Debates of May 11th, 2022

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, the last time this legislation was updated, the technology the member is referencing was the technology that was prevalent, and the reality for how the technology is utilized now is very different. People are consuming media that is coming from online streaming sites and online streaming services that are not subject to the same rules that traditional media have been subject to.

I know the Conservatives traditionally have not supported Canadian artists and the idea that broadcasters have a responsibility to use some of their profits to support Canadian artists and to promote Canadian artists in what they put on, whether it is on the radio or on television. I suppose they are continuing their battle to block—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I would really appreciate it if the House leader would stick to the facts and not spread misinformation. If he actually has proof that the Conservatives—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is debate.

The hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's anxiousness to participate in the debate, but I will say very clearly that the Conservatives talk about defunding the CBC and about not supporting Canadian content, including in this specific case. Does the member across, who is arguing against support for this bill, not believe that Disney or Netflix, which profit here, should be promoting Canadian content? Does he not believe they should be giving dollars back to Canadian producers of culture and content? It is a battle they fought for a long time—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a lot of individuals wanting to ask questions.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, maybe my colleague, the government House leader, could speak about the sense of urgency. Cultural workers and artists suffered the most under the pandemic. Many of them could not operate at all for two years, and many of them could not even access the programs that were offered to them. When people have zero revenue coming in, the wage subsidy does not help them, nor the rent assistance program. The sense of urgency is real.

In the meantime, the big web giants had record profits. They took all the gas out. There was a massive economic leakage happening in our country. Maybe the House leader could talk about how critical it is that we plug the economic leakage to the big web giants and that we get to this work rapidly and quickly and get this to committee.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that, as we have seen a shift in the way we consume entertainment and media, there has not been a similar shift to apply the same rules that apply to traditional media to new media.

The member is absolutely right. We saw during the pandemic that the artists who perform in local venues and enrich our local communities got hit incredibly hard; they were not able to participate during the pandemic. At the same time, the streaming giants enjoyed record profits and record participation.

This bill would continue a long tradition in Canada of saying that if people profit from the entertainment industry in this country and profit from the cultural sector, they have an obligation to pay back into it and help build it up. As I look at cities and communities across the country, and I look at the quality and depth of the culture that is there, I would say it is there, in no small part, because of that rule, because of the obligation we put that if people profit from that sector, they have to invest back in it. I would say that it is not only our local communities and artists that have benefited from it, but I think the world has valued the Canadian voice in culture and heritage.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we continue to hear again and again from across the aisle is that there is an agenda that needs to be followed, and therefore there needs to be this push for Bill C-11 to be brought through the House of Commons without proper debate.

That is wrong. That is absolutely anti-democratic. There are 338 elected individuals who were sent to this place to rigorously debate issues. That is our responsibility, and that responsibility is being taken from us right now. That is not just shameful for those who are in this House; it is actually shameful because of what it does to Canadians.

I represent 125,000 people from the riding of Lethbridge. You just squashed their voices.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind members not to address questions and comments directly to the Chair.

I will allow the hon. House leader to answer.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to make two points. The first is on this bill, which is that there is absolutely an agenda. The agenda is to say that those who make money from the cultural sector in this country have an obligation to invest back into it. That has been the tradition in this country. It just has not been updated to reflect the new media so that our content creators and the community that suffered during the pandemic can be supported and Canadian art and culture can be expanded.

With respect to democracy, let us be very clear. I was there in opposition when the Conservatives created a 200-page handbook on how to control, like puppeteers, committees, how to shut them down and how to run them through their parliamentary secretaries. I was here in this House day in, day out as we saw incredible command and control of everything that happened in this place.

It is rich beyond measure to compare that to this. There is more than enough opportunity to go from here, to have further debate at committee and for it to return to the House.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, here is one last little plea on my part. I am always appalled to see how the government ignores the reality of our artists, artisans, content creators and those who revitalize culture in our world, our beautiful world.

Today, we are spending more time debating whether we should take even more time to debate something that already existed and is now back on the table.

In the previous Parliament, we had Bill C-10. Now it is back on the table as Bill C-11. It has been reworked and improved. The Bloc Québécois put a lot of effort into that, and the sector is happy, but here we still are, talking about the time allocated for debate.

I am rather appalled. I would like the House leader to comment on the urgent need to take action on behalf of these people who are losing money—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There is very little time left and I have to give the government House leader the opportunity to respond.

The government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, time is of the essence for our artistic creators and our cultural community.

The pandemic has been really hard on the cultural sector. People in our communities could no longer attend events in person. The major broadcasters and online streamers pulled in huge profits, but it was just the opposite for our cultural community.

That is why it is essential that we act swiftly and move this bill on to the next stage, namely study in committee. The debate will not just be happening here today. We will continue to debate this bill.

It is odd that the Conservative Party is upset that the process is moving on to the next stage. The reason the Conservative Party is so angry is that it is generally against supporting the cultural sector.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Climate Change; the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Taxation; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Health.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

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

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #86

Online Streaming Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

It being 5:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234. This is an important issue.

Agriculture plays an essential role in Canada's economy. Our farmers also help to feed the world. I am a city person, and I can tell members that city people rely on farmers across our country for the food on our tables. For that, we are deeply grateful. Perhaps now, more than ever, at this time of geopolitical uncertainty and rising costs, it will be vitally important to ensure that Canada's agricultural production continues to grow.

Our government is supporting Canada's farmers to make that happen, and we will continue to do so. The question we have to consider is how best to do so. More specifically, the question is how we deliver support for farmers that is effective in helping them ramp up production, without undermining important goals like addressing climate change, which itself poses a severe threat to agriculture production.

We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, with floods and droughts. In fact, I was looking at some reports about the recent flooding over the last year in B.C., which is an example of a weather event caused by climate change. It caused massive damage to farms in the area. In one report, one farmer was talking about having lost 600 acres of crops, which were all under water. There were stories of expensive farm technology lost in floods and cattle that died, along with other farm animals, and that is tragic for so many reasons, like for the disruption in people's lives and also in hitting their bottom line.

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, that can help reduce emissions and save them both time and money. Just recently, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change went to visit a farm to look at some of those practices.

Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million over six years starting in 2022-23, with $0.6 million in remaining amortization, to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It also 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.

The budget 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 with provinces and territories. It 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 will allow for net-zero-emissions agriculture.

The budget also proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with 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, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors under the federal carbon pollution pricing system. The federal fuel charge regime provides substantial upfront relief for farmers for their purchase of gasoline and diesel fuel, provided that all or substantially all of the fuel is for use in eligible farming activities, such as the operation of farming equipment and machinery.

Our government has also proposed a refundable tax credit in the 2021 economic and fiscal update for farm businesses operating in backstop jurisdictions, starting in the 2021-22 fuel charge year. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount increasing as the price on carbon increases. This will help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming while maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

My concern is that Bill C-234 could take us in a very different direction. The bill would amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, sometimes referred to as the GGPPA, to expand fuel charge relief to farmers by modifying the definition of “eligible farming machinery” to include heating and grain drying.

More specifically, it would modify the definition of “qualifying farming fuel” to include natural gas and propane. This raises a range of potential concerns that must be carefully considered. For example, as this bill stands, farmers would effectively be double-compensated.

In effect, they would benefit from the proposed tax credit while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. This would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces, as the federal carbon pricing system is revenue-neutral and proceeds must remain in the jurisdiction of origin.

Let me remind hon. members that Canada's carbon pollution pricing system is efficient and cost-effective precisely because it puts a price on carbon pollution and then allows businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions.

With the significant support for farmers already in place under Canada's pollution pricing system, the additional financial supports proposed in Bill C-234 run the risk of removing this price signal completely. This price signal is the linchpin for effectively executing Canada's climate change plan.

A price on carbon pollution provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a greener, cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than telling Canadians how to reduce emissions, a price on carbon pollution allows businesses and people to make those decisions in a manner that best suits their own circumstances.

Carbon pollution pricing also delivers economic benefits, because it encourages Canadians and businesses to innovate and to invest in clean technologies and long-term growth opportunities that will position Canada for success in a cleaner and greener global economy.

That means more jobs for Canadians, benefiting their families and communities across the country. Bill C-234 may very well undermine the effectiveness and benefits of this system. These are all important considerations Canadians expect us to take into account as we assess the potential merits of Bill C-234.

As we do so, we must bear in mind that the federal carbon pollution pricing system is not about raising revenues. The government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. That must be underlined: It is not staying with the federal government.

Our plan directs all proceeds from federal carbon pollution pricing back to the jurisdictions from which they were collected. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.

Canada has been a leader in this regard and we should not do anything to compromise this. In the context of Bill C-234, we must be carefully considering it within the context of this pricing system.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

I listened carefully to the previous speech and I want to reassure my colleague that we fully support the pollution pricing principle. It is an important principle, because polluting has to cost something. However, this tax is supposed to be an incentive.

We do not want to tamper with the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. That is not what we want to do. However, we think that exempting certain farm fuels from the tax is the right thing to do.

The bill before us today was already debated in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-206. Everyone remembers that. A democratic vote was held by the political parties that hold a majority in the House in the context of a minority government. It passed third reading. However, just before it was passed in the Senate, the Liberal government decided to call an election, which means that we have to start the entire process all over again. I want to take the opportunity this evening to say that I think that is unacceptable. That was an undemocratic move.

If we need to start over, then let us start over. The main principle of Bill C‑234 is simple enough. The carbon tax puts a price on pollution to encourage people to make the transition. However, we need alternatives if we want people to make the transition. That is the problem.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I have been hearing conversations since I started my speech.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have too, and it was going on during the parliamentary secretary's speech as well.

Could I ask the hon. members to take their conversations to the lobbies, please? We would like to respect the speeches being made in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that it is an incentive. For an incentive to lead to a transition, there needs to be a possibility for change.

If I decided to buy a sports utility vehicle with a V8 engine to drive home from my work when I do not need it, it would make a lot of sense to tax the vehicle to encourage me to buy an electric vehicle or a smaller one. I would be in favour of such a measure.

However, I would not support such a measure being applied to grain producers who absolutely have to dry their grain. To begin with, we have to look at the basic context of North American agriculture. We do not have the same climate as our competitors. At harvest time, the grain often has to be dried. If the grain is wet when harvested, there is no choice but to dry it; otherwise it cannot be stored. There is no other way to dry grain that is as efficient, as fast, and less polluting as with propane. That is what this measure is all about. I hope that my clarifications at the beginning of my speech reassured people about my party's intentions. The Bloc is in favour of taxing pollution. We are in favour of transition measures. However, in this case, we must also act wisely.

If we put a tax on fuel we will see real repercussions: Either we reduce our agricultural producers’ margin, which is already very small because they do not control the selling price of products sold on international markets, or we increase the sale price of the product.

This measure will not reduce pollution. We need to act where it counts. Where it counts is in oil, natural gas, deposits and new projects. Where it counts is in not approving the Bay du Nord project, for example. I want someone to promise me that the oil sands development will be scaled back because the Bay du Nord project was approved, but that is not what we are hearing. We need to act where it counts.

I spoke earlier about the bills that failed because the Prime Minister called an election. There was Bill C-206. The conversations in the House distracted me a bit, but I also wanted to mention that the bill respecting supply management was at the end of the process. We will also reintroduce that bill.

What Bill C-234 does is quite simple: It changes the definition. There are already exemptions for farming fuel because there is no alternative, and natural gas and propane are simply being added. We will not be polluting more because we are adapting this bill. We are going to ensure that we do not hike the costs of agricultural production. Agriculture is the basis for everything else. That is the big difference.

As members know, the bill does not affect Quebec directly. In Quebec we have a parallel system, the carbon exchange. In theory, farmers are exempted from the carbon exchange, but they still feel the indirect impact, because when they purchase fuel, part of the costs incurred by the major companies is passed on. There are claims for that, but that is managed by Quebec.

Nevertheless, our farmers in Quebec tell us that we need to pass Bill C-234 because it is the right thing to do. It is what our farmers need. Therefore, that is what we will do.

The principle behind our support is a fair transition. I could draw a parallel with products, for example, pesticides used in fields. My colleagues know that this is a sensitive issue, and that the Bloc Québécois was among those who reacted vigorously last July when there was a rather sneaky attempt to increase limits during the construction holiday in the hope that no one would notice. This issue is a very sensitive one for us.

However, before taking a product off the market, we need to make sure there is an alternative and look into what will happen after that. Sometimes we must act prudently, but we should still use common sense and go even further. What does going further mean? It could mean establishing the famous environmental partnership I keep talking about. What is this environmental partnership?

We are asking our farmers to make an effort to reduce their environmental footprint. That is fine. They are essential to us, and they almost always volunteer to do the right thing.

However, we will be asking them, for example, to stop farming a buffer strip they have been harvesting for 25, 30, 40, 50 years or more. We are asking them to give up part of their income for the common good. That is fine, since it is the right thing to do. What is not fine is imposing this burden entirely and solely on these farmers when the entire community benefits.

I think we need to provide direct support for these measures and compensate farmers fairly. This will provide a considerable incentive for our farms to improve their performance on the ground.

This is not my first time saying this in the House, but I am convinced that we need to trust our people and decentralize these funds. Some programs are well designed and make sense. Consider, for example, the on-farm climate action fund, which is a step in the right direction. However, we need to stop asking farmers to fill out huge forms when the government decides it needs them. We must decentralize these decisions.

For example, the amounts we would pay to compensate the non-use of a buffer strip or its reforestation would be deposited in an account, a bit like the AgriInvest program. That way, the entrepreneur, in this case the farmer, would have access to it for the next technological innovation. Two years later, the farmer could use that money to build a new stable using geothermal energy. That would be another innovation made at the right time, and we could provide compensation so he could have that money for the next innovation.

None of the farmers I have met want to pollute. They are the first victims of floods and droughts. Members will recall how bad things were in the west last summer. Farmers are aware of that and they have always been aware, long before these problems arose. They work on the land all week long. They understand the situation far better than we do. We need to trust them.

Let us make the compromise proposed in Bill C-234 and provide financial relief for our farmers for a limited time. Let us foster the transition.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. This bill was introduced by the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, whom I greatly respect.

I will point out that this bill was previously introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and that it was about to be passed before the Prime Minister called a useless election.

Bill C-234 makes sense, and it will provide our farmers with substantial financial support, making it possible for them to supply the products Canadians need. Canadian farmers and livestock producers need propane or natural gas to dry grain, irrigate their lands and heat their buildings and greenhouses in order to feed Canadians and stimulate our export markets.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act unfairly penalizes Canadian farmers and livestock producers by increasing the price of carbon.

This tax, in addition to the general increase in food production costs, reduces farmers’ ability to invest in high capital intensive innovations and technologies that foster sustainability and productivity gains.

In my riding of Beauce, there are many different types of production. We have a high concentration of pork and poultry producers, to name only two.

I can say that the message is clear and that the farmers I have spoken to support this legislation. I would like to point out that our party also had the support of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP the last time this bill was debated in the House and put to a vote.

I just hope that with the advent of the NDP‑Liberal coalition, our friends in the NDP will not turn their backs on farmers and forget what we are talking about right now.

I would also like to point out to the House that all members of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance are in favour of this bill. This group is composed of Canada's largest agri‑food associations.

I think it would be extremely unwise of us to ignore the importance of this measure for our country's main food suppliers.

Canadians are being hit hard by the highest inflation rate in over 30 years, and the price of everything is skyrocketing.

The Conservative Party of Canada continues to look for ways to help Canadians get by. What better way to help Canadians than to lower the price of food in this country? That is precisely what this bill would do.

When farmers are hit with ridiculously high carbon tax bills, who will shoulder the increase in costs? The consumers, of course. They will be the ones to pay the consequences.

We must be able to find tangible ways to help reduce food prices, and this bill is one of those ways.

I am certain that my Liberal colleagues will be wondering what impact this will have on the environment. My reply is that I know what I am talking about, since I am a fourth-generation farmer on a family farm. Farmers are known as protectors of the environment and innovators. They have adopted new technologies and proven their ability to constantly decrease their environmental footprint while increasing production and maintaining productivity, without the need for a carbon tax.

Unfortunately, since there are no viable alternative fuel sources to heat and dry grain, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act as it stands will not achieve the targeted emission reductions in this area.

I would like to point out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer conducted a study on the effectiveness of the carbon tax and its reimbursement system. It was a scathing report that must have been shredded in many a Liberal office. In the House, I always hear that Canadians will end up with more money in their pockets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s study used a farm in Manitoba as an example; this farm received a mere 32% reimbursement on all of the carbon tax it would have had to pay in 2021.

Our agricultural industry in Canada wants to look to the future and find ways of being more efficient and greener, but it needs time to adapt and make the necessary changes. Placing a high carbon tax burden on our farmers will not help anyone.

The government always seems to find new ways of standing in the way of our farmers and livestock producers. I could give you a few examples. Our farmers are already facing difficult weather conditions and other problems over which they have no control, such as border closures in importing countries. The government has now decided that it should increase the carbon tax starting in April. The government also intends to cap the use of fertilizer. This is not to mention its 35% tax on fertilizers, which is crushing Canadian farming families.

In closing, Canada must be considered a world leader in livestock production. There are so many things going on in the world right now, including the war in Ukraine, tensions between numerous countries, heat waves in India and Pakistan and conflicts in Afghanistan. Canada should be able to provide food assistance to these countries, but our farmers can barely stay in business because of the tariffs and taxes imposed by the government. That is ridiculous.

As I have said many times in the House, Canada must use its agricultural and agri-food sector as an economic driver to move our country forward. There is nothing in the 2022 budget for agriculture, just the same old announcements.

Can we now expect the Liberals to block this bill as well? They often show great imagination when it comes to finding ways to slow us down as a country.

I hope that my colleagues listening to me today understand the importance of this bill and the good that it can do, not only for farmers, but for young parents trying to put food on the table, seniors who have trouble making ends meet, and the many families in other countries we could surely be helping by providing food aid. Everything this bill does will have a positive impact on the people in our ridings across the country. I hope that, when the time comes to vote on this bill, all parties will come together and do what needs to be done.