Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the government members' defence of the industrial carbon tax. They say farmers do not pay it. They say it only applies to large emitters. They say it has almost no impact on households.
Let us walk through this in plain terms. When a farmer in my riding buys a new combine or replaces their tractor, that equipment is built with Canadian steel produced under a carbon price that is rising to $170 per tonne. When they purchase replacement parts, install an irrigation system, upgrade an industrial dryer or build a machine shed, those materials are made from steel and aluminum produced under the same industrial carbon cost. The government may not send the bill directly to the farmer, but the farmer receives it anyway.
Statistics Canada has confirmed that realized net farm income dropped by $3.3 billion in 2024, which is a 26% decline. At the same time, operating costs climbed to $78.5 billion and farm debt rose to 14%. Farmers are not looking for lectures about climate policy; they are trying to cover their costs and plan for the next season.
Professor Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University has been clear, saying, “The industrial carbon tax...continues to erode competitiveness in the agri-foods sector.” He has pointed to the growing cost gap with producers in the United States. That gap matters when Canadian farmers are competing directly with American producers who are not operating under a $170 per tonne carbon trajectory.
When Canadians say food costs are too high, they were asking for policies that bring costs down. Instead, they received a temporary one-off rebate. I do not oppose this rebate, but it does not change the cost structure for farm equipment; it sends money back after the price has already gone up. If the policy increases costs at the production level and then we offer rebates to offset those higher costs, that is an admission that the burden exists.
Canadians do not want a cycle of higher costs followed by temporary relief; they want structural change to make things cost less. The government speaks out about being pro-Canada and strengthening domestic supply chains. It speaks about building more here at home, but if something is produced in Canada to be used in Canada, such as steel and aluminum, it carries this industrial carbon cost. This is the same when the government wants to use Canadian-made steel and aluminum in a Canadian-made car, a Canadian-made ship or a Canadian-made bridge. Everything the government wants to build more of in Canada is increased by the industrial carbon tax, while other markets are unaffected.
The incentive for suppliers to build or fabricate elsewhere becomes higher. For example, the Liberals chose to build B.C. ferries in China instead of Canadian shipyards, which means using non-Canadian steel and no support for Canadian shipyard jobs. We cannot ignore that reality.
The question is straight forward: If the industrial carbon tax increases the cost of producing the very goods we say we want to build in Canada, is that policy helping affordability or is it making the problem worse?