—Lacolle

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to rise in the House.

Today, we are talking about a private member's bill for renaming the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle to include Napierville. I want to talk a bit about that community and why I believe it is important that it get recognized. Of course, it is famous for its fruits and vegetables and has a beautiful rural countryside. There are many beautiful things about it, so I am glad to see that like all the great towns and beautiful areas in Quebec that get recognized, it is being recognized as well.

I also want to talk in general about my riding. It is composed of a number of areas, and one of them is Clarington, where I live, which did not make the cut for the name. I have a beautiful countryside as well, so perhaps it is a little akin to Napierville as it is another beautiful rural area.

Members of the Bloc made the excellent point that perhaps there are more poignant things we could be talking about in this House. I certainly do not want to be rude in any way, so I will underscore the wonderful countryside and beautiful people of Napierville. As for getting their moment in the sun, my understanding is that after the redistribution, they will, but as I said, it is not the most poignant of PMBs.

I just want to go through some of the things we can talk about in a private member's bill, if the Speaker will give me that bit of indulgence.

I have had the opportunity to raise a couple of private member's bill in this House, one of which was to give an exemption on propane and natural gas to farmers, who, of course, are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax every year. I was glad to see that it made it through the House, but it fell apart when the government unfortunately called a needless, unnecessary and very expensive election. I am glad to see that it is being brought forward by one of our fellow Conservative members, the member for Huron—Bruce, if I have that correct, and that it is now back in front of the agriculture committee. It is Bill C-234, which will provide tremendous relief and save farmers thousands of dollars.

As we know, in Napierville and elsewhere in Canada farming is among one of the hardest but most important occupations we can have. Of course, without farmers we do not eat, so one of the ideas I would throw out is that perhaps we could have more private member's bills to help farmers.

We are going through an incredible food crisis and this spring will be very challenging. For most people in Canada, it will be okay. For the people in this House, who are earning good salaries, it will not be fun to go to the grocery store but they will be okay. I am worried about the people who are economically challenged, not just in Canada but across the world. We will see, if the forecasts are correct, some record-breaking starvation.

We have already seen the pain that Canadians are going through right now because of the lack of food production and because of inflation, with 1.47 million Canadians going to food banks in March 2022. That is a record high; it has never been higher. Twenty per cent of Canadians are now going to food banks on a regular basis and 60% of Canadians are failing to put food on their tables. These are the types of issues we need to be discussing. These are the types of issues we should be helping people with in rural areas across this country from coast to coast to coast.

By the way, the government was good enough to respond to my private member's bill by putting part of it into the budget, but unfortunately, instead of just giving farmers and the people in Napierville an exemption, it tried to put in a credit system. The challenge with how these debt-credit systems work is that, like the carbon tax, some of the money always seems to get stuck in Ottawa. Can members imagine that? It is so strange. These millions of dollars flow into Ottawa and are all supposed to flow out, but somehow they get stuck here in Ottawa. It is funny because that same money seems to flow pretty easily to Liberal insiders, friends and family, like with the arrive scam app worth $54 million. We still do not know where that money went. My goodness.

I could just imagine what the NDP or the Liberals would be saying if a private company took $54 million and had no idea from people who did not have even the obligation or the right to pick where that money came from. We need to be looking at this from the viewpoint of helping all Canadians going forward.

Another private member's bill that I worked on, with Senator Omidvar, was Bill S-216, which would help charities. There was a barrier, a Canadian problem called “direction and control” in charity law, which stopped Canadian charities from giving out money and working with other institutions around the world. Once again, do members know what the response of the Liberal government was? It put it in its budget.

I think I am singlehandedly driving a lot of the Liberal policy here. Maybe, to the member's credit, perhaps just having me talk about her private member's bill will mean the Liberals will also put that in the budget. There are odder things. I think there was some money to go to land control on the moon in one budget, and there is the arrive scam app, so certainly the Liberals could put this in the budget as well. However, that was another good idea for things we could put into PMBs that would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Finally, with respect to my ideas for private member's bills, we have the international human rights act. The international human rights act contains a number of clauses, one of which will force the Department of Foreign Affairs to publicize the names of individuals who are being held as prisoners of conscience. These are individuals who are held just because of their beliefs, because they are pursuing things like freedom, liberty, democracy, LGBTQ2 rights and indigenous rights around the world. They are being held in prison just because they are pursuing freedom for others.

It would also force the government to respond when Magnitsky act sanctions are called for by a parliamentary committee. If a parliamentary committee says, “We need Magnitsky act sanctions put on this person,” then the department has 40 days to respond. It does not have to do it, but it has to tell us why it is or why it is not imposing Magnitsky sanctions. It is a very reasonable thing.

To go back half a step, the Magnitsky act sanctions are sanctions the government can put on individuals who are committing vile human rights crimes. When the legislation was initially passed, there were many instances in Venezuela, Russia and other countries where these sanctions were used. However, these sanctions have stopped being used.

I see that I am running a little short of time, which is a shame, because I could really talk about the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle for hours and hours. It is an absolutely beautiful part of the world. However, I did think of another name for the riding, which is Roxham Road. This has been a serious issue for Canadians, for Quebeckers, and so while I say that a little in jest, it takes nothing away from this serious issue that I hope the Liberal government will listen and respond to.

I like all of the people of Napierville.

I hope they have an absolutely fabulous time and I look forward to their being fully recognized as everyone in Canada should be, regardless of what they believe, who they love or who they are.

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

As this committee is considering Bill C-234, I would love to get in touch with them and find out a little more in terms of the impact this is having on cost.

I won't ask you about grain drying. I think we've had enough testimony to discuss this.

My next question is for the mushroom growers' association. Mr. Medeiros, thanks so much for appearing before our committee. Ryan, it's great to see you virtually. I appreciate your being in front of this committee.

I think mushrooms are a testament to the innovation that can happen in a sector. I know I was at Whitecrest Mushrooms' operations down in Putnam. Robotics are playing a huge role in helping solve the labour challenges that are happening in ag in general. I know they're working on amazing stuff to reduce their energy emissions.

Are there any other types of projects where your sector is working, particularly on trying to reduce energy within their buildings? I know everybody talks about the carbon tax going up to $170, but are you working actively with suppliers to say, “Okay, we have this price signal coming up in 2030. How are you helping me reduce my energy costs?”

From my own perspective, I have met some companies that are actually doing that in the marketplace right now. I am just wondering if you guys from the mushroom growers' association are actively working with these types of companies out there.

[James Bekkering, Board Chair, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee on Bill C-234.

The National Cattle Feeders' Association is the voice of Canada's cattle feeders. We work to improve the growth, sustainability and competitiveness of the beef sector in Canada so as to provide a safe, high-quality and accessible beef supply to Canadians.

My name is James Bekkering. l am the current board chair of the National Cattle Feeders' Association. I also own and operate a cattle feedlot in Taber, Alberta. My feedlot includes a feed mill where I steam flake grains for cattle.

Cattle feeders are a critical part of the beef value chain. As a feedlot owner, I receive cattle from cow-calf operations when the animals are between 400 and 800 pounds, and then feed the cattle a high-energy diet to promote weight gain. When the cattle reach a weight of 1,300 to 1,600 pounds, they are sent for processing.

Canada's cattle feeders are global leaders in sustainability, producing more pounds of beef using less land and less water and emitting fewer GHGs. Environmental stewardship is a critical component of the beef industry's sustainability.

Canadian farmers compete globally and require governments to maintain a business environment that fosters success. Canada's regulatory policy and taxation requirements must track alongside those of our international competitors. As such, the NCFA has followed Bill C-234 with interest and strong support.

The NCFA encourages the government and the opposition to expedite the passage of Bill C-234, given the importance of this bill to Canada's agriculture industry. The agriculture sector is currently facing unprecedented challenges driven by supply chain barriers and rapidly escalating inflation, affecting energy and input costs.

The financial relief that the passage of Bill C-234 would provide is of the utmost importance to the beef sector and to the entire agriculture sector. Today's modern cattle-feeding operation uses more than motive fuel, such as gasoline and diesel, both of which are currently exempt from carbon pricing when used on farm. Of equal importance are fuels not currently exempted, such as natural gas and propane.

Bill C-234 would extend the exemption to include on-farm use of these fuels, which are required for day-to-day farming activity, including the heating of processing barns, medical care buildings and equipment shops. These fuels are also used for irrigation and to prepare and process cattle feed, such as steam flaking feed corn, wheat and barley.

Currently there are no viable alternative energy options for farmers to operate these essential elements of their farming activity. In fact, the processing of grains through these methods, such as steam flaking, can create feed efficiencies that in turn deliver environmental benefits. Taxing farmers on these methods of delivering feed efficiency will serve to discourage investment in new technologies—the opposite of where we should be going.

The exemption proposed within Bill C-234 addresses what we consider was a simple but significant oversight when the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was put in place. The act always should have included on-farm use of natural gas and propane as it did diesel and gasoline.

The passing of Bill C-234 will ensure that dollars remain with our Canadian farmers to make innovative investments in their operations. This is not a time we want to be pulling away capital from our Canadian farmers due to legislation that was originally misguided on the use of fuels on farms.

With food prices skyrocketing, we need to return to the farm gate to look for solutions on how to address costs to farmers and thus costs to consumers. The passing of Bill C-234 will signal an important step in that process.

Farmers and ranchers are stewards of their land, adopting the best environmental practices whenever possible. However, to be able to continue to invest in innovations, they need to remain competitive and have the available working capital to do so.

I understand there has also been extensive discussion at the committee table on a sunset clause to the exemption. This supports a mutual goal that we all share toward moving to more renewable and clean energy. However, we ask that any sunset clause contain flexibility for an extension in the case that no viable alternatives are available at the end of the sunset time frame.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to contribute to the committee's deliberations on Bill C-234. We look forward to seeing this bill move forward through the remainder of the process.

Thank you.

[Peggy Brekveld, President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture]

I'm happy to be here in front of the committee again, this time to speak in favour of Bill C-234.

The OFA and its 38,000 members strongly support this bill and the amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. We are confident that expanding the list of qualifying farm fuels to include natural gas and propane, as well as amending the definition of eligible farm machinery to allow those fuels to be used to provide heat to dry grain and raise or house livestock, will make a difference.

This will have an immediate positive impact on the livelihoods of Canadian farmers and their ability to respond to the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

You have heard a lot about the negative impacts of the fuel charge on grain drying from both the provincial and national organizations. We're going to leave it there. We agree with their comments.

Today I would like to focus on the impacts on indoor livestock operations. The fuel charge has placed a significant and disproportionate financial burden on indoor livestock farmers in Canada. Similar to grain drying, livestock farmers, like poultry, swine and aquaculture operations, have limited ability to pass these added costs to the consumers. You heard that from someone else as well. They also have limited technology alternatives to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels without compromising growing efficiencies and animal welfare. I think the animal welfare one is pretty key.

I'll provide this example. This year, the fuel charge added just under $10,000 to one turkey farmer's cost of production. That's significant to him. It's not an old and inefficient operation. In fact, he's already insulated the walls and ceilings of the barn and sought out energy efficiency where it makes financial sense. Why did he make those changes? It was primarily because government incentive and cost-share programs allowed him to meet the threshold for change, and the return on investment was reasonable. With $10,000 this year and a projected $32,000 per year by 2030, those amounts of fuel surcharges will significantly impact his ability to do any further efficiencies that might exist.

Farmers are very good at math. If a new technology is available and the payback is appropriate, they will adopt it. With an incentive over a penalty, that uptake will be even faster. Making changes in a low-margin, high-risk business environment takes incentives, not penalties.

There are alternatives—you have talked about some—but farmers have concerns. Are they easy to fix? Are there established and robust supply chains for parts? Are there repair technicians in every part of the country that can come out at 10 p.m. to fix it? If there aren't, quality can be damaged and animals may suffer. Also, do they have a return on investment that farm businesses can work with? Are they any better or are they simply shifting the carbon emission to something else?

These are questions that farmers have. That's why we say there are currently no significant viable alternatives. There needs to be a transition.

The nature of agriculture production means that farmers are always looking for ways to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. However, most technologies do not eliminate the need for fossil fuels in agricultural production. In the agricultural sector, the cost of energy alone, without the fuel surcharge applied, is already a significant price signal that drives improved efficiencies and reduced consumption.

As I indicated earlier, incentives are powerful and proven mechanisms to help accelerate the pace of technology adoption in the agricultural sector compared to penalties. Removing the fuel surcharge will free up capital that can be leveraged with cost-share programming to invest in innovations that can reduce emissions from the farm.

The last thing I'd like to add is that the point of a fuel surcharge is to change behaviour. Farmers must heat or cool their barns. Completely changing this behaviour is not a realistic option. In fact, when the pricing actually drives the price margin down to nothing, it drives people out of business.

Last week I was here talking about global food insecurity. You can't have both. Farmers still have to make a profit, otherwise they will just stop farming. We have to be careful with that. If Canada has a desire to impact global food insecurity or even feed our domestic markets, that isn't the change that anyone wants to see happen.

Again, we support the bill, and we look forward to further conversation on this.

[Hessel Kielstra, Mountain View Poultry Farms]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak to the committee. I will just read through what I sent earlier.

I strongly support Bill C-234. As you are reviewing the impact of the carbon tax on various farm industries, I would like to point out that it challenges the very viability and sustainability of our poultry operations in the province of Alberta.

In particular, I struggle with the application and impact of the carbon tax on the natural gas we use in our farming operations as we raise broiler chickens.

It increases the cost of raising broiler chickens, and we can recover these increased costs partially with price increases, but really, most of them won't be recovered. It is a burden on our operations. It is also at cross-purposes with the intent of the carbon tax. If I understand the intent and philosophy behind the tax, it is meant to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Herein lies the conundrum for us. We need to use a certain amount of natural gas to heat our barns to a certain temperature, 30°C to 31°C, and sometimes even higher in order to raise chickens and get them into the food chain. If we follow the intent and philosophy behind the carbon tax and reduce the needed temperatures for raising chickens by cutting back on natural gas, we will have chickens that suffer. Most of them will die because of lack of proper temperatures. This in turn would leave us vulnerable to charges of animal cruelty, so we obviously will not and cannot reduce our consumption of natural gas.

As a committee filled with intelligent individuals, you all will understand that we cannot follow the full intent and spirit of the legislation.

Please change the legislation via Bill C-234, and remove the carbon tax on natural gas that we and other farmers specifically use on chicken broiler farms. We have always felt honoured to be in the position to provide Canadian consumers with quality chicken meat, and we wish to continue to do so.

As for financial viability, we face the following. Every $10 per tonne of carbon tax costs us significantly more each month, and when the cost goes to the intended level of $170 per tonne, our cost will rise to an average of approximately $40,000 per month, or approximately $480,000 per annum.

These levels of carbon tax will destroy the viability of our chicken operation and many other operations in the chicken industry. This definitely was not the intent of the architects of the carbon tax. These are the unintended consequences that can occur even with the best intentions and that must be subsequently corrected and fixed.

Hopefully this helps you in your deliberations. If necessary, I'm available in a number of different forms. I also took a page to show what we paid in the last year. We paid in the last 12 months $106,000. At the projected price of $170 per tonne, that will come to $475,000.

It's a problem for us and for many others. I think most of it speaks for itself, but we can dive into more particulars in other ways. We would love to see this removed. Always remember that no matter what we do, we still have to pay the bill for the utilities we consume. This is just an extra tax on us of $475,000 in some years to come—but right now it's at $106,000.

[Mike Medeiros, President, Canadian Mushroom Growers' Association]

I would like to thank everyone for inviting us here today as well.

I'm the president of Mushrooms Canada, and I operate a mushroom farm about 30 minutes south of Ottawa, near the village of Osgoode.

Ours is a second-generation family farm, where I farm with my brother and other key family members.

My farm currently pays carbon tax in excess of $150,000 a year. We have examined the rebates offered, and we have been unable to access any rebates, or we found them too little to offset the costs.

With a new tax here, and a difficult year, with costs over and above the increasing heating and inflation costs—transportation and compost have doubled in many cases—as farmers we are expected to absorb all these expenses because we're price-takers, unable to pass on the cost to the retailer and consumer.

The carbon tax is added directly to our farm inflation costs, not to mention the ongoing precautionary COVID-19 measures. Mushroom farms are extremely efficient and sustainable, with a low carbon and water footprint. We know this through a study conducted in partnership with the Mushroom Council in America, which places mushroom growing as having one of the lowest carbon footprints for food sources.

Mushrooms are an extremely healthy and nutritious food source grown in Canada, and we use recycled material such as straw and poultry manure to turn into compost.

Again, our industry supports Bill C-234, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Ryan Koeslag, Executive Vice-President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Mushroom Growers' Association]

Perfect. Thanks very much for the invitation to appear today and speak in favour of Bill C-234.

My name is Ryan Koeslag, and I am joined today by Mike Medeiros, president of the Canadian Mushroom Growers' Association and a mushroom grower. Our association is a member of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.

For those who are not aware, Canada has a strong, adaptable and high-tech mushroom sector that contributes over a billion dollars to the Canadian economy. Canada grows over 150,000 tonnes of mushrooms annually, and mushroom farms are a big job creator in Canada, creating over 6,400 jobs with competitive wages. Although robotic technologies are being explored, almost all mushrooms are currently picked by hand, and we experience some of the greatest labour shortages in agriculture.

Canadian mushrooms grow 24-7, 365 days a year, supplying nearly all of the fresh mushrooms found in grocery stores across Canada all year round. We export 40% of what we grow to the United States.

Let's think about that for a moment. How many crops in Canada are grown 365 days a year? To grow crops in Canada during the winter, growing rooms must be heated. The carbon tax is adding additional costs to our farms for uniquely growing food in this country during the Canadian winter. Although mushrooms are grown indoors in climate-controlled buildings just like greenhouses, mushrooms were not exempt from the carbon tax. The Canada Revenue Agency has been unable to provide real reasons for why the greenhouse exemption that has been in place for a couple of years now wasn't applied to mushrooms, as the mushroom sector experiences some of the same cost factors as greenhouses, and large concentrations of mushroom farms are located right next to the major greenhouse growing regions in Canada.

With no alternative fuel sources currently available, our farms are unfairly penalized by the carbon tax. We support Bill C-234 for items like the heating of agriculture facilities for growing purposes, and see the carbon tax increasing the cost of production in areas like heating, transportation and other inputs.

I'll pass the floor over to Mike Medeiros, the president of the Canadian Mushroom Growers' Association and a grower at Carleton Mushroom Farms, located just south of Ottawa.

[Todd Lewis, Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Todd Lewis. I’m a grain, lentil and canola farmer from Gray, Saskatchewan, and second vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I am joined today by our environment and science policy director, Frank Annau.

The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization and represents over 189,000 farmers and farm families nationwide. Canadian producers sit at the centre of an agri-food system that provides one in nine Canadian jobs and contributes nearly $140 billion annually to the Canadian economy.

On behalf of our producers, we thank you for the invitation to speak to Bill C-234. We believe the bill offers great relief for farmers by exempting natural gas and propane from the carbon price, particularly for use in activities such as recirculating aquaculture operations, feed preparation and steam flaking, as well as grain drying and livestock heating and cooling.

These latter two activities are critical to mitigating climate impacts such as drying wet grain during extreme autumn rainfall, cooling livestock to prevent heat death during summer heat, and heating during extended cold periods in the wintertime.

We understand that the carbon price is a market signal for producers to adopt low-emission energy alternatives wherever possible, but over the past year that signal has been dwarfed by skyrocketing costs for inputs such as fertilizer, gasoline and diesel. Even when fuel prices aren’t at record highs, farmers constantly seek to increase fuel efficiency wherever possible.

Current high prices across all fuels and inputs take away working capital to invest in that efficiency, capital that is even further eroded and reduced by the price on carbon for natural gas and propane. Where potential alternatives are available, that means less money to invest in solutions such as energy-efficient grain dryers. Where no practical alternatives are available, that means producers simply pay more for practices that are essential to food production without the option of reducing emissions.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, half of all farmers in 2019 either barely broke even or actively lost money. With farm debt now exceeding $122 billion and a series of interest rate increases over the past year, the pressures on farmers’ margins make it challenging to invest in the future. With current debt and inflationary impacts, the carbon price simply adds a financial burden that reduces producers' ability to invest in sustainable technology and practices.

However, by ensuring that the farm fuel exemption of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is truly reflective of critical on-farm practices, Bill C-234 allows farms to respond to market signals by freeing up cash to invest in emission reduction solutions, including precision agriculture technology, solar panels, anaerobic digesters and future innovations as they come available.

We respect recent efforts with Bill C-8 to provide relief to farms through carbon rebates. Unfortunately, these efforts do not adequately respond to the highly variable fuel requirements and carbon price impacts of different forms of production, regions and climate conditions experienced by farmers across Canada

The inclusive exemption proposed under C-234 is the most targeted means of ensuring that carbon pricing isn’t unduly taking away capital needed to make timely investments in the sustainability of operations where no viable alternatives exist today. Even without the carbon price, farmers are constantly focused on reducing input costs and adopting efficiencies.

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change. We are stewards of the land who are invested in the long-term sustainability of our natural resources. We’re also climate solutions providers, sequestering millions of tonnes of carbon, protecting biodiversity and grasslands, and utilizing the latest technologies to reduce fuel and water use. This has resulted in a 50% decrease in emissions intensity from 1997 to 2017. Bill C-234 will help producers drive emissions even lower by allowing them to remain competitive while making investments in sustainability.

Canadian producers strongly support this bill, and we at CFA strongly encourage its timely passage through Parliament.

Thank you again for this opportunity, and we look forward to questions.

[Dr. Tristan Skolrud, Associate Professor, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today to discuss Bill C-234, which would eliminate carbon pricing on a farmer's use of natural gas and propane for grain drying and heating.

The issue of carbon pricing in agriculture is contentious and complicated for many reasons that are already well understood by members of this committee. Food is perhaps one of society's most basic and pressing needs, and any measure that increases the costs of producing food is understandably met with a great deal of trepidation.

However, Canada has also pledged to reduce emissions to at least 40% below 2005 levels by 2030, with the goal of net-zero emissions just 20 years later. It would be prudent to achieve this goal at the lowest total cost to society. There are low-cost mitigation opportunities in the agricultural sector that could be exploited to keep the cost of this GHG reduction goal as low as possible.

However, despite the fact the agricultural sector accounts for approximately 10% of Canada's total GHG emissions, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act has used a mostly laissez-faire approach for the sector, leading to the exemption of well over 8.2% of Canada's total GHG emissions from carbon pricing. Bill C-234 seeks to expand that exemption to one of the few remaining areas of agricultural emissions covered by the act: grain drying and heating.

To understand the economic implications of this amendment, especially with respect to grain drying, I would like the committee to bear in mind the following points:

When the price of an input increases, there are two effects for farms operating in competitive markets. One effect is to substitute, to change to a different set of inputs that haven't been as influenced by the price change. At the current state of technology, this effect is minimal, relying on changes to harvest practices that will vary by region, weather and crop type. The other effect is to reduce output, but in this case, the size of the price increase is unlikely to elicit a strong output effect. At current crop prices, it's still profitable to dry, even at a higher cost.

It may be that producers choose to dry their grain slightly less than before to ensure that they do not pay more to dry than they would earn from having drier grain. However, producers may be unable to make this adjustment if they're selling to grain buyers with specific moisture requirements, which is common.

Therefore, with limited changes in producer behaviour, there will be limited reductions in GHG emissions from grain drying before greener alternatives become available.

However, removing the carbon pricing exemption will have an effect on the investment in grain-drying alternatives that emit fewer GHGs. The development of greener alternatives will require significant private capital, and if grain drying is unregulated, the signal to private capital will be lost. Previous testimony on this amendment suggests that sufficient alternatives are at least 10 years away. Keep in mind that this estimate is a function of the carbon price. A higher price will shorten that time frame if private capital senses a profitable opportunity.

Absent Bill C-234, the money spend on grain drying and heating by the agricultural sector is still returned to the sector, albeit at levels that are unlikely to exactly cover a single farmer's outlay. Some farmers will receive less than they paid, and some will receive more.

From an economic perspective, the question is as follows: Will the social welfare costs of redistributing income from larger, more energy-intensive farms to less energy-intensive farms through uneven rebate distribution outweigh the gains from the investment signal sent by keeping the price in place? Based on what we understand about the efficiency of carbon taxation and the government's estimate of the social cost of carbon, my opinion is that, no, the cost of exempting grain drying and heating from carbon taxation will not outweigh the long-term benefit.

Thank you.

[Richard Gray, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm a professor and grain policy chair at the University of Saskatchewan. I also provide labour and marketing advice for my son, Eric, who operates a 3,000-acre family grain farm in Indian Head, Saskatchewan. By the way, we rely on grain aeration and do not own a grain dryer.

In the absence of explicit policies that recognize the role that crop production plays in the removal of atmospheric carbon, I'm in favour of the tax relief offered in Bill C-234. I would go further to advocate for public investments in research and extension, and direct producer support for investments in less greenhouse gas-intensive grain drying and heating options. As a well-trained economist, I understand that pollution pricing is an efficient way to incorporate external pollution cost into private decision-making. As a grain farmer and an agricultural science graduate, I also recognize that every tonne of harvested grain contains more than a tonne and a half of CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere.

Ideally, this sequestration of carbon should be subsidized at the external cost of carbon. Similarly, when grain is consumed or burned, the carbon emissions should be taxed at this same rate. Unfortunately, neither the sequestration of carbon in grains nor the emissions from burning grain are included in the global greenhouse gas accounting system.

For example, the CO2 that you're breathing out this afternoon is not included as part of the Canadian greenhouse emissions, nor are the CO2 emissions that come from livestock or from trucks burning biodiesel. CO2 emissions coming from burning or digesting grain and other biomass are deemed to be emissions-free. They're assumed to be emissions-free only because it is also assumed that some farmer has recently removed this carbon from the atmosphere. While treating biofuel emissions as carbon-free worked well for the biofuel industry and consumers, the farmer who has actually removed the carbon from the atmosphere receives no explicit credit for this sequestration.

I first realized this flaw in greenhouse gas accounting about three years ago, when looking at about 4,000 tonnes of harvested grain, all rich in carbon and all of which had come from the atmosphere. Since then I've done a lot of reading and discovered that Searchinger and others published an article in 2009 in Science—perhaps the most prestigious journal in the world—entitled “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error”. Despite over 600 citations to this important article, the flaw in the accounting system has not been addressed.

By not measuring grain-related emissions, the incomplete accounting creates strong incentives to use grain to produce biofuels. However, because the grain sequestration is not measured, there are no corresponding incentives to produce the additional grain required for the biofuel. Searchinger and many others, including me, argue that the effect of this is higher grain prices, increased food insecurity, and the carbon-intensive clearing of rainforest and peatlands for agricultural production.

Given it is unlikely Canada can change this flawed international accounting, Canadian policy-makers need to keep a fundamental policy trade-off in mind. If the Canadian taxation of greenhouse gases, or other policies, result in fewer grain exports, these reduced exports will increase international grain prices and will have to be accommodated in the rest of the world through either reduced food consumption or increased greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. By removing the taxation of grain for grain drying, I believe the amendments contained in Bill C-234 may approximately align with this broader global perspective.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I recognize the enormous power of research and innovation to solve these problems. Finding ways to efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an important public-good problem that requires public investment. Research investment is needed to continue to develop more sustainable grain drying and heating options. Programs that help producers to benchmark their emissions relative to similar farms may help them identify opportunities for reduction. Finally, using subsidies to increase investment in more efficient systems can reduce emissions without jeopardizing our grain production, which is so much needed in the rest of the world.

That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my remarks.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I will start with a few reminders for witnesses who may not have joined us in the past.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website, and the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

Especially for our witnesses, screenshots or photos taken of your screen are not permitted. For members and witnesses participating in person, please keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols. We don't need to worry about that.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses here today. Members and witnesses, you may speak in the language of your choice. Interpretation services are available and, if interpretation is lost, I will stop the clock to ensure that we can get interpretation back up and running as quickly as possible.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on video conference, please click your microphone on to unmute yourself. For those in the room, your microphone will come on automatically, so you don't need to worry about that.

Again, for our witnesses, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute for the benefit of our translators.

All comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the Chair.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 30, 2022, we are resuming our study on a private member's bill, Bill C-234.

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We're going to have to leave it there.

Thank you, Ms. Taylor Roy, and thank you, Mr. Greuel.

Let me just thank our witnesses.

Mr. Menzies, Mr. Greuel and Mr. Hurst, it was a really important discussion today. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for your leadership in the agriculture sector. Our committee is certainly better off as a result of your testimony today.

Colleagues, before we go, we have just a few minutes and I have to run a few things by you.

In terms of our scheduling plan, I've been working with the clerk on when we would do clause-by-clause study for Bill C-234. I've asked her to schedule legislative counsel for November 14.

On that basis, here is what I would ask your permission for in moving forward on a schedule plan.

For next week, Monday and Wednesday are already set. The clerk is working on having those witness panels lined up. I think we've truly fully exhausted our witness list for Bill C-234, so I would propose that on Halloween we allow members to use that two-hour period to discuss potential amendments.

When we're back after the break, we would use November 14 for the clause-by-clause study, as I mentioned. Otherwise, we would continue with the global food security study.

I am going to be away next week, so I need you all to be on your best behaviour for Mr. Barlow. Mr. Barlow, let's have no funny tricks while I'm gone.

Is what I've just proposed something you all want to move forward with?

I'm seeing consensus. Okay. That's how we'll move forward on the schedule.

I have just two other notes. On Agribition, Warren Steinley sent me a text to remind me that November 28 to December 3 is a major show in Saskatchewan and of course for the whole country. Maybe our leaders can have a conversation about whether or not we could perhaps use MP travel points to be a part of that. I'll leave that to the leaders on the committee to discuss.

I want to thank our translators and our technical team. We had a bit of a delay with the vote. We did push this right until seven o'clock. Thank you to our translators and thank you to our entire team.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Tom L. Green]

Actually, I don't think Bill C‑234 should be passed. If the committee decided otherwise, another option would be to decrease the exemption by 10% each year. That way, there wouldn't be a shock at the end of the time frame. As an economist, I would prefer that. That said, I don't think this bill is the way to go.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you for raising this point, which is really very important. I've been hearing for a long time in my region that we will have access to Internet and cellular network services everywhere, but it's not even close to happening. There's still a long way to go.

We need to provide additional time through Bill C‑234. Should it be 10 years, but provide for a reassessment?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Do you have any incentives to suggest?

It seems clear to me that Bill C‑234 must be passed if the agricultural community is to be given the transition period necessary to adapt to reality and new technologies.

What might those incentives be? It must be said that programs have already been put in place but quickly ran out of funds. How could we better support these incentives?

[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.

[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?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

When Bill C-234 was introduced, you said that farmers continue to “bear the brunt” of the carbon tax, both paying the tax for on-farm fuel used for drying grains and paying the increased costs added to necessary inputs and services as vendors try to recoup carbon costs on their end.

Can you expand on this and expand on what you meant by this?

[Branden Leslie]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Drouin.

It's tough to predict where innovation might go. I'd love to say that in eight years we're going to have over half of Canadian dryers converted to some other fuel source. That would probably be a bit of a stretch. Maybe it would have taken that long 10 years ago, in 2006, but now that we're in 2022 on Bill C-234, I think 10 years would be a reasonable thing.

I understand that we still want the price signal. The government's intention on the price of pollution is there for a reason. I think we understand that. The struggle with this particular nuance on the use of propane and natural gas is that it's just not applicable when there's no nudge effect. There's nothing to nudge towards.

I think it's reasonable to want to maintain that. However, I wouldn't want to go through this process again in 2032. I think it would be important to have an order in council or some sort of mechanism in place whereby the government of the day could say, okay, we were hoping to have over 50% adoption of a new fuel use for grain drying or the heating and cooling of barns, but that hasn't happened yet.

Maybe I'll bring in your second question on clean tech here. I think there is an absolute necessity to maintain that. If we want to have the sunset clause, I think it's important to make sure that we have the funding to have these new technologies embraced and enabled on-farm. I think the two-stream approach will continue to be necessary.

I think it's reasonable to have a sunset clause, as long as the government is able to not have the exemption just drop off at some point so that all of a sudden farmers are forced to have a $170 per tonne carbon tax thrown back on them. That would be a real crunch to their operating expenditures at that time.

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

Okay.

I have just a quick question. It has nothing to do with Bill C-234, but you did mention soybeans. I'm just wondering if you're averaging over one tonne an acre right now, or are the crops not doing so well in your neck of the woods?

[Branden Leslie, Manager, Policy and Government Relations, Grain Growers of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for the invitation to appear today on Bill C-234.

My name is Branden Leslie, and I am the manager of policy and government relations for the Grain Growers of Canada. The Grain Growers of Canada represents 65,000 grain, pulse and oilseed farmers through our 14 provincial, regional and national member organizations across Canada.

Canadian farmers have a long reputation as environmental stewards, adopting the best environmental practices whenever possible.

Canada's grain sector is proud of our hard-earned reputation as one of the world's largest suppliers of safe, sustainable and high-quality grains, of which the exports of cereals, oilseed and pulses add over $30 billion to the Canadian economy every year.

Our sector is also proud of our record of sustainably intensifying our production when the world demands more food and cleaner fuels, while simultaneously working to reduce emissions and increase carbon sequestration. That sustainable intensification of production is enabled by farmers reinvesting profits back into their operations in the form of new machinery, technologies and the adoption of beneficial management practices, all of which reduce emissions and increase operational efficiencies.

This is why Bill C-234 is a critical piece of legislation, which our members strongly support.

As a result of climate change, we are seeing an increased need for grain drying. With the steadily rising price on pollution applied to propane and natural gas used to dry grain, farmers also now face incredible cost increases without an alternative fuel source available. While there are emerging potential alternative fuel sources for grain drying, the reality is that they are not commercially viable at this time. Further, it will take years to scale them up and implement necessary infrastructure upgrades as required.

Given the significant operating costs of using propane or natural gas, there currently exists a price signal to be judicious with the use of these fuels, as there is no benefit of drying grains beyond what is necessary for sale or storage. As such, most farmers have also already made significant investments to upgrade their dryers to make them as efficient as possible, leaving little room for improvement in that area.

It's fair to say that no farmer wants to be spending money on drying their grain but does so out of necessity and, certainly, hope that a more cost-efficient and lower-emission option becomes available in the not-too-distant future. However, until that happens, farmers have no choice but to use propane or natural gas to dry their grain, making the price on pollution a punitive tax and not a market-driven signal to change fuel sources. Right now, this simply means that farmers have money taken out of their pocket to undertake a necessary process to ensure their product does not spoil during storage.

The federal government has tacitly admitted the flawed nature of the price on pollution put on propane and natural gas used on farms through the rebate program offered under Bill C‑8. While we appreciate the government acknowledging that farmers currently have no choice but to use these fuels, the reality is that the rebate is a blunt tool that does not fairly reimburse farmers for the fuel they actually use. This means that depending on the crops they grow, they may receive only a small percentage of the carbon price paid through their operation.

That is why the exemption offered through Bill C-234 is superior to the rebate system. With an exemption in place, Canadian farmers will remain competitive and have additional working capital to reinvest in their operations, leading to more tangible environmental outcomes and emission reductions.

Grain drying is necessary to maintain the grains' quality. Taxing this practice will not result in emissions reductions and instead will hinder farmers' ability to invest in sustainable innovations.

A reinvestment into updated machinery or technologies has proven to make real progress in emission reductions. Canadian farmers need policy and the incentivization of innovation of best management practices and other adoption tools that put working capital back into farmers' pockets. Farmers are simultaneously facing rising input costs, rising interest rates and increased debt loads required to finance equipment and farmland. So for many, every dollar counts.

It is also important to note that the passage of this legislation would not alleviate all the carbon pricing costs and associated signals that are built into the prices of transportation and other inputs the farmers use, which are passed on to farmers. As price-takers, they are unable to pass those costs on any further.

Ultimately, the savings that would be found for farmers should Bill C-234 pass would make up just a small percentage of their overall operational costs, but would absolutely make a difference to their bottom line.

By passing Bill C-234, Parliament would acknowledge the important sustainability efforts farmers have undertaken and will continue to undertake, and empower them to reinvest in their operations, further reduce emissions and improve on-farm environmental indicators. We urge all parties to support the swift passage of this legislation.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[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.

[Brendan Byrne, Chairman, Grain Farmers of Ontario]

Thank you very much for inviting me to be with you today. This is an issue that remains top of mind for our farmer members, so it's much appreciated that I was invited here today.

My name is Brendan Byrne. I'm the chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario. I farm in Essex, near the Windsor border, with my family. It's harvest time for our members, so on our farm we're harvesting soybeans, and around me the corn harvest has also started, which is similar across the province.

I want to begin my remarks by just thanking members of this committee for examining this important bill. It's something that our farmer members are looking at, checking in and asking about it, so it's important that we're here today.

An exemption from the carbon price is important to our grain farmers for five reasons.

First is to prevent spoilage. Grain needs to be dried down to be able to be stored; otherwise, it will rot and will not be available.

Second is reliable grain drying systems. A reliable supply of energy and proven grain-drying technology allow farmers to dry their grain in a short period of time under any weather conditions.

Third, there are no alternatives. There are ideas and potential alternatives that people are looking at, but none of them have been proven to work on the scale or at the level that we need them in Ontario. With these alternatives, there isn't a clear message as to whether they actually would reduce our carbon. The EU is backing away from such things as biomass dryers due to its carbon emission profile, and the CBC reported this week that wood biomass burning is worse than coal.

Fourth, our farmers are unable to reduce their carbon price. We are price-takers in the marketplace. We feel that the money would be better off in the hands of the farmers to further innovate on their farm and to try to come up with ways and solutions to better their carbon footprint.

Fifth, the rebate that's been presented to us falls far short of what's actually paid. Less than 15% of what grain farmers are paying is returned by the government rebate.

I want to quickly explain how grain drying works in Ontario. Corn, for instance, needs to be at a level of 15% to store it or ship it. In September, the corn plant stops growing. We wait for Mother Nature to drain out as much moisture as possible. Wind, sun, and the natural effects of the weather do that, but then we need to get the corn off before the weather turns to where we can't do that anymore.

Once we get into the fields, we find out exactly what the moisture level of the corn will be. Once we get in there, we are very much at the mercy of the weather, so time is of the essence to get the crop off. Typically, the corn harvest is anywhere from 20% to 28% moisture when we're taking it out of the field and trying to get it off, get it dried, and get it shipped at an acceptable level, which is very hard for our farmer members as it is.

Drying grain happens in real time. During the week of the harvest, it could be running 24 hours a day. We have to be careful not to overdry, or dry too fast, so we don't damage the corn. We want to make sure that it's useful for human consumption, for animals, and the multiple uses that the crop is used for.

The dryers right now allow us to dial it up to the energy needed, and turn it down if it gets too hot. Grain drying is an essential part of harvesting grain. If we get this wrong, we don't have a crop to sell, and we're producing less food.

Eight years from now, upwards of $2.7 billion would be paid by Ontario grain farmers for the carbon price on grain drying. All this money is coming out of our pockets. Farmers cannot pass this on to anyone else. They simply have to pay it and bear the brunt of this. As I said, the rebate that's in place now simply doesn't cover anywhere near the cost of it.

Greenhouse growers are exempt from the price on carbon for their operations, and so should grain drying. Bill C-234 would give us time to figure out viable solutions and make sure that there is potentially a road map to innovation and implementation, with the proper supply chain in place to cover that off.

This is a major undertaking. It affects food security and food supply. We have to be very careful with what we're doing there.

I do, again, thank you for your time. If you haven't seen what grain drying looks like, we could certainly submit a video, which is about three minutes. I want to thank everybody on the committee for taking time to consider this bill, and we look forward to a good discussion.

Thank you very much.

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it a difficult task to follow the leader of the official opposition, but I will do my best to carry on with our message about the NDP opposition day motion, which I also agree does not go far enough. It does not put a lot of the blame on the inflationary crisis we face where most of it belongs, which is on government spending.

We cannot say that CEOs, corporate Canada or global companies are driving inflation when we have a federal government that has put in half a trillion dollars in spending, which is having a significant impact on the prices that Canadians are facing all across the board.

I find it interesting that we see a bit of schizophrenia with our NDP colleagues, where with every opportunity they have to support increased spending and the tripling of the carbon tax, they vote with the government, yet their motion today attempts to try to make life more affordable for Canadians.

In question period yesterday, the leader of the NDP had concerns about rising gas prices, especially in his province of B.C. where fuel has hit $2.40 a litre. That is exactly what Liberal and NDP policy wants to achieve. It wants us to have higher fuel prices. It wants to force us to drive our cars less. I am sure that works in many of my colleagues' urban communities. Some days they can park their cars and take public transit or ride their bikes. My riding is almost 30,000 square kilometres.

Public transit does not exist in my riding. My constituents must drive their car. They must drive long distances to work. They must heat their homes and their barns in -40°C weather in January. These are the facts of life. These are the necessities of life. These are not extravagant choices; they have to do that. In response to that, our Liberal colleagues, supported by the NDP, want to triple the carbon tax.

I am going to focus a little on the agricultural sector and the impact that is having on rural economies and rural Canadians. I would argue that rural Canadians, especially our farmers, producers and ranchers, pay the carbon tax over and over again.

It was interesting to hear my Liberal colleague say that while farmers were price-takers, the carbon tax did not have an impact on the price of food. It is true that they are price-takers. However, when we triple the carbon tax, we triple the price of fuel. We saw the price of fertilizer go up 100% last year. That does not include the 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia and Belarus. That impacts hauling their grain, hauling their cattle and transportation to the terminal. Every single time they are paying that carbon tax over and over again.

The company or rail company hauling their grain passes that carbon tax on to the consumer. Every time those prices go up on those transportation or commodity services, it impacts the price of food. That is why we have seen the cost of groceries go up more than 10%, the highest rate of inflation in more than 40 years.

Therefore, I understand my NDP colleagues when they say that the CEOs in Canada should pay their fair share. I agree with that. Every Canadian should pay their fair share. The Liberal government has been in power for seven years. If there are loopholes, it should be holding taxpayers accountable for paying their fair share. Obviously, it has not done that. However, to shift the blame from where it lies to other parts of the economy is disingenuous.

An interesting statistic came up yesterday at the agriculture committee, and I want to highlight it. We heard it from my Bloc colleague, who I have a lot of respect for as well. Climate change is real, but to put the price of fighting climate change on the backs of Canadian farmers is not fair. Let us be real here, as my colleague was saying. Let us have an honest conversation about this. GHG intensity in agriculture is about 28% globally. What it is in Canada? It is 8%. We are tenfold better than any other country in the world when it comes to GHG emissions and intensity in the agriculture sector in Canada.

With respect to the fertilizer issue, the Liberal government wants to see a 30% reduction in fertilizer use. As I said, grocery prices have gone up 10%. If the Liberals follow through with this policy, all I can say to Canadian consumers is “you ain't seen nothing yet”. When farmers have to see their yields go down between 30% and 50%, depending on what the commodity is, that means significantly lower yields and significantly higher grocery prices. That has nothing to do with the CEO of Loblaws. That has exactly to do with government policy put forward by the Liberals.

Again, what makes that so frustrating is they are saying to Canadian farmers that they are not part of the solution; they are the problem. Canadian farmers are 50% to 70% more efficient in their fertilizer use than any other country on planet earth. Instead of congratulating them for that and going around the world saying that we are the gold standard and here is where everybody else in the world should go, we are apologizing and dragging our farmers down to where everybody else is. That is the wrong philosophy and certainly the wrong policy.

All that is doing is making our farmers worse off. It is also more harmful to the environment, and food prices will go up. It is a triple whammy. Instead of doing the right thing and being a champion and advocate for Canadian farmers, we are going in the exact opposite direction.

There are other policies the Liberals have put forward that have made the cost of groceries and the cost of food go up, and I really want to focus on this part. I am going to backtrack a little to the carbon tax again. My colleague from the Bloc brought that up. In the agriculture committee, we are talking about Bill C-234, a private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax on farms. This is a critical piece of legislation that would ensure our farmers are able to remain competitive on the global stage. However, the Liberals are arguing that we do not need Bill C-234 because farmers get a rebate through Bill C-8.

We now know from Finance Canada officials that the average farmer will get about $800 back a year through that rebate. We also know that farmers pay close to $50,000 a year on average in carbon tax. I asked a representative from Finance Canada how they could argue that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral when they were admitting that the average farmer is getting about $800 to $860 back. His answer was that if we made it revenue-neutral, urban Canadians would have to subsidize that. Okay. He was telling me that rural Canadians were subsidizing the carbon tax and wealth redistribution for urban Canadians. That is what he was telling me.

That is not what the Liberal policy on the carbon tax was. They said it was going to be revenue-neutral and that eight out of 10 families would get more back than they paid. That is baloney. Rural Canadians are suffering and certainly paying significantly more in carbon tax than other Canadians. That is not what the Liberals are selling. Again, it is Liberal policy that is driving inflation and driving up the price of food.

It is going to get worse. Although we had a bit of a win this spring when we got the Liberals to back down on front-of-pack labelling on ground beef and pork, they are still going ahead with front-of-pack labelling on most other products. The cost of that is going to be $1.8 billion to the industry. Who do we think pays for that? I can guarantee that Galen Weston at Loblaws is not covering that cost. I can guarantee that French's ketchup is not covering that cost. They are passing that right on to the consumer.

Again, a Liberal policy that no one asked for and serves very little purpose is going to be passing on $2 billion in costs to the Canadian consumer for no reason. That is not to mention that the United States has already identified this policy as a trade irritant. Therefore, not only are we upsetting Canadian consumers, but we are also upsetting our number one trading partner, which is looking for every excuse possible to fight back against Canadian trade.

In conclusion, I appreciate what my NDP colleague is trying to achieve with this motion, and there are many portions of it that we agree with. Certainly CEOs should pay their fair share and affordable food should be available for every Canadian, but the facts are the facts. Inflation is being driven by ideological, activist policy by the Liberal government. That should be the focus of the House.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all colleagues for working through this. I'm going to read it very slowly for the benefit of our interpreters.

It goes as follows, Mr. Chair. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on inflation in the food supply chain and the cost of groceries going up, while large chains are making profits; that the committee examine the profits of large grocery chains in relation to employee wages and the cost of groceries in Canada; that the committee also examine the ability of large grocery chains to leverage their size to cut into the earnings of Canadian farmers; that the committee explore ways in which the food supply chain can help reduce rising food costs, and that the committee invite witnesses with specific knowledge on inflation and affected stakeholders from the industry, including grocer and food supply chain executives, economists, unions and farmers or representative organizations; that no fewer than six meetings are set aside to hear from witnesses; that the committee commence the study after clause-by-clause on C-234 is completed; that the committee report its finding to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

I hope that's accurate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm going to seek a little bit of procedural clarification.

Mr. Barlow, at the end of the day, I think you've moved that Mr. MacGregor's study should start after the clause-by-clause of Bill C-234, whenever that happens. I take notice that you might have a concern about how long that process should continue, but I see that as independent. That can be a conversation, frankly, for another day because it's kind of confusing to have two different motions in one. I think it would be better to say that Mr. MacGregor's proposed study would move to after the clause-by-clause on Bill C-234. If you want to litigate how much longer we should study Bill C-234, I think we can take that up in another forum after we've done your subamendment.

Mr. Drouin.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You are correct.

My concern, Mr. Turnbull, would be that we could keep adding meetings on Bill C-234 and just drag that out longer. Obviously I don't believe we need to do that. I could put in my amendment, Mr. MacGregor, of a limit of two—with two more meetings on BillC-234, or three—to put a time limit on that.

This is not to you guys across the way, but I don't want the powers that be to try to drag this out and then further delay what you're trying to achieve here. I am more than willing to add that into the amendment as well, if there's support on the floor to do that, so that we could put some sort of timeline on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'll turn to Mr. Barlow. I don't think there was any mention of dropping the global food security study. I think, as Mr. Barlow highlighted, once Bill C-234 is done, then Mr. MacGregor's proposed study could move forward, but not until such time as the clause-by-clause was done on Bill C-234.

Am I correct in saying that, Mr. Barlow?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

In terms of Bill C-234, I may differ in opinion regarding the number of meetings we need, but I do agree with keeping the sequence. We're sort of disregarding the subcommittee's agreement on the top three priorities. We've been mixing meetings and having one on world food insecurity and one on Bill C-234. We said we'd do both of those before we moved on to agriculture and the environment. That's what our agreement was.

Now this is a new motion coming forward. I get that there's some pressure in terms of what the public will be expecting us to look at, so I get that it may interrupt that to some degree.

What I want clarification on is this: Are we just talking about doing Bill C-234 and then moving to this motion now, or are we still finishing the study on food insecurity?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Mr. Turnbull, I'm going to stop you there. Pardon my “rookie-ness” in the chair, here.

We should probably stay on Mr. Barlow's subamendment. Mr. MacGregor has given his thoughts on that, and I'm going to open up the comments for Mr. Barlow's suggestion that this particular study would start after the last clause-by-clause meeting when Bill C-234 is reported back to the House.

That's essentially, Mr. Barlow, what you've moved. Let's focus on that—I apologize for steering Mr. Turnbull a little bit wrong—and then we'll go back to Mr. Perron's.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite a few things were brought up, and I want to be sure that I followed everything.

I'm in full agreement with Mr. Barlow about the fact that we are redoing the study on Bill C-234. This study has already been done, but we are able to fix this.

As to my amendment, I would like to know if Mr. MacGregor agrees with the changes that I suggested. I also want to reiterate that I'm flexible.

Mr. Turnbull, I believe I understood that you wanted to keep the part at the beginning of the motion that says, “the Committee undertakes a study on profit-driven inflation.” I just want to be sure that I understood correctly. Personally, I have no problem with that.

Very few of you spoke about what I suggested. Do we keep that in or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

If we would also agree that we only need a couple more meetings on Bill C-234 at the most....

Go ahead, Mr. Perron.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I'm willing to make a little bit more of a concession here to Mr. MacGregor to get this going faster, if we can. I know the chair is very passionate about the food security study, which I think we all are. I honestly don't believe that we need a bunch more meetings on Bill C-234. We did it last Parliament. We're going through the same witnesses and the same testimony, again. I think we can have one or two more meetings, maximum, on Bill C-234. We've gone down this road before. We can get yours to the table.

It's not that I don't trust everybody here, but these are not decisions necessarily made by this group. They are sometimes made above us. I would like an amendment in your motion that the study begins after clause-by-clause on Bill C-234., just so I feel comfortable that, when we vote to support your motion, I know we're covered as well.

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

What Mr. Barlow wanted was to not have Bill C-234 interrupted. I don't know if he had any more specificity beyond that. I'm going to agree with him on that point. I won't interrupt its current proceedings before our committee.

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

Just so I understand clearly, Mr. MacGregor, what you're proposing is that we toss aside the subcommittee we just adopted last week and we prioritize Bill C-234. Then we move on to the study that you're suggesting, should it be adopted today, after Bill C-234.

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

I'll address the comments in the order I heard them.

I understand the concerns about whether or not this particular issue belongs at the industry committee and whether the language should be tightened up a bit more. I would argue no. I think that this committee, in other studies, has dealt with things like the grocery code of conduct, which has come up repeatedly. You could argue that belongs at the industry committee. We have heard from witnesses like the Retail Council of Canada. We've heard from many organizations that represent grocers; they have appeared here.

Our committee's mandate is to follow food from the farm to the factory to the fork. If Canadians are having trouble accessing healthy, nutritious food because of the cost, that means something in our system is broken. I've read into the record an email. I'm keeping it anonymous because the person who wrote us said they fear reprisal if their name becomes public. I'm not going to read their name into the record, but I can tell you that it's a real email.

We have someone from in-house confirming what I'm alleging. We have a correlation between record net profits and high food prices for consumers. Yes, costs are going up across the line, but grocers are still able to make a high profit above and beyond those high costs.

I have the benefit of having in-laws who live in Australia. Australia's food market is dominated by two chains, and they have had news stories in previous years in which those food chains would announce the price that they would buy carrots at, for example. It was up to the farmers to try to match that price. These are total cutthroat business tactics. It goes to that point of farmers being price-takers. They don't always have the option. They have to try to compete at the price the grocer sets.

I would argue that this very much is within the mandate of our committee. I agree with Mr. Turnbull in that I don't think Canadians much care about specific mandates of committees. That aside, I think we do have a proper mandate here, but what Canadians care about is what they're seeing week in and week out. I think they need to see their parliamentarians respond to those very real concerns.

On Mr. Barlow's suggestion, I agree on Bill C-234. I think this is an important motion, but I know my Conservative colleagues have been waiting for a while on C-234, so I will agree with not upsetting the current order of things. As soon as that bill completes its journey here, I would like to see our committee embark on this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I will go to Mr. MacGregor, but just before I do, procedurally, Mr. Perron, I believe, has signalled his intention to move an amendment, and he has distributed those copies.

Mr. Barlow, at least verbally, has moved what I would see as a subamendment. Certainly, the language is something to the effect that this study wouldn't take place until after Bill C-234 is reported back to the House.

Mr. MacGregor, you've heard some of the comments of the Liberal colleagues on the bench. Technically, we would have to actually vote back up towards the motion, and if my Liberal colleagues here to my right would like to move a motion or actually move something of a language change in what Mr. MacGregor has proposed, that would ultimately be the time to do it.

However, why don't we hear from Mr. MacGregor about his thoughts on what he's heard so far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you for those reflections, Mr. Barlow.

I see Mr. Drouin's hand and then Mr. Turnbull afterwards. My apologies—Mr. Turnbull is before. Then I see Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Barlow, thank you for those reflections. I hear the subamendment on Bill C-234. Perhaps that was the only actual added language. If you have something specific that you would like to see, maybe I will give you a moment to think about that or Mr. MacGregor might wilfully try to adopt that into his own motion.

Let's go to Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Drouin.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. MacGregor, for bringing this forward. I think this is a very important issue.

Many of my concerns with the motion as it reads are quite similar to those of Mr. Perron. I am not opposed to supporting a study of this nature. I guess my concerns would be on a few things.

I believe there is a balancing act here between industry and finance. I believe this is being done at finance right now or something similar. When we get into the discussion of wages and CEO actions, I think we're talking about competition, which I don't think is necessarily under our mandate. I think there are ways we can tighten this up, and I would concur with probably most of Mr. Perron's amendments.

One other thing that we would like added, Mr. MacGregor, if we get down that far, is something about increases in input costs and the impact that's having on groceries. We can have more discussion on the impact this is having at the farm gate, on farms and on grocery prices as well—not just further down the supply chain.

I don't think I have much more to add other than that I understand where Mr. MacGregor is going. I don't think I have a problem with that. I just have an issue in terms of what the mandate of our committee is. We are the agriculture and agri-food committee. I get what Mr. MacGregor is saying, but when we start getting into some of the stuff about CEOs and costs in relation to the wages for their staff, I think that's not really in our scope.

I do agree with Mr. Perron as well when we talk about profit-driven inflation and record profits. I think we're already assuming the outcome of the study before we've even started it, so I would much prefer to take some of that language out, but I think the essence of that is still there.

In summary, I think if we were able to tighten this up and be more focused on the agriculture side, we could still get to what Mr. MacGregor is talking about. I know he has an opposition day motion tabled tomorrow. Congratulations on that, Mr. MacGregor. Thanks for more work for me. Apparently he has a bee in his bonnet, which we will talk about later.

I do think I understand where you're trying to go. I think we can get there. I just have some concerns with the scope of what the motion says in terms of what is under our mandate for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to actually action the items that would come from the study.

The last thing I will mention is what we would like to see inserted in this. I agree with Mr. MacGregor that this is important, but obviously you know where we stand with C-234. I want to see C-234 finished. We would like to add in there that we start this study as soon as the clause-by-clause on C-234 is finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you.

Thank you to our witnesses.

To Mr. Carey, to Mr. Ross, Mr. Guénette, Madam Brown, and Monsieur Legault, thank you very much for providing important testimony today on Bill C-234.

Colleagues, just before we break, I want to give you a bit of an update in terms of what we're planning to do on Wednesday. We do have three individuals who have been confirmed. We have Ghislain Gervais, president of the Sollio Group; Dennis Prouse, vice-president of government affairs with CropLife Canada; and Mark Thompson, executive vice-president of Nutrien, all of whom have confirmed.

It is no secret that Mr. MacGregor has certainly introduced the concept of a new study. Mr. Perron has given us notice of a particular motion that he might like to move, and Mr. Lehoux would like to be able to move a motion as it relates to Minister Fraser in this committee. I've asked those three gentlemen not to move their motions today so that we didn't have to disrupt this meeting, but we are going to set aside one hour on Wednesday. It will be a public forum. If the committee chooses to move in camera, that's their choice, but it will start as a public meeting to discuss those motions. It will be committee business so that we can deal with those motions without disrupting the rest of our preprogrammed schedule. It will be for the benefit of our witnesses.

Colleagues, that's just a sense of what's going to be happening. We will let you know whether the witnesses will be in the first hour or the second. Our desire is to have them in the first hour so that we could move to committee business in the second to discuss the motions that are intended to be moved at that time.

Thank you, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.

[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?

[Dave Carey]

On farm, I'd say the pricing signal is there.

To be clear, even if Bill C-234 were passed, farmers are not made whole from carbon pricing. The second carbon pricing goes up, every year the cost of custom-haul trucking, freight, their inputs and the rest of their day-to-day expenses go up. We're simply asking for an exemption for on-farm food production.

The pricing signal, we feel, is already there. Farmers are not using inputs unless they have to. It is simply too expensive. The costs that we face as suburban or urban Canadians are nothing compared to what a 6,000-acre farm in Saskatchewan faces.

The price signal is philosophically very important for this regime. Farmers are already facing that. This is about just food production, not the rest of their lives outside of primary food production on farm.

[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.?

[Scott Ross]

All I would add is that when we look at the intention behind this bill, I view Bill C-234 as a natural sort of tidying up of that parent statute and what was intended in the first place.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses.

Mr. Carey and Mr. Ross, I think I'll start with you.

We, of course, are talking a lot about Bill C-234, but I also want to look at the parent statute, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act that it is seeking to amend. I was present in the 42nd Parliament when that statute became law. It was part of a budget implementation act.

When the Liberal government drafted that bill, they took the time to include definitions of qualifying farm fuel, of eligible farming activities and of eligible farming machinery. Why do you think they took the time to include those provisions in the parent statute?

[Jasmin Guénette]

I will respond. If my colleague Ms. Brown then wants to add something, I will invite her to do so.

First, we support the idea of a sunset clause. We have suggested a sunset after 10 years, if that will help get Bill C‑234 passed and help our farmers. We must find a way to help them deal with the skyrocketing costs they are currently facing, whether for fertilizer, energy or inputs of all kinds.

As far as environmental habits go, I have to say that farmers are some of the biggest environmentalists you can find. These are people who make their living working the land. My own grandfather was a farmer. I can tell you that farmers are still people who take care of their land. It is by empowering our farmers to invest in new technologies, whether it is to improve their facilities or to make any other environmentally beneficial changes, that we will really help them to further reduce their environmental footprint. As I said in my testimony...

[Jasmin Guénette]

From our perspective, it's better to offer not paying the taxes than to offer rebates. You are right that in a previous survey we asked our members how much the carbon tax was costing them, and we came up with the figure of $45,000. The carbon tax is extremely expensive for our farm members. Bill C-234 would be helping our members deal with huge cost increases on their farms, cost increases related to energy and fuel use and other increases.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Guénette, the other argument that we've had from some witnesses is that Bill C-234 is redundant because of the Liberal Bill C-8, the carbon tax rebate on farms. However, we had Finance Canada here in a previous meeting, and they're saying the average farmer gets about $800 back through the rebate. Many witnesses have said that's pennies on the dollar in terms of what they're actually paying.

CFIB did a study last year that showed the average farmer was paying about $45,000 in carbon tax. Are those numbers correct, and does that show the discrepancy in what farmers would be getting back through the carbon tax rebate compared to what they're actually paying in the carbon tax?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Okay. Perfect.

Just to put that in context, I think the NFU has about 3,000 members, and many of those aren't farmers. I just want to put that in the context of the groups in this panel who are saying that their members are very supportive of Bill C-234. I just want to ensure that we have this in context.

Mr. Carey and Mr. Ross, we've been hearing a lot today that if there wasn't this carbon tax on grain-drying and the heating and cooling of barns, there would never be any innovation, technological advancements or emissions reductions. Is that a fair statement?

[Jasmin Guénette, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Jasmin Guénette, and I'm the vice‑president of National Affairs of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB. I'd like to thank the committee for this invitation.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business represents 95,000 members in all sectors of the economy and in all provinces. We have 6,000 members working in agriculture.

Of course, our farmers are an invaluable asset to our country. They work tirelessly to ensure we have the best food on our plates to feed our families.

We support Bill C‑234.

Farmers are currently facing skyrocketing operating costs. I am thinking, for example, of the high cost of inputs and fertilizers. In addition to these, the main cost constraints for SME owners are fuel and energy, insurance, and taxes and regulations.

Through Bill C-234, elected officials have an opportunity to help our farmers deal with rising costs and invest in the future of their farms.

For the past several months, the level of optimism among farmers has been very low. Our survey, the business barometer, shows that the agricultural sector is the least optimistic about the future. Rising costs, such as fertilizer and taxes, supply chain issues, bureaucratic and regulatory red tape, labour shortages and Internet access issues in rural and remote communities all make being a farmer very difficult.

Our farmers want to protect the environment. The land is their livelihood. Ninety per cent of our farmer members farm primarily for personal reasons, and almost two‑thirds farm for economic reasons as well.

In a recent survey we conducted of our farmer members, 82% of respondents said that the federal carbon tax had a negative impact on their business. The carbon tax reduces their financial ability to make technological investments to reduce emissions and improve the environmental performance for their farm. Our members tell us that applying the tax to propane and natural gas punishes farmers for using products where there are no widely available and affordable alternatives.

CFIB members support Bill C-234. We recommend that the committee support it as well. In doing so, you have the opportunity to send a clear message to the agricultural sector that you recognize its challenges in terms of costs and the key role it plays in Canada.

While the current federal carbon tax includes exemptions that apply to fuels used for agricultural purposes, farmers are facing major cost increases and rising prices for propane and natural gas. This bill provides exemptions for propane and natural gas used for on‑farm grain drying and barn heating, for instance. The exemptions in the bill are crucial. Bill C-234 will help support the health and growth of Canada's agricultural sector.

Thank you. It will be a pleasure for me and my colleague Ms. Taylor Brown, who is with me today, will be pleased to answer your questions.

[Scott Ross, Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance]

Thank you.

Exemptions are, simply put, the best option. Unfortunately, the carbon price rebates for farmers contained in Bill C-8 do not adequately respond to the breadth and variety of carbon surcharges applied to farms. Bill C-234 would provide a complete exemption for essential activities that lack viable alternatives and leave the money in farmers' pockets to make timely investments in their operations.

To support farmers in these efforts, Bill C-234 seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to extend the exemption for qualifying farm fuel to marketable natural gas and propane. We view this as tidying up exemptions that should have been in place from the get-go when diesel and gasoline used on farm were exempted.

Farmers and ranchers are climate solution providers, sequestering millions of tonnes of carbon, protecting biodiversity and grasslands and utilizing the latest technologies to reduce fuel and water use. Agricultural production has increased significantly while total emissions from the sector have been relatively stable for 20 years, resulting in a decrease of GHG emission intensity of 50% from 1997 to 2017.

Farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land, adopting the best environmental practices whenever possible. To be able to continue to invest in innovations, they need to remain competitive and have available working capital to do so. By adopting policies that enable them to remain competitive, producers will be able to further their investments and the sustainability of their operations, which will augment the sector's potential to further lower emissions and sequester carbon while feeding Canadians and driving our food exports.

Canada's farmers and ranchers are strong supporters of Bill C-234 and look forward to it being moved to committee stage for further discussion, debate and analysis.

Thank you.

[Dave Carey, Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance]

Thank you for the invitation to appear today on Bill C-234.

My name is Dave Carey. I have the pleasure of serving as co-chair of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, or ACA. I'm joined today by my fellow co-chair, Scott Ross. I will be sharing my time with him.

ACA is a first-of-its-kind coalition of 15 national farm organizations dedicated to working collaboratively on agri-environmental policy. Our membership encompasses major agriculture commodities, including seed, grains, oilseeds, pulses, cattle, sheep, pork, fruit and vegetables, dairy, forage and grasslands, and poultry. Collectively we represent more than 190,000 farm businesses.

A resilient driver of our economy, Canada's primary agriculture industry contributes more than $32 billion to our GDP, while the entire agri-food industry represents another $135 billion and provides one in nine Canadian jobs.

The ACA was established to ensure that Canadian farmers' sustainable practices are recognized through a policy environment that maintains their competitiveness, supports their livelihoods and leverages their critical role as stewards of the land. Bill C-234 is a key policy priority for our members. They have been proponents of this bill since day one.

To remain competitive and environmentally sustainable, farmers increasingly need capital to invest in innovations that drive efficiencies, reduce fuel use and implement best management practices in their operations.

Currently farmers pay a carbon price for utilizing natural gas and propane for on-farm practices that are essential to food production. These practices include grain drying, heating and cooling of livestock barns and greenhouses, feed preparation and steam flaking, and irrigation. With no viable alternatives, pricing these activities does not provide the adequate signal to lower emissions from these energy sources.

Bill C-234 allows farmers the capital to make the investments on farm that will drive energy efficiencies and support practices that will help the environment, including energy-efficient grain dryers, precision agriculture technologies, anaerobic digesters and solar panels. Investments in these technologies can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where no alternative exists, carbon surcharges pull capital away from these critical investments that would augment the sector's potential to further reduce emissions.

It's over to you, Scott.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Wright, I know the NFU has written extensively about the high-input, high-output farming model, and also about the state of farm debt, which has gone up considerably over the last 20 years on Canadian farms. Ultimately, Bill C-234 is trying to tackle one small part of the price of inputs that farmers have.

I've always been amazed at the ingenuity and innovation that exists in Canadian farming activity. Do you have any examples you can share with the committee of how farmers are really leading the way in trying to reduce their input costs, because that's such a huge part of farming and it really affects their balance sheet?

Could you provide some examples, and examples of where you think the federal government should be doing more to build upon that kind of model that farmers are already leading with?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

Thank you for the question.

I want to confirm that this is indeed a fossil fuel subsidy; I want to make that clear. Removing the carbon tax as proposed in Bill C-234 will slow the arrival and implementation of sustainable alternatives because they won't be cost competitive. Consumers and farmers can have the best of intentions, but if it's just not a profitable business for them, they're not going to go with the sustainable alternatives.

Therefore, the price on carbon and the price index must be maintained to encourage consumers to make decisions that move in the right direction.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today.

I want to begin with the statement from Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier that what's contemplated under Bill C-234 would become a de facto subsidy for the oil and gas sector. I must admit that I fail to see how the addition of a tax, and then the potential removal of that tax, becomes a subsidy. That's logic beyond my head. I just want that on the record. From what we're hearing from farmers, grain farmers in particular, they're getting cents back on the dollar that they're spending on this carbon tax on grain drying and barn heating. I wanted to start by putting that on the record.

I'd like to direct my first question to you, Mr. Wright, please.

With the greenhouse pollution pricing act of 2018, the government did grant the on-farm fuel exemption. With respect to barn heating and grain-drying fuels, do you think that was an intentional policy decision or an oversight?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing today.

I'll start with Mr. Boisseau-Bouvier.

We are spending a lot of time talking about the bill before us, which is Bill C-234, but I want to talk about the parent act.

The statute that this bill is amending is the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. When that bill was originally drafted and duly passed by the Parliament of Canada in 2018, I believe, it already included definitions of a qualifying farm fuel, an eligible farming activity and eligible farming machinery.

You've been talking about how it's wrong and that Bill C-234 is heading in the wrong direction because it's sending the wrong message. Do you have an opinion on the original exemptions for farming activities that were included in the parent statute?

What is your opinion on the fact that farmers can buy diesel for their tractors and not have to pay a surcharge on it because there is no viable alternative? Do you have an opinion on the provisions that are already in the parent statute?

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

If there was a mistake when the first bill on carbon pricing was drafted, it shouldn't be corrected by making another mistake by adding these exemptions that continue to favour fossil fuels. As I've said repeatedly, Canada is committed to ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. Right now, it is October 3, 2022. The year 2023 is coming up very quickly. For the sake of consistency, I find it difficult to see how the Canadian government could implement Bill C-234 while maintaining the promises it has been making since 2009.

[Émile Boisseau-Bouvier]

Yes, that’s exactly it. Our farmers have environmental values. We need to make it easier for them to make that their first choice so that they don't even have to ask. So we need to favour renewable energy, not fossil fuels, as Bill C-234 is proposing right now.

[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.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

I understand that there is work to be done upstream, Mr. Caron, but the difficulty that we have right now is on the harvest side. Particularly in Quebec, there is an important link to make with the issue of grain drying. Bill C-234 adds certain fuels used for grain drying to the list of products exempt from the fuel charge. This is very much the focus of the bill.

I am trying to detect in your comments what may be a solution in the short term. I agree with you that land rotation could provide medium and longer-term improvements, but what are the short term solutions?

If this requested exemption is not provided soon, the fuel charge will quickly become a burden on farmers. I'm thinking of grain drying, among other things, but there's also building heating, which is far from negligible in Quebec.

[Glenn Wright, Farmer and Professional Engineer, National Farmers Union]

Thank you for inviting the National Farmers Union to provide submissions to committee here today.

My name is Glenn Wright, and I have been an active member of the National Farmers Union, or NFU, since 2017. I supported my farm with off-farm income by working first as a professional engineer for 15 years, and now as a lawyer. My wife and I operate our grain farm near Vanscoy, Saskatchewan.

NFU policy positions are developed through a democratic process of discussion and debate by members at regional and national conventions.

The harvest of 2019 on the Prairies was referred to as the “harvest from hell” because nearly all the grain taken from the fields was either tough or damp. There was significant grain spoilage for many producers, including my farm, and grain drying required far more energy than expected that fall.

As a result, at the 50th annual convention of the NFU in November 2019, NFU members passed a policy resolution that requested that the federal government provide a rebate of the carbon levy on farm fuel used for grain drying. NFU members could not understand why grain dryer fuel was not treated the same as tractor fuel in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which hereafter I will refer to as simply the pollution pricing act.

Since the passing of that NFU resolution, recent changes made by Bill C-8 introduced a tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses where the pollution pricing act federal backstop applies: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. The NFU believes that the amendments introduced by Bill C-8 were a step in the right direction, and the NFU urges the committee to be cautious with respect to further changes proposed with Bill C-234.

The NFU worries that Bill C-234 proposes to create a complete exemption for farm heating fuels, which would entirely remove the pollution pricing signal currently provided by the pollution pricing act. Pollution pricing signals are important because they encourage producers to find and implement lower-emissions practices to heat our barns and dry our grain. The current system, as modified by Bill C-8, is now striking a better balance as it retains the pollution pricing signal without threatening food production.

The problem with Bill C-234 is that a complete exemption does nothing to encourage clean technology and low-emission alternatives. The exemption proposed by Bill C-234 may have been more sensible when the pollution pricing act was first drafted, but it becomes less appropriate as clean alternatives are available.

The growing body of climate science information regarding dangerous climate change requires an urgent policy response. In the context of Canadian agriculture and Bill C-234, the following points must be considered.

Number one is that greenhouse gas pollution must be reduced as fast as possible. There are no easy, cost-free ways to accomplish this task. In our capitalist market-based economy, pollution price signals are important for all players, including farmers.

Number two is that adequate supplies of food must be maintained. The pollution pricing act reflected this and exempted most farm-used fuel from pollution pricing.

As for number three, the NFU was disappointed that farm-used grain-drying fuel was not included as farm-used fuel in the pollution pricing act. Bill C-8 has improved the situation regarding fuel used for grain drying while still providing some pricing signal to reflect the cost of ongoing pollution.

The NFU recommends that the government continue to assist farmers to transition to better practices by providing incentives for farmers to purchase more efficient grain dryers and improve livestock facilities, and that it continue using the pollution pricing act to provide price signals for farmers regarding the costs of pollution where possible.

Specifically with respect to Bill C-234, the NFU recommends that this committee amend Bill C-234 to include a sunset clause for the exemption that would treat grain-drying and barn-heating fuel as farm-used fuel. The sunset period would provide time for clean grain drying technologies to mature and provide time for farmers to retrofit farm building insulation and heating systems to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from their farms.

Subject to any questions, those are our submissions from the NFU today.

Thank you.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Welcome to meeting number 29 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I will start with a few reminders. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Just so you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee. Of course, screenshots or taking photos of the screen is not permitted. Finally, I ask that members who are participating in the meeting in person follow the Board of Internal Economy's health recommendations.

Today, the committee is continuing its consideration of Bill C‑234.

We have three different witnesses here for our first panel.

Joining us by video conference as an individual is Mr. Jean Caron, professor, Laval University. Welcome, Mr. Caron.

From Équiterre, Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, climate policy analyst, is also joining us by video conference.

From the National Farmers Union, we have Glenn Wright, farmer and professional engineer, joining us by video conference.

Each of our witnesses is going to have five minutes. Obviously, we have the ability for English and French. You will see the toggle at the bottom of your screen.

I'm going to allow Mr. Caron to start. You will have up to five minutes, and then we'll go to questions.

Mr. Caron, it's over to you for up to five minutes.

Copyright Act

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today to speak to this legislation, Bill C-244. This is a good day. It is not a super common day in the House that all parties come together and, for the most part, agree on the generality or principles of a bill, but I think this happens to be one of those days. That is where Canadians are, and we are here to serve Canadians and to be their voice in getting things done.

The bill seeks to amend the Copyright Act. Whenever we do something like that, we have to be careful to protect the rights of producers, artists and inventors of things that have copyrights, so we do this carefully. However, at the same time, we do this keeping in mind the consumer and the taxpayer. I would like to commend my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond Centre, for his fine work on the legislation and for bringing it forward. I am glad we have the opportunity this morning to discuss it.

I hope we are able to, once this has gone through committee and comes back to the House for its final reading, work in the spirit of camaraderie and do other things like Canadians are asking us to do, such as provide tax relief and, more important, affordability. This is something we cannot lose sight of here, the whole aspect of affordability.

Bill C-244 seeks to amend exactly that, and to amend sections of the Copyright Act, chiefly where existing legislation deals with the subjects of diagnosis, maintenance and repair.

I would like to focus my comments this morning on how the legislation would impact the agriculture industry. Serving on the agriculture committee and being in an area that is very heavily centred on agriculture, this is very applicable, I would like to look at the legislation through the lens of affordability, as well as address a few of the concerns brought forward by manufacturers.

If we were to put this bill in a nutshell, into everyday language, we could say that if we buy something, we own it. As an owner of a product, whether it is an electronic device, or a household device like a dishwasher or a stove, or an automobile, or a piece of farm machinery or an implement, or a piece of construction machinery or a highway tractor, we, as the owner, have the right to repair it. Assuming we have the knowledge and the ability to do that, there is always a cost benefit of whether we can repair something more cost-effectively than the dealer that represents the original equipment manufacturer.

If we do not personally have that knowledge, we should be able to travel a reasonable distance to have it repaired by someone who does have that knowledge and expertise, and for a reasonable price. There was a time when farmers were also mechanics. If that tractor or combine was not working for them, they had to find some way to jig it up to repair it. Our seasons for planting are short and they can sometimes be very time-sensitive, and our seasons for harvesting can be short and time-sensitive as well. Farmers need to take the crop off when it is mature, when it is ripe, and when conditions allow them to do that.

I live on a bit of an acreage, so I have a John Deere tractor. I am, for the most part, very happy with my tractor, but my tractor needed a bit of work. I took it to my John Deere dealer this past week and I got him to give it a fall tune up and put it back into proper working order. I picked it up and when I looked at the repair bill, I thought I could have done all the work myself for a lot less money. There is that cost benefit, but I do not have the time to do it.

With our parliamentary responsibilities, even the times we are in our ridings, we are very busy in the constituency doing constituency work. However, farmers, owners of a product like a John Deere tractor, should be able to fix that equipment themselves, if they have the ability, the time and the knowledge. The legislation seeks to address that. Not all repairs should be proprietary to the original equipment manufacturer, but it should be incumbent upon the owner to repair that piece of equipment in the most economical way possible.

Farmers were, by necessity, jacks of all trades and as a result of this necessity, they possessed the wherewithal and the knowledge to fix and maintain their own equipment.

With the major technological advancements and computerization that we have seen in vehicles, farm equipment and appliances over the past two decades, the ability to repair is becoming more and more difficult for farmers. Progress is sometimes a double-edged sword.

When that tractor or combine breaks down in the field today, one needs the proper diagnosis equipment to plug it into the ECM to get a reading to show what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. Often it is beyond the capability or scope of what farmers are able to do, but they should have the ability to call their local repairmen, who do have the tools to plug into the port to get the proper diagnostics, which would allow them to then repair the equipment and do it in a way that would allow those farmers to expeditiously get their crop off the field. Instead of waiting for a technician, who may be four or five hours away and may be tied up with another customer fixing another urgent need, they should be able to have a variety of resources available at their disposal to fix the equipment.

New technology is great, but it also drives up prices. It makes repairs more difficult, all the more so when farmers have only one option. This legislation seeks to create options and diversity of responses and resources for farmers to access repair for their equipment.

We do not think, through the legislation, and I think all parliamentarians agree, that for the diagnostic, repair and maintenance of a machine, it should be a one-source option for repairs, which is often the case in a lot of situations, especially in the farming community. It is not a practical solution. Farmers are often very far from a repair facility, but in their own community there may be a local mechanic who has the ability and wherewithal to fix their equipment, and they should have the option to do that.

As an MP for a rural riding, I must mention the fact that farming is not cheap. In fact, it is very capital-intensive and requires a huge investment. Speaking with farmers this past summer, the cost of a new combine is upwards of $1 million, and it is loaded with technology. It is good, efficient and productive, but it does cost a lot of money, so farmers need to be very cost-sensitive and able to control their costs.

We know what has happened with the price of seed and now with fertilizer. All of those prices have seemingly skyrocketed in the last two years. There are also taxes, including the carbon tax. I am hoping members on the government side of the House will be able to support Bill C-234 from the member for Huron—Bruce, which would provide a full exemption of the carbon tax for all aspects of farming, including the heating and cooling of livestock facilities, the powering of irrigation pumps and the powering of grain dryers to dry the gain. Those things are missing, and the carbon tax has been a punishing tax for agriculture producers.

On April 2 next year, the Liberal government seeks to triple the carbon tax, which will hit farmers where hurts, and farmers cannot absorb that cost. If they are to absorb the cost, there is only one possible outcome, which is that the cost of food will increase. We need to be very cognizant of the fact that farmers have to pass along the cost of production to the end user, and the end user is all of us. We are the consumer and the people who eat the food. Let us keep this in mind, that the carbon tax, according to the Liberal plan, will be tripling this coming April.

Bill C-234 would exempt agriculture fuels from all carbon tax, and I hope that, as the bill finds its way through committee, it will get broad support, as the bill before us, Bill C-244, is getting in the House today.

I have one more story I want to relate.

I heard from a farmer who crossed the border just recently to pick up parts in the United States. It used to be that CBSA officers would simply log the part and he would be on his way. Now he says that they insist that he have all the product numbers entered online ahead of time. When he said that he did not know where to find that information or how to do that, he was told to get a farm broker to do it. Now he is expected to spend $300 on a trip to see a farm broker for a $10 part. He said that it was just crazy. However, Bill C-244 would allow that farmer to fix his own equipment at home at a reasonable cost.

As Conservatives, Bill C-244 is a bill we want to get behind. We want to support the Liberal member who brought the legislation forward, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacGregor.

On behalf of all committee members here in the room, let me echo the thank you to our witnesses.

To Chris Davison, Ron Lemaire and Scott Ross, thank you so much for your leadership in agriculture and your testimony here today.

Colleagues, that marks the end of the first meeting on this particular study. On Monday we will be carrying on with the study of Bill C-234. That is what is on the schedule. The clerk has worked to make sure that we have witnesses there, so we will continue on.

Thank you. Enjoy your weekend.

The meeting is adjourned.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, and if she keeps talking like this, she may as well cross the floor and join the Conservative Party.

In all seriousness, I do want to thank her for supporting Bill C-234. I agree with her. I do believe that is how this came about. However, it was not flukey weather, it was winter, and our farmers face winter every single year. When temperatures are low during calving season, we are heating barns to bring calves in. I know our farmers across the country are having to dry grain most years, and that is an increased cost they are going to be facing, which again puts their financial health at risk.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my hon. friend from Foothills correctly stating Green policy, because we do support Bill C-234. We think that what happened here was that the government's intention was to not put a carbon tax on farm fuels, and then we had that extremely flukey weather situation. We had farmers with wet grains, and they had to spend a lot more money than usual to dry the grain. To catch the additional costs of that fuel should have been covered in exemptions, so we completely support the member.

One quick point as well is that Green policy is to ban the importation of all foreign oil. That has been our policy for many years, and the hon. leader of the official opposition mis-stated it earlier today.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I speak to farmers every single day. I am not sure if my colleague can say the same, but here is where the Liberals are so out of touch. We have the Liberal Minister of Agriculture saying farmers are in support of a carbon tax. We have the previous Liberal minister of agriculture saying farmers are in support of a carbon tax.

However, I can tell members that I have not talked to a single farmer, ranch family, agri-food producer or processor in Canada who supports the Liberals' carbon tax plan. This puts them out of business. This puts Canadian food security at risk, and this is why we are bringing our opposition day motion. The least the Liberals could do would be to support our PMB, Bill C-234, to exempt all farm fuels from the carbon tax.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to speak in support of our opposition day motion for the Liberals not to increase the carbon tax.

I want to read a couple of quotes from agriculture producers I met with this summer, including a farmer in Ontario who told me the only threat to the success of his family farm is Liberal government policy. A Saskatchewan farmer said, “When it comes to farming, I feel like I'm digging my own grave to follow my dream.”

In fact, a recent survey showed that the biggest stressor for Canadian farm families is not commodity prices and it is not weather. It is government policy and regulation. I would say, for the first time, Canadian farmers see their government as an adversary, not an ally. This is having a huge impact on the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers.

According to a survey on farmer mental health by the University of Guelph, 75% of farmers have mid to high stress levels and farmers are four times more likely to commit suicide than any other part of the general population. This is the kind of stress and anxiety that our Canadian farm families are facing, and their number one stressor is the policies and regulations imposed on them by the Liberal government.

I will take a moment to look at a couple of them before I get in depth on the carbon tax. Last November, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced there would be a fertilizer emissions reduction of 30%, with no consultation and no idea exactly what that would mean. However, now it is putting further pressure on Canadian farm families regarding what they are going to do to make themselves economically viable as the government takes away some of the most important tools they have.

Why is the government not looking at our hard-working Canadian farm families, our innovators, our agri-food businesses and our researchers as a critical part of the climate change solution? It is almost looking at them with disdain, instead of looking at them as part of the solution. For example, in 1981, the average farmer was getting about 27 bushels to the acre. Now they are getting more than 50, but the kicker is that they are doing that on less than half of the acreage, significantly reducing their carbon footprint. Do they get any credit for that whatsoever? No, they do not. On average, we are 50% more efficient in fertilizer use than any other country on the face of the earth. Do Canadian farmers get any credit for that? No, they do not.

Instead, when it came to this fertilizer emissions reduction policy, here is the narrative the Liberal government should have had. When the European Union started making massive cuts to fertilizer use in livestock production, that was its decision, but the Liberal government should have said, if there is an issue in the European Union, why not look at what we are doing here in Canada? Why not look at our innovators, our farmers, our experience, our technology, practices like precision farming, variable rates, 4R nutrient stewardship and show Canadians just how impressive Canadian agriculture is? Instead, its fallback every single time is to look at Canadian farmers, much like it does our energy workers, as the enemy rather than part of the solution.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even if the carbon tax is increased to $170 a tonne, does anyone know what the impact on emissions from agriculture is? It is zero. The reason is that there are no other options. Farmers right now, many of them use combines and they cannot fuel them with anything other than diesel. As one of my Liberal colleagues told me a few months ago, they cannot put a solar panel on top of those machines. They run 24-7. They do not have any other options. This is what they do to ensure that they can not only feed Canadians but feed the world.

Now I would like to focus on the carbon tax specifically. We heard it again today in question period. In answer to a question from one of my colleagues, the parliamentary secretary said that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax on all farm fuels. That is patently not true. Some fuels are exempt, but fuels like natural gas and propane are still subject to the carbon tax. The Liberals are either misleading Canadian farmers or they really do not understand their own policy. The parliamentary secretary said in committee that, even talking to farmers in his riding, and he talked about it again in question period today, we have Bill C-8. We have a farm carbon tax rebate.

The message from the Liberals is always that the carbon tax is revenue neutral. We now know from Ontario grain farmers, from the Department of Finance and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture that this is also not true. Farmers are getting less than 30% and in some cases less than 15% of what they are paying in carbon tax, through that rebate from the Liberal government.

In fact, the Department of Finance said that the average farmer was getting $800 a year through the carbon tax rebate. I have seen the carbon tax bills from some of my farmers, especially large poultry operations, large dairy operations and certainly our grain growers here in Ontario, who are drying grain or heating barns. Their carbon tax bills are in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a month.

When we hear the finance department say that it is revenue neutral because the farmers are getting $800 a month, that is a slap in the face to Canadian producers who are certainly carrying the burden of the carbon tax. It has basically become wealth distribution on the back of Canadian agriculture. When a Canadian farmer is getting between 13% and, on a good day, up to maybe 30% for their carbon tax rebate, members can see why, as the opposition in the Conservative Party, we are so adamant that we cannot see this carbon tax continue to rise and triple to $170 per tonne.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business also ratified and confirmed the numbers from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, saying that, in the first year, the average farmer paid about $14,000 in carbon tax. After it went up this previous April 1, the average farmer is now paying $45,000 in carbon taxes. My math is not always the greatest, but between $45,000 and $800 there is a big gap, which certainly shows that the carbon tax is not revenue neutral.

The frustrating thing is that the finance department know it and the Minister of Agriculture knows it, and the Liberals continue to allow this to happen. The Minister of Agriculture is complicit in seeing Canadian farmers being taxed to death. They are going to be losing their businesses.

We have put forward two private members' bills: one in the previous Parliament and one in this Parliament. The one in this Parliament is Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from all farm fuels. I am very happy to say that we have the support of all the opposition parties, which include the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Greens. The holdout is the Liberal Party, the government, which still does not see that this was an error. The carbon tax should be exempt on all farm fuels and not just a couple. This is imperative to the financial success of Canadian farmers.

Farmers are the ones who are paying the carbon tax over and over again. When buying fuel, buying feed, buying fertilizer, transporting grain and transporting cattle, they are paying the carbon tax every single time. Here is the kicker: Many Canadian consumers see this as an agriculture problem and a rural issue, but farmers have nowhere to pass those costs on to. The result of that is seeing food prices go up more than 10%, which is the highest rate of inflation on food in more than 40 years. This impacts every single Canadian in every single corner of the country, as many Canadians are unable to put food on the table.

By tripling the carbon tax, which we are asking the Liberals not to do in a time of record inflation, they are demanding Canadians to pay more to fuel their out-of-control spending. They are demanding seniors to pay more. They are demanding that youth pay more. They are demanding single mothers to pay more. They are demanding our small business owners to pay more. They are certainly demanding our Canadian farmers to pay more. It is nonsensical, especially in a time of global food insecurity, when we need our Canadian agriculture to be firing on all cylinders to meet the demand that we are going to see, not only here at home but also around the world.

Therefore, I am asking my colleagues from all parts of the House to support our opposition day motion to ensure the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers first and foremost because they are part of the solution. They are not the problem.

Global Food Insecurity

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise to participate in this take-note debate on global food security, which was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the member for Foothills. As a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I have had the opportunity to hear from many stakeholders from around the world about the topic we are discussing this evening.

What stood out to me the most was that all of the witnesses projected the same unfortunate reality that the world is at risk of famine in the coming months. Some people may be wondering what Canada can do about this. Let us be clear. Canada should be a global leader in producing and exporting food and easing any global food shortages. However, our country is struggling to get many of its products out to the global market.

Whether because of failed trade agreements, lack of processing capacity or even the labour shortage, our country is behind where it should be. It should be one of the world's food production powerhouses. Today's debate seeks to shed light on the problem, which begins of course with the war in Ukraine, but also with many other global tragedies.

Let us be honest: The government is contributing to the failures we are seeing today. Many of the problems we are seeing have been amplified by the current government. I would like to begin by discussing one of the problems that, in my opinion, strongly affects farmers, in other words the tariffs that Canada has imposed on Russian fertilizer. This financial burden is being borne by farmers and, once again, no relief has been provided to them. Worse, Canada is the only G7 country to impose such a tariff on Russian fertilizer, and it is our Canadian farmers who are paying the price and being punished.

We have proposed solutions. We asked the Liberal government to grant an exemption from the surcharge for fertilizer purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would compensate the farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for these tariffs. Again, the Liberals said no.

At a time when the world is facing an imminent threat of food insecurity, we are asking Canadian farmers to produce more. However, they are dealing with other policies that could limit their production, such as reducing fertilizer use and gas taxes.

The cost of inputs, such as crop protection products and fertilizers, recently increased dramatically, further reducing our farmers' already razor-thin margins. Ultimately, farmers are price takers and cannot recoup additional costs, unlike many other businesses. These crop inputs are some of the highest expenses for grain growers. They are used as efficiently as possible, but their use should not be limited by a government policy.

Canada can be part of the solution, but crops do not grow overnight. We therefore need to ensure that our farmers have the means to increase yields and production to help meet global food shortages.

The Conservatives have also proposed other solutions, such as Bill C-234. The problem could be fixed by exempting fuel for farms, lifting tariffs on fertilizer, cutting red tape, and ensuring reliable and accessible shipping and access to labour.

Many things are beyond our control, whether it is the weather or the geopolitical ramifications, but there is much the government can do and must do immediately to ensure that our farmers are equipped to help feed the world.

In conclusion, through the Chair, I would like to address the NDP-Liberal government and say that Canada must do better. We need a plan, a concrete plan, that will provide solutions for the short, medium and long terms to help not only feed the world, but to feed us Canadians.

Tough times lie ahead, and we need a leader who will bring Canadians together, finally cut through the red tape and make the decisions necessary for our country to prosper.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Chair, I want to say at the beginning of my intervention that I am encouraged by the words of the minister that the Liberal government now understands the importance of things like fertilizer and gene editing and seed technology and the role they will play in the future for food security, because I would think we are in the midst of a food security crisis. This is not something that will happen; this is something that is happening right now. I would hope the minister understands the critical geopolitical role that Canadian agriculture can play, not only here at home but around the world.

To put this in perspective, Ukraine is the breadbasket of much of Europe, Asia and Africa. The uncertainty that is going around with this conflict is certainly have a significant impact on the price of these commodities, and not only in Europe. We were very naive if we thought we were not going to be impacted here at home as well.

We had the honour of having the Ukrainian minister of the economy at committee the other day, and I want to mention a quote from him. He said that Ukraine is seeing a catastrophe on top of a catastrophe, with a global impact seen since World War II, and that farmers have dropped their breadbaskets to stand in breadlines. That is very apropos and puts some perspective on how serious this situation is.

We also had the Ukrainian agriculture minister at committee. She said that Russian soldiers have occupied 23% of Ukraine. They are stealing grain, destroying critical infrastructure and blockading Ukraine's ports. This will seriously impact Ukraine's ability to export whatever harvest of commodities it may be able to achieve this spring and again next year. As the minister said, this will lead to social unrest, famine and, very likely, conflicts around the world, especially around the Horn of Africa. How we respond here in Canada to this tragedy and this food insecurity crisis is critical.

I am going to go in a different vein than the minister did, because I think Canadian agriculture has a key role to play in addressing this food insecurity crisis. I was speaking to Canadian farmers across the country over the last few weeks and months as this started to unfold, and every single one of those farmers has said it is our moral obligation to step up and do everything we possibly can to address this food shortage crisis. They want to be there to help their allies and their friends in Ukraine. Certainly for us in western Canada especially, our agriculture sector was developed and the ground was broken by Ukrainian immigrants who came to Canada more than 100 years ago. We are in their debt.

However, for Canadian farmers to be able to do that, to reach that potential and to reach out and help to address this food shortage, they have to have the tools they need to be successful. Farmers certainly understand that there are many variables outside of their control, but there are some things they rely on from the federal government perspective to have certainty. These things include competitive regulatory and tax regimes, an efficient and reliable supply chain, bankable and efficient business risk management programs and access to global markets. I would argue that unfortunately the government is failing agriculture on all of these pillars right now, which is certainly handcuffing our ability to reach our full potential, to increase our yields to not only meet our commitments, not only here at home but around the world, and increase our ability to step up in times of crisis, as we are seeing right now.

One example of that is the federal carbon tax that the government has imposed on Canadian farmers. We heard at committee today from the Grain Farmers of Ontario about Bill C-8, which is what the Liberals have said is the carbon rebate program to farmers. The message that we are getting from the Liberals all the time is that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral, that whatever a Canadian is paying into that carbon tax, they are getting back. However, we heard in testimony today from the Ontario grain farmers that they are getting back between 13% and 15% of what they pay in the carbon tax. That is a long way from being revenue-neutral. In fact, I would say that it is misleading Canadians when the government says this program is revenue-neutral. It is far from that. The impact is that it is hurting Canadian farmers in their ability to innovate, invest and grow their business and certainly to grow their yields.

The CFIB pretty much ratified those numbers from the Ontario grain farmers, saying that what the farmer is going to be paying in a carbon tax is going to go from $14,000 on average to $45,000 on average as a result of the increase on April. According to Finance Canada today, the average farmer gets back $800 a year. The farmers are putting in $45,000 and getting $800 back. Again, that is nowhere near revenue-neutral.

This program is devastating and unnecessary to Canadian farmers, especially when we have put forward a much better solution in Bill C-234, which would exempt farm fuels from the carbon tax, especially natural gas and propane for heating barns and drying grain. This would allow farmers to reinvest that money in the things they need to improve their operations.

The Food and Agriculture Organization has said that the linkage between energy prices, such as the carbon tax, and fertilizers has put the agriculture sector at significant risk. Renowned agriculture trade expert Robert Saik has said we must be making decisions based on science, not ideology, to ensure the sustainability and health of the agriculture sector.

The World Food Programme has said that 800 million people are facing food insecurity around the world. As a result of the conflict with Russia and its illegal invasion of Ukraine, they are expecting another 13 million people to be at risk of food insecurity. That shows us how serious this situation is and how important it is for Canadian farmers to be competitive and able to reach their potential.

To put that in perspective, the United States has not put a carbon tax on its agriculture sector. The United States is our biggest trading partner but also our biggest competitor on the global stage. In fact, the United States is also not punishing its farmers with a tariff on fertilizer. Canada is the only G7 country in the world that is charging a tariff on fertilizer.

We have asked the Liberal government to exempt the tariff on fertilizer purchased from Russia before March 2 to ensure that Canadian farmers are not carrying that burden, and I want to be really clear here: Vladimir Putin is not paying that tariff. The Russian military is not paying that tariff. Only Canadian farmers are paying that tariff. Now we have seen the numbers, and that tariff is going to cost Canadian farmers, especially in eastern Canada, about $150 million a year.

That is $150 million taken directly out of the pockets of Canadian farmers and going to the Liberal government's coffers. Not only is that a financial hit, but as a result of that we are going to see farmers using less fertilizer. The consequence is that we will have smaller yields. We already had a 40% decrease in yields last year because of weather issues. Depending on the weather, if we see that yield decrease further or not return back to our normal, it is going to have a significant impact. We are going to see food prices increase, not only around the world but here at home as well, and it will impact our ability to try to address food insecurity issues around the world. This only punishes Canadian farmers. It does not punish Vladimir Putin.

We also heard from the Ukrainian minister of agriculture that Ukraine needs seeds, machinery, fuel and temporary storage facilities for its grain and commodities. What it needs is for Canadian agriculture to be firing on all cylinders to make sure we can step up and help when it is needed. However, at this time of a global food security crisis, again when we need Canadian agriculture to be punching above its weight, the Liberals have decided to put burdensome red tape, regulations and taxes on Canadian farmers.

Another example is front-of-package labelling, which is a $2-billion bureaucratic burden on the industry. Not only will that impact Canadian beef, pork and veal farmers, but it will also impact our processors, manufacturers and consumers. We are talking about the food insecurity crisis and the impact it would have on people around the world, in Europe and the Horn of Africa, but food insecurity is also an issue here at home. If we cannot take care of our own, how are we expected to step up and take care of others in their time of need?

This is also sending a very frightening message to our trading partners. Why should they be importing Canadian beef and pork when we are admitting to the world that we feel our products are unhealthy?

In conclusion, in a time of crisis, instead of treating Canadian agriculture with disdain or as a carbon tax cash cow, the Liberals need to see modern Canadian agriculture and our farm families as a way out, as a way to step, as a key geopolitical tool in the fight against totalitarianism and the likes of Vladimir Putin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

That's okay. I'm indulging a bit of time from my colleagues. If those analyses come, I think the committee will welcome having that.

Mr. Barlow was talking about revenue neutral.... Mr. Jovanovic, I hear where you're coming from. The program writ large is revenue neutral and Bill C-8 is trying to create an industry-specific carve-out. We appreciate the different approaches.

Thank you so much for that.

Colleagues, that ends our preliminary meeting on Bill C-234. I have a couple of reminders to give. I'll need your indulgence on a few matters.

Thank you to our witnesses. We really appreciate the work that you do. Thank you for joining us here today to give additional context, as Mr. Lobb gave us the intention in the first hour.

Colleagues, there are a couple of things. On Monday, we'll be studying cannabis vis-à-vis agriculture. Mr. MacGregor brought forward that suggestion. The clerk is working to have the witnesses lined up. We'll have a notice of meeting out shortly.

We have started our global agriculture food insecurity study. We're running out of runway here before we break for the summer. I've talked to all of you collectively about the desire to put in a letter to the Minister of Agriculture—we'll cc other requisite ministers—on what we've heard and to give some key recommendations that this committee feels are important.

I would ask your permission to proceed by having you provide any recommendations to the clerk and, ultimately, to the analysts by tomorrow at midday. The analysts will then provide a copy of the letter, along with what we've heard and the recommendations. We will seek your feedback via email, and then I would ask for your indulgence for some discretion to work with the clerks to be able to have something put out before we break for the summer or shortly thereafter, so that we don't have a gap between now and September.

I've talked to all of you. This shouldn't be a problem.

[Miodrag Jovanovic]

We have not—I mean, I can turn to my colleague Monsieur Coulombe again—but I don't think we have a specific estimate for Bill C-234. But again—

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

Mr. Jovanovic, I'd like to continue with you.

In your last exchange with Mr. Turnbull, he was saying that if Bill C-234 were to receive royal assent, we could be removing an incentive for farmers to try to transition to different technology. If we take that same logic and apply it to the exemptions that exist in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, does that mean then, rhetorically, that the government gave up on incentivizing a change in technology when it passed Bill C-74?

The government at the time I think recognized that there were no commercially viable alternatives. That is why they specifically spelled out what eligible farming activity is, eligible farming machinery, what a qualifying farm fuel is. They listed them. There's a farm truck or a tractor—the farming machinery on a farm for the purposes of farming. There's a recognition of that.

My question for you, though, is this. We have those exemptions that already exist, but are there not other financial tools and other ways that the government has at its disposal to incentivize changes in behaviour while recognizing that there are no commercially viable alternatives?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

I appreciate the witnesses being here today.

These questions are for the Department of Agriculture.

How would the introduction of Bill C-234 affect our current goals and progress in meeting our emissions targets and having a greener economy?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

Well, it's too bad that you're trying to pick winners and losers and not making them all whole with this. Obviously, Bill C-234 would make sure everybody's on a level playing field.

I'll turn the rest of my time over to Mr. Falk.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

That is interesting. I have a constituent who spent $11,000 in one month to heat his poultry barns during the winter.

I would hope that if Bill C-234 were to pass, the government would take a look at maybe repealing Bill C-8, so we don't have that overlap, or as you would like to put it, double dipping and somehow taking funds away from households.

If farmers right now are getting a 15% to 20% return, are you now saying that farming is subsidizing the carbon tax rebates for homes? Wouldn't that make sense?

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

I am not necessarily trying to contradict you, but we have not heard from a lot of people who received more than they paid. I do not know if my colleagues know any people in that situation, but I do not know any. There could be some. That is why I am asking the question.

If Bill C‑234 were passed and there were a double exemption on a certain portion, do you think that could be changed quickly, in the economic and budget update, for instance?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to all of our witnesses for being here for this important conversation.

Mr. Jovanovic, I'll start with you. You said in your opening remarks that a double payment could result from Bill C-234 getting passed in addition to having the rebates that have already been passed through Bill C-8. You said that this could come at a cost to households, if I'm not mistaken. I think that's what you said.

Could you clarify what you meant by that?

[Miodrag Jovanovic, Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today concerning private member's Bill C-234, which seeks to remove the fuel charge on the use by farmers of natural gas and propane for heating and drying activities.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the GGPPA, currently provides upfront relief from the fuel charge to farmers for gasoline and diesel use in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. The GGPPA also provides relief of 80% of the fuel charge for natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.

Private member's Bill C-234 would expand fuel-charge relief to farmers by modifying the definition of eligible farming machinery to include grain dryers and property used to heat or cool a building or similar structure. It also seeks to expand relief by adding natural gas and propane to the current list of qualifying farming fuels.

Private member's Bill C-234 is being studied while, on June 9, another government bill, Bill C-8, received royal assent.

Recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, Bill C-8 introduced a refundable tax credit in order to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in backstop jurisdictions—Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta—starting with the 2021-22 fuel charge year.

If fuel charge relief for farmers were extended through Bill C-234, farmers in backstop jurisdictions would receive double the compensation by benefiting from the refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. Such double compensation would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces.

Through the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas in heating and drying activities in backstop provinces. This ensures that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount expected to increase as the price on carbon pollution rises.

The refundable tax credit is designed to allocate total fuel charge proceeds according to farm size, as measured using total farm expenditures. In this manner, the credit aims to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers, while also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

This is a different approach than that proposed in private member's Bill C-234. Bill C-234 would directly relieve fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities and thus would completely remove the price signal intended by the carbon pricing regime.

I would like to conclude by noting, as mentioned already, that I'm joined today by my two colleagues, Jenna Robbins and Gervais Coulombe. We would be very happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I appreciate the dialogue to better understand Bill C-234. On March 25 when you made your speech, you said, “farm producers and farmers do not get credit for any of the environmental good that they do on their farms” and “they get no credit for any of the carbon sequestration of their crops. They get no credit for their grasslands or woodlots.” I was wondering if you could clarify and elaborate on what you were speaking about then.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lobb, thank you for presenting this bill, which is truly important in order to support agriculture, which feeds our fellow citizens and many other people on the planet. It is important if we want agriculture to remain competitive.

I would like a few clarifications about the parliamentary budget officer's conclusions regarding Bill C‑234.

[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?

[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?

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

Another industry whose president was a constituent of mine was the head of the Canadian mushroom growers and Highline Mushrooms. I know there are mushroom facilities across Canada. Considering that mushrooms are food—despite the fact that my wife won't eat them—it's my understanding that your proposal in Bill C-234 would also cover them. Is that correct?

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I do have some prepared comments. Normally I would wing it, but seeing how it's five minutes and I didn't want to go over the time and miss a point, I made some prepared comments today.

Good afternoon. Bill C-234 is a bill that amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Bill C-234 is a bill that will help farmers by eliminating the carbon tax for the purposes of growing food, and cutting the carbon tax on propane and natural gas used to heat barns and to dry corn, beans, grains—i.e., food.

Agriculture provides many benefits to society. Firstly, it provides food to our nation and other nations that are unable to.... Secondly, agriculture is the number one economic driver in Ontario and one of the top economic drivers in our country. It provides a rural way of life, passed down through generations, and provides jobs throughout the value chain—in processing, trucking and shipping, to name just a few.

Agriculture also provides numerous benefits to our environment. Firstly, crops, grasslands and woodlands are natural carbon sequesters. Farmers practise ethical crop rotation, plant fall cover crops and are concerned about the quality and overall health of their soil. Farmers are involved with on-farm environmental plans, which also have manure management plans built into them. Nothing is wasted on your farm. From the tools passed down through generations, to lumber, scrap steel behind the shed, or even a corn kernel that didn't find its way to the bin, there's always a way. Farmer are environmentalists, recyclers and stewards of the land.

A friend of mine, who has a sizable hog farm in the region, sent me a heating bill for the period of November 30 to December 31, 2021. His bill from Enbridge was as follows: customer charge, delivery, vendor admin fee, transportation to Enbridge and gas supply charge, for one month, $8,473, before the carbon tax. The carbon tax was an astonishing $2,918, and one penny, in memory of Jim Flaherty. Now, if you factor in what that is on the original $8,400 bill, that's astonishing, and also factor in the HST charged on top of the carbon tax.

Some may say, “Well, Ben, we have that covered now with the carbon rebate that was delivered in Bill C-8 in the fall economic update as relief for farmers.” Well, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many, the carbon rebate falls short, maybe almost 100% short—88%, likely. For the last year, it was $1.47 per $1,000, and in this economic year, it's $1.73 per $1,000. On $10,000 of eligible expenses, your rebate is $14.70.

Now, remember that heating bill I told you about of the hog farmer in Huron County? It was $8,473.60, and his carbon tax bill was $2,918. It's not really fair: $12.50. Where I'm from, that's about four king cans, which is not much.

With Bill C-8, this carbon program once again asks the farmer to be the government's line of credit. The farmer is currently the government's line of credit for business risk management programs like AgriStability, as well as HST and your rebate. Now we're asking farmers to once again be the government's line of credit for the carbon tax rebate. With rising inputs—seed, fertilizer—the farmer's line of credit is maxed out, folks.

To summarize, farmers are price-takers, they are not price-makers. They do not make the market. They are within the whims of the weather. The market is in Chicago; the crops in the Midwest, Brazil and other places; and there are trade deals, whether they work effectively or they are not enforced; rail lines; ports that may or may not be functioning properly; the lack of container capacity in this country; and geopolitical tensions that we've seen in Europe this year, all have an impact.

In this committee, you have the opportunity to help a neighbour, maybe a hard-working rural family you've never met before. You can help a farmer.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Barlow]

I call the meeting to order.

Thanks very much, colleagues.

We have Mr. Lobb with us this afternoon, and we will be going over Bill C-234. Most people know the instructions for how committee works, so I won't go into them too much. I just have a few reminders.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2001. The proceedings will be made available through the House of Commons website. Please be aware that the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee. Taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted. For members participating in person, keep in mind the Board of Internal Economy's guidelines for mask use and health protocols.

I don't think I need to go through all of the steps for Mr. Lobb. I know he is quite well aware of them, and we want to make sure that we use the best of his time today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-234.

I would now like to welcome our witness for the first panel, Mr. Lobb, member of Parliament for Huron—Bruce. I know everyone is very familiar with our colleague.

Mr. Lobb, you'll have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we'll proceed with the rounds of questions. I'll try to give you a signal when you have one minute left. Please proceed with your five-minute introduction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Colleagues, we have just a minute or two before the bells. Let me, on behalf of all of you, thank our witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Ruest with Richardson and Mr. Saik, appearing for himself—we certainly welcome your testimony—and Ms. King and Mr. Graham.

I apologize, Mr. Graham, that we weren't able to get you in, but Ms. King stepped in and did a great job.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, we'll call it there. On Thursday, we are going to be studying Bill C-234. Mr. Lobb has confirmed and will be before the committee.

On Monday, the intention is to go to one two-hour panel on cannabis, as Mr. MacGregor asked. I need your witnesses, so that the clerk has them. If you haven't already sent some of your witnesses to the clerk, please do so by the end of today.

I think we'll leave it at that. We'll let everyone make sure that they're able to vote.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North.

We are talking about an affordability crisis in the House today. I am very confident that I am not the only member of the House who is getting dozens and dozens of calls and emails every single day from constituents who are very concerned about their ability to put food on the table, put fuel in their cars, heat their homes and put their kids in the activities they enjoy the most. What we are talking about here in our opposition day motion is reducing taxes to make life more affordable for Canadians by eliminating the GST on fuel and the carbon tax.

What I am hearing is somewhat unbelievable. The argument from the Liberals and the NDP is that somehow eliminating a point-of-sale tax does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians. I am not sure how one can even argue that. In fact, their argument against this is that retailers are going to collude to ensure that savings are not passed on to Canadians. I can say from experience that in Alberta, where the provincial government has removed the provincial sales tax on fuel, fuel is about 20¢ cheaper than anywhere else in Canada. Albertans are benefiting from a government that has seen the difficulties Canadians are facing, has taken action to address them and has passed savings directly to Canadians.

What I am hearing from my constituents, after two years of the pandemic, is that they are exhausted; they are tired. They want to get life back to normal. While they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that the pandemic is all but over and that businesses are opening back up, they see the affordability crisis, where fuel prices are exorbitant, grocery prices are going up and housing prices are going up. A lot of this has to fall at the feet of the Liberal government.

I know the Liberals like to say this is a global issue and that the war in Ukraine with Putin is causing prices to increase. However, I have been in the House pretty much every day and I do not ever recall Vladimir Putin sitting across the way and voting in favour of a carbon tax. I do not recall Vladimir Putin putting forward legislation or a bill to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Maybe I missed that. I am not sure if my colleagues around the House can confirm that Vladimir Putin is the reason the carbon tax went up 25% on April 1, despite an affordability crisis around the world and a war in Ukraine. I am not sure how we put this all at the feet of Vladimir Putin.

Instead of the government offering relief to Canadians when they need it most, the Prime Minister is travelling around the world with no mask in sight, and here at home he is punishing Canadians over and over again with his draconian mandates and travel restrictions, which are not in place anywhere else around the world. That really seems to be the modus operandi of the Liberal government. It is going to punish Canadians at home and do something completely different around the world.

A good example of that is the fertilizer tariff. My colleague across the way does not seem to think that this is a problem and thinks this is a way of punishing Russia. I would invite my Liberal colleagues talk to any farmer, especially in eastern Canada, and ask them if the fertilizer tariff is hurting Vladimir Putin. The only people this fertilizer tariff of 35% is punishing are Canadian farmers. Vladimir Putin, once again, is not paying this tariff; Canadian farmers are paying this tariff. Even before the war in Ukraine, fertilizer prices in many parts of the country were more than double what they were the year before, as a result, in many cases, of the carbon tax. Do members know what makes fertilizer? It is natural gas. Carbon taxes put on natural gas cause prices to increase.

Canadian farmers are being punished and we have offered solutions. We have asked the Liberal government to provide an exemption on fertilizers purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would offer compensation to farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for that tariff. Again, the Liberals said no.

Let me put this in perspective. Canada is the only G7 country putting a tariff on Russian fertilizer, meaning that Canadian farmers are now at a severe competitive disadvantage to our compatriots around the world. They are paying an exorbitantly high carbon tax and they are paying a tariff on fertilizer.

At the same time, we are in the midst of a global food crisis. Food insecurity is probably the number one priority on earth and we are the only country on earth that is increasing taxes and putting a tariff on fertilizer. How does that make us competitive? How does that give us the ability to carry the burden of helping in a global food crisis, which our farmers absolutely want to do? They want to be there to help, but the Liberal government is doing everything possible to ensure that we cannot do that and do not meet our potential.

Despite the Conservatives offering these solutions, the Liberals carry on with this activist agenda, let us say, or the theatrics they are putting on that this is somehow punishing Putin when it is only punishing Canadian farmers. However, it is not just Canadians farmers who are going to feel the impact of this. If Canadian farmers have to reduce their use of fertilizer simply because they cannot afford it, yields are going to go down and the prices of commodities are going to go up. We have already seen the price of groceries go up. In many cases they are up 15%, depending on the product. This is only going to get worse. We are not only talking about countries that have been relying on Ukrainian commodities such as barley, wheat and sunflower oil; this is going to be felt here at home.

My NDP colleagues have been talking about food insecurity here at home in Canada. A lot of that is the result of Liberal policies. The Liberals are the ones increasing the cost of those groceries by increasing the carbon tax, putting a tariff on fertilizer and having additional red tape, making it very difficult for our farmers to do the job they do best and better than anyone else in the world. We are the only country with a government, in a food security crisis, that is asking Canadian consumers to pay more. It is the only government asking farmers to pay more. How does this make any sense whatsoever?

I want to get to another part of our opposition day motion. I talked about fertilizer, but I also want to talk about the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is something for which the Conservatives have offered a solution. My colleague from Huron—Bruce offered a private member's bill that would eliminate the carbon tax on farm fuels, Bill C-234. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in assessing the carbon tax, has said a few things that I think are very enlightening: The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, the carbon tax increases inflation and the carbon tax does not reduce emissions. This is everything the Liberals are saying the carbon tax will accomplish, and the study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer has refuted all of those claims. Why are we charging this carbon tax on our Canadian farmers? We put forward a solution in Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done the math. In the first year of the carbon tax, Canadian farmers paid on average about $14,000 a year. With the increase on April 1, that goes to $45,000 per average farmer. The Liberals are going to say there is a carbon tax rebate and eight out of 10 families make more off the carbon tax. Again, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an arm's-length officer of the House, has said that is not the case. In Bill C-8, with the carbon tax rebate, farmers get $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are contributing to the carbon tax. Farmers are price-takers. They cannot afford to carry the burden of the carbon tax when we are asking them to improve yields and their efficiency. It does not make sense.

At a time when we are talking about global food security, we also need to talk about affordability. Our farmers, producers and manufacturers need to be able to do what they do and do it efficiently. I have talked about the carbon tax and the fertilizer price, but there is another issue where the Liberals continue to throw on red tape and obstacles, which is going to be coming out in the next little while. It is front-of-package labelling. That is a direct attack on beef and pork producers in Canada. The United States has already identified this as a trade irritant that will impact our beef exports and increase grocery costs here at home, making things even more unaffordable for Canadians.

In conclusion, our motion is very prudent. It would ensure that we address the affordability crisis facing Canadians, and, most importantly, help our farmers, producers and ranchers, who are doing all they can to address a global food security crisis, ensure that groceries are affordable for all Canadians.

[Branden Leslie]

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

There are a few things to touch on. I would certainly recommend it. The connection between food security and a just transition might not seem to be obviously connected, but I think it's very evident that they are. The average price of diesel on a farm in whatever province has largely doubled, it's a significant cost increase, and as mentioned, we can't pass those costs down.

I appreciate Mr. Currie's mentioning of the carbon tax exemption in Bill C-234. That policy is simply taking money out of the pockets of farmers when they go to dry their grain. You have to store your grain at a certain moisture level or it will rot. You will no longer have a product in your bin, and you will have something to throw away. That money is better invested in the new technologies and things like precision agriculture, applying the precise amount of inputs with less application, great, but they're very expensive, but you'd be buying a $600,000 piece of equipment at a time when a lot of farms are lucky to be breaking even.

Last year across much of the Prairies, there was a drought. As you mentioned, this year in southern Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan there's serious drought, and in Manitoba, where I'm from, it's largely under water. It is a challenging time, so I would absolutely recommend considering using that food security lens to be considered as we look to the just transition. It's one thing to aim for this, and I think when we look towards perhaps the electrification of a tractor down the road, that would be a great thing, but there are some substantial changes that—

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

Thank you.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act exempted on-farm gasoline and diesel. Greenhouses received an 80% exemption, but mushrooms nothing. Bill C-8 obviously is proposing a rebate, and Bill C-234 is proposing an exemption. In broad strokes, can you comment on the impact between the three different processes for mushrooms and for the greenhouse industry?

[Paul Samson]

If you're referring to Bill C‑234 specifically, the government is putting a price on carbon pollution as a critical part of the action plan, and that bill will continue to be debated. I won't refer to the advice that we're proposing to the minister at this point.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Just as a follow-up to that question, Bill C‑234 passed second reading. It will find its way to committee later on and we'll be discussing that bill further. Can I safely assume that the department will be advising the minister to treat all sectors of agriculture fairly and expand the carbon tax exemption to the heating of livestock facilities as well as to grain drying?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:21 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-234 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill was introduced by the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, whom I greatly respect.

I will point out that this bill was previously introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and that it was about to be passed before the Prime Minister called a useless election.

Bill C-234 makes sense, and it will provide our farmers with substantial financial support, making it possible for them to supply the products Canadians need. Canadian farmers and livestock producers need propane or natural gas to dry grain, irrigate their lands and heat their buildings and greenhouses in order to feed Canadians and stimulate our export markets.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act unfairly penalizes Canadian farmers and livestock producers by increasing the price of carbon.

This tax, in addition to the general increase in food production costs, reduces farmers’ ability to invest in high capital intensive innovations and technologies that foster sustainability and productivity gains.

In my riding of Beauce, there are many different types of production. We have a high concentration of pork and poultry producers, to name only two.

I can say that the message is clear and that the farmers I have spoken to support this legislation. I would like to point out that our party also had the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP the last time this bill was debated in the House and put to a vote.

I just hope that with the advent of the NDP‑Liberal coalition, our friends in the NDP will not turn their backs on farmers and forget what we are talking about right now.

I would also like to point out to the House that all members of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance are in favour of this bill. This group is composed of Canada's largest agri‑food associations.

I think it would be extremely unwise of us to ignore the importance of this measure for our country's main food suppliers.

Canadians are being hit hard by the highest inflation rate in over 30 years, and the price of everything is skyrocketing.

The Conservative Party of Canada continues to look for ways to help Canadians get by. What better way to help Canadians than to lower the price of food in this country? That is precisely what this bill would do.

When farmers are hit with ridiculously high carbon tax bills, who will shoulder the increase in costs? The consumers, of course. They will be the ones to pay the consequences.

We must be able to find tangible ways to help reduce food prices, and this bill is one of those ways.

I am certain that my Liberal colleagues will be wondering what impact this will have on the environment. My reply is that I know what I am talking about, since I am a fourth-generation farmer on a family farm. Farmers are known as protectors of the environment and innovators. They have adopted new technologies and proven their ability to constantly decrease their environmental footprint while increasing production and maintaining productivity, without the need for a carbon tax.

Unfortunately, since there are no viable alternative fuel sources to heat and dry grain, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act as it stands will not achieve the targeted emission reductions in this area.

I would like to point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer conducted a study on the effectiveness of the carbon tax and its reimbursement system. It was a scathing report that must have been shredded in many a Liberal office. In the House, I always hear that Canadians will end up with more money in their pockets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s study used a farm in Manitoba as an example; this farm received a mere 32% reimbursement on all of the carbon tax it would have had to pay in 2021.

Our agricultural industry in Canada wants to look to the future and find ways of being more efficient and greener, but it needs time to adapt and make the necessary changes. Placing a high carbon tax burden on our farmers will not help anyone.

The government always seems to find new ways of standing in the way of our farmers and livestock producers. I could give you a few examples. Our farmers are already facing difficult weather conditions and other problems over which they have no control, such as border closures in importing countries. The government has now decided that it should increase the carbon tax starting in April. The government also intends to cap the use of fertilizer. This is not to mention its 35% tax on fertilizers, which is crushing Canadian farming families.

In closing, Canada must be considered a world leader in livestock production. There are so many things going on in the world right now, including the war in Ukraine, tensions between numerous countries, heat waves in India and Pakistan and conflicts in Afghanistan. Canada should be able to provide food assistance to these countries, but our farmers can barely stay in business because of the tariffs and taxes imposed by the government. That is ridiculous.

As I have said many times in the House, Canada must use its agricultural and agri-food sector as an economic driver to move our country forward. There is nothing in the 2022 budget for agriculture, just the same old announcements.

Can we now expect the Liberals to block this bill as well? They often show great imagination when it comes to finding ways to slow us down as a country.

I hope that my colleagues listening to me today understand the importance of this bill and the good that it can do, not only for farmers, but for young parents trying to put food on the table, seniors who have trouble making ends meet, and the many families in other countries we could surely be helping by providing food aid. Everything this bill does will have a positive impact on the people in our ridings across the country. I hope that, when the time comes to vote on this bill, all parties will come together and do what needs to be done.

[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.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234. This is an important issue.

Agriculture plays an essential role in Canada's economy. Our farmers also help to feed the world. I am a city person, and I can tell members that city people rely on farmers across our country for the food on our tables. For that, we are deeply grateful. Perhaps now, more than ever, at this time of geopolitical uncertainty and rising costs, it will be vitally important to ensure that Canada's agricultural production continues to grow.

Our government is supporting Canada's farmers to make that happen, and we will continue to do so. The question we have to consider is how best to do so. More specifically, the question is how we deliver support for farmers that is effective in helping them ramp up production, without undermining important goals like addressing climate change, which itself poses a severe threat to agriculture production.

We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, with floods and droughts. In fact, I was looking at some reports about the recent flooding over the last year in B.C., which is an example of a weather event caused by climate change. It caused massive damage to farms in the area. In one report, one farmer was talking about having lost 600 acres of crops, which were all under water. There were stories of expensive farm technology lost in floods and cattle that died, along with other farm animals, and that is tragic for so many reasons, like for the disruption in people's lives and also in hitting their bottom line.

To their great credit, they are taking action to address it. Farmers have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices, like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques, that can help reduce emissions and save them both time and money. Just recently, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change went to visit a farm to look at some of those practices.

Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million over six years starting in 2022-23, with $0.6 million in remaining amortization, to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It also proposes to provide $469.5 million over six years, with $0.5 million in remaining amortization, starting in 2022-23, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.

The budget proposes $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and address other environmental co-benefits, with the details of this to be discussed with provinces and territories. It proposes to provide $100 million over six years, starting in 2022-23, to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero-emissions agriculture.

The budget also proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. Each year, these programs provide $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. This includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2 billion of support on average per year.

At the same time, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors under the federal carbon pollution pricing system. The federal fuel charge regime provides substantial upfront relief for farmers for their purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel, provided that all or substantially all of the fuel is for use in eligible farming activities, such as the operation of farming equipment and machinery.

Our government has also proposed a refundable tax credit in the 2021 economic and fiscal update for farm businesses operating in backstop jurisdictions, starting in the 2021-22 fuel charge year. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount increasing as the price on carbon increases. This will help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming while maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

My concern is that Bill C-234 could take us in a very different direction. The bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, sometimes referred to as the GGPPA, to expand fuel charge relief to farmers by modifying the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include heating and grain drying.

More specifically, it would modify the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include natural gas and propane. This raises a range of potential concerns that must be carefully considered. For example, as this bill stands, farmers would effectively be double-compensated.

In effect, they would benefit from the proposed tax credit while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. This would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces, as the federal carbon pricing system is revenue-neutral and proceeds must remain in the jurisdiction of origin.

Let me remind hon. members that Canada's carbon pollution pricing system is efficient and cost-effective precisely because it puts a price on carbon pollution and then allows businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions.

With the significant support for farmers already in place under Canada's pollution pricing system, the additional financial supports proposed in Bill C-234 run the risk of removing this price signal completely. This price signal is the linchpin for effectively executing Canada's climate change plan.

A price on carbon pollution provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a greener, cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than telling Canadians how to reduce emissions, a price on carbon pollution allows businesses and people to make those decisions in a manner that best suits their own circumstances.

Carbon pollution pricing also delivers economic benefits, because it encourages Canadians and businesses to innovate and to invest in clean technologies and long-term growth opportunities that will position Canada for success in a cleaner and greener global economy.

That means more jobs for Canadians, benefiting their families and communities across the country. Bill C-234 may very well undermine the effectiveness and benefits of this system. These are all important considerations Canadians expect us to take into account as we assess the potential merits of Bill C-234.

As we do so, we must bear in mind that the federal carbon pollution pricing system is not about raising revenues. The government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. That must be underlined: It is not staying with the federal government.

Our plan directs all proceeds from federal carbon pollution pricing back to the jurisdictions from which they were collected. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.

Canada has been a leader in this regard and we should not do anything to compromise this. In the context of Bill C-234, we must be carefully considering it within the context of this pricing system.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Obviously, he wants me to talk about Bill C-234, so that is what I will do. The Bloc Québécois is extremely rational. We want to protect the environment in a way that makes sense. The reason we are supporting this system is that there is currently no other alternative. However, we need to do a lot more than this. That is why we are proposing an environmental partnership with our farmers, something serious that will not be controlled by the great, all-knowing Canada.

We need to decentralize funding for farmers, these entrepreneurs, so that they themselves can bring in technological and environmental innovations to improve yields. These innovations must be recognized, and compensation must be given for them. That money needs to be available to farmers for the next innovation. If we trust our farmers, I guarantee we will not be disappointed.

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

Madam Speaker, I really respect the member, but to say that we are siding with the other side is really rich when we have seen the terms of the NDP-Liberal marriage. It is clear for all to see.

I will just bring up one example of when the government promised one thing. It said that carbon taxes were going to be neutral. Here again, the PBO said that just that one carbon tax exemption alone would save farmers across Canada $1.107 billion. That would be huge for our farm families and farmers across this land.

My hope, again, is that Bill C-234 passes. The government has made a good change to Bill C-8, but I digress.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to talk once again about Bill C-234, being the measure we referred to that could potentially give a carbon tax exemption to farmers for propane and natural gas to dry and heat their shops, etc. It is a perfect opportunity. It is not finished yet; there are still votes. We still have an opportunity to support it.

I would hope that the members across, from the Liberal Party, would support a measure like this, because they missed the opportunity before. If they really want to do great things for our farmers in this country, that opportunity is still forthcoming. Again, I hope to see support for that across the way.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's raising the request for the guidance documents. I met with representatives from CropLife Canada this morning. They, too, have been looking for them since December 8, so I hope he has the opportunity to encourage the minister to release them very soon.

I want to ask the member more specifically about the price on pollution for fuels, particularly for grain drying. Why does he consider the approach the government is taking in Bill C-8 superior to the one being proposed under Bill C-234? He mentioned that the government wants to keep a price signal. However, when there are no viable alternatives, what is that price signal doing? Is he hearing from his constituents, as I am from mine, that his is the more preferable approach?

[Erin Gowriluk]

Absolutely. Thank you very much for the question.

As outlined in my initial comments, when we had an opportunity to survey our members in preparation for today's appearance, it was really all about efficiency and about cost savings. Many of the practices they've adopted make good environmental sense, but they just make good business sense. If you have an alternative to natural gas and propane, which is increasingly expensive, farmers would look to adopt that, but it has to offer cost savings and it has to be efficient.

To your question with respect to whether many of our farmers, or any of our farmers, who dry grain are currently using an alternative to natural gas and propane, the answer would be no. It simply doesn't exist yet.

I think that's why you see sector-wide support, even beyond grain growers, for Bill C-234, because we recognize that it's not going to achieve its policy intent, which is to encourage a practice change and for Canadian farmers to use alternative fuel sources, which are simply not available right now for the purposes of grain drying.

[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.

[Erin Gowriluk]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Lehoux.

With respect to the first part of your question, we have to bear in mind that the carbon tax is applied to natural gas and propane used for drying grain. At this point, farmers have no alternative but to use fossil fuels. That's why we continue to support the passage of the private member's Bill C-234. I think there's acknowledgement from this government that the objective intended with that particular policy is not being achieved.

On your second point with respect to developing this rebate program that was established, ultimately the intention of the rebate was to return 100% of the funds collected from Canadian farmers and ranchers back to Canadian farmers and ranchers. What we've seen is that, while all of that money may be going out the door, the rebate is not equitable in terms of its approach to distribution. Some of our directors have quantified what they're going to be getting back in the form of a rebate. In some cases, what they'll be getting back in the form of a rebate is still below 40% of what they ultimately paid in carbon taxes.

I think there's acknowledgement from this government that the tax that's being applied is not fair and that it's not ultimately reaching its intended objective. That's why our sector continues to support the passage of Bill C-234 as the most efficient way to ensure that Canadian grain farmers, who have no alternative but to use natural gas and propane to dry their grain, do so at no additional cost, especially when you consider all of the unprecedented costs that they are currently facing.

[Erin Gowriluk, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to address all of you today on this topic of importance to farmers, to Canadians and to the world.

It is very nice to have the opportunity to see many of your faces in person now. Thank you for that.

My name is Erin Gowriluk. I'm executive director of the Grain Growers of Canada, a national association that represents the interests of about 65,000 grain, pulse and oilseed farmers in every province across the country.

As the voice of Canada's grain farmers, I would like to stress that our members view their relationship to the land as paramount. Their livelihood depends on it. Leaving a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations is what farming is all about. Today I'm proud to be able to share that story with all of you.

In anticipation of my appearance here today, I reached out to our members with an invitation to share their sustainability stories, along with some concrete examples of methods and practices they have used to increase productivity on their operations while protecting their viability. Our members responded resoundingly and with enthusiasm.

First and foremost, many of our members pointed to the significant research investments that farmers directly have made to improve the sector's environmental contributions. Long before any significant political pressure or policy mandates, farmers invested in sound science aimed at reducing emissions as well as their carbon footprint. The reason for this is simple: It just makes sense.

In fact, our member associations have invested millions into establishing best practices in fertilizer management so that the best possible crop yields can be achieved while minimizing the crucial inputs needed to grow them. Investments in research like this make business sense just as much as they help the environment. When expensive nitrogen, for example, is lost to the atmosphere or misapplied, it also impacts farmers' already razor-thin margins.

The innovation does not stop there. There have also been significant investments made into research on how to use nitrogen more efficiently, and how to modify genetics to allow the plant to fix its own nitrogen. This has been coupled with research on how to reduce herbicide and insecticide use, all while making the plant itself more responsive and less impactful on its own ecosystem.

While this important research continues, Canadian farmers have also been on the cutting edge with their on-farm practices to ensure that the farm is efficient, profitable and sustainable. Among the many practices that were shared with me, I would like to highlight a few critical ones. They include the adoption of variable-rate technology, or “precision agriculture”, to optimize the use of seed, fertilizer and crop protection products; the adoption of new three-tier and four-tier diesel engines in tractors as well as the use of GPS technology to prevent field overlap, reducing the amount of fuel that is used; and, of course, as Susie mentioned, the widespread adoption of conservation tillage, which creates a carbon sink while increasing organic matter in the soil.

For any of the committee members who have not yet had a chance to visit a farm that has embraced these technologies, I would encourage you to do so. It is really remarkable technology that has had incredible environmental impacts on Canadian farms across the country.

I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Mr. Chair, for visiting Saskatchewan to do just that.

The reason I mention all of this is not to say that further progress cannot be achieved. Canada's grain farmers are consistently looking for the most efficient way forward. While many of these practices have come at a cost to producers, they were adopted voluntarily in the absence of any regulatory requirement to do so. That is why it is so important that we do not lose sight of the economic viability of Canadian farms. No matter where you farm in this country, you are operating on increasingly narrower margins. In fact, this year many Canadian farmers will be planting what is likely their most expensive crop.

Consider the unprecedented cost of fuel, fertilizer and crop protection products, and the global and environmental uncertainty facing thousands of grain farmers still recovering from last year's devastating drought. To meet government and industry targets, farmers will need to continue to invest in their operations and in new technologies and equipment that will make them more efficient. Farmers will make these investments when they're confident in the economic stability and sustainability of their operations. Governments can help facilitate this by ensuring that farmers have access to predictable and reliable risk management programs like AgriInvest and AgriStability.

Another way to encourage farmers to invest in new technologies and practices is by supporting Bill C-234 and providing relief from carbon pricing on natural gas and propane used to dry grain. Rebates will not make up for the costs incurred by carbon pricing.

Grain farmers are prepared to do more, as evidenced by their track record. That is why on March 28 of this year the Grain Growers of Canada announced the creation of a climate solutions initiative to help meet Canada's ambitious goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The road to 2050 will propose a path forward that focuses on innovation, research and beneficial management practices. This will boost productivity while continuing to enhance soil quality, improving the carbon sequestration potential of cropland and reducing emissions.

We believe that a united approach to climate change is the strongest way forward. Rest assured, Canadian grain farmers are ready to do their part with our policy-makers and legislators as key partners. We are prepared to produce even more food while we support a growing population.

Thank you for your time today. I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[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.

Small Business

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here tonight. The initial question I asked had to do with an agricultural issue, and I would like to continue along that theme.

The president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association recently stated, “Absolutely we are unfairly targeted because we are a primary producer have no way of dealing with the carbon tax.... It is a pure cost to us, and there isn’t really a way for us to become more efficient.”

That is the problem our agriculture producers face. It is not only the carbon tax, but also the carbon tax that is applied to truckers, to rail and to the moorage of the ships parked in the harbour waiting to be loaded. All of those taxes are downloaded back to the primary producer, the farmer, the agricultural producer, who has no way to recover against those costs.

Recently, there was a 25% increase in the carbon tax. That is a huge add-on to our agricultural producers. To get specific, in my riding, where we have huge irrigation districts, this is a cost that affects that irrigation. It is millions of dollars if we look at all of the irrigation districts, but particularly for the four largest ones in my riding, it is a significant cost. This is money that leaves the communities and the producers and is not returned in a rebate. That is the percentage that is not returned, the millions of dollars paid to provide that irrigation.

As well, 4% of the arable land in Alberta produces 29% of the agricultural production of the GDP in Alberta, which is huge, but their increased costs are also huge.

We have the most significantly efficient high-producing agricultural producers in Canada, but what they do not get credit for is the 384 billion tonnes of carbon they store in the soil. They use practices that keep improving the storage of carbon, but they get no credit for it.

A private member's bill from a member in our caucus, Bill C-234, is moving forward on exempting farm fuels from the carbon tax. That would be the first step.

Then we get to the issue of fertilizer. Agricultural producers work very hard on the four Rs: right source, right rain, right time and right place. They are getting incredibly efficient at it. The fertilizer industry contributes $23 billion annually to Canada's economy. That is 76,000 jobs. Now the government is talking about reducing the use of fertilizer by 30%, without a benchmark. Farmers do not want to buy fertilizer that is not needed. It is very expensive and harder to get.

Agriculture employs 2.1 million people and generates $139 billion of Canada's GDP. By continuing to go after those things that increase production, which we are going to need in this world, Canadian farmers, who are the most efficient, the best equipped and the best at it, will not be supported by this, which is a challenge for the agricultural producers in our country.

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

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, as we have been hearing over the last couple of weeks especially, across the country, Canadians really are feeling the squeeze. Their budgets are being stretched further and further, and for too many, their pocketbooks simply cannot keep up. Inflation has ballooned to record levels and costs are skyrocketing.

Canadians need some financial relief, and this is something that we on this side of the House have been saying and asking for on their behalf. However, those who are desperately looking for a break will not find it here in the legislation before us. The Liberal government is asking Parliament to approve significant spending through the bill. In fact, in all, the fall economic statement and the fiscal update add $70 billion of new spending to the books, which will, in turn, fuel inflation in this country and send it to even higher levels.

This government's tax-and-spend agenda hurts our economy and it hurts Canadians. Just last Friday, we know that Canadians were hit with the latest Liberal tax hikes: The escalator tax on alcohol went up, and the failed Liberal carbon tax went up by 25%. That is an extra 2.2¢ a litre, bringing the carbon tax to 11¢ a litre. Of course, that is on top of the already high gasoline prices. The carbon tax is adding to the costs of groceries, home heating and everyday essentials that Canadians need and rely on. It is contributing to the inflation in this country, and in doing so it is actually punishing all Canadians. It is even more punishing for Canadians on fixed incomes who, frankly, can afford it the least.

I hear from my constituents on this issue all the time. I have received countless copies of energy bills from my constituents, who are anxious and distressed about the impact on their bottom line. Simply put, my constituents cannot afford this Liberal carbon tax, and they certainly do not accept this Liberal government's tired old talking points that they will receive more money back than they pay through the climate action incentive rebate. This government's math simply does not add up, and my constituents know that.

We also know that the Bank of Canada recently revealed that the carbon tax alone has increased inflation by nearly half a percent. That is, in essence, an additional tax on everything, and this government cannot simply ignore it when it is considering the cost of a carbon tax on Canadians. In fact, we all know now that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that, contrary to what this Liberal government says, most households subjected to the Liberal carbon tax will, in fact, see a net loss. What is worse, this tax punishes Canadians while failing to accomplish anything for the environment. On top of that, it is even more punishing for rural Canadians, such as my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster. Farm families and farm businesses know that all too well. Their bottom line has taken a massive hit specifically from this Liberal carbon tax. The cost of business is going up, but they cannot pass those costs along. It is shrinking an already very slim profit margin.

While this legislation might seemingly acknowledge some of the hardships that are faced by our farmers, it fails to actually acknowledge the Liberal government's contribution to these hardships. The bill also fails to deliver a common-sense solution of simply exempting farm fuels from the carbon tax.

The reality is that our farmers are always looking to improve the efficiency of their operations. The agricultural community has developed and adopted modern technologies to reduce their carbon footprint and to protect our environment, which takes investment on their part. We know that the carbon tax is not accomplishing anything for the environment, and it would go a lot further to leave more money in the pockets of our farm businesses so that they could reinvest into what would work best for their own operations.

As our farmers face massive carbon tax bills on farm fuels including propane and natural gas, typically used in grain drying, I had hoped to see a full exemption on farm fuels in the fall economic update, but surprisingly that is not what is contained in the bill. Fortunately, a private member's bill to that effect has been brought forward by my colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, and I hope that all members of the House will stand up for our hard-working farmers and support Bill C-234. Our farmers, as I have said, make tremendous contributions to our environment, our food security and our economy. We cannot take that for granted.

We need to ensure that the economic agenda of our country is working toward opportunity and a prosperous future for all Canadians. That is what is problematic with this legislation, and more generally, I would say, with the fiscal mismanagement of the Liberal government. This many years later, it really does seem like the Prime Minister still thinks and believes that budgets will balance themselves. However, we cannot dig ourselves out of a hole.

The Liberal government continues to spend money that is not there to fund its partisan-driven agenda. We know that since the start of the pandemic, the Liberal government has brought in $176 billion, not million, in spending that is completely unrelated to COVID-19. Our national debt is over $1 trillion. The Liberal government rarely talks in millions anymore and announcements in the billions have become more commonplace.

The finance minister certainly does not talk about what Canadians are paying to service that debt, nor does she acknowledge her government's contribution to rising inflation. Unfortunately, ignoring these factors does not negate their existence. With the federal budget set to be released later this week, I think Canadians would be right to brace themselves. They have been left to wonder what the new NDP-Liberal government will cost them and their children. The budget will likely give us our first glimpse of what an economic agenda driven by the NDP will cost. An ideological and activist-driven agenda that cripples our economic drivers and spends massively could only lead to higher taxes and more debt, and it is Canadians who will be left holding the bag, as usual.

The ease at which the government continues down this road shows just how out of touch it is with the reality of everyday Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told Parliament that the rationale for the government's $100 billion in planned stimulus no longer exists. The government needs to start reining it in. If the government was serious about growing our economy, it could start by abandoning its policies that are crippling our economic drivers. It has chased away countless projects and investment dollars in our Canadian energy sector, a sector that has contributed so much to our Canadian economy and that could contribute so much more. That is not to mention its potential to contribute to the stabilization of global energy security.

The government's policies push Canada to the sidelines while leaving demand to be filled by other countries with lower environmental and human rights standards than we have here in Canada. Canada finds itself at a disadvantage with nothing really gained. This is particularly devastating for my constituents, many whose livelihoods have been taken away or threatened while the cost of everything continues to go up.

When considering this legislation, we cannot simply ignore the inflation tax. Inflation is eating into the paycheques of my constituents and those of every single Canadian. A dollar today does not go nearly as far as it used. The government's spending is only pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving so many Canadians behind. Canadians need real solutions in the immediate term.

On this side of the House, the Conservatives have proposed a number of common-sense and practical solutions to help Canadians, but the Liberals have rejected each and every one. With record high inflation and skyrocketing costs of living, it is time to give Canadians a break. We need real solutions, tangible solutions, to alleviate the inflationary burden on Canadians. We cannot keep going down this risky and expensive path that is leaving far too many Canadians behind.

[Mike Ammeter, Chair, Canadian Canola Growers Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak today.

My name is Mike Ammeter and I'm the chair of the Canadian Canola Growers Association. I farm at Sylvan Lake, Alberta, which is an hour and half north of Calgary. I grow canola, pulses, wheat and barley on approximately 1,400 acres of land.

With me today is Dave Carey, CCGA's vice-president of government and industry relations, who is based in Ottawa.

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 and earning farmers over $12 billion in 2021. Ninety percent of our crop is exported as seed, oil and meal. The canola sector contributes $29.9 billion to Canada's economy every year and supports over 200,000 jobs.

Canola farmers are committed to a sustainable future and play an important role in advancing our collective environmental ambitions. By 2025, canola farmers plan to reduce their fuel usage by 18% per bushel, increase land use efficiency by 40% per bushel and sequester an additional five million tonnes of CO2 using 4R nutrient stewardship practices on 90% of canola acres. They continue to safeguard the more than 2,000 beneficial insects that call canola fields and surrounding habitat home.

To reach these goals, we need all the tools in the tool box in terms of access to innovative technologies and practices that will help us continue to soften our environmental footprint while ensuring our farms remain economically sustainable and competitive.

Farmers have a proven track record of adopting innovation that benefits the environment, like conservation tillage or zero till. Over a decade ago, I personally began to practice zero till on my farm as a way to use finite resources more efficiently and to improve soil conditions. By voluntarily adopting this practice, farmers like myself have improved soil cover, sequestered carbon and reduced soil erosion risk while reducing fuel and labour requirements. In 1991, 7% of Canadian farmland was seeded with no-till practices. By 2016, this number had increased to over 60%.

To accomplish these sustainability goals and practices, the canola sector has also set a production target to reach 26 million tonnes and 52 bushels per acre of canola by 2025. Not only is this a sector goal, but it also aligns with the Government of Canada's own objective of expanding agri-food exports to $85 billion by 2025. It will be difficult to increase production given that farmers are also tasked with meeting the target of reducing absolute levels of fertilizer emissions by 30%.

The announcements to expand crush capacity domestically—adding up to an additional seven million metric tonnes of demand annually—illustrates that industry is willing to invest in Canada and the canola sector. However, they need to feel confident that the regulations in the clean fuel standard enable canola production as a feedstock for biofuel and that we can also meet our own production goals to see these investments become a reality. Agriculture clearly has a unique role to play in expanding Canada's economy, but production will need to continue to increase to meet demand.

To meet government and industry targets, farmers will need to invest in our operations—in new technologies or equipment—and potentially take risks on implementing new practices. Farmers will make these investments when they are confident in the economic stability and sustainability of their operations. Specifically, government can help facilitate this by ensuring farmers have access to predictable and reliable risk management programs, such as AgriStability and AgriInvest.

Another way to encourage farmers to invest in new technologies and practices is by supporting Bill C-234. By providing relief from carbon pricing on natural gas and propane, those dollars that would otherwise be paid by farmers can be invested in technologies that will have a positive environmental outcome. Rebates will not make up for the costs incurred by carbon pricing.

Lastly, it is vital that the government stick to science-based decision-making, especially when reviewing pest control products and associated maximum residue limits. Streamline approval processes for seed varieties where possible, so Canadian farmers can remain competitive and sustainable.

In conclusion, it's vital that the focus of sustainability be not just environmental but also economic to ensure that our collective goals are achieved. Canola farmers take pride in how we care for our natural resources. No one has more of a vested interest in the environment and in ensuring the sustainability of our farms to be able to pass them on to the next generation than we do.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward to questions.

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague for Huron-Bruce introduced a bill that would remove the Liberal carbon tax from grain drying and heating.

At a time when global food security is so important, the government continues to restrict our agriculture industry. This bill would have passed in the last Parliament if the Liberals had not called an unnecessary election.

Will the government help to support Canadian farm families by supporting Bill C-234?

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Foothills for his speech. I think he realizes the NDP is supporting Bill C-234. He comes from one of the most beautiful ridings in the country. It is almost as beautiful as mine. What it does have is some of the most fabulous native grasslands in the country.

I used to serve on the board of the Nature Conservancy of Canada. We did a lot of work in that area, working with ranchers to help conserve one of the most endangered ecosystems in the country. It was valuable to have ranchers on side to help us with that cause. Could he expand on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour always to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Foothills and, in my role as shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, to speak on behalf of farmers and farm families across Canada.

We are talking about Bill C-8. There is one key element of Bill C-8 that I want to address today and discuss. That is the sharp contrast between what the Liberal government is proposing in its carbon tax rebate for farmers and what Conservatives are proposing in the private member's bill, Bill C-234, brought forward by my colleague from Huron—Bruce. We have seen a very sharp response from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that certainly counters the claims that have been made by the Liberal government.

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.

All of us in this room who have farmers in their constituencies have received carbon tax bills from our constituents. I have had bills that have gone from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars in one month, depending on the size of the operation. Therefore, to say that this carbon tax rebate is going to be revenue-neutral is misleading Canadians and certainly misleading farm families. We know now that the carbon tax is disproportionately more punitive on rural communities and especially on farmers.

If that were not bad enough, we have seen already that the carbon tax has been quite punitive on farmers. We saw the numbers that have been put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The average farmer paid about $14,000 in the first year of the carbon tax. That went up to $45,000 last year, and this is going to go up again on April 1.

What is that going to mean, moving forward? MNP has stated that, in the canola industry alone, the carbon tax of 2022 cost about $71 million. By 2030, that carbon tax as it continues to increase is going to cost the canola industry alone $1.7 billion. Those are funds that are not going back into investments in technology and innovation. They are not funds that are going into the local rural economies. That money is going directly into Liberal government coffers and is not going to be redistributed, as the Liberals have claimed that it would be, to the farm families who are having to pay that.

This is unsustainable, especially with the precarious situation that Canadian agriculture already faces with skyrocketing input costs on things like fertilizer, herbicides, diesel, propane and natural gas. Farmers are also facing very critical supply-chain problems and a crisis in labour supply. All of these things are having a compound negative impact on Canadian agriculture. It is almost nonsensical at this very tenuous time, when there is a global food shortage looming as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, that the government would continue to add to that burden by increasing the carbon tax on Canadian farmers.

One of the other issues with it that was highlighted by stakeholders is that there are no viable alternatives presented in Bill C-8. I would invite some of my colleagues to come to rural Canada and see exactly how things work. A Canadian farmer cannot haul cattle with an electric car. It is physically impossible. A Canadian grain farmer cannot move his grain from the farm to the terminal on the subway. My riding is 25,000 square kilometres. Public transit does not exist. It certainly does not exist for the average citizen, but it definitely does not exist for a farm operation that needs to move product and drive very long distances to deliver its product to market and that needs to drive a tractor to spray and plant and drive a combine to harvest. There are no alternatives for these things. They have no choice.

However, we have seen that they have managed and worked hard to improve efficiencies: their carbon footprint has gone down substantially as a result of modern technology and innovations such as zero tillage, precision farming and 4R nutrient stewardship. They have gone to great lengths to ensure that Canadian farmers are doing all they can to protect their environment and their soil, but government policy needs to be based on reality and the realities that Canadian farmers and farm families are having to face every single day.

It is even more frustrating for those farmers who are investing money each and every year to improve their operations, because they are the frontline stewards of our environment. I would say that is known around the world, as Canadian farmers are world leaders when it comes to environmental sustainability. Looking at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the carbon tax, it clearly states that the carbon tax does not even reduce emissions. It does not force people to reduce emissions because there are no viable alternatives when it comes to our ability to reduce emissions on farms.

In fact, I would argue that it is quite the opposite. There was a study done by the Keystone Agricultural Producers two years ago. The report noted that agriculture has about 100 megatonnes of emissions a year, which has remained quite stable despite a massive increase in yield, so we are doing much better with much less because of our commitment to efficiency and sustainability. However, reading further on, what is very important in that study is that not only do farms emit about 60 megatonnes of C02 a year, but they also capture 100 megatonnes of C02 a year in carbon sequestration by taking care of the land. When that product leaves the farm gate and goes into the market, not only is agriculture already net-zero, but it is actually a 30-megatonne carbon sink.

If that is the case, as agriculture stakeholder groups have said in their data, why are they not being celebrated or encouraged to continue on with the work that they are doing? Instead, we are doing exactly the opposite by punishing them with the carbon tax. They now clearly know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that they will not be made whole: This is going to cost them money. That is money that they should be able to keep in their pockets and reinvest into their operations, reinvest into new energy-efficient equipment, and reinvest into more efficiencies in terms of agronomy, drones, precision agriculture and those types of things. When we take tens of millions of dollars out of farmers' pockets, it makes it very difficult for them to do that.

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. I will give some examples. Mary Robinson, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is in support. The Agriculture Carbon Alliance is supporting it. Jan VanderHout, president of Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, has given notes of support.

In conclusion, to have these stakeholders and our farm families across Canada supporting one direction in addressing emissions that is in complete contrast to and opposite from what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-8 is, I think, something we need to listen to. Getting money back into producers' hands as quickly as possible is more beneficial, and it is more effective in reducing emissions, becoming more efficient and continuing to ensure that we can not only feed Canadians but carry that burden of feeding the world as well.

[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?

[Keith Currie]

I think Dave and Scott highlighted the main key concerns around the exemption versus the rebate.

The other thing I will add is that rebates are an administrative burden on everybody, both farmers and ranchers, but also government. It's very costly to initiate a rebate type of system; whereas an exemption is simply a signature on a piece of paper by a farmer or rancher that they are a registered producer and then away we go. There are no administrative costs beyond that.

Getting that money back into producers' hands in a timely fashion is what's necessary, along with not costing the government a lot of money to administer the program as well. That's why we are fully on board with Bill C-234 for the exemption, as opposed to the rebate system.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today and providing us with some excellent information.

I want to start with the Agriculture Carbon Alliance. I think it's such a great organization, to see some of our agriculture stakeholders working together to be proactive when it comes to our agriculture sector and the role it will play in stewardship of our environment. It's certainly an opportunity to highlight some of the incredible things that agriculture has already done. Kudos to this group for getting together and forming this alliance.

I don't know who wants to answer from the ACA, but you mentioned your support for Bill C-234. I know my colleagues across the way will talk about Bill C-8 and the carbon rebate, but we've already seen the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the rebate does not reduce emissions and also is not revenue neutral. In fact, when we see the numbers of $1.70 per $1,000 of eligible expenses, it is only a fraction of what producers will be spending in terms of their carbon taxes.

Why is it important to have that full exemption from the carbon tax, which would be provided under Bill C-234, compared to the rebate program that's being proposed in Bill C-8?

[Keith Currie, First Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you.

I'm Keith Currie. I'm the first vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We represent some 200,000 farmers, ranchers and farm families nationwide. I'm joined by Frank Annau, our director of environment and science policy.

We appreciate this opportunity to discuss how to continue the hard work of farmers on reducing emissions and improving soil health. Producers are stewards of the land, and manage significant carbon sinks that play a key role in soil health and the fight against climate change.

These sinks are maintained by a number of farm-driven practices that regenerate soil organic matter, which in turn improves carbon sequestration and long-term carbon storage in agricultural soils. These practices are wide ranging, but can include intercropping, cover cropping and rotational grazing, all of which are eligible for funding under the on-farm climate action fund.

With Canada being as large and as vast as it is, the success of these approaches can vary by region, and it is critical that initiatives, such as living laboratories, expand to western Canada, so that innovations in soil health can be refined in areas hit hard by recent flooding and drought.

Farmers are also well versed on the environmental and cost reduction benefits of efficiently managing critical inputs, such as fertilizers, fuels and pest control products.

As you may be aware, industry-led approaches, such as 4R nutrient stewardship, help producers select the right source of fertilizer to apply the right amount in the right place at the right time.

Research shows that correct implementation of this protocol results in a 15%-25% reduction in nitrous oxide emissions. These efforts can be greatly enhanced by precision agricultural technology, such as crop and soil sensors, that optimize the rate of fertilizer, pesticide and weed control application. This, combined with practices that regenerate soil organic matter, help prevent our overapplication of inputs, which protects soil biodiversity and improves soil health.

Precision ag technology also significantly improves fuel efficiency by using fleet analytics and auto-guidance systems, which reduces the number of passes needed for sprayers, tillage and harvesters. One U.S. study found that this would decrease fuel use by up to 6%, which is the equivalent of 18,000 flights. The same study stated that this fuel use could decrease a further 16% with a broader adoption of this technology.

In Canada, there are a number of barriers to this adoption, including the lack of reliable rural broadband Internet needed to run the equipment, and the fact that adoption rates drop significantly on farms that are under 500 acres in size, or that have an annual income of under $75,000. As such, it is recommended that government prioritize rural Internet and scaling down this technology in order to realize those fuel efficiencies.

With respect to greenhouse gas reduction, the largest cattle methane reduction study was concluded in Alberta in 2020. It showed that methane emissions per cattle could be reduced by 30%-80% by including an additive call 3-NOP in different combinations of feed. The additive was developed by DSM technologies, which has applied for registration in various countries to bring the product to market in 2022.

Unfortunately, here at home, the product may not be on the market for years, because Health Canada has classified it as a veterinary drug. This puts livestock sustainability efforts in Canada behind countries that have registered the product as animal feed, including EU countries, China and Brazil. We recommend the government follow suit with our trade partners and competitors by ensuring 3-NOP reaches Canadian markets as soon as possible.

All of these solutions, while effective, come at a significant investment and cost to farmers. It is therefore essential that we ensure they have the cash in hand to invest in solutions, and participate in government cost-sharing where available. The cash is being significantly reduced by record high costs for inputs, such as fuel and fertilizer, brought on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. These events put greater pressure on Canadian farmers to produce more than ever before to mitigate impacts from a world food shortage brought on by the war. We must ensure farmers have cash resources to rise to this occasion, and to do it sustainably.

The price on carbon acts as a market incentive to switch to lower-emission fuels and improve fuel efficiency. This signal is dwarfed by the blaring alarm of current gas prices. While gas and diesel are exempt from carbon surcharges on farm, natural gas and propane used for grain dryers and livestock heating and cooling systems are not. These activities are critical to mitigating severe climate impacts, such as extreme rainfall and drought.

We therefore recommend support for House Bill C-234. Removing the carbon price on these fuels will provide farms with additional cash to invest in the input efficiency needed to respond to record input prices and help Canadian farmers feed the world.

We thank you for your attention.

[Scott Ross, Co-Chair, Agriculture Carbon Alliance]

Thank you, Dave.

ACA also works proactively on behalf of Canadian agriculture to advocate for constructive and evidence-based environmental policies. To date, we have focused on three major priority areas.

Carbon offset protocols open to science-based measurement should incorporate flexibility to recognize incremental improvements in on-farm practices that have already taken place and will take place, while accommodating advancements in verification that would allow for more outcome-based measurements.

ACA welcomes the opportunity for targeted producer engagement on the enhanced soil organic carbon protocol. We also look forward to engaging on future protocols for livestock feed management, the avoided conversion of grasslands, 4R climate-smart offset protocols and livestock manure management.

We understand that the proposed offset protocols will not apply to farms that began those activities prior to 2017. However, we do not believe that this should serve as a barrier to recognizing early adopters for their contributions to the sector. Instead, protocols and support programs should also be developed for producers who were early adopters of best management practices. Protocols or direct payment for long-term carbon storage would help ensure that this critical ecosystem service is recognized for its vast contribution to on-farm environmental efforts.

On research and rebates, the climate action incentive fund returned a portion of revenue collected by the carbon tax for rebates and retrofits that reduce carbon emissions for small and medium-sized enterprises. Farms were the largest pool of applicants demonstrating their commitment to climate action. Unfortunately, CAIF has not been open for applications since 2019, and our members are looking for clarity on the future of this program.

The ACA also welcomes the opportunity for further engagement on the agricultural climate solutions program. The government should ensure that living lab sites are expanded to the west, for example, where mounting climate extremes are having profound impacts on producers.

In conclusion, farmers and ranchers continue to face rising costs for producing food, particularly inputs and transportation. These costs are compounded by the carbon surcharge. Farmers and ranchers are required to dry their grain, and heat or cool their barns and greenhouses in order to feed Canadians and drive our export market. These are the very activities needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change, including drought and extreme rainfall. With no alternative fuel sources available, these necessary practices are penalized by an increase in the price of carbon. As such, amendments must be made to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to extend exemptions for qualified fuel to marketable natural gas and propane, and include machinery used for grain drying, irrigation and heating and cooling of livestock barns and greenhouses.

Farmers are environmentalists and have been improving their sustainability for decades through innovations and BMPs. With record fuel prices, there are already strong incentives to invest in fuel efficiency, but farmers need to have available capital to be able to make investments in improving their operations, which are often very expensive and can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

By adopting policies that support competitiveness, the government will ensure that farmers can further invest in the sustainability of their operations, leveraging the sector's potential to lower emissions and sequester carbon. As such, ACA and our members are strong supporters of Bill C-234 and would encourage all members to support the bill and expedite its review at committee stage.

Thank you, all, for your time. We look forward to your questions.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly thankful for this opportunity to speak up for Canadian farmers. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, for carrying this private member's bill, Bill C-234, which I am hoping we all will support today and moving forward. I want to build on what my colleague was speaking about in his presentation, but I want to change it a bit and focus my intervention on what the agriculture sector is already doing, what is has accomplished and how this bill can help.

It is simply a fact that our farmers and ranchers have demonstrated a proud history of environmental stewardship as innovators. This has all be done on the farm of their own volition without government intervention or someone telling them what to do. Canadian farmers have adopted practices, including conservation tillage, that have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than half a million tonnes per year. They have done that because it is the right thing to do. They have done that because it is more efficient.

Other sectors, such as the laying hen industry, have also reduced their energy usage by more than 40%, their water consumption by 70% and their land footprint by 80%. Our country was one of the first in the world to have an outcome-based, certified sustainable beef program. Again, it is not because the government instructed this to be done or because of government oversight and regulation. Canadian cattlemen did this because it was the right thing to do.

In the service of our land and environment, as a result of this program, our cattle ranchers now provide more than 68% of the wildlife habitat in Canada. This represents the protection of a key part of Canada's biodiversity. In fact, our Canadian grasslands are the most endangered ecosystem on the planet. I know that very few Canadians would really understand that or think it is the case, but our ranch families across the country are the ones protecting this very delicate ecosystem.

If members have not seen it, I would encourage everyone in the House to see the documentary Guardians of the Grasslands, which is a partnership between the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. It highlights how endangered our grasslands are when it comes to protecting biodiversity. I am very proud of the fact that the documentary was filmed in my riding of Foothills on the world-renowned Waldron ranching co-op in southern Alberta.

What does this all mean? What this means is that Canadian farmers have long understood that sustainability and sound science are good for farming. They are good for their families, but they are also good for their bottom line. However, we need to have their backs as well. We need to be there to support them, especially when there are no other alternatives available.

By moving forward with Bill C-234, we can enable our farmers to remain competitive in a global marketplace. It would provide them with the tools they need to further their investments in sustainability and new innovation. It would also exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax, which would allow them to heat their barns and dry their grain at an affordable price to remain competitive.

This bill is supported by all aspects of the agriculture sector, and I believe we need to recognize just how important that is. For example, the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, a coalition of 14 national farm organizations that represents more than 190,000 farm businesses and $70 billion in farm cash receipts, is telling us this makes sense, and we should listen.

I want to provide a few quotes from some of the stakeholders who are supporting Bill C-234.

Dave Carey, co-chair of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, said:

As a national coalition of industry-wide farm organizations, we are focused on prioritising practical solutions to ensure our farmers and ranchers can remain competitive and utilize the tools available to them where no alternative fuel sources exist. [Bill C-234] will provide economic relief for our members, freeing up the working capital they need to implement environmental innovations on farm.

Bob Lowe, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said:

Beef farmers and ranchers are continuously looking at ways to environmentally improve operations and further contribute positively to Canada’s climate change objectives. Bill C-234 will provide the much needed exemptions for critical farming practices including heating and cooling of livestock barns and steam flaking.

There are very real consequences to the Liberals' carbon tax. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business verified ran the numbers, and they are troubling. On average, in the first year of the Liberals' carbon tax, the average Canadian farmer was paying $14,000 a year in carbon tax. Last year that went to $45,000 for the average Canadian farmer. On April 1, this tax will go up yet again by another 25%. As a result of that, Canadian farmers will be paying, on average, $70,000 per operation. As many of my colleagues have said this afternoon, the margins are very tight in this industry. These taxes, as they go up, are taxing Canadian farmers out of business, which is nonsensical when we understand what a critical role they play in not only feeding Canadians but in carrying the burden of helping to feed the world.

I want to give members a couple of examples from my riding. I put the word out and asked some of my farmers and producers to provide me with their carbon tax bills if they were willing to do so. From Hilltop Dairy in Fort MacLeod, the Van Hierden family shared its carbon tax bills with me, and in 2021 the bills were more than $7,000 for one farm. By comparison, Mountain View Poultry near Okotoks, the Kielstra farm, paid more than $12,000 in carbon taxes in January alone. That is one month.

My colleague and the Liberal Party have talked about supporting Bill C-8, which would have a carbon tax rebate program in it for agriculture. That rebate would be $1.70 per $1,000 of expenditures. That is a fraction of what Canadian farmers are now paying for the carbon tax, so it would be nowhere near carbon neutral. In contrast, Bill C-234 would ensure that farmers do not have to pay that carbon tax in the first place, which would be more efficient when it comes to the bureaucracy and the cost of administering a carbon tax rebate, which does not at all do what it is intended to do. Bill C-234 would certainly allow Canadian farmers to be able to do what they do best and be able to continue on with their operations.

To dig down a little deeper and show how unsustainable this program would be, the cost of production per acre in Alberta is about $400. The carbon tax will add more than $3 in costs next year, but in 2030 that will increase to $11, to $18 per acre in Saskatchewan and to $13 per acre in Manitoba. That would eat up whatever profits were there for the farmers to be able to continue on with their livelihoods.

As well, the cost of food will continue to increase. The farmers have nowhere to pass on these expenses, so as a result we are already seeing the cost of living skyrocket. As Canadians across this country are concerned about their ability to put food on the table for their families, this increasing carbon tax will even exacerbate the cost of living crisis we are now facing.

What we have talked about in the House many times is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It is going to further cause global food crises. Canadian farmers want to be there to help, but they will not be able to do that, because a farm-killing carbon tax that is being brought in by the Liberal government will make it impossible for our Canadian farmers to do what they do best, which is provide high-quality and sustainable food to feed not only Canadians but the world.

I know that is what Canadian farmers want to do. They are more than willing to carry that burden and that responsibility. They want to do it, but if they are going to do it, we have to give them everything they need to be able to compete on global markets and also to be able to compete here at home.

Now more than ever we need to ensure that Canadian farmers have the support and the structure in place for them to be successful, and by exempting farm fuels like natural gas and propane from the carbon tax, we would ensure that they are able to stay in business. I am asking all of my colleagues in the House to support my colleague from Huron—Bruce and Bill C-234 to help Canadian farmers across this country.

[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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for a riding where agriculture plays a key role in the economy, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-234.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill. Even though we do not really agree with the idea of undermining the carbon tax, there is no question that farmers play an important social role and that we all depend on their work. I can confirm that, given how important agri-food, agri-tourism and buying local are to Quebec's economy and more specifically that of the riding of Shefford.

That being said, I want to talk about three things in my speech. First, I will provide some background about this bill. Then, I will talk about the situation in Quebec, and finally, I will close by talking about the important role farmers play in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions.

To begin with, I will give a little bit of background. Bill C-234 seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which is commonly known as the “federal carbon tax” or the “carbon tax”. It is true that exempting some farming fuels that are essential for crop and livestock production from the carbon tax seems fair to us, given that the alternatives are still very expensive. Take grain dryers, for example.

Members should know that the carbon tax act provides for the general application of a fuel charge, which is paid to the government by the distributor upon delivery. There are already certain criteria for cases where the charge is not payable, including when the fuel is being sold to a farmer and is a qualifying farming fuel, which is defined under section 3 of the act as gasoline, light fuel oil or a prescribed type of fuel.

The bill essentially proposes three things. First, it expands the definition of eligible farming machinery to include heating equipment, in particular for buildings used for housing livestock.

Second, it clarifies that the definition of eligible farming machinery includes grain dryers. Most grain dryers run on propane, which represents a huge cost.

Third, it extends the carbon tax exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane. The qualifying types of fuel are therefore gasoline, light fuel oil, marketable natural gas, propane or a prescribed type of fuel.

We cannot forget that the carbon tax is Canada's chosen method to fight climate change. The preamble of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act explains that one of the justifications for the act is the fact that some provinces have not developed and implemented greenhouse gas emissions pricing systems. In 2016, the provinces were given a choice between maintaining or creating a pollution pricing system that would have to meet the federal standard.

Quebec's carbon market does not include the agriculture sector. Quebec also has a fuel tax, but this tax is refunded to fishers and farmers.

Quebec implemented its own carbon tax system in 2013, the Quebec carbon market, which is a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances. I will sum it up quickly by saying that Quebec's carbon market meets the federal standard and is primarily designed for industry, electricity producers and importers, and distributors of fossil fuels. It does not apply to the agriculture sector, and businesses can voluntarily register to participate in the carbon market.

Outside of the carbon market and the carbon tax, Quebec and Canada have various fuel taxes, including the federal excise tax on gasoline, the Quebec fuel tax, and the greater Montreal area gas tax. Furthermore, the GST and QST are applied to the sub-total after the calculation of other taxes. In those provinces where it is applied, the federal fuel charge is added to other taxes on fuel. In Quebec, farmers are entitled to a refund of fuel taxes, which applies to the Quebec tax.

I have provided the context for this bill. I would now like to talk about the fair transition and the importance of agriculture in making this green shift.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of a just transition. This means that we recognize that it would be unfair to expect workers and their families, as well as farmers, to make this transition happen overnight, especially since they are the first victims of the crisis in the energy sector and of the challenges associated with climate change.

Furthermore, even though farm fuels contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from the agricultural sector are caused primarily by livestock herds and the use of fertilizer. This does not in any way—on the contrary—prevent us from continuing to search for solutions that would reduce the energy used by grain dryers. In the short and medium term, significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada must come from the oil and gas production sector, the production of coal-fired electricity and motor vehicle transportation.

The western provinces are largely responsible for Canada's increasing greenhouse gas emissions. We have known since 1990 that they need to make drastic changes to their economy and their energy infrastructure. The post-pandemic economic recovery, which is necessary, is a perfect opportunity to do that. If they head in that direction, which they must, the Bloc Québécois will be happy to show solidarity and support measures that provide relief to those for whom the transition is a real economic challenge: workers in polluting sectors, farmers and families.

This method releases greenhouse gases, but that needs to be put in context along with other Canadian greenhouse gas sources, the type of climate and available alternatives. Weather and climate affect agricultural costs of production. The fact that the charge applies to farm fuels significantly compounds that phenomenon. If alternative solutions are available, the charge must be applied so that farmers improve their methods and opt for cleaner technology. This is an issue, a dynamic, that deserves our attention as parliamentarians.

The goal of climate policy should be to adapt to the effects of climate change, since the consequences of extreme weather events affect us all. A tool like the carbon tax is meant to act as an incentive to change behaviour, in other words to encourage the transition to clean technologies and renewable energy in order to reduce emissions.

As I pointed out earlier in a question, it is quite likely that applying the fuel charge to farming businesses may not be so effective if it does not push farmers to reduce their carbon footprint. This issue also warrants closer study.

Under the Paris Agreement, Canada committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, to a total of 513 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent. The Government of Canada has since revised its 2030 target upwards to a range of between 40% and 45% below 2005 levels.

Canada's emissions have increased by over 20% since 1990. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with Canada's agriculture sector increased 28% between 1990 and 2017, but have stabilized since 2005. Canada's agricultural economic sector emitted a total of 72 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2005.

In 2018, emissions from Canada's agriculture industry accounted for 59 megatonnes of greenhouse gases, or 8.1% of Canada's total GHG emissions. That is the figure and it is not that big. However, GHG emissions from on-farm fuel combustion were included in the total for the energy sector, while emissions related to farming fuels were grouped with emissions from the forestry and fishing industries in the “other sectors” subcategory.

The calculations are complicated, but to summarize, stationary combustion sources in the agriculture and forestry industries for all of Canada accounted for 3.8 megatonnes in 2018. That is a large number, and efforts will have to be made to reduce the impact of agriculture and farming fuels on total GHG emissions.

However, there is more near-term potential for reducing GHG emissions in the oil and gas, electricity generation and transportation sectors. The sector-based GHG emission structure varies significantly from province to province, particularly depending on the method of electricity generation.

Historically, the provinces of Alberta and Ontario have been the biggest GHG emitters. In Quebec, agriculture accounts for 9.8% of emissions. By way of comparison, Quebec's transportation sector represents 43.3% of Quebec's emissions, while the electricity generation sector accounts for 0.3%.

Quebec's main climate challenge is road transportation, whereas the 18% increase in Alberta's GHG emissions between 2005 and 2017 was primarily due to oil and gas operations, which account for 50% of the province's total emissions.

In short, if we decide to spare farmers the burden of environmental taxes, the western provinces will have to engage in the energy transition, diversify their economies to gradually phase out oil and gas production, and stop producing coal-fired electricity.

All economic sectors must play a part in combatting climate change, but we must also assess how effective government GHG reduction policies are in relation to the effort they require from citizens, workers and businesses.

A just transition means taking environmental, social and economic objectives into account. The energy transition is not meant to come at the expense of workers or the most vulnerable. The challenge is to develop public policy approaches that allow us to move beyond seeing economy and ecology as mutually exclusive.

I know that Quebec farmers agree with this and would like to develop better practices. They have a key role to play in the solution.

In conclusion, I want to talk about the 2019 propane crisis, which was a big issue when I was first elected. My cellphone was quickly flooded with calls from farmers. As all members know, we must never allow such a situation to happen again. It presents far too many risks for our businesses, and we need to be acting on their behalf. We know that businesses are still too reliant on propane and natural gas for running various other types of machinery, such as grain dryers.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We have a question. It is likely that applying a fuel charge to farming businesses may not be so effective. It does not push farmers to reduce their carbon footprint.

How could this issue be studied when we reach the next stage of his Bill C‑234?

[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.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Huron—Bruce will be up shortly to talk to his private member's bill, which is an important private member's bill, and I intend to highlight it through my speech.

It is always an honour to rise in the House and address the concerns of my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

When I first spoke to Bill C-8 at second reading, I talked about the cost of living and inflation, which is a concern that I am hearing about every day from my constituents. They are worried about these record highs in inflation. It has been over 30 years since we have had inflation this high. It is at almost 6%. They are worried about their ability to live with that affordability question, and it does impact rural Canada much more than the rest of Canada, especially our farmers.

I will focus part of my interjection on part 1 of the bill, which talks about the amendments to income tax and income tax regulations, but I will speak specifically to the paragraphs that talk about the new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses and qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality, as well as the second bit on the new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.

Before I do that, I want to again highlight the cost of servicing the incredible amount of spending and debt that we now have as a country. The national debt has doubled in the last six years from about $600 billion to $1.2 trillion. To service that debt is over $24 billion, and that is before interest rates go up. As I mentioned in previous speeches, that is more than the budget for our Canadian Armed Forces. Hopefully, we will, as the government has indicated, see some changes in that budget based on the unfortunate circumstance in Ukraine.

However, the problem with servicing such incredible debt is that it actually puts those social programs that so many Canadians depend upon at risk. As the PBO has outlined, much of the stimulus spending that is included in Bill C-8, approximately $71 billion, is not necessary. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and we need to make decisions to change that. As has been spoken about before, groceries alone are going up over $1,000. Seniors in this country cannot afford that, and low-income Canadians cannot afford that. All of these products and produce are available here in Canada.

I want to go back to the legislation, specifically to the new refundable tax credit for eligible and qualifying businesses for ventilation expenses made to improve air quality. I brought this up before the bill went to committee and talked about the importance of trying to understand why the government chose the date of September 1, 2021, for businesses to qualify for that credit. As I highlighted before, I have businesses in my area that helped deal with, fight and combat the COVID pandemic by turning their facilities into field hospitals, but while they showed that initiative, and they put out thousands of dollars to make those changes to get ahead of the curve at the time, they do not qualify.

However, considering we are here debating the bill, I do not see the government making those changes, because the Liberals did not make those changes at committee. I would ask why the government is penalizing those small businesses and companies across Canada that did step up to fight COVID-19 and made the necessary changes to make Canadians safer. Why is the government rationalizing and not supporting that? My cynical response is that, if we look at September 1, 2021, I wonder what it was tied to, considering when we had the election this past fall.

The next piece I want to get to is around the Liberal carbon tax, but before I get to that, I want to talk about the green bond framework and the clean jobs training centre, with the caveat that the second one is not clarified yet as I brought it up at committee yesterday. However, my question is this: Why has nuclear energy been excluded from the green bond framework? It is key, and all Canadians should know that nuclear is an essential and important part of getting to a carbon-neutral economy and dealing with climate change.

It is the same thing with the clean jobs training centre. Right now it is not included in supports for getting workers skills training so they can transition to the nuclear industry and we can help get people into jobs that will help reduce our carbon footprint.

I am going to have difficulty getting through my full 10 minutes before I am cut off, but I want to talk about the refundable tax credit and what it would mean to farming businesses. I am actually optimistic that this aspect could provide some support to our agriculture industry and our farmers, especially those who are actively engaged in the management of the day-to-day activities of earning farming income or incurring farming expenses of $25,000 or more. This is a policy that I think would help the farmers in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I will never stop underlining the importance of our farmers and the essential food they put on the table for not only Canadians, but people around the world. This has been further exacerbated in the last couple months with the war in Ukraine and Russia's terrible actions. Ukraine is the essential breadbasket for Europe, and without food coming out of Ukraine, it is that much more important that we are supporting our Canadian farmers and not making life more expensive for them, because all people around the globe are going to depend upon Canadian agriculture and food. The issue is that, although I am somewhat optimistic and happy to see this refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, it is only a partial step in the direction we need to go.

In the last Parliament, the Conservatives introduced a private member's bill, which was passed before the House rose, to remove the Liberal carbon tax from our farmers. Unfortunately, because of the unnecessary election last summer called by the Prime Minister, that bill died in the Senate before it could be passed. We need to get that bill passed, along with the new bill of my hon. colleague from Huron—Bruce, which I know will be discussed shortly, because we need to cut the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for our grain dryers and livestock barns. Our farmers are price-takers, not price-makers, and nothing included in Bill C-8 would actually take us to the necessary level. The Liberal plan does not recognize the important role our farmers play in reducing the carbon footprint through carbon sequestration and more in this country.

I will sum up by saying that although there are some aspects in Bill C-8 that I can support, in large part it is not good enough and would actually increase spending for Canadians. I am looking forward to hearing the forthcoming debate on Bill C-234 from the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

[Mark Agnew]

We'll take what we can get in the meantime, but certainly, working towards Bill C-234 is what we hope can happen.

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

If we just sum up the difference between Bill C-234 and Bill C-8 for farmers with respect to the exemption of the carbon tax for natural gas and propane, Bill C-234 will provide a higher recovery percentage and will provide complete equity, because 100% will get 100% back. They will also receive that money...in fact it will never leave, so they effectively receive it immediately, as opposed to waiting for up to two years for that money.

When I compare those two, my assumption would be that Bill C-234 would be a much better option for your members.

[Mark Agnew]

There's a gap between what's in Bill C-8 and what we heard from some of our members in the industry, particularly around the harsh climate realities of the Canadian agricultural industry. Again, grain drying, for instance, is quite important to make sure the products are being dried out properly and you don't have a spoiled grain product. Because of our harsh climates in the winter, we need to have heating for livestock. Similarly, you need to have cooling in the summer in many places.

If you were to ask people what the ideal situation would be, I think the exemptions for natural gas and propane would be where we'd like to move the conversation. Bill C-234 moves it in that direction. As much as Bill C-8 is a first step, there's still that gap, given where we've heard members would like things to go.

[Mark Agnew, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Chair and honourable members, it's a pleasure to be back at this committee.

The economic and fiscal update, which I'll call EFU for short, included a number of critical elements for Canadian businesses. I want to focus my remarks on both the elements within Bill C-8 and provide a broader perspective on some of the elements from the EFU.

The first element where I want to underscore our strong support is the funding that was brought in for rapid testing. The Canadian Chamber has seen first-hand the benefits of rapid testing through our rapid testing initiative that distributed over eight million rapid test kits across the country through local chambers directly to small and medium-sized enterprises. Simply put, these kits are helping many businesses stay open, increasing both employee and consumer confidence. Certainly, we believe the rapid tests will remain a critical part of the tool kit as we navigate the endemic existence of COVID-19 in the months and years ahead.

The second element where I want to voice our support is related to the small businesses air quality improvement tax credit. Given the transmission vectors for COVID, we need to maintain support for ventilation to again ensure safe workplaces that will build confidence for consumers as these consumer-facing businesses continue to ramp up their capacity under provincial health regulations.

The third element I want to briefly highlight is the refundable tax credit to support farmers. The impacts of climate change on agriculture have given the industry a stake in taking action, and it is ready to do its part. However, inflationary costs are affecting farmers who face unique needs in Canada. The credit in Bill C-8 is a welcome start, but some of the industry will certainly need more. For example, in harsh climates, where grain drying is important or heating for livestock is needed, higher proportions of carbon-based energy products are used. Certainly, we encourage parliamentarians to look at building on Bill C-8 going forward, such as the study of Bill C-234.

Shifting briefly to the contents of the broader EFU, I want to highlight a few other areas of interest to parliamentarians and the Canadian business community.

The Canadian Chamber was glad to see an extension to HASCAP, given the challenges still facing businesses, as well as the streamlined deduction for home office exemptions, given that we're expecting remote working to continue for the remainder of the 2022 calendar year for many business operations.

We also noted in the EFU the subsequent extension that was announced for CEBA payments to December 2023. This is a welcome step for many of our members, and we hope there can be a further 12-month extension through to December 2024. Underscoring the support, I'd like to point out to members that we had our chamber annual general meeting last autumn, where the extension through to December 2024 was voted on and supported overwhelmingly by delegates from across the country to support those from the hardest-hit sectors.

We also noted the government's continued intent in the EFU to move ahead with a digital services tax, which was recently affirmed in a ways and means motion tabled just before the Christmas recess. The chamber continues to have concerns with not only the design features in the bill but also the retroactive application and the issues that it poses in our relationship with the United States. We hope the government will instead prioritize its efforts toward the multilateral digital services tax agreement that's been agreed by the OECD and G20.

Finally, we also noted that the EFU underscored the government's intent to move ahead with a tax incentive to support carbon capture, utilization and storage. Again, that is welcome news for our members, and as the country makes a transition toward net zero 2050, there is certainly no panacea. With a range of tools, CCUS will be a critical item for the realities of the Canadian economy, not only for the oil and gas sector but also for other sectors like fertilizer, cement and utilities. The tax credit's design and rates not only need to ensure the credit is viable but also recognize that CCUS is going to be a critical part of Canada's transition toward net zero 2050 and also our short-term 2030 climate targets.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on both the contents of Bill C-8 as well as the broader economic and fiscal update.

I look forward to taking questions from members in the Q and A.

[Phil King]

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

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today. I need to first thank the member for Foothills and the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for their assistance with this bill.

I call this bill the fairness for farmers act. It would cut the carbon tax on the natural gas and propane used to dry grain, condition grain and heat livestock barns. For far too long, farmers have paid tens of thousands of dollars of carbon tax to provide food for Canadian families, and it is time to right that wrong.

We all know farmers are price takers. They are not price makers. They cannot pass these charges along to the consumer. They only take it out of their profit margin at the end of the year. It is time to change this.

The Liberals' plan is going to be a failure. It is not fair. It is not equitable. Farmers are always asked to be the line of credit, whether it is on HST, GST, AgriStability or any other farm program. They are going to be asked to be the line of credit on this as well, and it is not right.

Let us just do the right thing. Let us recognize the tremendous environmental actions and benefits farmers provide to Canadians. Let us support them. Let us do the right thing to get this passed through the Senate.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)