Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Geneviève Grossenbacher]

Again, it's a very good question.

We very much look forward to seeing the study when it comes out. We contributed to it too.

Obviously, we agree soil health is really key. Actually, a lot of climate resilience rests on soil health. You said it yourself. When you have better soil health, you'll be able to better retain water or deal with the different extremes that come your way.

I can provide more comments directed specifically to soil health, but we welcome the strategy.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We'll give you back those those 30 seconds, maybe.

Mr. Barlow, you have five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here.

Before I go to my questions, colleagues, I gave a notice of motion on April 9, and I would like to move that motion now.

Why this is coming today is that I went to one of my constituents on the weekend, a ranch near Kananaskis country that is a couple of quarter sections in size. Mr. Stronach, you'll be happy to know that we saw a couple of black bears and a couple of bald eagles.

However, what was frustrating for this ranch owner—we were riding horses throughout his property—is that his feed bill for his animals went up $1,000 in one delivery, and that $1,000 was completely as a result of the carbon tax on trucking.

We'd like to highlight the fact that this carbon tax is having a detrimental impact on people in Canadian agriculture and their ability to stay in business. This is a family rancher. Dewy is looking forward to passing on this family ranch to his grandson and granddaughter in the next few years and is questioning the financial viability of being able to do that with the impact that the carbon tax is having on their operation.

On April 9, I put forward a notice of motion that I'd like to move now.

Over the last few weeks, we've received letters from dozens of stakeholder groups representing tens of thousands of farmers and certainly tens of thousands of hectares of arable farmland that highlight the impact that the carbon tax is having on their operations, and certainly through this study alone, we've heard that 44% of produce growers are operating at a loss, which is certainly not long-term viability for their operations.

I asked my colleagues on April 9 for unanimous consent for the committee to report those letters that we received from a number of provincial agriculture ministers, agriculture stakeholder groups like the Association of Rural Municipalities in Saskatchewan, Grain Farmers of Ontario and a number of others, asking for the government to review its decision to increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1 and to take a look at the impact this is having on Canadian agriculture as part of the consideration for the debate on Bill C-234, which is coming back later this month.

I'm asking my colleagues for unanimous consent to table those letters in the House as part of the discussion on Bill C-234.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Barlow.

Basically there is now an opportunity for debate on the motion as it's moved. I've stopped the clock, Mr. Barlow, and I'll open up the floor to any of our colleagues who may want to weigh in.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

I have lots of respect for my colleague on the other side and the letters that have come forward. I know that those letters are public, so I don't see how that will inform the debate. Bill C-234 is completely in the control of the opposition. Should they choose to read into the record those particular letters, they can do so at their will when it comes up for debate.

Bill C-234 has come before this committee before. We've dealt with it. It's been sent back to the House and to the other chamber, and it came back. I don't see what more we could add to this particular debate.

I've seen all of the letters. They're public. I don't see what value it would add to the House of Commons. I think most parliamentarians have seen those letters as well. They are in the public domain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I do see Mr. Louis, and I'll look for anyone else. Mr. MacGregor or Mr. Perron may want to weigh in.

Go ahead, Mr. Louis.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking for some clarification. I don't know if I've seen this reference to “report the letters it received from agriculture stakeholders”. What would this process entail? I'm not sure I've come across this before. Maybe the clerk can help us with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I can turn to my clerk, but my understanding is that the letters that were received that were addressed to the committee would essentially be tabled in the House of Commons. That would be the procedure. There would be a tabling of them. I think that it probably would allow for some element of debate if folks wanted to move what has been tabled, but it would essentially just be taking those documents and having them available to all parliamentarians, I think, as part of parliamentary privilege.

Is there anything I'm missing?

The clerk is telling me, Mr. Louis, that she'd have to check exactly what is possible procedurally and what isn't. We'll come back with answers on that.

Colleagues, would you like to adjourn debate? Would you like to continue it? I'm really in your hands at this point.

Go ahead, Mr. Barlow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I think we understand what I'm asking: Either I or the chair would table these letters in the House. I would just like to call for a vote as to whether or not we would support tabling these letters, which, again, represent tens of thousands of our stakeholders, highlighting the impact the carbon tax is having on their operations.

I would like us to table those letters in the House of Commons to make that official, and I'd just call for a vote if everyone's good with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I did see a hand first, though, Mr. Barlow.

I'm going to go to Mr. MacGregor.

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

Thanks, Chair.

My position on Bill C-234 is well known.

There's a lot of preamble here that I believe is unnecessary, so just for simplicity's sake, I would suggest a friendly amendment to my colleague Mr. Barlow to simplify the motion. It is as follows: “That the committee report the letters it received from agricultural stakeholders, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities regarding the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1 to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234.

It's just a simple to-the-point motion. I'm okay with having a vote on this, but I think it's important to understand what this would result in, procedurally, in the House. I've never been on a committee where we've simply reported letters to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Colleagues, I can ask for some procedural help from the clerk about the mechanism that Mr. Barlow is talking about.

I take notice, Mr. MacGregor, that you've just moved an amendment. You've offered an amendment to Mr. Barlow's motion to simplify it, but if you would like, we can come back to this once I get some guidance from the clerk.

Go ahead, Mr. Perron.

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

I'm just going to make a brief comment. With all due respect to Mr. Barlow, I quite agree with what Mr. Drouin said. This subject has been addressed here, and it's now in the hands of the House. The letters are public. So I don't see what that will add.

I'd be prepared to vote on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

What we can do if committee members are ready to vote—which Monsieur Peron said he is and which Mr. Barlow has asked for—is vote on what Mr. MacGregor has just moved, which is an amendment. We can vote up or down on that, and then we can choose to vote up or down on what Mr. Barlow is seeking to do procedurally. Is that how you would like to proceed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. Go ahead, Madam Clerk, if you could, on the amendment that Mr. MacGregor moved on Mr. Barlow's original motion.

Colleagues, essentially what Mr. MacGregor's amendment would do is keep “Given that”, and then the text of paragraph “a)” would stay. Then he goes immediately down to the bottom of the piece and would add, after the text of paragraph “a)”, “regarding the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1 to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234.”

That's what I had. Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor, if we're wrong.

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

Chair, it's just a simple motion that the committee report the letters. I'm removing the entire preamble and removing the “ask for unanimous consent”. It's just a motion that the committee report the letters, and then it stays the same on the bottom end.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It would be that the committee report the letters it received from agriculture stakeholders. Paragraphs “a)” to “j)” would be gone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

I'm being asked by the clerk if you could send it in writing quickly, and we'll suspend until then.

Go ahead, Monsieur Perron.

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

I simply want to say that I have a commitment at 1:15 p.m. That must also be the case for a few other people here. Consequently, either we postpone the vote until the next meeting or we hold it now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We still have a certain amount of time.

Mr. MacGregor works pretty quickly, so we'll just wait for about 60 seconds for him to get this to the clerk, and we'll go from there.

Colleagues, I think we're going to be dealing with procedural matters, and then we have to go in camera. Unfortunately, we get cut off from the witnesses for our last round of questioning, unless you would like me to continue to proceed, get through this procedure, and try to do what we can. We have about 15 minutes more that we could do.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, is there any way that we can finish up with the witnesses so that we can move to this, as opposed to having them wait for us to go through the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

We don't always deal in purist procedural terms. I'm quite laissez-faire as your chair, but technically, now that it has been moved, we have to deal with this piece of business. It is unfortunate, but that's what we have to do.

I'm going to read this to you, colleagues:

That the committee report the letters it received from agricultural stakeholders, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities regarding the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1 to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234.

That is what Mr. MacGregor has moved.

We're going to proceed to a recorded vote on the amendment.

Go ahead.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We will now go back to the main motion. I can repeat this if you want, colleagues, or if you think it's going to be a similar voting pattern, we can just move on.

Mr. Barlow would like a recorded vote.

Okay, go ahead.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Barlow, you have two minutes left in your time.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Mussell, you were talking about the issue in Sri Lanka, and I just want to highlight the fact that when Sri Lanka went 100% organic, they had famine, and, as you said, the agriculture industry collapsed, which we are also seeing in the EU as they force 25% organic farming there.

I think there's a place for everything, but we can't force it.

I understand, Dr. Mussell, that you've been working on policies around the carbon tax not being a punitive policy, perhaps, and that we should look at things that reward farmers for some of the things they're doing, rather than punishing them.

Can you talk a little bit about some of the policy ideas the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute is looking at that would be more of a carrot than a stick?