Evidence of meeting #41 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Storseth, can we have that amendment?
Okay, I have the amendment. I'll read it one more time:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food study the effects of a carbon tax or any broad-based environmental tax and ensure Canadian farmers are not saddled with a carbon tax which would further increase their input costs and hurt their competitiveness.
Does everybody understand the terms of the amendment?
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Would the mover of the amendment consider changing the word “tax” to “pricing”, “carbon tax” to “carbon pricing”, because I think at the end of the day you'll find, on our policy, what that's going to be is carbon pricing.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, but we're not actually talking about Mr. Easter's proposed policy in which—
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
We're not talking about Mr. Easter's policy. As he was so offended, we're not talking about his proposed policy. He's not sure if it's a green shift or a tax or what it is.
I believe that what was done in British Columbia was a carbon tax. It was called a carbon tax. And I believe this is the wording that should be used.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have the amendment on the floor.
Continuing on with our speaking list, Mr. Miller.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
What I was going to say to the original motion goes with this one here. I think this actually strengthens that. This motion, as pointed out by Mr. Easter and Mr. Atamanenko, isn't about politics. We're here to protect and try to come up with things that will benefit agriculture.
At the end of the day, all this asks is that...and I don't care whether it's a carbon tax issue or carbon pricing, as Mr. Easter wants to call it. I don't care whether it's from this government or from a party that would like to be government. For example, I was going to bring up the one that Mr. Storseth mentioned, in British Columbia—Alex, where you're from. There's already one there.
All the original motion was saying--and I certainly support the amendment--basically is that in the event...at the end of the day, our farmers are protected from it. So I can't fathom how you could be opposed to it, or anybody sitting on the committee.
Mr. Chairman, this only stands out...and as I said, it doesn't matter when, who, what, or where something with this issue comes up; the committee is on record as making sure that it doesn't negatively affect farmers and agriculture in general.
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I had a lot to say, but I will be quite brief this time because I want to ensure that we talk about Lloyd's motion. As he himself said earlier, we need to deal with this immediately. However, Mr. Lauzon's motion refers to a hypothetical carbon tax referred to at some point by the Liberal Party. That motion is far from being urgent. Furthermore, in opposition to what people have said about Larry's case, this is an extremely partisan debate in my opinion. Ken proved this earlier. The fact that the motion was presented before another committee is an indication that, here, the Conservatives—and all is fair in love and war, simply want to bother the Liberals.
As I said at the last committee meeting, this motion presents two possibilities, in my opinion. The first is that the Conservatives want to implement a carbon tax, that this plan is in their books, but they are not saying so. If this is the case, I would like Mr. Lauzon to give us more details about this. His motion indicates that there will be a tax. So that is clear. The other possibility is that he really does expect that when the House resume sitting next fall, the Conservatives will be defeated and the Liberals, once in power, will implement a carbon tax.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I know my honourable colleague is very skilled in debate in committee, and he knows we're talking about the amendment and not Mr. Lauzon's motion at this point in time.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
This also concerns the amendment. We're talking about a carbon tax. So it's exactly the same thing. I think that Mr. Storseth is also an extremely gifted debater. He is also very good at cutting off other people, but that is what I was talking about.
I myself have come up with an amendment, but I'm going to set it aside for now. Otherwise discussions will take too long. Instead, I would like us to discuss Mr. St. Amand's motion.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
In respect for the witnesses who have come a long way, I would like to call the vote, Mr. Chair, and get this dealt with as soon as possible.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
I have nobody on the speaking list as it stands right now, so we are voting on the amendment. Everybody understands the amendment?
On a point of order, Mr. Storseth.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
A recorded vote. Mr. Etoka, could we have a recorded vote on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9 ; nays 2)
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Is there no further debate? Nobody wants on? Okay, a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Let's move on to the next order of business, which is Mr. St. Amand's motion. Could you read that into the record and so move it?
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
Thank you Mr. Chair.
I move that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food urges the federal government to immediately provide funding for tobacco farmers to the extent of $1.78 per pound as an interim payment until a full exit strategy can be implemented.
We heard a lot about this at our meeting last week. Powerful presentations were made by the chairwoman of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, and representatives of the Tobacco Farmers in Crisis.
I suspect, Mr. Chair, you and perhaps other committee members will recall my question of the witnesses: “On an immediate urgent basis, what is the best thing the federal government could do to assist tobacco producers?” They indicated during their presentation that the best thing, at least for now, is to do what the motion is urging the federal government to do.
It is an urgent situation. I don't--and I suspect other committee members do not--throw around the word “urgent” in too cavalier a fashion, but this is an urgent situation. We heard last week, as we've heard on other occasions, about suicides in the ranks of tobacco farming families.
To their credit, some 20 or 25 tobacco farmers and their wives or family members attended here in Ottawa, specifically for the purpose of this committee meeting, to lend visible and tangible support for this motion. They've been very respectful of the process and the committee. They were not here to agitate or demonstrate in an inappropriate fashion, but just to say they had driven hundreds of miles to impress upon committee members the urgency of this. Their families and their entire communities are in need of immediate assistance from the federal government. That does not mean another task force, awaiting the results of a task force, another series of circular meetings over the summer, or more half-baked commitments from the government. This is a definite thing for the government to do.
That's the thrust of the motion, Mr. Chair.