Madam Speaker, that was such a great presentation from my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia. I was going to ask him a question, but I will get up and speak on the carbon tax, and I am glad we are getting a chance to talk about that here today.
I come from Saskatchewan. It is an agriculture province; it is a forestry province; it is an oil and gas province; it is a province with rare earth minerals; it is a province with uranium; it has a lot of things going for it, yet with carbon tax 2.0, the province's GDP would drop by almost 1%. There would be a 1% hit right off the top with that tax coming into effect.
The average family in Saskatchewan, which has a rural population by majority, would pay $2,840 in carbon tax. We heard our Liberal colleague talk today about how Saskatchewan families are going to get $1,360 back every year. They are going to pay out $2,800 to get $1,300 back. How can that be right? How can that be revenue-neutral? It is not revenue neutral, and that is what people have been complaining about and saying all along.
I think of talking to my friend, Leonard, about the carbon tax. I just need to sit down and say, “Leonard, what do you think of the carbon tax?” and it is a 20-minute conversation going on to a two-hour conversation. He lives in rural Saskatchewan. He has to drive wherever he goes. He has no options to take a bus. He had no options for electric vehicles, because he goes beyond 200 or 400 kilometres. There is no infrastructure for electric vehicles. He has no options to take a train. What does he do? He has to drive. He looks for the most fuel-efficient vehicle he can buy. He has already done that, because it makes economic sense to do that. He looks for other ways to save costs, so he tries to reduce the number of trips he goes on. That is good, but the reality is that he has no choice.
The reality for farmers across Saskatchewan is that they have no choice.
If I look at an agricultural producer, he is going to pay carbon tax on the fertilizer coming into his farm; he is going to pay carbon tax on the diesel used to plant his crop; he is going to pay carbon tax to take off that crop; he is going to pay the carbon tax to ship out his crop; and if he has to dry it, he is going to pay the carbon tax on drying his crop.
Hopefully, the Senate will put forward the bill that would actually give those costs back to farmers. I hope to see the day this House approves that. That would be a step in the right direction to help farmers, and indirectly would help Canadians with their food costs.
The reality is that when we look at these costs on a 5,000-acre farm, it is going to be about $150,000 a year that farmers are going to bear, which their competitors just across the line in the U.S. will not bear, nor their competitor in Australia, nor their competitor in Europe. Those areas do not have a tax as punitive as we do here in Canada, so there has to be a better way.
Why do we need a taxing system to improve the environment to the detriment of families? Can we not do both? Can we not have an affordable economy, still attack issues in the environment and make sure we do what we need to do to improve the environment?
We have seen the carbon tax have limited results and limited success. Going to carbon tax 2.0 would not do anything more except make it worse. The Liberals are going to make it more expensive for people do things. They are going to make it more expensive for people to do things they have to do. They do not have a choice. They do not have an alternative. Is there not a better way?
I look at the U.S. They are attacking climate change. They are looking at ways to do it, but not with a carbon tax, because they understand that a carbon tax is so hard on families and small businesses, that it is not an economical way to get the results we need to get for our country. There are different ways of doing it, yet the current government doubles down, and instead of actually looking at it in a very serious manner and saying that they really look at the environment and make improvements to the environment, they are just going to take the money away from our farmers, small businesses and families, and leave them with nothing. How are people supposed to make the changes that need to be made to meet the environmental requirements that are going to asked of them going forward?
If we pull $150,000 a year out of a farm, how does that farmer go and make an improvement on his machinery? How does he make an improvement on his yard, like putting in more solar panels? How does he do the things he needs to do to become net zero by 2050? He cannot; he has just given all that money to Ottawa. Where does it come from? There is no help coming back the other way. It is a one-way street, and it is not help that is going to make a farmer more profitable going forward. There is no reinvestment in the industry, the rail system or the ports. We have seen nothing to assist farmers along the way. It has just been a clear cash grab, and that is really sad, because farmers could actually do a lot of things with that $150,000.
Farmers in Saskatchewan were the first to do no-till. In fact, I was with Flexicoil and Case New Holland, and they introduced the technology. We were embedding carbon before carbon was really even talked about. We were reducing fuel costs before reducing fuel costs was being talked about. We were doing those things in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, before it was even popular in the House of Commons.
Farmers take care of the environment. They recognize climate change. My dad, in the 1970s and 1980s, talked about climate change. He talked about how the weather has been changing and how things are different now than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 50 years ago. Climate change, to farmers, is nothing new. Weather change is nothing new.
The reality is they want to do their part, but if we drain all of the revenue out of their bank accounts, how can they? How can they participate? How can they raise their families? What will the future be like for food production and food security in Canada if they cannot operate and run a successful farm and if they cannot transfer that asset down to their kids because it is not profitable?
That is what is happening with the carbon tax 1 and the carbon tax 2.0. Can we not do something different? Can we not find different ways to meet environmental requirements that actually do that? Can we not put together an environmental and climate change plan that does not penalize families, that does not hurt the mom and dad who live in rural Saskatchewan when they want to take their kid to the doctor or just go to town and buy groceries? Why are they the target?
The reality is that there is some $1,480 difference in what they get versus what they pay, so we are already hitting them there, and then we have increased the cost of food and increased the cost of everything else. The doubling down's impact on them is substantial.
If I lived in downtown Toronto, and I have no issue with people in downtown Toronto, I would have all the options. I could take the bus. I could take the subway. I could walk. I would have that ability. I do not in rural Saskatchewan. That is what the government fails to comprehend. We do not have the options in place.
I want to pivot a little to electric vehicles. I have nothing against electric vehicles, but I live in rural Saskatchewan. We do not have the infrastructure yet, although I believe that someday we will. When I look at what the U.S. is doing in regard to emissions, the U.S. did not prescribe what type of vehicle we need to drive to hit emissions targets. It just set the targets. It went to the industry and said, “Here are the targets and this is what you have to do.”
What did the government do? It should have done the same but it did not. It said, no, it has to be electric vehicles. There is a problem with that. What about hydrogen? What about new technologies we have not even dreamt of yet? What about new ways of doing things that actually meet those goals and solve the issues that the electric vehicle does not solve?
How does somebody who lives 200 kilometres north of Prince Albert charge their vehicle, get it to Prince Albert and get it home in the same day? How do they do it when it is -40°C? These are questions my constituents are asking. They are asking where the charging stations are, where they will be and what will be involved. If they get to a charging station, will they be able to plug in right away or will they have to wait for 45 minutes before the guy in front of them finishes charging? These are questions that should be answered and talked about as we go down this path.
If we look at the U.S., it said to those in the industry to figure it out. They are smarter than the government. They can figure it out and tell us the best way. It may be hydrogen. It may be electric vehicles in certain areas. It may be something else. That is fine as long as we hit the goals.
That comes back to the carbon tax. Why do we care about how we do this as long as we hit the goals? When we see that something is not working, why would we not change course? Why would we not actually look at it in a different way and say this is not as good a way of doing it as we thought it was going to be? In theory, it sounds really great. In reality, it is killing our small businesses. In reality, it is doing a lot of harm to our families. Can we not do something different instead of doubling down on it?
That is the frustration Canadians have right now. We should be listening to Canadians at the doorsteps and talking to them. Why are the Liberals not looking for other alternatives to hit the environmental targets they put out, instead of just doubling down on something that has not worked? That is why we are here today. We are just telling them over and over again that the process they put in place is not working. Look for something different. Can they not do an environmental program without hurting Canadian small businesses and families? Surely they can do that.
