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.

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?