Finance Committee on Nov. 16th, 2023

[Janice Tranberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Our second ask is that the government foster a business environment that supports Canadian agriculture through regulatory, policy and taxation requirements that track alongside those of our international competitors. While the Canadian government cannot control global events, they can control the regulatory, policy and taxation burdens on Canadian farmers. The total cost resulting from the government piling on requirements for farmers is a catalyst for inflation and a threat to food security.

Now is the time for the government to commit to agile and competitive government policy that contributes to the profitability of farmers, to food security and to environmental sustainability.

There are many simple, non-monetary regulatory and policy changes that could have a significant impact on our sector: for example, creating an automatic exemption from the underused housing tax for farmers who own homes for the purpose of housing farm workers, as well as ensuring an efficient and timely approval process for new and innovative products that are available to our global competitors. This is supported by MP Kody Blois, who has a recent private member's bill, Bill C-359.

Another example is aligning Canada and the United States on specified risk material regulations, as well as addressing the economic and animal welfare challenges of electronic logging devices for livestock transportation, setting achievable targets within the sustainable agriculture strategy that track alongside our global competitors, and approving the desperately needed grasshopper control product lambda-cyhalothrin for livestock feed in Canada.

These are just some examples. As today permits, we stand ready to talk as well about additional recommendations that were included in the NCFA's written submission to the committee, including funding support for the Canadian integrated program for anti-microbial resistance surveillance and maintaining the interest-free portion of the advance payments program at the current level of $350,000.

NCFA thanks you for your consideration today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. Tranberg and Mr. Schmidt.

Now we're going to get into the members' questions. In this round, each party will have up to six minutes to ask you questions.

We will start with MP Hallan for the first six minutes.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Bewick.

Thank you for so eloquently giving the temperature of what Alberta is feeling like and what Albertans are feeling like today. After eight years of this Prime Minister, we've never seen the country so divided or broken—whether it's anti-energy, anti-Alberta or anti-growth laws; legislation like Bill C-69, the northern pipeline bill or Bill C-48, the tanker ban; or the carbon tax.

We recently saw the Prime Minister do a massive flip-flop on this carbon tax, giving 3% of Canadians—in Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals' poll numbers are tanking—a break on the carbon tax on their home heating. We also recently saw a very out-of-touch, Liberal Atlantic and rural affairs minister say that, if the Prairies want a carve-out like what Atlantic Canadians got, they should “elect more Liberals”.

Well, there are Liberals in western Canada. There is one here in Edmonton who is a minister. I can't figure out whether he's irrelevant or whether he just has no voice at his own cabinet table.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Bewick: Is this unfair treatment to the rest of Canadians, and should all Canadians not have gotten this carbon tax carve-out for home heating?

[Dr. Bill Bewick]

Too often, with the federal policies, there's a lack of recognition that there's an affordability crisis that is far more acute for a lot of Canadians right now. I was sort of encouraged to see some recognition of that with this policy. I was sort of encouraged to see a federal leader talk about how “We have policies that have to be adapted to provincial realities.”

What's facing Alberta, as well as Saskatchewan and parts of B.C., is a real threat to our economic future, to our future productivity and to the chances for our children to have the kinds of opportunities that we've had.

It's one thing to brush off a referendum on equalization and say, “Oh, that doesn't matter.” It's another thing to say that you got all the premiers of Canada to agree that Alberta should get a retroactive payment for fiscal stabilization but that you're going to ignore that anyway. These are the kinds of things that cause irritation and make people feel like they're being unfairly treated.

If we go after their main source of income and economic prosperity, it doesn't matter where you are in the country; that is going to put a wedge in our ability to have a united country. When the government is facing such serious debt growth and such long-term deficits, it's unfathomable to me that the biggest contributor to federal income in terms of what it costs them versus what they get from it.... The energy sector in the Prairies is the golden goose. To strangle that without any alternative to replace what it does for the economy, what it does for people's lives, what is does for producing energy, is.... I don't understand it. There really needs to be some serious thought with regard to the long-term effects.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Bewick, would you agree that a carve-out for all Canadians for carbon tax on home heating would be fair?

[Dr. Bill Bewick]

Canada is a vast and cold country. It does seem like it would certainly be fair to give that to all Canadians.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

What does is it say about national unity when these kinds of laws that I talked about...? What does that say about our Canadian national unity?

[Dr. Bill Bewick]

It's a real danger. I think people brush it off and say, “Well, Alberta is just complaining again.” This is not just complaining. This is a full-on threat to our future and Saskatchewan's, as well as parts of Manitoba's, B.C.'s and Newfoundland's to the extent that they have a significant energy sector. It's really fracturing Canada, and it needs to be addressed.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

We've seen things like the fair deal panel and a sovereignty act that was brought up in Alberta by the Alberta government. Where do you think those came from? Do you think it was partly to do with the attack on our oil and gas sector by this government?

[Dr. Bill Bewick]

Definitely. However, I would not say that it's just this government. There have been governments in the past that took Alberta for granted as much as other governments sometimes ignored us. I think that every party in the legislature, every caucus, needs to fulfill its duty to really listen to—and, as I said, not just listen to but reasonably accommodate—different sections of the country, regardless of the political stakes, just for the sake of fairness.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

You talked a little bit about the power grid. Do you think it's a reasonable demand by this Liberal government on Alberta and Saskatchewan about—

[Dr. Bill Bewick]

No. When you hear about the large provinces that have 90% or 95% already decarbonized in their electricity grid, and we have about 10% decarbonized in our electricity grid, asking us to cut 90% of our current power versus 10% or 5% of the larger other provinces, this is clearly a case of needing to have policies that have to be adapted to provincial realities. This is a very clear provincial reality for the Prairies.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Do you have any comments on Bill C-234?

[Dr. Bill Bewick]

As you said, it would be great if all Canadians were treated equally and fairly and were accommodated.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Hallan.

MP Baker, go ahead, please.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all for being here with us today.

You know, every time I sit in one of these hearings, as we've been doing throughout the week and over the past few weeks in Ottawa, I appreciate how difficult the finance minister's job really is. Some things that you've suggested are more regulatory in nature and obviously don't cost a lot, or anything, to implement. As you can see, there are a lot of priorities and a lot of resources that folks are asking be dedicated to those. The challenge for this committee is to bring that forward to the Minister of Finance in some sort of coherent way. I thank you for advocating for your respective communities and for advocating for Alberta and for advocating for Canada. Thank you for being here.

There have been a lot of comments in this morning's discussion around the carve-out on the carbon tax. I don't want to litigate that. I don't have questions for you about that. We're all entitled to our respective opinions. If you folks disagree with certain things government does, that's why we're here—to hear that—so I appreciate that. What we're not entitled to is our own set of facts. I think the one thing that I would just make sure is clear, folks, as you're adjudicating or deciding whether you think it's a good idea or a bad idea or whatever you think, is that the carve-out is a three-year temporary carve-out for those who heat their homes with oil. It applies across Canada.

Obviously, the majority of people who heat their homes with oil are in Atlantic Canada, so it's for a portion of Atlantic Canada, but it's not an Atlantic Canadian policy. It's a policy for all Canadians who heat with oil. It was done because oil is the most expensive way to heat your home. It's also very expensive for folks to transition. It was clear that folks who use home heating oil, whether in Atlantic Canada or elsewhere, were having trouble making that transition. That's why that policy was brought in for a short period of time.

The other thing I want to point out is that, as part of that announcement on the temporary carve-out, the federal government doubled the carbon tax rebate top-up for rural residents. That's something to keep in mind as well. That also applies across Canada.

I didn't want to talk about that, but I did want to put those facts on the table so that you knew what those were.

Greg, you talked about how you're not accustomed to being in this environment. I have to tell you that I come from the world of business. I've been in elected office provincially and federally for eight years now, and I'm still not accustomed to this environment. You did a fine job.

I don't know that I have many questions for you both other than an appreciation for some of your suggestions. I noted a few of Janice's suggestions especially around changes that would help your sector and help those people you represent. They sound like things that could be done relatively quickly and at a low cost. I appreciate those. We'll take those away with us. Thank you.

Mr. Gallaway, I have a question for you around long-term care and national standards. You mentioned it only briefly. I know you had a lot on your plate to cover. I've spent a lot of time on national standards for long-term care. In early 2020, I and a handful of MPs wrote a public letter to the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario, as we were in Ontario, to ask that national standards be put in place. Those standards have been developed. The federal government funded the development of those standards by external experts. These aren't the Liberal or Justin Trudeau standards. Experts put these together.

My point of view, and I want you to give me your reaction to this, is that those standards aren't worth the paper they're printed on if they're not implemented. Ultimately, health care is the jurisdiction of the provinces. My view is that the next step is that we need provinces—I'm also looking at Ontario, which is where I'm from—to do that too. I'm not picking on anybody. Across Canada, I think if we want seniors to get the quality care they deserve, long-term care homes need to meet those standards, and to meet those standards, we'll probably just have to adopt them and enforce them. Do you agree with that?

[Chris Gallaway]

Absolutely. That's why tying strings to funding is important. We're seeing that with housing funding right now in municipalities. If you want the funding, there are rules you have to implement and standards that you need. There's no reason we can't do the same in long-term care with provincial governments.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We did do some stuff recently in terms of a large amount of health care funding. We provided all of the provinces $198 billion, I think, over 10 years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I apologize, MP Baker, but we're having some issues with your mike.

You may have to use MP Dzerowicz's mike. We have stopped the time.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just recently there was the $198 billion, and again I spent a lot of time on health care. I was one of those, along with many others in our caucus, who advocated for that funding to be tied to outcomes. That's what was done, and my understanding now is that the federal government is in the midst of discussing with each province what the specifics are and what specific outcomes the funding is tied to. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that approach?

[Chris Gallaway]

Yes, we don't see very stringent strings or really anything that will be enforceable with respect to that funding. We're glad negotiations are happening, but when it came to things like child care, the federal government caved to Alberta on every demand they had, watering down the deal. We're concerned that if the only approach is handing over a blank cheque, it won't get the outcomes we're looking for.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I hope we didn't cave, but I hear you. I hear your feedback, but hopefully that's a sign that the federal government sort of does certainly respect provincial jurisdiction and respect the feedback of the provinces. I'm not saying we ended up with the perfect outcome. I'm not opining on that, but I think the point that's been discussed a lot here this morning is that the federal government tries to serve all Canadians, and it does listen. Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You have just enough for an answer. Is there a question for the...?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

There's not really a question unless you want to comment, Mr. Gallaway.