Debates of Feb. 6th, 2024

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight and pursue the discussion of a very complex piece of legislation. It did not start out being complex, when our colleague initially put it forward as Bill C-234, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. Of course, this is the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act as it relates to on-farm use of fossil fuels. It has now been amended in the Senate to exempt one of the larger uses of fossil fuels on farms. Of course, farm communities are not pleased; however, I wanted to step back.

This piece that would now be exempted under the Senate amendments is the on-farm use of propane fuel for grain drying. In other words, activities that take place in buildings are now no longer exempt from the fossil fuel exemption that came through in the first version of Bill C-234. As the Green Party members and I voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity, if I may, to explain why we voted that way and what I think we should do for a fundamental reconsideration of the way we price carbon on farms so that it has some intellectual and scientific coherence.

Let me first start with why we voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration. I recall really clearly when carbon pricing came forward, which we favour, to be very clear. We think we have to monetize carbon. If we treat pollution as something free, nobody will pay attention to what it really costs society, what it really costs humanity to treat the atmosphere as if it were a large, free garbage dump for our pollution. That is clearly not acceptable. We moved forward, accepting that there would be, unfortunately, a patchwork, because some provinces had already moved forward.

British Columbia brought in Canada's first carbon tax, a well-constructed and logical revenue-neutral approach to carbon pricing. There have been changes, and some provinces brought in their own versions. What the current Liberal government brought forward was essentially a backstop; for those provinces that did not have their own systems, the federal government brought in a carbon price that would apply everywhere to try to equalize the pricing among all the different provinces and have a system that remained revenue-neutral.

British Columbia brought in the revenue-neutral carbon tax under the government of previous premier Gordon Campbell, who pretty much represented the right wing of B.C. politics. Nevertheless, it was a really well-designed carbon price. The revenue-neutral part of it was that, as British Columbians, we got tax cuts that were how we received what citizens now actually receive as a rebate check in those backstop provinces. This became a bit more complicated than it perhaps needed to be.

When the Liberals brought this in, they said they were not going to apply it on farms; farmers would not have to pay the carbon tax. At least, that was how it was communicated. When farmers realized that they were not paying a carbon tax on the diesel they put in their tractors or the farm equipment they use, but they were paying a big one on grain drying, they became quite concerned. That is the source of Bill C-234. We felt, in principle, that once the farming community has been told that carbon tax will not apply to them, one should stick to that.

It also happened that, because of the climate crisis, the need for grain drying increased. This is one of those things that may sound counterintuitive, of course, but we had what farmers in the Prairies referred to as “the harvest from hell” that winter. I am going to back up and say that I know it is not the first time we have ever had the need for grain drying. We have had wet harvests before. It was not a novelty, but it was particularly bad. They were still trying to get crops out of the fields when there was snow on them. Grain drying became much more intense, and the use of propane for grain drying actually increased. That is when farmers said, “Well, wait a minute. We were supposed to be exempt from carbon pricing.”

Before diving into what has happened to Bill C-234 since then, I want to step back and ask this: If we wanted to monetize carbon and, preferably, keep farmers who are essentially land stewards on board with the need to respond to the climate crisis, how would we do that? I would say that the reason farmers should be particularly on board with measures to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid an ever-worsening climate crisis is that, if there is one economic sector that is a big loser and at risk in a world of climate crisis, it is agriculture. In the Prairies now, there is a multi-year drought. Some of my friends who are farmers on the Prairies say not to call it a drought. They say to call it “aridification”, because it is just going to keep getting drier as a result of climate trends and global warming.

With respect to the impact on the cost of food, we talk about inflation in grocery prices, and a good chunk of that is the impact on certain agricultural products because of extreme climate events. Whether droughts or floods, extreme weather events wipe out certain kinds of food. The price of vanilla went sky-high because of the impact of storms hitting Madagascar, as but one example. Of course, grains all around the world started costing a lot more because of a combination of Putin declaring war on Ukraine and crop failures caused by extreme climatic events.

As someone who wants to see us all pull together, it was distressing that one component of Canadian society would be alienated from efforts to act on climate by what felt like and, I have to say, looked like a betrayal on a promise. This component is severely impacted by the climate crisis and, therefore, should be onside with doing something to keep it from becoming ever worse; at the same time, it is a part of our society that plays a big role in how carbon is sequestered. If the Liberals say they are not going to apply carbon taxes on farms, then farmers are surprised to be paying a walloping carbon tax, how did that happen? I am sorry to say this to my Liberal friends, but it is because the Liberals do not really understand a lot about farming; when they made the promise, they did not realize that fossil fuels used on farms were largely used in buildings to dry grain.

It is fine to exempt tractors and on-farm equipment, but here we come to the crux of what I wish we had done, which we could perhaps still do: We can enlist farmers as the creative land stewards they are, as farmers sequester carbon through their practices and on-farm activities, such as zero-tillage agriculture, getting rid of summer fallow, and making sure they are doing more perennial and fewer annual crops. Farmers are massively effective at sequestering carbon in soil, and guess what? We talk about planting forests as a way of sequestering carbon and carbon sinks in forests. Those things are real; that is true.

However, right now, and largely because of climate change, our grasslands are better at sequestering carbon than our forests are. Why? The soils hold an enormous quantity of carbon. Climate conditions causing forest fires wipe out the carbon we were sequestering in forests, releasing it by the millions of tonnes into the atmosphere. It is not just in the summer; every province in this country started having wildfires that were out of control in the spring, in May of last year, and all the way through late fall and some into the winter. When forests burn, we lose all the carbon.

Here is something interesting, and scientists are looking at this a lot: When grasslands burn, we do not lose all the carbon. Most of that carbon is stored well below the soil, in the root systems that do not burn. Therefore, if we are offsetting for greenhouse gas, I generally think we are better not to plant a tree but to plant a billionaire; I usually say that in jest, just to make sure everybody understands that. We are better off protecting the grasslands.

Where ecosystems exist with grasslands, it is better to sustain them and keep them robust, which means this: What if, instead of just having carbon pricing on the fuel they burn, we pay farmers for every tonne of carbon they sequester? What if we had an actual balance sheet on carbon pricing, thanking and rewarding farmers who have taken on board protecting ecological services, such as wetlands, protecting biodiversity and making sure they are restoring the health of soil, improving the profitability and the health of the food, and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere?

I say thanks to farmers.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to resume debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-234, pursuant to the proposed amendments to the bill from the Senate.

Canada has the best farmers and food processors in the world. We are a global leader in agricultural production, and the sector is of great importance to our economy, to trade and to jobs. I know that in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we have some of the best small-scale farms in the country. The government understands that farmers are essential to our communities and to Canada's economy, and that is why it agrees with the intent of Bill C-234.

Supporting our farmers is, of course, of great importance. However, the bill is not appropriately structured to achieve this objective. It is important to 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 agricultural production.

Putting a price on pollution is a cornerstone of Canada's climate plan. It is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to more intense wildfires, droughts and floods, while putting money back in people's pockets and driving investment in cleaner alternatives. In B.C., of course, there has been a price on pollution for more than 15 years; it remains in place today. It is instead of the federal system, which applies only in provinces that do not bring in their own carbon pricing system.

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change, facing ever-increasing risks of natural disasters to their operations. Pollution pricing was designed to take into account the unique needs of farmers. Of course I have seen it first hand with a number of the farms in my riding, where historic droughts and water restrictions actually brought in a state of emergency that restricted access to water for some of these farms. I have also seen in recent years the crushing impact of the heat dome fuelled by climate change.

That is why, for all provinces where the federal carbon price is in effect, Canada's agriculture is already receiving significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors. Through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the federal system exempts gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, as well as biological emissions, such that roughly 97% of on-farm emissions are not subject to a price on pollution.

Greenhouse operators also received upfront relief of 80% on the fuel charge on propane and marketable natural gas. Additionally, farmers in provinces where the federal system is in place can receive a refundable tax credit, which, overall, returns the estimated total fuel charge proceeds in these provinces related to farm use of natural gas and propane for heating and drying activities, to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming.

This year, farmers in rural areas will benefit from the doubling of the rural top-up for pollution price rebates, which will give households an extra 20% of the value of the rebates in backstop jurisdictions. Putting a price on pollution and returning the proceeds to farmers helps them transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers while also maintaining a price signal to reduce emissions. These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

Unfortunately, even as amended by the Senate, which did make some steps in the right direction, the bill does not reflect Canada's commitment to climate change or incentivize farmers to switch to less carbon-intensive solutions. It also risks weakening Canada's efforts to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that one amendment would remove—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask members to please refrain from trying to ask questions and make comments when someone has the floor. The hon. member knows that if he were speaking, he would want the respect of the House. He should give the same to the hon. member.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would note that Canada's emissions have dropped by a bigger percentage than those of any other G7 country since 2019.

It is true that one amendment would remove the relief associated with heating or cooling a building or similar structure used for raising or housing livestock or growing crops, but the relief for grain drying would remain, as would amendments to expand qualifying farm fuels to include natural gas and propane. The government does not believe that making it free to pollute is the right way to proceed.

We are taking action where it makes a real, positive difference in supporting farmers to make cleaner choices. As part of our strengthened climate plan and the 2030 emissions reduction plan, the Government of Canada has committed over $1.5 billion to accelerate the agricultural sector's progress on reducing emissions, while remaining a global leader in sustainable agriculture. This includes almost $500 million for the agricultural clean technology program to create an enabling environment for the development and adoption of clean technology that will help drive the changes required to achieve a low-carbon economy and promote sustainable growth in Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. This program is helping Canadians in the agricultural sector to innovate and to adopt clean technologies.

Farmers are taking action. They 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. I have seen it in my riding with local companies; Terramera, for example, has been partnering with Microsoft to share information on precision agriculture at landscape scale. I have seen the sustainable farming practices being implemented locally that are making a big difference on climate change and on water use. The government is continuing to take action to support them.

Budget 2022, for example, provided $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program, cost-shared with provinces and territories, to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and to address other environmental co-benefits. It also provided $100 million to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero emission agriculture, and it provided $469 million to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.

Budget 2022 also renewed the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture, including federal-only programs and programs developed in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. Each year, these programs provide about $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. The Canadian agricultural partnership also includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2.3 billion of support, on average, per year. These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

Our pollution pricing system is simply about recognizing that pollution has a cost, and about encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. The federal government does not keep any direct proceeds from pollution pricing under this system. Canada's approach to pollution pricing is not only one of the best ways to fight climate change; it also puts more money back into the pockets of Canadians. The direct proceeds from the federal pollution price are returned in the jurisdiction from which they were collected, to help with cost of living challenges while keeping the incentive to pollute less.

As 2024 kicks off, the Government of Canada reiterates its commitment to pollution pricing and its crucial role in meeting targets to cut emissions to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Estimates show that pollution pricing will contribute about a third of the total reductions in emissions that will occur between now and 2030. Putting a price on pollution and returning the bulk of the proceeds through rebates provides support not just for farmers but also for consumers and businesses, while also maintaining an incentive to reduce emissions.

Canada has been a world leader in fighting climate change through pollution pricing, and we should not do anything that would undermine this achievement, as Bill C-234 would for the reasons I have set out today. I am thankful for the opportunity to make the government's position on this piece of legislation clear.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight debating Bill C-234 again. Why are we? It is because the Liberal-appointed senators voted to gut the bill from its original form to prevent it from passing. The panicking Liberals are resorting to every trick in the book, trying desperately to prevent farmers from getting a carbon tax carve-out for drying grain, heating barns and other farm operations. This is ahead of the Prime Minister's plan to increase the carbon tax on April 1 by 23% as part of the NDP-Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax.

Farmers in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and from across this great country made their voices known to senators loud and clear by writing, calling and emailing their offices. They have done so with MPs as well over the course of the last two years that we have been seeing this important bill make its way through the parliamentary process.

Despite the farmers' best efforts to voice their concerns and let senators know that they need to pass the bill in its original form in order to bring the much-needed financial relief to their cost of growing food, and despite the testimony that was heard from industry about how the carbon tax will eventually price most farmers out of business while increasing the cost food for Canadians, Liberal senators instead gutted the bill and sent it back to this place for reconsideration.

This begs the question “Why?”. What possibly could have influenced Liberal senators to gut the bill when the overwhelming evidence shows that if the bill is not passed, the cost of production for farmers will keep rising and thus will continue to drive up the cost of food for Canadians?

The Liberals have denied trying to influence their so-called independent senators; however, as it turns out, the environment minister has actually admitted to calling senators and asking them to keep the carbon tax on. I will read into the record an exchange the environment minister had on December 14, 2023, at the environment committee:

Mr. Dan Mazier: Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?

Hon. [Minister]: Can you repeat the question, please?

Mr. Dan Mazier: Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member mentioned the name of a member. I would remind members not to do that.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

I will continue with the exchange.

[The hon. minister]: I had conversations with five or six senators, yes.

[The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa]: ...five or six senators. What are their names?

[The hon. minister]: I don't have the names with me.

[The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa]: Can you table those?

[The hon. minister]: I'm sure we can make those available.

[The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa]: Okay, thank you.

Theenvironment minister did table with the committee three names of senators he spoke with, but only three names. However, the minister said that he spoke with six senators, so it begs the question who those other three senators are that the minister spoke with. This is just another example of a Liberal cabinet minister politically interfering when they want to get their own way.

No matter what the Liberals say about the senators they have appointed, it proves they are not independent. On this side of the House, we know that nothing about this bill needs to be reconsidered and that this bill must be sent back to the Senate in its original form.

No matter what happens with this bill right now, if Conservatives form government, Canadians can rest assured that we would axe the carbon tax for everyone. Farmers would have this reprieve because we know this carbon tax does nothing to reduce emissions; it only harms Canadians' ability to afford the nutritious foods they need to feed their families and makes everything more expensive.

If the NDP-Liberals refuse to support Bill C-234 in its original form, they would send a very clear message to farmers in particular. The message they would send is that they do not care about how their carbon tax negatively affects Canadians and contributes to rising food costs. They would show, sadly, how out of touch they are with Canadian farmers.

Being involved in the business of fresh produce and farming, I have first-hand knowledge of how the carbon tax increases the costs and makes the cost of food go up. I am passionate about farming to my core; I am sure everyone can see that. Agriculture is the backbone of the area where I grew up and is the backbone of the communities that I have the honour and privilege of representing here in this place. There are lots of different kinds of farming in my area, including grain farming, poultry farming, which includes turkey and chicken, as well as greenhouse farming and vegetable growing. There is a cost associated with that to the farmers who grow grain and who raise the poultry for market, and greenhouse growers as well are especially affected by the carbon tax.

Many farmers in my area have to use propane or natural gas to heat their barns or to heat their greenhouses, and it might be a surprise, but vegetable farmers heat their barns too while they are storing things. Not only that, they have to heat barns in order to dry onions enough to store them. One thing they all have in common is that, on their most recent gas bill, the carbon tax charge was higher than the actual gas charge. That is outrageous.

A greenhouse grower in Ontario recently told me about the devastating impact the carbon tax would have on their greenhouse operation. They told me the average farmer who grows in greenhouses has anywhere from 50 acres to 100 acres. They did the calculation of the carbon tax they pay now and calculated what the NDP-Liberal government's quadrupling of the carbon tax would do.

If the carbon tax quadruples, they would pay $50,000 per acre in carbon tax alone. That is $50,000, so a 50-acre farm would pay $2.5 million in carbon tax and a 100-acre farm would pay $5 million in carbon tax. They would have no choice but to pass those costs on to consumers. Common sense tells us Canadian families would pay more at the store. When the carbon tax rises so does the cost of production for farmers and producers. If it costs the farmer more to grow the food and the trucker more to ship the food, it would cost Canadian families more to buy the food.

Farmers are affected by the uncertainties of weather, and this is not new. Farmers have always been affected by weather. Every year, the climate changes. It is now winter in much of Canada, but soon, it is going to spring. Then it is going to be summer, and then it is going to be fall, and then it is going to be winter again. The uncertainty of the weather means sometimes farmers have to harvest their crops before they are dry.

For the last few decades, our farmers have had the option of using grain dryers. Farmers can take a crop off when it is still a little wet, they can bring it to the right moisture content in a propane or natural gas-fired grain dryer. It will dry it so the moisture content comes down. However, right now, there is no alternative to natural gas or propane grain dryers.

I want to remind my colleagues across the way that we live in Canada, and we experience wide ranges of temperatures. I know most of the Liberals are from Toronto and they do not get out to other parts of Canada, but it does regularly get to be -40° or colder.

Many chicken farmers have to heat their poultry barns throughout much of the year with propane or natural gas, because it is a humane necessity to keep birds alive.

Farmer Brian, a large chicken farmer in my riding, wrote to me and gave me his natural gas bills for one of his many chicken barns. For a period of 12 months in 2023, he paid almost $16,000 in carbon tax alone, just to heat one barn. That is just one barn, and the carbon tax is going to quadruple.

The carbon tax is going to rise again on April 1. The NDP-Liberals want to quadruple the tax. That is going to increase the cost of food. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it clear that this bill would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, which would reduce the cost of food for Canadian families that are currently struggling to afford groceries.

The profit margins for most Canadian producers are very narrow, and there is very little room for additional input costs. For Canadian farmers, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is an input cost on their production. Most producers are price takers, not price setters. That means that farmers have no way of recovering what they pay in the NDP-Liberal carbon tax from the next stage of the supply chain.

To be clear, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax takes from most Canadian farming families' profits, which reflects on the Canadian families' standard of living. I have said it before, it is not rocket science. If it costs farmers to grow food and truckers more to ship food, it is going to cost Canadian families more to buy food.

The existing carbon tax exemption for farmers' use of gasoline and other fuels raises another question related to science and math. The science says that natural gas and propane are the least-emitting sources available for heat.

Will the NDP-Liberals send this bill back to the Senate unamended, in its original form and let us get this bill passed for Canadian farmers so that they could have this tax relief from the carbon tax?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, here we are again, another debate where the basis of the Conservative argument is that it should be free to pollute in this country, and that the most challenging crisis that we face, the one that will impact Canadians the most, especially in their pocketbooks, is something that they deny.

The previous speaker said that climate changes, winter to spring to summer to fall, as if to deny the seriousness of the crisis. What is the main driver of increased food costs? It is climate change.

I have asked Conservative members, and none of them are willing to answer this. Why have the increases in food costs gone up even higher in the United States than they have in Canada, when most jurisdictions in the United States do not have a price on pollution?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

You are making that up.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way is accusing me of lying, and that is truly unfortunate. They can look that up themselves.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members, again, that there is no opportunity for questions and comments. I would ask members to please listen to what the hon. members have to say, and then, if they so wish, they can actually be recognized for debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it just goes to show that, when confronted with the reality that food prices are going up in jurisdictions that do not have a price on pollution, the cognitive dissonance that exists on that side with respect to the science on the issue is loud and clear. It is truly unfortunate that this issue, climate change, is going to dramatically affect costs for Canadians. We are seeing it all the time.

We saw it in the summer when we were debating a motion brought by the Conservatives to eliminate the price on pollution, when we could not even see into Gatineau from Ottawa because the smoke was so thick. Hurricanes have ravaged us, and again Conservatives are denying the impacts of climate change during their heckles on forest fires and their spread. They cannot get it through their heads that this is a crisis that is affecting them, and that their constituents are facing droughts and floods.

Yes, the hon. member who spoke before me is correct that farmers are impacted by the weather, but they are also dramatically impacted by radical changes in the climate. Much of the Prairies has been under significant drought. What is that going to do to the price of food? What is the Conservative plan on pollution? It is nothing except to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it is not an issue, when it is the central piece as to why food prices are going to increase. If they do not have a plan to address the climate, they do not have a plan to address rising food costs.

Conservatives are correct that farmers are stewards of this land. I have a quote from a Saskatchewan farmer, National Farmers Union former vice-president Glenn Wright, who stated:

Farmers will be among the hardest hit if we don't act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the climate. For this reason—to protect farmers—the NFU supports pricing pollution; it is an important policy tool to reduce the harmful emissions fuelling the climate crisis and threatening farms and food supplies.

How do members of the Conservative Party deal with this? During this debate, they took to social media to threaten and harass senators. One of its members was even found to have violated the privileges of senators in the other place. Although they are independent senators, they accused them of being Liberal senators even though they do not sit in their caucus, while Conservative senators did not even show up to vote. I believe there were only one or two votes this pass-by, and Conservative senators, who sit in their own party's caucus, did not show up to work. Instead of coming here, and instead of trying to intimidate members of the other place, they should probably speak to the Conservative senators who come to their caucus meeting every Wednesday and ask them why they did not show up.

I would like to speak to a few things in order to clarify the record a bit. We have exempted gas and diesel for farm use from federal pollution pricing. We have created a rural top-up for rebates. We have returned $120 million to farmers thanks to carbon pricing proceeds. Over the last two years, we have invested $1.5 billion in programs to support farmers in reducing emissions on farms and growing their operations. Since the $500-million reinvestment through the agricultural clean technology program, more than 128 grain dryer projects have been approved. Nearly $500 million has been approved for research, development and adaptation for clean technology. There has been $12 million to reduce methane emissions from cattle and $670 million to support the adaptation of greenhouse gas reduction practices on farms.

What would the Conservative response be? It would be to gut everything, pretend climate change does not exist, just say that the unprecedented floods, fires and droughts are just the weather, and say that we should ignore the scientists and the experts.

It would be a much more credible thing for the other side to say that the bill needs to be passed, and that they have a plan to reduce emissions, but they do not. They have zero plans to address this existential threat that we face as a country. It is a pocketbook issue and a security threat; experts are saying this across the board, and farmers are telling us they are impacted, yet Conservatives stick their head in the sand and say that polluting in this country should be free.

They all ran on it, which is the other thing I do not understand. If we go back into our time machine, just a couple of years ago, we would see that Conservatives all ran on a price on pollution, but it was a little different from ours. We give rebates right back to people. However, for the Conservative's price on pollution, people would get a Government of Canada credit card and would build up points, and maybe they could buy a bike at the end of the day if they built up enough points. I think “The more you burn, the more you earn” was their slogan at the time, but it was good to see them acknowledge a price on pollution, all of them. Every single one of them ran on it.

It was interesting at the time, but it was good to see every major political party in this country addressing climate change. I thought it fell flat, and I guess voters also felt that it fell flat in addressing the climate crisis. However, what the Conservatives have taken from their poor attempt at pricing pollution is to ignore climate change, despite seeing it with their own eyes across the country with record highs, record droughts, record floods, atmospheric rivers and hurricanes that are stronger than ever. They abandoned their constituents.

This is the Conservative playbook. They talk a good game in terms of affordability, but when it comes to addressing the number one driver of that in terms of food prices, they are absent. They are silent, and their silence will be costly for Canadians. The farmers they claim that they stand up for will be the most hurt as they suffer from severe weather, which makes it harder to produce and impacts the bottom line for farmers. It is truly disappointing to see a Conservative Party embrace climate denial policies in the United States and try to bring that north.

This is a mechanism that works. It puts more money in the pockets of Canadians. It will be responsible for 20% to 30% of our greenhouse gas reductions. Again, if the Conservatives have a plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, I would like to know, but they do not. They have absolutely nothing. We want to return that money to the pocketbooks of Canadians.

I thought it was telling, when the Government of Saskatchewan was having a fight about carbon pricing, that it had to reassure its constituents not to worry, and they would still get the rebate. I think it was the first time I have heard Conservative politicians talk about a climate rebate in this country when their constituents were worried that it was going to be taken away. That is another affordability issue where eight out of 10 families receive more than they put in, and the Conservatives want to say “No, we'd rather give it to oil executives. It would be better in the pockets of the shareholders of oil companies than it would in the pockets of Canadians.” That is where the Conservative Party is right now. It is out of touch on the number one issue that is driving food prices.

I wish the Conservatives would go back and embrace what they brought in the last election and what they ran on, which was a price on pollution. It was a reasonable time, but none of them stood up at the time except one. I forget the member's riding, but I will give her credit. Also, there was one member who stood up at the time to challenge Mr. O'Toole on that policy, but all of them embraced it. They ran on it and took it home to their constituents. They went to the polls. They all got elected on that promise to price pollution, yet we see them sit and do nothing. They put their heads in the sand.

I have asked what the Conservatives will do when there is no action on the dramatic issues that are impacting climate. We know that carbon dioxide causes this. However, some Conservatives will say that carbon dioxide is great and that it feeds plants, as if to minimize the impact of carbon pollution in our society.

However, this is having a dramatic impact that we can see. Even in my own community, it does not even rain the same way it used to when I was growing up. All of us can see it. We can go outside. It is hitting us right in the face, and ultimately, the Conservative Party is going to ignore it.

I can appreciate that the Conservatives' want to see different changes to policy and, as I said, it would be a lot more credible to come up with a plan, any plan. When the Leader of the Opposition is pushed, he will say they are going to invest in technology, as if there is one magic bullet out there. Technology is part of the solution, but what will those members do when faced with a crisis so severe? Early on, there was basic denial and heckling that it even existed, that food prices increased in other jurisdictions and that climate change was the source of that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I asked the member to wrap up, and I actually allowed him to go a bit longer than I should have.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in this place and to address a very important issue. That issue comes down to affordability. It comes down to the well-being of Canadians from coast to coast, to those who live in rural areas, in urban areas, in my province of Alberta and in Atlantic Canada.

The debate tonight has to do with being able to buy the very basics of life, including fuel for a person's vehicle so that they can drive to work or take their kids to sport practice. It is a conversation about being able to put food on the table, whether that is fruits, vegetables, grain or dairy. Whatever a family chooses to consume, they should be able to afford those choices.

Furthermore, Bill C-234 is about being able to heat one's home. I do not know about others, but where I live in Alberta, we can get temperatures down to -53°C with the wind chill. I cannot imagine trying to heat my home with a heat pump, as the Liberals would like to suggest is possible, nor can I imagine relying on wind or solar as my sole source of electricity, because we had a proof point, just a few weeks ago, that it just does not work.

Instead, what people rely on to heat their homes in my part of the country is largely natural gas. The Liberal government has attached something called a carbon tax to those very necessities of life, whether it is the food we eat, the fuel that we put in our vehicles or the energy that heats our homes. The carbon tax is punitive in nature, and it is driving up the cost that Canadians have to pay just to survive.

Bill C-234, which we are discussing here today, has to do with taking the carbon tax off the fuel that farmers use for the very necessities of the jobs they do. Imagine putting all of one's time and energy and all of one's labour into producing food for the nation of Canada and for the entire world. Imagine doing that, and then imagine having a government in power that, rather than expressing gratitude toward them, actually punishes them. That is exactly what the Liberals have done for the last eight years.

The carbon tax is extremely punitive in nature. It goes after those individuals working hard to produce food. It does that by applying this tax to the very necessities of production. Whether it is using natural gas to heat a barn in order to keep chickens alive or dairy cattle alive, or whether it is using propane to be able to dry grain, let us say, those are things farmers do on a day to day basis. Those things are necessary to produce food for Canadians and for the world. Those things are required to keep us, as humanity, alive and to drive our economy forward. Rather than celebrating the incredible contribution that farmers are making, the Liberal government has chosen to go after them and to be extremely punitive.

On this side of the House, members got together and came up with an idea. That idea is brilliant. It is supported by producers all across the country. That idea is to remove the carbon tax from fuel, from natural gas and from propane so that farmers can produce food at less expense.

Here is what happens when farmers are empowered to produce food with little expense attached to it. Those savings get passed on to Canadians. Then, when Canadians go to grocery stores and buy food for their families, they are able to pay a little less. However, when the government attaches that tax, it actually drives up the cost of food, so Canadians then have to spend more.

What will happen when Canadians have to spend more? Headlines across this country will show us exactly what will happen. Families are struggling. Millions are lining up at food banks every single month across this country. In my riding, in Lethbridge, Alberta, the food bank use has doubled under the Liberal government. It has doubled.

It is not just folks who maybe do not have homes or who live in low-income housing. It is folks who have full-time jobs and live in middle-class neighbourhoods. It is seniors who rely on fixed incomes, who have worked incredibly hard for 65, 75, maybe 80 years of their lives. It is the students studying at Lethbridge College or the University of Lethbridge who are investing in their education and, because of the government, cannot afford to make ends meet, so they have to go to the food bank. It is the veterans who fought for this country, the country that we love. It is the men and women who sacrificed a great deal, and are now not supported by the government, who are lining up at the food bank.

That is a problem that was created under the watch of the Liberal government, but it did not have to be that way. The government has created policy after policy that has punished Canadians and held them back from achieving greatness, from being able to bring in income and stretch it to cover their costs of life. It is the government that has prevented people from being able to do that.

On this side of the House, there is a concerted effort to give Canadians control of their lives back. There is a concerted effort to make sure they can afford the very necessities they require. Of course, top of mind is to axe the tax, and that is exactly what Bill C-234 would do. Bill C-234 is all about getting rid of this punitive tax, taking it off of farmers and allowing all Canadians to benefit because, when farmers benefit, so do the people who go to the grocery store to buy food. That is what this bill is about.

Here is what the government did. This bill was discussed in this place and then went to the Senate, which started out with some good common-sense thinking. At first, it seemed that the majority in the Senate was going to support this bill because it just makes sense, but then the Liberal government, in particular, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment, caught wind of this. What did they do? They got on the phone, asked for meetings and applied pressure. They applied pressure to the senators, who are supposedly independent, and eventually those senators caved. The bill ended up being gutted to the point of being meaningless, and that is what we are now debating in this place.

Canadians deserve better. For starters, they deserve better behaviour from the government, and second, they deserve better policy. They deserve policy that would allow them to work hard for a paycheque, bring that money home and be able to cover the cost of things they need to purchase, whether it is groceries, fuel for their vehicles or their heating bills. Canadians need to be empowered to cover those expenses, and a big part of that is axing the tax.

In my riding, a producer was willing to share his natural gas bill with me. He has a few different parts to his farming operation, but just for one of them, the beef operation, he spends $62,000 a year on the carbon tax. He was willing to share some his bills with me, which I reviewed, and month after month the carbon tax is more than the amount he spent on the actual natural gas used. That is crazy. It is ludicrous that a farmer would have to spend more on the tax than the product itself.

What also needs to be driven home is that we have to remember that all Canadians, including farmers, are not just paying the carbon tax, but the tax on top of it. They are paying a government tax and a provincial tax on top of the carbon tax. It is the greatest scheme for the government to make money, but it is on the backs of Canadians, and the government should be ashamed of itself.

Conservatives are going to work hard. We are going to fight for Canadians. We are going to make sure their paycheques stay powerful. We are going to axe the tax.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate thus far. To begin, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding when we are talking about affordability and carbon pricing. I am really wondering what the members opposite are concerned about when talking about affordability.

There was a study that came out of the University of Calgary from an economist. It talked about what would happen if we cancelled the carbon price tomorrow and the rebate that goes along with it. It is not just the carbon price. There is also a rebate cheque that gets sent to people where there is a federal backstop. The economist from the University of Calgary found that, if that were cancelled tomorrow, the people who would benefit the most would be the people who earn over $250,000.

I can only guess, from the fervour that I hear from the other side of the House, that the people they are concerned about, who they really want to make sure have no affordability issues, are the people who earn over $250,000. This study from this economist found that those are the people who would benefit the most from this big push we are hearing of every day to end carbon pricing and the rebates that get sent to people who are paying the carbon price in federal backstop provinces. I would like to have some clarity on that point because it seems perplexing to me.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-234. It is about farming. Farmers feed us. They are such an important part of our community and our country. Agriculture is a cornerstone of rural communities right across our country. When we are talking about this, I think we need to start with that point and recognize the importance of farmers in our country.

When we are talking about this bill, we are actually talking about protecting farming and agriculture right across our country. We are seeing natural disasters, like the atmospheric rivers and the droughts. There is a drought right now that we are hearing about in Alberta, and people are talking about having to reduce their water use. We are talking about wildfires. We saw the atmospheric river that happened in the interior of B.C. That impacted farms. Those were farms that got washed out.

When we are talking about fighting climate change and about taking action on this really important issue, it is not something that is nice to have, but it is essential. We need to do it for our own survival, and we need to do it to support farmers. They are the ones who are bearing the brunt every day, and they are seeing the impacts of natural disasters caused by climate change.

That is why we need to continue to take action. It is also why it is very shortsighted. It is not going to help affordability. It is not going to help our farmers to not take action on climate change. I believe it is really important, when we are looking at this bill and when we are talking about these issues, that we take into account those parts. The last thing I will say on affordability when talking about farming is that, when our farms are impacted by natural disasters, the price of food goes up. That is what we saw. In fact, we saw that with the price of iceberg lettuce when it shot up when natural disasters were happening in California. We see it time and time again.

One of the things we can do best, as a country, if we want to make sure we are protecting farms, our sources of food, while dealing with affordability issues, is to continue to fight climate change and protect our communities from natural disasters.

Let me talk about Bill C-234. The first part of the bill would be redundant because the agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors of the economy under the carbon pollution pricing system. In fact, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act already provides upfront relief from the fuel charge to farmers for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. It also relieves 80% of the fuel charge from natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.

There are now refundable tax credits in place, which return a portion of the fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in the backstop provinces covered by the federal fuel charge. I do not think, in this conversation that we are having, we talk enough about those parts. People would think they do not exist. Let us just remind Canadians that, when we are talking about this bill, there is already relief built into the system to support farming and agriculture.

On the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned to farmers is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas for heating and drying activities. This aims to ensure that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers in the provinces that are backstop provinces.

When I talk about backstop provinces, what provinces am I talking about? The provinces are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Farmers in those provinces are the ones I have been talking about.

Quebec is not covered by the federal backstop. Quebec had a price on carbon pollution before the federal one, so it was actually ahead. The farmers in Quebec, for example, do not pay the federal fuel charge, so they also do not receive the farmers tax credit.

The refundable tax credit for farmers does not undermine the effectiveness of pollution pricing because it does not return fuel charged proceeds according to a farm's actual natural gas or propane use. What it does is put a price on pollution and then it returns a portion of the proceeds to farmers to help farmers transition to ways to lower carbon emissions in farming.

By providing support to farmers, we are also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions. In contrast, Bill C-234 would completely remove the price signal needed for carbon pricing to work by directly relieving the fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities in addition to the existing relief for gasoline and diesel that already exists.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from December 13, 2023, consideration of the motion.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be able to resume where I left off back in December.

Just to refresh the memory of everyone in this place, we were discussing the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I have been a proud member of that committee for six years now and I would say that it is the best standing committee out of any committee of the House, because we often arrive at our decisions on a consensus model. We certainly have our differences, but the collegiality stems from the fact that, no matter what political party we represent, we all represent farmers in our respective ridings and have a great deal of respect for the work they do.

This particular study is unusual, if we look at the long list of studies the agriculture committee usually embarks on, in that we are dealing more with a retail issue, which of course is the subject of food price inflation. I am happy to say that this 10th report was the result of a unanimous vote on my motion for a study. The study was also backed up by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons when the NDP used our opposition day to move a motion backing up the committee's work.

Given the brutal food price inflation rates that many Canadians have been experiencing over the last couple of years, the political and public pressure of the moment, I think, really helped focus parliamentarians' efforts on this important issue in making sure we were paying it the attention it deserved, given what many of our constituents were telling us they were suffering through. Therefore, it was nice to see that unanimous vote and the fact that we were able to get into this study.

If we look at the news these days and the experts who research this particularly brutal problem, we already know that a record number of Canadians are having to access food banks. I certainly hear from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that they are having to make those difficult decisions every single week. It has affected not only the quality of food they have been able to buy, but also the quantity of food.

I think that is an enduring shame on our country, given that we pride ourselves on being an agricultural powerhouse. If we look at our standing vis-à-vis other nations around the world, we are a very wealthy country, but what we have seen over the last number of decades is that wealth is increasingly being concentrated in fewer hands, and too many of our fellow citizens are struggling to get by on the basic necessities of life.

I think this is a call to action for all parliamentarians. It is obvious that the policies we have put in place over the last 40 or 50 years and this sort of obscene corporate deference we have seen from successive Liberal and Conservative governments and the neo-Liberal orthodoxy that exists are not serving our fellow citizens right. We need to take a critical look at why that is.

This report contains a number of recommendations. I want to focus on a few of them, particularly on recommendations 11 and 13. Recommendation 11 is something that we heard not only in the course of this study, but also in other studies. It deals with the fact that many people who work in the food value chain, particularly the ones on the other side of the ledger from where the retail grocers come into play, have long been calling for a grocery code of conduct.

Initially, the calls were for a voluntary code. I think there was a tremendous amount of goodwill and a bit of leeway given to the industry to figure this out on its own and to come up with something whereby all players could develop the issue and have faith in it. However, what we have seen recently is that some of the big grocery retailers, namely Loblaws and Walmart, are now indicating they are uncomfortable with the direction the code is taking. In my humble opinion, this code simply cannot work if it is going to exclude major players like Loblaws and Walmart, so we may be arriving at a point at which the government needs to step in and enforce a mandatory code. That way, the rules are clear, concise and transparent, and all players in the food supply value chain can understand what they are and abide by them.

What we are seeing is that there is a complete lack of trust in the grocery retail sector, and for good reason. Grocery retailers have been accused and found guilty of fixing the price of bread. They have engaged in practices that, on the surface, look a lot like collusion. They have often followed each other's leads in setting prices and so on. Recently Loblaws was forced to climb down from its decision to reduce the discounts. There used to be a 50% discount on items that had to be sold that day. Often people are looking for those kinds of bargains. Loblaws was going to reduce that to 30%. That company consistently shows that it is unable to read the room and that it is completely tone deaf to the public environment in which it is operating.

Not only have consumers lost trust in grocery retailers, but on the other side, the suppliers, the food manufacturers and the hard-working men and women who work in primary production and farming have also lost trust, because when they are trying to get their goods put into a grocery market, and let us understand that 80% of Canada's grocery retail market is controlled by just five companies, which is a brutal situation and a totally unfair stranglehold on the market by those five companies, they were often subjected to hidden fees and fines for which they had no explanation.

As such, I am glad to see that recommendation 11 calls for a mandatory and enforceable grocery code of conduct.

I am also happy to see in this report recommendation 13, which asks the Government of Canada to strengthen the Competition Bureau's mandate and its ability to ensure competition in the grocery sector. The first two bullet points were about giving the Competition Bureau more legislative muscle through the Competition Act and making sure the competitive thresholds the Competition Bureau uses to evaluate mergers and acquisitions ensure that competition does not suffer.

I think, based on the hard work of this study and the recommendations of this report, we have actually seen legislative change come to this place, and it was great to see, in particular, Bill C-56 receive a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. It has passed the Senate, and it has now become a statute of Canada by virtue of the Governor General.

There are more measures contained in Bill C-59, and our leader, the member from Burnaby South's private member's bill also includes a number of very important changes. Of course members of Parliament are going to have the opportunity tomorrow, after question period, to vote on that bill, and Canadians will be watching to see which members of Parliament are serious about stepping up to fix that particular problem.

I also want to talk about the supplementary report that I included as the New Democratic member of the committee, because committee reports reflect the majority view of the committee. In the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that is almost always the unanimous view of the committee. I do not think I have ever really seen a dissenting report, but sometimes some recommendations that some members would like to have seen added to the report do not get in there.

I agree absolutely with the main thrust of the report. I think the recommendations were very strong. There were some additional ones, some supplementary ones, that I would have liked to see added. We heard from a number of witnesses who asked our committee to recommend that the government embark on legislative recognition of the right to food, so one of our recommendations would have been:

that the Government of Canada acknowledge its obligation as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to respect, protect, and fulfill the human right to food by adopting a framework law that would enshrine this right in Canadian law and require the federal government to legislate binding, specific, and measurable targets toward realizing the policy outcomes it set out in 2019 in “The Food Policy for Canada”.

Again, when so many in our population are going hungry, it is incumbent upon us as legislators and policy makers to really step up to the plate and meet that need in the moment with specific action. I think that, given that this recommendation came from people who are directly involved in the national food bank network and are dealing with this issue every single day, we would do well as policy makers to listen to that on-the-ground expertise and follow through.

I also want to take some time in the final four minutes that I have to really recognize two witnesses who appeared before our committee. They are both economics professors who go against the prevailing orthodoxy of corporate deference that so many economics professors practise. They are, particularly, Professor D.T. Cochrane and Professor Jim Stanford, who I think offer a refreshing and alternative view to the dominant orthodoxy, to look critically at why systems are the way they are.

I just want to quote Dr. Jim Stanford:

Greed is not new. Greed long predates the pandemic, but greed has had a good run in Canada since the pandemic. After-tax profits in Canada during the pandemic or since the pandemic have increased to their highest share of GDP in history. Amidst a social, economic and public health emergency, companies have done better than they ever have.

In response to one of my questions, he went on to say:

At the top of the list, there's no doubt about it, is the oil and gas sector. The excess profits earned there since the pandemic account for about one-quarter of the total mass of profits across the 15 sectors I identified in that work. The increased prices that embody those huge profit margins then trickle through the rest of the supply chain. Food processors have to pay that, so they have higher costs, nominally, but then they add their own higher profit margin on top of that. The same goes for the food retail sector. By the time the consumer gets it, there's been excess profits added at several steps of the whole supply chain. That magnifies the final impact on consumer price inflation.

Two things have been true over the last number of years. Canadians have been suffering through brutal inflation. They have seen the cost of almost everything rise to almost unsustainable levels, in fact, to unsustainable levels for too many of our fellow citizens. That is one truth of which we can see empirical evidence.

The other truth we are dealing with is that since 2019, many corporate sectors have been raking in the cash. Those two facts exist side by side, and we know for a fact that when profits are increasing in many different corporate sectors that Canadians rely on, that money has to come from somewhere, and it has been coming directly from the wallets of the constituents that I represent, the constituents that every MP in this place represents from coast to coast to coast.

I will wrap up my speech there by saying that this was an important report and these are important recommendations. I am glad to have been a member of the committee that produced this report. Of course, I will be voting to concur in it. With that I will conclude my remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, with whom I sit on the agriculture committee. Obviously, in this report, there was an examination of some of the input costs that have caused food prices to rise.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. On our opposition day motion to report Bill C-234 back to the Senate unamended, will he be voting with us as Conservatives to make sure that farmers get help in decreasing the inputs when it comes to Bill C-234?

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

Madam Speaker, the short answer is, “Yes.” I was here when the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought into force. I think it was in 2018. The reason I support Bill C-234 is that when the Liberals originally authored their bill, they put exemptions in the parent act that listed qualifying farm fuels, qualifying farm machinery and qualifying farming activity. When I look at the language that is in Bill C-234, looking at the heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses and also at fuels used for drying grain, I think those are legitimate farming activities that are in line and in spirit with the original act.

I can conclude and say very publicly here in this House that, absolutely, New Democrats will keep our vote consistent with the third reading vote that we gave, along with the Green Party, along with the Bloc Québécois and along with the Conservatives. We are choosing to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C-234.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with my colleague, and I have appreciated his collegiality and the degree of collaboration we have been able to find on our shared values. As a relatively new member of Parliament, I always enjoy the opportunity to meet new people from across the country with shared interests.

This is a timely conversation for us to have, because just this morning, part two of this particular conversation continued to unfold at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. There is no question that Canadians are feeling the impact of food prices. It is on their minds. It is something we are aware of, something we are sensitive to and something we are acting on.

It is important, in the context of this conversation, to be mindful of how we have come to this point and what factors are contributing, whether they include the very difficult years of the pandemic and the postpandemic years we are in now; supply chain disruptions that have occurred as a result of conflicts, such as that between Russia and Ukraine happening in Europe at the moment; or various other contributing factors that we are seeing take place around the world. Canada is not immune to these challenges.

There are a few pieces in particular that I would like to highlight, and my colleague raised this a few moments ago, specifically, in relation to a grocery code of conduct. My understanding, having listened intently to the position of the government, my Conservative colleagues, my New Democrat colleagues and my Bloc Québécois colleagues, is this: We all agree that there needs to be a greater degree of transparency in order to deal with the volatility and instability existing in this industry and in the market in order to help Canadians with the increased costs of food.

Canadians want the big grocery chains to be transparent about the prices they are paying for their food. Many departments are involved; many regulations as well. There is no easy, single or universal solution. The food on our plates is tied to several international economic systems. Between the field and the plate, producers, processors and retailers are each dealing with supply problems and market access challenges.

We expect this code to improve interactions between retailers and processors by allowing predictable, transparent and equitable business relations. It is through collaboration between businesses that this code will be more effective, which, ultimately, will be beneficial both to the industry as a whole and to consumers.

One of the disappointing discussions that emerged out of the Standing Committee on Agriculture's study on this particular matter a few weeks ago, when we spoke to executives from Canada's five main grocery chains, was that there is not unanimity. In order for a code of conduct vis-à-vis groceries to be effective, we need to have the buy-in of all those involved. Unfortunately, we have not seen that to date. I note that my colleague from the NDP is right to raise that in the context of this conversation.

I want to speak for a moment about a few of the arguments I hear come from my Conservative colleagues across the way, in particular, in relation to this conversation. Specifically, it is the notion, the insinuation, the argument they make every single day that there is a direct relationship between the increase in the cost of food in Canada and the price on pollution.

We can debunk this in a couple of ways. First, if we look at OECD data from within the last eight months, we can see that Canada is on par with the United States in terms of the cost of food in our country. I have asked this question of my Conservative colleagues before and have yet to get a sufficient answer: How is it that in two jurisdictions, one where there is a price on pollution and another where there is not, the food prices are essentially the same?

In addition to that, I think it is important to draw attention to some very interesting testimony that came out of the Standing Committee on Agriculture earlier today. There was an interesting conversation that took place. We heard from Sylvain Charlebois, one of the leading experts in Canada on this particular issue, as well as Tyler McCann.

It was very interesting. They noted, and I will draw the attention of the chamber to this first, that the climate crisis, the impact that climate change is having on farmers and on the industry, is one of the most, if not the most, significant detriments that we are facing right now.

It should not be free to pollute in this country.

Having said all that, I want to come back to the point I mentioned a moment ago, which I hear often from colleagues in the Conservative Party. This is that there is a direct correlation between the price on pollution and the price of food. They will argue that if one taxes the farmer, then they are going to pass the cost on.

Here is what is interesting: Mr. Charlebois and Mr. McCann said the same thing today, which was that there is no sufficient data, no statistical analysis from the past number of years, in relation to a price on pollution in Canada that can point to its relationship with the increase in food prices.

Mr. Charlebois mentioned it. Mr. McCann reiterated it in response to a question I asked. Even my colleague from Regina, interestingly, helped me out a little bit. I had mistakenly said that Mr. Charlebois had said that the price on pollution was not contributing to the increase in food prices; my colleague from Regina mentioned that, no, he did not say that. He just said that there is no proof, that there is no evidence to support it.

I thought that this was quite contradictory, that what my colleague was perhaps unintentionally clarifying for me was, in fact, a rebuke of the primary position we see and hear taken day in and day out by my colleagues across the way. I think it is important that we recognize, as has been discussed by other colleagues at committee, in the media and by other experts in relation to this issue across the country, that these are complex issues. Canada is not immune to the challenges we are facing. It should not be free to pollute in this country.

What we heard at the agriculture committee today, in part two of the report that we are talking about right now, is that there is no evidence that can point to a relationship between the price on pollution and the increase in food prices.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and gladly speak to colleagues' questions during the next part of this conversation.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, one has to be very careful with the Liberals when they talk about truths and untruths. What Dr. Charlebois said was that there has not been enough data collected to see exactly what the effect of the carbon tax is on food prices. He also said that he called for a pause on the carbon tax to lower food prices. Charlebois has said that; conveniently, the member omitted this.

When one hears a story coming from the Liberals, it is always interesting to listen to the facts.

Talking to Mr. McCann, I also asked if the point of a carbon tax is to increase the price so that consumers change their behaviour. He said that this is exactly what the Liberals say the point of a carbon tax is.

The truth is that, when it comes to food inflation, food prices and the relationship with the carbon tax, it will come out in the wash that there is a correlation. When one talks to farmers and dairy farmers today, their highest input cost now is the carbon tax and the heating of their barns. If someone does not think that affects the price of what a farmer does, then they should maybe get out of downtown Winnipeg and go to a farm once their life.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. I would welcome anybody to review the testimony that was given today, and perhaps there will be a different interpretation of what was said.

The point of a price on pollution is to make sure that it is not free to pollute. However, they cannot then say that it will come out in the wash. Every single day we hear members of the opposition saying that the reason food prices are high is because there is a price on pollution, and yet the answer is there is no data available to show that, but we should trust them that it will come out in the wash.

I am sorry but I do not accept that as a legitimate or sufficient basis rooted in fact that permits them the ability to suggest with such emphasis and accuracy that that is in fact what is causing the inflation we are talking about in reference to this debate.