Debates of Dec. 8th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, it is easy to talk about Conservatives for so long when they give me so much material. Second of all, I will answer that question. Clearly, at some point along the way, it was determined that it would be most effective to raise the rate again, and that is why they did it.

Did members see how easy that was? I answered the question. A decision was made after the fact that we actually needed to increase it again.

Now, I would love for a member from the Conservative Party to stand up and show me exactly how easy it is to answer the question of why they have done a complete 180 on this issue of pricing pollution.

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

Madam Speaker, one has to be some special kind of incompetent to get lower percentage marks in the polls than Danielle Smith, but then Doug Ford can step forward. He tried to rip up the charter rights of janitors in schools and thought it was a good idea, and he is a guy who is trying to pave over the green belt for his buddies.

People forget the first thing Doug Ford did was to rip up the carbon pricing system in Ontario. People did not pay a carbon tax in Ontario. Doug Ford said that he was going to rip up the system that makes it possible for Ontarians not to pay a carbon tax, and now Ontarians are going to pay a carbon tax. That allowed Doug Ford to jump up and down, holler and shout, and go to the Supreme Court and say he was going to fight a carbon tax that was imposed because of his dumb decision.

We see Conservatives, time and time again, coming into the House with policies that are making it more and more difficult for people while the planet is in crisis. I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks it is about Conservatives in Ontario supporting someone like Doug Ford on such a dumb position?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. In 2006, it was Ontario and Quebec that made the cap-and-trade deal with California. Then as soon as Doug Ford came along, he ripped it up and said that he was out of this deal.

What do we see five, six years later? We see Quebec and California having progressed so much further in environmental protections, in electrifying their grid and in encouraging electric vehicles. They seem to be light years ahead now.

Ontario got stuck behind because Doug Ford thought, just like these Conservatives do, in my opinion, that they can play to fears and they can play to people's emotions when they start talking about issues like this. We should not be surprised about this since Conservatives voted 54% at the last convention that climate change does not exist. I guess we should not be surprised that they take policy decisions like this.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is truly the champion of slamming Conservatives in the House. He is the all-around champion. Every time he gets up, he slams the Conservatives for 10, 15 or 20 minutes. It is stunning.

He talked about the Conservatives' climate change plan, but let us talk about the Liberals' plan. Let us talk about their record. Since the Liberals have been in power, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. Canada is ranked 58th out of 60 countries, as was said at COP27. Canada is the second-largest investor in fossil fuels in the G20. The government has said that we are investing $8.5 billion U.S. per year. It said that in 2023—that is, in 24 days—that investment will drop to zero. Is that really going to happen?

What is the Liberal government's plan to combat one of the greatest crises of our time?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, what am I hearing here? Is the Bloc Québécois now suddenly against pricing pollution? That is what it sounds like.

The Bloc Québécois is falling into the exact same trap that the Conservatives have, which is saying that emissions in this particular sector have gone up and, therefore, it is a failed plan. They are doing that because they know there are too many variables that go into this. It is not as linear as the member would like to suggest, and there is more to it than just the simple answer he gave.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to the opposition motion today. As I usually do, I will go over the parts of the text and address each part accordingly.

First, the Conservatives keep saying that the price of pollution will be tripled, but they fail to mention two very important things. First, the money collected will be given back to individuals and businesses and, second, the price will increase progressively over the next eight years until 2030.

The second part of the motion is on the estimated increase in the price of food in 2023. I think that the Conservatives failed to illustrate and quantify the role that the price on carbon plays in this increase.

When one actually reads through the report, it makes clear that the key drivers to food inflation we are seeing, both in 2022 and what is being projected next year, are because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia represent 27% of the global grain market, which has been restricted and we have has seen access challenges. We are seeing rising prices on oil and gas as a result of the war as well.

Supply chains are also being affected. We have just gone through COVID and there is still a zero-COVID policy in China, one of the major manufacturers and distributors of products for around the world. I know there can be a really important foreign affairs discussion on the Canada-China relationship, but right now, the supply chain is still being affected.

There is labour as well. We have a million unfilled jobs in Canada, and western countries around the world are dealing with similar challenges with demographics. As baby boomers retire, that large demographic works its way out of the system of workers. For me, that is what is driving this, and that is what the report says, at page 15, which is extremely important. However, the Conservatives are laying this all on one policy choice, and I do not think they have been able to illustrate how that represents a significant increase whatsoever in the price increases we are seeing.

It is also important to recognize that nearly all farm inputs are exempt from the carbon price. Yes, transportation fuels and other indirect costs can and will have an impact, but with Bill C-234, which is before the House right now, as it has been reported back from committee, we might see an exemption altogether on direct farm costs associated with any type of carbon pricing. That is because there is a recognition that, yes, we are encouraging farmers, and farmers are taking on great innovation themselves. The government has put almost $1.5 billion in the last couple of budgets to help make that transition, but some of those commercial technologies are not readily available. That is the balance that we have walked thus far.

The third and fourth part of the motion concerns the challenges in financial affordability. On this side of the House, as I have already said, we are concerned about the cost of living and we are bringing in measures to address that. This gives me the opportunity to talk about the current economic situation, the days to come and what we need to do to find a balance between supporting vulnerable people and maintaining our solid financial position.

It does give me an opportunity to talk about where Canada's economic and relative debt position is. It is important because there might be some folks in the public gallery who have been watching this debate or watching it at home, and my God, they would think that things are completely broken in this country. That is the message the leader of the official opposition sends and it is very problematic. Canada actually has one of the strongest records in the G7 on economic performance. As I mentioned, I do not think any parliamentarian in this House would somehow suggest that there are not challenges and that there are not affordability difficulties, but when we look at our economic position to comparative countries, we are extremely strong.

I find it ironic that members of the Conservative Party stand up and talk about government spending when they were supportive of many of the measures that this government took during the pandemic. Now that the Conservatives have been in place and now that there has been a cost to the Canadian treasury to make sure we were protecting Canadians and protecting businesses, they talk about how government is spending too much money. It is that hyprocrisy.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said it far better than I can in saying that the Conservative Party actually ran on a carbon price just 13 months ago during the election in 2021. He is right. Thirteen months ago, the Conservative Party said this was a good idea. Now the Conservatives stand before us saying they never would have thought up such an idea. It is that mixed messaging that creates challenges in terms of Canadians believing whether or not the Conservative Party is authentic in its beliefs.

Also, we just passed the fall economic statement. The third reading vote happened about an hour ago. It is important to recognize that not only is this government walking a key balance between making sure that vulnerable Canadians have the supports they need during this difficult time, but we are also maintaining a strong fiscal position. We are not being irresponsible with government spending.

Again, I want to go back to those comparative numbers. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We also have the lowest actual deficit as a proportion of our debt in the G7 as well. When we look at other comparable countries, the Conservatives would paint a picture that somehow things are very poor in this country. Actually we are doing very well in an international context.

I want to talk a bit more around some of the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party as it relates to the things we talked about. There is a Parliamentary Budget Officer report that talks about some of the money the government has spent during the pandemic as we try to collect money from some individuals who might not have been eligible. The Conservatives voted on those measures in this House and supported them at the time. We have heard comments this week that somehow this is terrible and that the government should have had more accountability. We have been very clear that, had the program been tightly designed, so much so that it would have taken weeks or months on end to get that program money out to the individuals in question, they would have been in a much more dire situation. In fact, that same PBO report said that if the government had not done what it had done, poverty would have doubled in this country.

I want to remind my Conservative colleagues, when they reference that report, that if their suggestion is that we should have been even more bureaucratic and put in even more program requirements at a time of incredible instability, and the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about what would move forward, we wanted to be able to act quickly. We knew there would still have to be an accounting on the other side, and that is something this government will be taking forward in the days ahead, but we did it to protect Canadians. We did it to make sure that the economic principles of the country were strong, and that Canadians knew we had their backs, and that is exactly why I am proud to stand on this side of the House.

The last thing is on carbon pricing, because that is the topic of the day. The member for Kingston and the Islands did a good job when one of my colleagues joked about just cutting that 10 minutes and playing it again. Maybe we would, but there have been a lot of questions about Atlantic Canada. I want to remind my constituents, indeed those in Atlantic Canada, that notwithstanding the Conservative Party making the pitch that it is going to apply this winter, the carbon price will not apply to home heating this winter in Atlantic Canada.

I want to really highlight the programs that we have put in place.

There is the $500 million that we have put out. Today in question period, the Minister of Immigration talked about this program providing $5,000 grants to help homes transition off home heating oil. First and foremost, that is about affordability. That is about saving thousands of dollars a year in energy bill costs. That matters to my constituents and people across the country, but particularly in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it also is beneficial for the environment.

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues. That is one of my favourite parts of this, so I will sit down and look forward to taking them.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I want to talk a bit about how we rank among our peers around the world in how our economy has performed.

In 2019 to 2021, Canada had the second-highest increase in gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries, only behind Japan. One would have thought our economy would have improved, but despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th lowest real GDP growth.

The fact is we spent almost more money than any other country, but our GDP growth did not keep pace. Would my hon. colleague say that is a record the Liberals should be proud of?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, we stand on our record on this side of the House that in a time of immense need, we were there to help support Canadians. I want to take this back and contrast this to the Conservative approach back in 2008-09 when the Harper government frankly did not get involved whatsoever. The economic scarring lasted years. In fact, issues lasted until 2015.

I also want to remind the member that while he can say the program and the way we rolled it out was somehow not beneficial for economic growth or otherwise, he voted for those measures. He was involved in helping to support them. At that time, all of us as parliamentarians were saying it was the right thing to do. I find it a little bit ironic and a little bit facetious that he is raising this now, that somehow that was not good spending at the time.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for giving the first part in French. We are happy to hear the language of Molière in the House.

The inflation crisis is impacting everyone, but it obviously impacts low-income individuals more, and low-income pensioners especially, because their income is rarely or not fully indexed.

The Bloc Québécois called on the government to increase old age security for all seniors at the age of 65. The government responded by increasing benefits for seniors aged 75 and over. This indirectly forces low-income seniors aged 65 to 74 to return to work.

According to my esteemed colleague, is that the answer his government is giving seniors under the age of 75?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will try to answer in French. The Bloc is calling for an increase in old age security for people across Canada. My problem with the Bloc Québécois proposal is that, if the government increases benefits by 10% for all seniors in Canada, this represents an additional expenditure of $10 billion a year.

It is essentially built-in spending. I am happy to have that conversation. It is a massive expenditure, especially with baby boomers coming across at the same time.

In hindsight, the $3 billion that the government is spending every year, I would perhaps have liked to see that be for 65 and up and targeted on lower income, but we are promising to increase the guaranteed income supplement for those who are 65 and up, which will help to address that gap.

It is fine to talk about spending for seniors, but we need an economic plan to make sure that as our baby boomers come through, we can actually afford it long term.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do want to ask the hon. member about carbon pricing on the largest emitters.

The Canadian Climate Institute, the institute that our federal government established, analyzed the federal carbon pricing benchmark. While it agreed that carbon pricing works and strong carbon pricing is essential to any credible climate plan, it highlighted how it does not do enough to curb industrial emissions. Output-based pricing creates loopholes for the largest emitters. Again, the Liberals were saying the right things on climate and doing something on carbon pricing, but are unwilling to match their actions to the scale of the crisis we are facing and are unwilling to make the biggest polluters pay their fair share.

Does my colleague agree the government needs to fix the output-based pricing system?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her kindness in letting me see our former premier, Darrell Dexter, yesterday. It was nice to a have chance to connect with him.

On an output-based pricing system, I think there is a conversation to be had about that in terms of trying to find that equilibrium. At the same time, we have to make sure our major emitters and our major corporations that are involved in economic trade or businesses that are particularly vulnerable are not necessarily priced out. That is an economic competitive question that I think needs to be analyzed before we go there.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments to rebut some of the things my colleague from Kings—Hants said.

In terms of my question, which was pretty direct, from 2019 to 2021 Canada had the second-highest increase in its gross debt-to-GDP ratio out of 33 countries covered by the IMF, behind only Japan. Our gross debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 87.2% to 112.1% in 2021, an increase of 24.9 percentage points. Given that the Canadian government has accumulated more debt as a share of our economy than nearly every other country in our peer group, the expectation would be that Canada's economy fared better than others during this period. This is incorrect.

Despite leading our peers in debt accumulation, Canada did not outperform our peer group in economic growth during the pandemic. Canada had the 11th-lowest real GDP growth, 5.2%, in 2020 and the 12th-lowest real GDP growth, 4.6%, in 2021. Canada also did not outperform its peer group by achieving lower unemployment during the pandemic. Canada had the third-highest unemployment rate, 9.58%, out of 33 industrialized countries and the eighth-highest unemployment rate, 7.43%, in 2021.

I get that these numbers are a lot of numbers that just came out at everyone, but I put these numbers on the record to debunk the myth that the Liberals keep on trying to portray, that they somehow went into the pandemic later than everyone else and came out sooner. That is simply not the fact.

They spent more than every other country in the world but Japan, and our citizens are not better off. The proof is in the pudding, as 1.5 million Canadians in one month used a food bank to put food on the table for their families. That is a failure of leadership by the Liberals.

Students at universities across our country are staying in hostels or needing to use a food bank to eat or, like in my alma mater, the University of Regina, actually fundraising so students do not go to bed hungry, asking alumni for money to help feed students.

Another thing I am looking forward to is splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris and hearing what he has to say about a private member's bill he brought forward last Parliament, which still has not been implemented.

On the topic of not doing what Canadians need, I would like to talk a bit now about agriculture and the agriculture file.

My colleague from Kings—Hants left a bit of wiggle room on Bill C-234. I know he had some positive things to say about it, and I am very interested, because all the Liberal members voted against the bill in committee. As the chair, he did not have to vote, and I am really excited to see how he votes and if he is going to stand with the agriculture producers in Kings—Hants or with his party whip, whether he will be voting along the party line or voting for the people who sent him here.

I am very much looking forward to that vote, because I think that over the last couple of weeks a few members on the Liberal backbenches are starting to feel a bit of pressure when it comes to either supporting the carbon tax or supporting the amendments at the report stage of Bill C-21. I am looking forward to seeing if some of the rural members from the Maritimes or Newfoundland or some of the members from Alberta and Manitoba are going to support these gun amendments that criminalize law-abiding firearms owners, or if they are going to support their constituents and make sure their voices are heard in the chamber. There are a few votes on which I am really looking forward to seeing what some of the Liberal members in the back rows are going to do.

This motion is about making life easier and more affordable for Canadians. We hear in our offices across the country that one of the biggest strains now on families is going to the grocery store and trying to make sure they have enough food to put on the table.

Some of these increases are staggering. I get pictures sent into my office of what $100 buys now at a grocery store. It does not go a long way for a lot of these families. Some of the reasons are that fish is up 10.4% to purchase; butter is 16.9%; eggs, 10.9%; margarine, 37.5%; bread, rolls, buns, 17.6%; dry or fresh pasta, 32.4%; fresh fruit, 13.2%; oranges, 18.5%; and the list goes on: lettuce, 12.4%; potatoes, 10.9%.

These are a lot of staple foods for families. Our household is no different from anyone else's. We have three growing children. They are five, seven and nine, and they are starting to eat more and more. Like a lot of other families, we are seeing our grocery bills continue to climb, and these are the things that we need to have solutions for.

As members of the House of Commons or as public servants, we have to look for how we can ease this inflationary pain. One of the things we can do is get together and take some taxes off the prices of these fruits and vegetables and everyday essentials.

We also had a motion brought forward a couple of weeks ago to take the carbon tax off home heating, which is quite reasonable. Some of the members across the way voted in favour of that motion, and I thank them, including the member for Avalon, for voting in favour. I appreciate that very much, because he was listening to his constituents. It is incumbent on us to remember who brought us here. Former premier Wall always said that these are not our seats, that these are the seats of the constituents and we are just caretakers for a while, because someone else will come and take them. I think a few members are remembering that, and we appreciate that support very much.

When it comes down to erasing the carbon tax on the price of groceries, it is pretty much unanimous in the House of Commons that the price of groceries is too high. We are just trying to figure out how to deal with that situation. Also, the price of groceries is high because that carbon tax hits our producers; it hits the farmers and it hits the trucking industry. At each link of a supply chain, the carbon tax continues to increase the price of goods. That is something we are trying to get through to the members across the aisle and get through to our Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues. It is not just a one-time hit; it continually makes things more expensive.

We saw from a recent report that a 5,000-acre farm, by 2030, will pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year. I grew up on a small family farm in southwest Saskatchewan. We had dairy and beef, and we made our own hay. We had 2,000 acres that we combined. They are not big farms. I do not know anyone who farms 5,000 acres who can take a $150,000 hit year after year. Unless common sense prevails, the only outcome for these family farms is bankruptcy.

The Minister of Agriculture was at the agriculture committee, and I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The minister was there for ministerial estimates, and I asked her to give me a definition of what a family farm is. She could not. Some Liberal members have not been on a farm and do not know agriculture. They see it as big corporate agriculture and big business, but 95% of the farms in Canada are still family farms.

The minister was taking the family out of the family farm and said that families are still okay, but it is the farm that is getting taxed. That is not a thing. The family farm is one unit. It is a package deal. Those two cannot be separated. Some are incorporated and some are not. One thing we learned through CERB was that sometimes a family farm that is not incorporated missed out on some programming.

I will leave members with this, when it comes to the rising cost of inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said himself that the increase in spending by the government has had an effect on inflation.

One more thing that is really going to hit us hard, now that the interest rate is 4.25%, is that people are going to start losing their homes. I have friends whose mortgages have gone up $750 to $800 per month. That is over a $10,000 increase in what they will have to pay for their mortgages over a year. Families, farm families and everyone in between are squeezed hard enough. They cannot absorb that $10,000 hit. They cannot absorb that $1,000 hit on their grocery bill. We in the House of Commons are going to have to come to the realization that one cannot get blood from a stone. We have to give tax breaks to Canadians.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, every day that I sit in this seat, I think of the people who put me here, and I think most people in this House do the same thing.

I would like to understand how to apply the motion today to provinces that have themselves brought in their own climate action plans and pricing on pollution. How does this motion serve those provinces? The Government of Canada did not apply the pricing all across Canada.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, if I had had more time for my speech, I would have gone down that path.

The carbon tax hits at different points in the supply chain, so taking the carbon tax off food would also help lower the price of transportation and agriculture inputs, thus lowering the price of food across the country. It is not just at the grocery store that the carbon tax gets added onto the price of groceries; it is throughout the supply chain. That is why this motion would almost immediately help lower the price of groceries across the country, in the provinces that have the federal backstop and the ones that have their own.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I would like to talk to him about how to make the economy more resilient by addressing the structural weaknesses that cause inflation.

This could include reducing our dependence on oil and gas, rebuilding critical links in the supply chain, addressing the labour shortages that are preventing businesses from offsetting supply problems, and launching a major housing construction project to address the imbalance in the housing market.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, yes, we have to launch many infrastructure projects. One of the big Liberal failures is that the Infrastructure Bank has hardly done any projects at all.

We also have to make our economy more resilient through innovation through the private sector, and we have been doing that. Agriculture is a perfect example. All the innovations done through technology and better seeding practices have all been done through the private sector. Whether it is precision ag, zero tillage, crop rotation or crop cover, it was all done by private entrepreneurial agriculture producers.

There was not one government program that said, “Thou shalt do zero tillage.” It was done through private innovation, technology and the sharing of best practices. That is how we get ahead and create a more resilient economy, not by continuous government intervention.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by recognizing, as the member said, that families and all people are suffering right now with the rising prices of food and inflation. It is true; it is happening, and unfortunately, as families and regular Canadians are suffering, large corporations are taking home outsized, massive profits that are not being fairly taxed.

Does the member agree with the NDP that large corporations should pay their fair share and that those outsized profits that grocery chains and the oil and gas sector have gained over this time should be redistributed to people to help pay their bills?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the NDP continually tries to have this class warfare, whereby it pits companies against employees, westerners against easterners and urban against rural. It continually tries to divide Canadians. It learned that from its Liberal counterparts.

Everyone should be working together in Canada to make our economy work better. I have never seen a company without employees, and I have never seen employees without a company. They should work hand in hand. We should stop trying to pit them against each other, because that is a recipe for failure. That is what the NDP did in Saskatchewan, and that is why it is relegated to having 10 seats in that province, because it did not understand the economy or that we need to work together to grow our economy.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was a most interesting exchange. Maybe we can get into it later in questions.

Our Conservative Party motion we are debating today is an opportunity for all members of Parliament, even those in the Liberal backbenches, to stand up for their constituents. I know it would take courage, but I urge each and every one of them to do the right thing. If we can pass this motion, it would send a clear message and a strong signal to the Prime Minister that his government needs to get serious about the dramatic rise in the price of food. It would also send a signal to our entire agriculture and agri-food sector that the House of Commons will not sit idly by. We must do everything in our power to stop the Liberal government from making it more expensive for them to produce the food that Canadian consumers rely on.

There is a cost-of-living crisis for millions of Canadians. Our Conservative team gets up every single day in this House to fight for them, and sadly all we hear are empty Liberal talking points with no solutions. Just yesterday the Bank of Canada raised the interest rate another half a percentage point. First-time homebuyers are now paying $500 more a month in monthly payments for the same mortgage they had a year ago, and it now takes 67% of their income to service a traditional mortgage.

With these relentless rate hikes, more and more already struggling Canadians will have to choose between paying their mortgage and putting food on the table. Canadians are out of money, and the Liberal government is out of touch. We can just look at the number of credit card applications this year over last year. A report the other day had it at a 31% increase.

Like all MPs in the House, I am getting emails and calls from moms and dads who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on their tables. I am hearing from seniors who worked decades to save for their retirements, only to see inflation eradicate their income and their financial security. Every time families and seniors go to the grocery store, they get sticker shock. It is expected the average family will pay an additional $1,065 for groceries next year. It is no wonder that one in five Canadians is already skipping meals and a record one and a half million Canadians are visiting food banks every single month.

Our Conservative opposition day motion would not only help reduce the cost of food for families and seniors, it would pour water on the fire of government-induced inflation.

I farmed all my life. It is what I know best. I also represent countless farm families and hear from them every day. They find it reprehensible that the Liberal government is determined to make it more difficult for them to produce the food we eat. It is simply unconscionable that their own government is implementing policies that are making it more expensive for them to farm and stay competitive.

Farmers will never forgive the Liberals for calling them tax cheats, and they will never forget how the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture voted against my private member's bill, Bill C-208, which my colleague referred to earlier, that made it easier to transfer their farm to the next generation. The one little correction is that it is working. It is out there today and farmers are taking advantage of it, but they are only 3% of the small businesses in Canada. There are 97% of the small businesses in Canada that are not farms, and they are also getting the opportunity to level the playing field, because nobody is getting an advantage here. It is just a levelling of the playing field under Bill C-208.

Returning to the farming industry, farmers are livid that the Liberals recently voted against the Conservative bill to completely exempt them from the carbon tax. We live in Canada, where it gets cold and wet. Farmers need to dry their grain and heat their livestock barns. Farmers are getting punished through no fault of their own.

As the recent “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” stated, a typical 5,000-acre farm, which has been alluded to today many times and of which there are many across the Prairies, will have to pay $150,000 in carbon taxes per year, once the Liberals triple their carbon tax.

When I was a farm leader, I recognized that there is 100 million acres of arable farmland on the Prairies. If that was an average rate, it would require that $3 billion be taken out of the farm pockets and added to the cost of food. I want to remind the Minister of Agriculture that every time the cost of growing food, processing food and transporting food goes up, we see those costs borne out in our grocery store receipts.

Our Conservative motion aims to resolve the long-standing issue of the Liberal carbon tax being one of the cost drivers that is making Canada less competitive and making food more expensive. On the first issue, farmers have seen their input costs soar, which includes energy and fertilizer. With the Liberal carbon tax being applied to many aspects of our agriculture and transportation sectors, it is making farmers less competitive on the world stage.

Lots of farmers in my region experienced a wet spring and had to rely on aerial application services. Those companies pay the Liberal carbon tax, which is passed down to the farmer.

Many farmers get custom haulers to take their grain, oil seeds and pulses to the elevator or their final destination. Those companies pay the Liberal carbon tax, and it is passed down to the farmer.

Most farmers use fertilizer to increase their yields. Those companies that produce and transport the fertilizer pay the Liberal carbon tax, which is passed on to the farmer.

I could go and on, but it is clear that the Liberal government does not know how farmers operate. Almost every product that a farmer needs to purchase to plant a crop, maintain a crop and then harvest a crop gets transported in from somewhere, and the Liberal carbon tax is applied to all of it.

The beef and pork producers in my riding also feel the brunt of the Liberal carbon tax. The trucking companies that haul the supplies they need to run their farms and ship their livestock pay the Liberal carbon tax, and it is passed on to the farmer.

If members are starting to see a trend, it is that a significant portion of our agriculture sector is paying the carbon tax.

As our leader said, our Conservative team wants to repatriate food production by standing with our farmers here at home. The Liberal government's high energy taxes and proposed fertilizer emissions cuts will only drive food production abroad to higher-polluting foreign jurisdictions, which would have them then burn fuel to send that food by ship, train and truck back to us. Our Conservative team wants to repeal these taxes and fertilizer mandates to get out of the way and get off the backs of our farmers.

It is no wonder the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that families are seeing a net loss thanks to the Liberal approach. Families and seniors are getting crushed, and it is time for action. They are tired of the Liberals gaslighting about how much better off they are under the carbon tax rebate scheme.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:27 p.m., and today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.