John Barlow

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to our opposition day motion asking the Liberals to come clean on the carbon tax cover-up and tell Canadians exactly what the carbon tax is going to be costing Canadians.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Albert.

The carbon tax and the issue we are facing now is part of a much larger narrative we are hearing from the Liberal government. We have heard it for several months, if not a couple of years now. It is the Liberals imposing these ideological policies without doing their due diligence and without having any understanding of the consequences of these decisions for everyday Canadians. They do not seem to do the fiscal analysis. They do not seem to do their homework and understand the consequences of their decisions on certain sectors of the economy.

I would like to bring forward one example. That example is something that is obviously important to me in my riding of Foothills, and that is the impact of the carbon tax on agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, a couple of weeks ago, in our agriculture and agri-food committee, as well as in the Senate, claimed that Canadian farmers are very supportive of the Liberal's carbon tax. I have not spoken to one single farmer who has phoned me or sent me an email who supports the Liberal carbon tax. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They are extremely concerned about the impact the Liberal carbon tax will have on their farms. It is a farm-killing carbon tax.

I would like to quote a couple of prominent people from the industry. The chair of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said, “I'm not sure who has been briefing [the agriculture minister], but he is dead wrong if he thinks that most farmers support the carbon tax”.

The president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said, “Farmers don't agree on everything, but if there's one issue they stand together on, it's in opposition to a carbon tax.”

It appears that the agriculture minister is misrepresenting the view of Canadian farmers when it comes to the carbon tax. All we are asking the minister is how much the carbon tax is going to be impacting our Canadian farmers, yet the Liberals will not do that. They will not come clean with those numbers.

Farmers, ranchers, and ag processors are dependent on any constant they can have in their industry. Unlike any other sector, our farmers and ranchers face so many unknowns, whether commodity prices, weather, or trade agreements, and the Liberals are adding yet another piece of uncertainty to their livelihoods. The carbon tax is just another attack on rural Canadians, specifically on agriculture.

Let us take a look at some of the things our farmers and ranchers have had to face over the last couple of years with the Liberal government. There is front-of-pack labelling. This is going to be devastating to Canadian agriculture, and the government has absolutely refused to listen to our stakeholders. In fact, it has gone out of its way to ensure that they are not included in the debate on front-of-pack labelling.

The same can be said of Canada's food guide. The government is once again pushing ideological ideas, telling Canadians, according to another Liberal values test, what is healthy and what they should be eating. They are telling them to stay away from meat protein and dairy products, because those things are unhealthy. There is no common sense to that.

That is just the beginning. There is the bungling of trade agreements. We are losing a lot of our pulse export opportunities in India, one of our major trading partners. It is a $4-billion industry that is now in jeopardy because the Liberals have bungled our relationship with India.

Now we see that NAFTA is at a critical stage. We have finally seen the TPP tabled today, but will we ratify it so that we are one of the first six countries to take advantage of those new market opportunities? We have also heard that for our producers, their entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed by no longer being eligible for the small business tax deduction. All these things are making it more and more difficult for our agriculture sector and our farmers and ranchers to be successful, to reach those new markets, and to stay in business. It seems to be on every tool they have to be successful and wake up in the morning and go to work. It takes away their feeling that they are worthwhile and that what they are doing is appreciated by Canadians. That is why they are finding this to be most frustrating.

The Conservative are trying to fight for the taxpayer. We want to know what the implication of this will be for our constituents. At the agriculture and agri-food committee, we asked several times for a study on the carbon tax and the impact it would have on agriculture. Every time we asked, we were blocked by the Liberal members.

Farmers have earned the right to know how a Liberal policy will impact their everyday lives. It will impact their livelihood. Is this something they want to pass on to their sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews? Many of our farmers have been on the land for generations.

The other thing the Liberal carbon tax does not take into consideration is the environmental stewardship and the work our farmers have been doing for years to try to protect the land, aquifers, and waterways, which are so important to them. They use zero tillage, new methods and innovation to be on the land much less than they were, and are growing higher yields on less land. They have been doing all these things on their own, without having a carbon tax imposed on them. These things should be taken into consideration, but they are not. In fact, it has gone the other way. The government is going to impose yet another obstacle for our agriculture industry to be successful.

Earlier this morning my colleague talked about taxation without representation. This is yet another example of the Liberals moving ahead with an ideological policy but not having the confidence to take those decisions to Canadians. They do not have the confidence to open it up and put it on the table. The Liberals campaigned in 2015 about being open and transparent and doing things differently. They have had opportunities to come clean on the cost of this. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Department of Finance that the carbon tax will be more detrimental to rural Canadians, and even more detrimental to western farmers as opposed to eastern Canadian farmers. We know those numbers. Therefore, why will the Liberals not come clean and just say what it will cost and the impact it will have on the agricultural sector?

The Liberals keep talking about the importance of agriculture to our economy. They have set this goal of reaching $75 billion in exports by 2025. It is great to have those aspirational goals, but if, at the same time, they are cutting the legs out from under the agricultural sector, taking away every tool farmers have to try and reach that goal, then they are being disingenuous to our Canadian farmers.

Previously, I talked about taxation without representation. However, another tax that will have a profound impact on our farmers is the escalator tax. The Liberals have put forward an unprecedented escalator tax that will increase the cost of beer, wine, and spirits every year, and it will not have to go through the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not have a voice or an opportunity to speak their minds on a tax increase that will come forward every year. That will impact our agriculture sector. We have barley and rye growers, and producers out there, certainly in the wine industry, who are very excited about the new opportunities with craft distilling and craft beer. They will pay the escalator tax over and over again, and now also for a carbon tax.

I do not think we are asking the Liberal government anything unwarranted. We asking it to be open, transparent, and honest with Canadians. What is the carbon tax going to cost our Canadian farmers and ranchers? They are up every day, putting in their blood, sweat, and tears to ensure we have the best quality food on our table and doing everything they can to feed the world. However, for every opportunity they have had, the Liberals have made it more and more difficult.

I will conclude with a question for the Liberal government. What is its farm-killing carbon tax going to cost Canadian farm families?

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention from my colleague from Sherbrooke, but for a great deal of his speech he talked about the template that Alberta should be using for its climate change plan.

I do not know if my colleague has been to Alberta and has seen the impact that the NDP's policies have had on its economy. There are some issues with the member's argument. He supports the NDP climate change plan but a big portion of that plan was to get the social licence to build pipelines. We have not had a pipeline built despite having a punitive carbon tax on everyday Albertans. He also commented on how much he opposes the pipeline. There are some diametrical issues there.

Alberta has had a carbon tax for decades. It was initially put on the largest emitters. The funds from that carbon tax were not charged to regular Albertans but were charged to the largest emitters who are using those funds to invest in renewable projects like Enbridge's Blackspring wind farm. The carbon footprint of a barrel of oil is down to a third of what it was decades ago because of that carbon tax on the largest emitters. The member said that, now, with the provincial NDP government, those funds from the carbon tax are being reinvested in the economy. Actually, for the last two provincial budgets, the carbon tax was put into general revenue to try to balance the budget.

The member said that the carbon tax should be reinvested in the economy or given back to Albertans, but the provincial NDP government has now said that the carbon tax is being put into general revenue to try to balance its budget. Is that something he would agree with?

[Latin American Heritage Month Act, June 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to have the enthusiastic support of my colleagues. It is unfortunate that my friends across the way are not participating. I am the 18th Conservative member who has spoken to this very important bill. There has not been one single Liberal speaker tonight. It is unfortunate that the Liberals are not participating and celebrating a very rich Latino heritage in our country. It is great to have the support of my Conservative colleagues here tonight, and I thank them for their enthusiasm.

Tonight I want to talk about my own experiences with the Latino community. In February, I had the opportunity to tour Guatemala as part of a delegation with some colleagues and with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. I wanted to make this trip because there are a number of very strong supporters of the Canada Foodgrains Bank from my own constituency in Foothills. This includes a number of producers, farmers who have designated certain quarter sections of their land where they grow a variety of crops, such as wheat and canola, which they send to many of these countries as part of their co-operation with the Canada Foodgrains Bank. I also have a number of faith-based groups and churches that are participating with the Canada Foodgrains Bank.

What is so unique and beneficial about this program and this partnership with countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador is that not only are they participating by sending actual commodities and products to help those who are in poverty or suffering from malnutrition, but they are also participating by going to these countries and teaching people how to grow products, teaching them new and innovative ways in agriculture, and giving them the opportunities to start new businesses.

Tonight I would like to share one story in particular. I was in a very remote community in Guatemala, high up in the mountains, sitting in a family's cinder-block house. It seemed like every couple of minutes more wives, kids, and husbands were coming in to see the Canadian delegation. We saw how proud a father and his son were, talking about their new business. They had just started a potato farm. When we talk about farms, we are talking about maybe hundreds of acres. This farm was a garden plot, probably not much bigger than a couple of desks. They were growing potatoes for sustenance and to sustain their community in this very remote area.

I learned from this experience that potatoes actually started in the mountains of Peru. I just assumed, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you would, that this was a Prince Edward Island or an Irish invention. I was proven to be very wrong. These actually started in the Andes Mountains, and people are trying to reintroduce this crop into the mountainous areas in these communities in Guatemala.

However, they were finding that pests were making it very difficult to get good crops. There was a kind of black mite or wireworm. Of course, these communities cannot afford the pesticides and chemicals that we have here in North America, but they invented their own natural pesticide. It was pepper, vegetable oil, and some kind of wild mushroom, and they were fermenting it in barrels. I am not sure how they came up with that concoction, but it actually worked. It proved to be extremely successful, so much so that communities in other villages around them were coming to this community asking if they could get the recipe.

The father and son found that this was a great entrepreneurial opportunity. They applied to the Canada Foodgrains Bank, which gave them some seed money to start their own micro-business. They built a little factory. They purchased the barrels, as well as the ingredients and some packaging, and put together a little assembly line. We could see how excited they were to be able to start their own business. Hopefully, it is going to be successful.

The one ironic thing I would mention is that, despite being above the clouds in this very remote mountainous area, they have better Wi-Fi and Internet service than we do in many of the rural communities in my own constituency. They were going to be marketing these products on Facebook, and they were building a website. I think we have some work to do here, if the remote areas of Guatemala have better cell service than we have here in Canada. However, they were already thinking that far ahead to market these products. This opportunity would not have happened were it not for the contributions of people back here in Canada. That is why it is so fitting that we take the opportunity to celebrate Latin American heritage month here in Canada, if we look at the partnerships we have built from one country to the next.

I found it interesting that when it comes to agriculture, there is a large export market to many of these countries in Latin America. More than $2 billion is traded between our countries and between these communities. We have free trade agreements with several countries, including Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Peru. Now we are in negotiations for other free trade agreements, with the Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and obviously Guatemala, which has the largest economy in that area.

As we were going through Guatemala, my NDP colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot was also with me. I have visited her riding. She helped me practise my French when I was there as well. I kept it a secret that I could understand French so I could spy. However, we were all there to see the businesses the Guatemalans had started, anything from this little pesticide business to a co-operative of coffee bean growers. Through the support of Canadians, they were able to buy a coffee roaster facility, bring it all together, and become successful on a large scale. It was really exciting to see that first-hand, as well as the co-operation and communication that happens between Canada and Guatemala.

There is another story I would like to share with members about our trip that I thought was interesting. We visited a communal area in a community where a large number of women had started their own business making scarves, blankets, and a number of souvenir items. It started as the result of our having so many seasonal agriculture workers from Guatemala coming here to Canada. Obviously, it is mainly men making that trip over here for six or seven months to help with our agriculture businesses. At the same time, many of the women were left at home trying to take care of their family and also trying to raise money on their own. A lot of these women were also left without husbands as a result of the decade-long civil war that ended just a few years ago. With the help of a Canadian, who provided the initial funding to purchase looms and material, they were able to start their own business, which has become extremely successful. Now they are selling these products not only across Guatemala in souvenir shops but around the world by marketing them online. We can learn a lot of lessons from some of the things they are doing, and some of the things we are doing here.

In conclusion, I want to say that it really is an honour to rise and speak about Latin American heritage month. I want to give a quick acknowledgement of Senator Enverga, who brought this forward. We have a large Filipino community in my riding. I had a lot of respect for Senator Enverga and what he did for the Filipino community across Canada. I want to recognize that as well.

[International Trade, June 12th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to U.S. demands on Canada's supply management system, when the Prime Minister is in the United States, he says he is flexible, and when he is back here in Canada, he says he supports the system.

We know that an offer was made to the Americans as part of the NAFTA negotiations. My question is, which version of the Prime Minister is going to be meeting with Canadian dairy farmers this afternoon? Is it going to be the one who is using farmers' livelihoods as a bargaining chip, or is it going to be the Prime Minister who simply recites Liberal talking points?

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention too for my friend from Vancouver Island that I really do appreciate his passion for his area.

To the question from my colleague, we are talking about the damage that could take place. No one saw any damage. There is a lot of innuendo and this is my problem with the Liberals' process in this bill. Everything is would have, should have, could have but it maybe actually did not happen at all. Nothing is science-based. If they want to make changes on this and legislation is going to have this kind of an impact on Canadians, then they should make sure they do their due diligence, make sure it is science-based, and make sure they do the consultation and that the changes they are making absolutely impact what they are trying to solve.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's respect as well. I have always enjoyed his interventions.

He said early on in his question, “this is not a partisan issue; this is about our fish”, but his first comment was “they” allegedly gutted the Fisheries Act. That is just not the case. We did not have a single witness who came to committee who could find any proof that the changes to the Fisheries Act and to the Navigable Waters Act in 2012 had any impact on the health of Canada's fisheries. The member knows that the changes that were made in good faith were there to protect our fisheries. They are being protected. There is no evidence of that to the contrary. What we are saying is we do not want to go back to the same burdensome red tape and regulations that were really impacting and have a detrimental impact on our rural Canadians as well as our farmers and ranchers.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-68 tonight. The comment that was made earlier this evening from one of my colleagues across the floor was that he was happy that a member from the west coast or a coastal riding was getting up and speaking about this. I am not picking on him for any reason, but I think it highlights one of the issues we are having with this bill. There seems to be a lack of knowledge or scope when it comes to our friends in the Liberal government not understanding the ramifications and implications that the decisions they are making with this bill will have on every region of the country. That is why we are seeing many of the rural members of Parliament from the Conservative side getting up to speak to this bill, because it will have very real and profound consequences on our rural communities.

I want to back things up prior to 2012, when these changes to the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act were made by the previous Conservative government. I recall I was a journalist at that time in a small community newspaper throughout southern Alberta. I remember covering numerous council and town hall meetings hosted by rural municipalities that were having significant issues when when it came to dealing with culverts, small bridges, drainage ditches, seasonal waterways, and irrigation canals, and the hoops, bureaucracy, and red tape they had to go through to try to complete some of those projects.

Prior to 2012, municipalities had to go through labour-intensive regulatory requirements when it came to areas of what was then called “navigable waters”. They were forced to endure lengthy delays, because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was inundated with thousands of applications from municipalities that were waiting for it to come and make decisions on their projects, not to mention the length of those delays. It proved extremely costly to these municipalities that were having to endure these very long wait times. I would think many of us who have rural municipalities in our ridings understand that many of these municipalities are extremely small. They simply do not have the financial or staffing resources to be able to handle the workload and amount of paperwork that comes along with a Department of Fisheries and Oceans assessment. Therefore, our rural municipalities were coming to the previous Conservative government with these problems and issues with respect to managing their own lands. That is when the previous Conservative government came up with these changes to try to reduce some of that regulatory burden. We wanted to turn the focus to ensuring that the protections in that legislation focused on the most critical fish and fish habitat in navigable waters. At the same time, we wanted to take some of that regulatory burden off some of the waterways that probably never had fish habitat and would never have fish habitat, but were still under the same regime and regulatory layers of bureaucracy that any river, stream, ocean, or lake would come under, when we were just talking about drainage ditches and irrigation canals, for example.

When we talk about some of the changes that were made, I think we need to highlight that the act maintained a very strong regulatory regime and protected very important fish habitat, but it had more of a practical scope. It reduced that administrative burden on not only municipalities, but also the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It had now freed up a lot of its time and resources to focus on the most important cases and waterways without having to deal with very minor projects for municipalities. However, it also empowered municipalities to be the environmental stewards of their own waterways. When it comes to those types of projects and waterways, who would be better to be the stewards of those lands than the municipalities, the councils, and their staff, who are on the ground each and every day? They know the history. They have that local knowledge. They know whether it is fish habitat. They know if it is a seasonal waterway. Certainly, they know that better than a bureaucrat in Ottawa. Therefore, I think it was a win-win situation for the municipalities, as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Now we are faced with these changes in Bill C-68, which would expand the definition of fish habitat, expanding it even wider and more broad than it was prior to 2012. That is very disconcerting in the fact that it was burdensome and difficult to deal with and almost impossible to enforce prior to 2012. How difficult will this be when not only we restore it to the previous definition, but have even expanded that definition to a much wider scope. It has re-engaged a lot of those same regulations, but it also introduces something that is new, which is designated projects. This will include any projects within a category that could impact any waterway, whether it has a specific impact on a known fish habitat or not.

What is even more concerning for our stakeholders, municipalities, farmers, and ranchers is the fact that there is no definition on what a designated project is. This is really a larger narrative that we have seen from the Liberal government. It rushed through this legislation without doing all the homework and all the background work first so that it tabled a complete document that everyone could understand exactly where they stood. The legislation is very clear. The rules and regulations are very clear. There are still some very large holes in it with which stakeholders are very concerned.

The other issue, which is a large narrative with some of the Liberal legislation we have seen, is the minister would have more expanded and broader powers. This is very similar to what we have seen with Bill C-69.

We now have proponents in the energy sector that are divesting themselves of the energy sector because they do not feel there is a clear path to success. If they do apply for a project, whether it is pipeline, a mine, a forestry initiative, LNG, they could go through the regulatory process, through every environmental review, could pass all of those things, but at several steps during the process, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the authority to step in and tell them to go back to the beginning. The minister could cut it off right there and tell them the project was not in the public interest or it was not something that could be supported. That would be the end of that project.

There is no clear definition of how to reach success or if there is a definitive pathway that people would know their projects would not succeed. We cannot have those types of projects at the whim of one person. That is very similar to what we see in Bill C-68 where the minister would have similar powers.

This is a crippling burden for municipalities that do not have the resources or the infrastructure to deal with these things. Imagine the burden and the impact it will have on farmers and ranchers who absolutely do not have the wherewithal to handle some of these issues.

Prior to 2012, a farmer in northern Alberta explained to me that he had a spring run-off area that went through his field. He would put a couple of 2x4s down during the spring so he could drive his machinery over it when he sprayed or seeded. However, Fisheries and Oceans came to him before 2012 and said that it was a waterway because it could float a canoe or a kayak. Certainly it could for about two weeks in the spring, but the rest of the time it was dry. He had to build a bridge over that seasonal spring runoff area. We are not talking about a river for the last pirate of Saskatchewan to float down the plain. This was simply a spring run-off. He was very concerned that he would have to go back to this. This will very burdensome to him.

Again, this goes back to the narrative that the Liberal government implements knee-jerk legislation, without doing the due diligence, without having an idea of what the ramifications will be and the unintended consequences, or doing the economic impact analysis of these decisions and what they will have on other sectors.

This is again another attack on rural Canadians. It is not science-based, front of package labelling, food guide, carbon tax. These changes will impact our rural communities, farmers, and ranchers who are struggling just to stay in business. Now there is a potential trade war with the United States.

For farmers and ranchers in rural municipalities, their livelihoods depend on healthy waterways, lakes, rivers, streams, aquifers. No one would take better care of these waterways than those who are on the ground, rural Canadians, farmers, and ranchers.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I love my colleague's enthusiasm and I am happy he asked that question. In fact, we built four major pipelines. In fact, we built 17 different pipeline projects. In fact, we built 8,000 kilometres of additional pipeline. How many have the Liberals built? Absolutely zero. They keep talking about their purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which, all of a sudden, has new markets to Asia. That is absolutely false. They have not built one single centimetre of new pipeline, and the Trans Mountain expansion would not get us to those Asia markets because it does not get us to deepwater ports. The oil and energy from that pipeline will be going to Washington and Oregon, the same places it has always been going. I hope Liberals will clarify the record on the misinformation they continue to share with Canadians.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am very concerned. The Liberals campaigned on being science based, open, and transparent. They were going to make decisions based on those criteria, but Bill C-69 shows very clearly that they are going to make decisions that are not science based. We have seen that in a larger narrative within the government. Let us look at the food guide and front-of-package labelling. All these things that are going to have a significant impact on our industries and constituents are not based on science whatsoever. In fact, we have heard from stakeholders and constituents that they are actually going in the complete opposite direction of what science would tell them to do.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the member is asking what we would like to put forward. The Liberals should give us a chance to have a full debate and discussion on these bills, rather than ramming them through with time allocation.

Are they listening? I do not believe they are. Conservatives put forward amendments on Bill C-69 that they refused, as well as on every other bill. I have just one piece of advice on how to strengthen Bill C-69: scrap it.