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.

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.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[The Acting Speaker, Mike Morrice]

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Mike Morrice]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request that the motion be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk at great length about supporting farmers. He said that any measures we are able to come up with we should do expeditiously to provide that support. However, I can not help but reflect on the fact that for Bill C-8, which was specifically intended for and helped 24,000 farmers throughout the country, the Conservative Party and this member put up roadblocks by bringing in various political games to avoid the passage of the bill, a bill that would directly impact and provide supports to farmers.

I am curious if the member can rectify the fact that, although he says it now, that was not what we saw when Bill C-8 was before us, which had support in it for 24,000 farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the best decisions this member has made was seeing the clock to private members' time today so I have to give him credit for that.

In regard to Bill C-8, the bill he is talking about, almost half of my speech talked about the critiques that were in that and that was to do with the rebate. The rebate falls short. I hate to say it. One can go to any farmer in any province and they will tell us that if one has $1.73 or $1.47 per $1,000 allowable expenses and if one has half a million dollars or a million dollars in allowable expenses, how is a $1,700 cheque going to help out? It does not help out at all.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois does not like to weaken the carbon tax. Quebec has a carbon pricing law, but it does not apply to the agriculture sector. We understand the merits of this proposal because alternative measures are still very expensive for farmers. We need farmers as they provide an essential service. Food sovereignty is important.

However, if there were a reasonable alternative, we would be in favour of this carbon tax applying to farmers. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good point. I believe that is why we were quite open to having a sunset clause or a review clause after, I believe, eight years amended into the bill. That is good. There could be things that happen that make it practical, make it financially viable so, yes, that is a reality and that is a possibility down the road and that is why that amendment is in there now.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remember that when the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought into force in 2018, even at that time the Liberal government recognized that there had to be important definitions for qualifying farming fuel for the activity of farming, for what eligible farming machinery was and what eligible farming activities were, so, even at that time, the Liberals recognized that special exemptions had to be carved out in the original act for agricultural activities.

I am wondering if the member for Huron—Bruce can comment on that and juxtapose that with the Liberals' opposition to this bill when, back in 2018, they recognized that these exemptions were actually important.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a good point because, basically, we are just moving sentences around in the actual act itself.

If we think about what the member said, he is right. Diesel fuel is in there as an exemption. Gasoline is in there as an exemption on farm, in the recognition that we are making food here and we are producing food. This is one of the pillars of Canadian sovereignty and, believe me, folks, that is nothing to be messed around with.

If we have learned anything in the last year, it is that we have to support this industry. For farmers, we have to keep encouraging the youth to stay in the agricultural field and to continue to support innovation, research and agriculture.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Unfortunately, I will have to cut him off at some point. The member has one minute.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I can cover in a minute, but I will say that I find it quite interesting that the Conservatives, through this bill, and I recognize it is a private member's bill, have spent a great deal of time talking about the need to support farmers, yet when Bill C-8 was brought into the House, it took quite a while as a result of Conservative partisanship and Conservative games that were being played. That bill, in particular, helped 24,000 farmers throughout Canada. We talk about the need to assist our farmers throughout the country, but when push came to shove and there was an actual piece of government legislation before the House, it was actually Conservatives who were playing endless games in order to prevent the legislation from moving forward.

There is no doubt that farmers are on the front line of the climate crisis—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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.

[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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always such a great honour to rise for the great communities of Timmins—James Bay. Talking about agriculture is extremely important in a region so dependent on the agricultural families in beef, canola, rye and dairy. There is such great pride to see young farmers coming in to build up our region from the traditional lands in Temiskaming all the way up through emerging lands in Cochrane, Val Gagné and Matheson.

It is really important to point out in this discussion today, happening a week after the latest IPCC report, what we are facing globally in terms of the climate crisis. I know it makes my Conservative colleagues very uncomfortable when we talk about climate reality, because it is something they pretend does not exist. However, with respect to vulnerabilities on the planet right now, there is no industry more vulnerable than agriculture, because those businesses are dependent on weather and the vagaries of weather and what is happening with growing fires, storms, droughts and floods. These have caused enormous amounts of damage. One has only to look at British Columbia, which, in 2021 suffered $17 billion in damages from the climate storms, the wildfires, the droughts and severe flooding. Agriculture took severe losses from all that.

Therefore, finding ways for agriculture to be part of the conversation about sustainability is fundamental because it is also recognizing that farmers and the agricultural community are thinking about sustainability all the time. It is part of the fundamentals of their business.

In Canada, about 250,000 farmers look after and manage about 68 million hectares of land. Through these farmers, over the last 20 years, we have seen incredible improvements in sustainability, soil management practices for crops and grazing, and rising standards that the farmers have pushed for in terms of water management. Furthermore, since 2000, Canada's agricultural soils have been sequestering more carbon than was emitted. That is the result of the sustainability commitments made by the farming community.

However, we have to look at it in a larger context because it has been reported that, since the 1960s, agricultural yields around the world are 21% lower than they would have been if we had not been dealing with erratic temperatures and the increase of over 1.1°C around the world. Even as we are working harder for sustainability, we are losing ground.

It needs to be said that the inputs in agriculture, including fuel inputs and the need for fertilizer, are all fundamental costs that are borne by the farming community and individual farm families. We also know there are significant drivers in some areas in terms of climate risk. We can look at nitrogen, for example. We know that, if there is better management of nitrogen, the losses in the environment will be only a fraction of what they are now. The latest study said that there could be a $500-billion societal benefit for food supply and human health if we start to put in mitigation measures on nitrogen, which would cost in the area of $20 billion.

Therefore, my question for the Conservatives, who only ever go on carbon tax and nothing else with a vision for dealing with the climate crisis, is this: Where is the commitment for investments in agriculture to deal with nitrogen mitigation?

My colleagues in the Liberal Party are more than willing to give billions of dollars to big oil, but farmers have to deal with the costs themselves. Therefore, nitrogen is something we have to talk about. It is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Runoffs from nitrogen are causing algae blooms that have created dead zones in waterways. We all know this needs to be addressed, so let us start looking at investments in that.

In terms of the input costs for fuel, they are extraordinary costs that are borne by farmers. We need to start looking at how we can move toward more sustainability so that Canada's agricultural community will truly be the world leader.

The measure that is being brought forward is about a carve-out provision to ensure that the fuels that are being used are not covered by the carbon tax, and I think that is a reasonable solution. However, the Conservatives only have the one tool. They have one hammer, which is the carbon tax, and they pound on the table all the time. When I talk with farmers, they say they are looking at long-term ways they can make their farming operations sustainable with regard to the climate commitments that Canada and the world are looking at for the reduction of fossil fuels. They know that the more we burn, the more damage it is going to do to the land in the long term.

I look at the issue of tractors and diesel. There is the potential, if the federal government was willing to work with partners, to invest in technologies so that we could not only move more to batteries but also allow for automation because we cannot find workers on many of the farms to sustain what is happening.

I have heard Conservatives tell me that we cannot use batteries in diesel tractors. Have they ever been to a mine? There are 70-tonne trucks running underground that have moved from diesel to clean energy sources. What we are not seeing is a vision to support farming to be able to do that, because right now these costs are borne by farmers. Farmers are not in a position to shift their tractors to batteries. Financially, it is not possible. However, for example, with carbon capture, big oil companies are making record profits, but they are still coming for handouts and they are still expecting that the people of Canada will cover those costs.

To me, this is a fair question: Why are we willing to invest billions in the oil sector, which is already hugely profitable, when we are not willing to ask farming communities how we could start to move toward sustainability, and how we could remove our dependence on diesel and other fuels? That is a conversation we need to have, and it raises questions about the grid. We do not have a grid in rural Canada that could even carry electrification through batteries and other sources to get to farms. Farms are on their own.

We have the one tool before us right now. We need to deal with the high input costs of farming, of drying grain and of sustaining barns. These are big operations, and they are taking heavy amounts of cost in inputs. They cannot pass those on to the consumers. That is the reality. These are mostly family-run farm operations that have limits in terms of how much of the cost they can accept.

I am more than willing to support this motion to get to committee so we can look at it. However, I am urging my colleagues, in light of the latest IPCC report, to get serious about addressing issues such as nitrogen, which is much more of a planet killer than carbon dioxide. We need to be looking to find the alternatives for fuels such as diesel.

If we are going to insist that every other sector of the economy shifts, then we need to be showing the shift in agriculture. Agriculture is a fundamental of sustainability. Agriculture is the area that takes the biggest hit, but the problem is that agriculture bears the costs of the transition, and agriculture bears the cost of the damage that is done to the economy by other sectors that do not do their part.

I would urge my colleagues from all parties to work together to put a vision forward with sustainability measures, with support and with conversation with agriculture. It is the farmers who understand environment better than anyone else, it is the farmers who understand how to run their operations, and it is the farmers who will have the solutions, ultimately, to make farming sustainable in the 21st century so that the world is sustainable in the 21st century.

[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.

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry to hear about Sulley.

Continuing debate, I recognize the member for Huron—Bruce for his right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the agriculture critic, the member of Parliament for Foothills, for his great work on this bill. Although I think this is a better bill, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South had a similar bill in the previous Parliament, and I want to thank him for his work.

I want to thank all the members of Parliament who spoke to this bill and brought up some great points, as well as the people on the agriculture committee, the farm groups and, most importantly, the farmers from all across the country who have contacted members of Parliament, including myself, to express how important this bill is, especially at this time.

If we think about what the member for Kings—Hants said, who is in a different party but understands the value of this bill, when we look at drying grain, there is no viable option. When we look at heating a livestock barn, whether it is for hogs, layer hens, broilers, turkeys or whatever it may be, there is no viable option at this time. It is fundamentally important and ethical for those farmers to be able to heat their barns and provide a climate for their livestock to grow and provide food on the plates at the tables of Canadians from coast to coast. In my mind, when we look at this bill, there is no carbon tax on farm for diesel or gas. What we are asking for is an exemption on propane and natural gas for them to dry their grain, or even for something like growing mushrooms in a building, which is a perfectly acceptable thing under this bill as well.

The Liberal government tried to address that with the rebate it brought in a couple of years ago, but it falls so short in providing reasonable compensation for farmers that it is really not acceptable. It provides $1.73 per $1,000 of allowable expenses, so if farmers have a million dollars of expenses, they will get $1,730 back with the carbon tax rebate. Any members who have farmers in their ridings know that at harvest time in the fall, or with the monthly bills to heat or cool their barns, the carbon tax bill far exceeds the $1,730 for which they qualify.

Another thing I would highlight briefly is that farmers are asked to be the government's line of credit. What I mean by that is this. If we look at the HST rebate that many farmers get, whether they file quarterly, semi-annually or annually, they are the government's line of credit regarding that. With respect to all the business risk management programs, they are the government's line of credit. Everything happens and then they file at the end of the year and maybe get a rebate. Once again, the program that the Liberals created also forces farmers to be their line of credit, so we are looking to alleviate that to cut costs.

I just have a couple of minutes to go, so the other thing I will say is this. If we look at the underused housing tax that has just come up here, it is another example of the government bringing in something without consulting farmers. This has caused chaos in the farming community. For farmers who own multiple farms and maybe have a home for their family, their adult son or daughter, or maybe their hired staff, that has created a whole pile of confusion. I know the Minister of Revenue is working to address it, but it is another example. There is a carbon tax on farmers, as well as an underused housing tax on farmers, when we should be supporting farmers. They are the fabric of this country. They put food on the table. They are the best and we really need to support them.

If we look at innovation, there has been so much innovation in the last century. Some things are great; some are not great. However, with respect to agriculture, if we look at emissions per horsepower and just use that as a target, and if we look at the old David Brown equipment from 50 years ago and compare that to what John Deere, Case IH or Kubota puts out today, there is no comparison. They have done a great job with respect to the NOx and SOx. On farm, the environmental farm plan, the nutrient management plans, cover crops, no-till drilling and strategic spraying, all these things are tremendous.

Therefore, we want to get this bill to the Senate. We want the senators to deal with it in an appropriate way, which we know they can do, and really make a big difference for farmers across the country.

I want to thank all members of Parliament for considering this bill. The vote is coming up on Wednesday. We want a recorded division on that vote so we can see each person in this House take their place and show their support for farmers one vote at a time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I am quite prepared to begin Government Orders at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

[The Speaker, 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 divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #289

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there were serious technical problems and I was unable to submit my vote for the first vote. I would ask for unanimous consent to do so now.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Consent is granted and the member may cast her vote.