44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 27, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/27/22 4:41:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member raises the Quebec cap-and-trade system. It is a really good thing to focus on. As the carbon tax increases in other parts of the country, tripling, and causing all sorts of economic hardships for families, as well as for industries I should add, if the Quebec cap-and-trade system does not increase, then it will be out of sync with the government's own stated plans.
The second part of that point is that if the cap-and-trade is artificially raised by the Government of Canada, either through a second carbon tax or by pressuring the Government of Quebec, we will not have people in the American markets purchasing them in Quebec markets. That will nullify that system and make it so that it is impossible for Quebeckers to be able to carry on with the system.
The government needs to start actually deciding which is more important. Is it to have affordability, to deal with inflation and to allow for proper functioning of some of these markets? They are just talking about more intervention, higher prices and more inflation for everyone.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:42:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I am a little tired of hearing the same old story from the Conservatives. It is agonizing, like listening to a family member play an album with one terrible song over and over ad nauseam. Can we move on to something else?
One thing I know for sure is that the tax does not apply in Quebec, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said. People do not come up to me on the street to talk about the carbon tax. What they want is concrete measures to fight inflation.
I am a little discouraged by the Liberals, who are letting things unfold without really doing anything; by the Conservatives, who are challenging the Bank of Canada's independence while calling for more restrictive monetary policy; and by the New Democrats, who want to implement measures that would only make inflation worse.
In short, I am pretty proud to represent a political party that is the grown-up in the room, a party that has put forward concrete solutions to inflation, such as dealing with the labour shortage. That is what people want to talk about, and that is what can help fight inflation.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:43:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to this member. When she stands up to speak on behalf of her constituents, I find her to be a very strong member with firm things to say, but to trivialize other legitimate points of view in a democracy and to say that one person is the adult in the room trivializes everyone else. I think it is actually unbecoming of her as a member and of this place.
She can disagree that my constituents believe these kinds of policies are inflationary and cause affordability issues, but I do not think she should trivialize them and say that, somehow, she is the only adult in the room. I think there is room in this country for many adults with distinct ideas on how this country should be managed.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:44:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off well, pointing out that inflation does hit lower-income Canadians more than it hits higher-income Canadians, but he seems to forget that we are debating his party's motion here, which is about the carbon tax.
Right now, we have seen, in British Columbia, our home province, his and mine, that gas prices have increased about a dollar a litre this year. Two cents of that increase was from the carbon tax. The bulk of that increase was not from the price of oil. It was from greed. It was from big oil and gas companies seeing an opportunity and putting up the price of oil by a tremendous amount, fuelling inflation, and now he says that the federal government cannot do anything about that.
It can. It can put a windfall tax on those profits, those profits from greed, and take that money, billions of dollars, and distribute it in various ways to the people in Canada who are suffering now because of that rising cost of fuel.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:46:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would certainly say that the hon. member raised the fact that there was a price jump in British Columbia in the Lower Mainland by 25¢. That was because of a shortage of ethanol, as more governments start to pull in and draw on that limited resource for ethanol requirements.
British Columbia is also short 90,000 barrels a day. That, structurally, makes us more dependent on the Americans. That means that we are sending them our product, and they are processing it and then sending it back. Our dollar has gone down quite tremendously.
Look, the NDP keep talking about adding more taxes and how that is going to fix everything. One of the reasons we do not have a proper system right now is due to delays by the NDP government around the Trans Mountain pipeline and the opposition of that member to any new infrastructure, which means the Americans are getting richer and we are taking a limited resource and not getting the full value for it.
The member has a lot to say but, unfortunately, it is in the wrong direction for Canada.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to speak in support of our opposition day motion for the Liberals not to increase the carbon tax.
I want to read a couple of quotes from agriculture producers I met with this summer, including a farmer in Ontario who told me the only threat to the success of his family farm is Liberal government policy. A Saskatchewan farmer said, “When it comes to farming, I feel like I'm digging my own grave to follow my dream.”
In fact, a recent survey showed that the biggest stressor for Canadian farm families is not commodity prices and it is not weather. It is government policy and regulation. I would say, for the first time, Canadian farmers see their government as an adversary, not an ally. This is having a huge impact on the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers.
According to a survey on farmer mental health by the University of Guelph, 75% of farmers have mid to high stress levels and farmers are four times more likely to commit suicide than any other part of the general population. This is the kind of stress and anxiety that our Canadian farm families are facing, and their number one stressor is the policies and regulations imposed on them by the Liberal government.
I will take a moment to look at a couple of them before I get in depth on the carbon tax. Last November, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced there would be a fertilizer emissions reduction of 30%, with no consultation and no idea exactly what that would mean. However, now it is putting further pressure on Canadian farm families regarding what they are going to do to make themselves economically viable as the government takes away some of the most important tools they have.
Why is the government not looking at our hard-working Canadian farm families, our innovators, our agri-food businesses and our researchers as a critical part of the climate change solution? It is almost looking at them with disdain, instead of looking at them as part of the solution. For example, in 1981, the average farmer was getting about 27 bushels to the acre. Now they are getting more than 50, but the kicker is that they are doing that on less than half of the acreage, significantly reducing their carbon footprint. Do they get any credit for that whatsoever? No, they do not. On average, we are 50% more efficient in fertilizer use than any other country on the face of the earth. Do Canadian farmers get any credit for that? No, they do not.
Instead, when it came to this fertilizer emissions reduction policy, here is the narrative the Liberal government should have had. When the European Union started making massive cuts to fertilizer use in livestock production, that was its decision, but the Liberal government should have said, if there is an issue in the European Union, why not look at what we are doing here in Canada? Why not look at our innovators, our farmers, our experience, our technology, practices like precision farming, variable rates, 4R nutrient stewardship and show Canadians just how impressive Canadian agriculture is? Instead, its fallback every single time is to look at Canadian farmers, much like it does our energy workers, as the enemy rather than part of the solution.
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even if the carbon tax is increased to $170 a tonne, does anyone know what the impact on emissions from agriculture is? It is zero. The reason is that there are no other options. Farmers right now, many of them use combines and they cannot fuel them with anything other than diesel. As one of my Liberal colleagues told me a few months ago, they cannot put a solar panel on top of those machines. They run 24-7. They do not have any other options. This is what they do to ensure that they can not only feed Canadians but feed the world.
Now I would like to focus on the carbon tax specifically. We heard it again today in question period. In answer to a question from one of my colleagues, the parliamentary secretary said that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax on all farm fuels. That is patently not true. Some fuels are exempt, but fuels like natural gas and propane are still subject to the carbon tax. The Liberals are either misleading Canadian farmers or they really do not understand their own policy. The parliamentary secretary said in committee that, even talking to farmers in his riding, and he talked about it again in question period today, we have Bill C-8. We have a farm carbon tax rebate.
The message from the Liberals is always that the carbon tax is revenue neutral. We now know from Ontario grain farmers, from the Department of Finance and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture that this is also not true. Farmers are getting less than 30% and in some cases less than 15% of what they are paying in carbon tax, through that rebate from the Liberal government.
In fact, the Department of Finance said that the average farmer was getting $800 a year through the carbon tax rebate. I have seen the carbon tax bills from some of my farmers, especially large poultry operations, large dairy operations and certainly our grain growers here in Ontario, who are drying grain or heating barns. Their carbon tax bills are in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a month.
When we hear the finance department say that it is revenue neutral because the farmers are getting $800 a month, that is a slap in the face to Canadian producers who are certainly carrying the burden of the carbon tax. It has basically become wealth distribution on the back of Canadian agriculture. When a Canadian farmer is getting between 13% and, on a good day, up to maybe 30% for their carbon tax rebate, members can see why, as the opposition in the Conservative Party, we are so adamant that we cannot see this carbon tax continue to rise and triple to $170 per tonne.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business also ratified and confirmed the numbers from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, saying that, in the first year, the average farmer paid about $14,000 in carbon tax. After it went up this previous April 1, the average farmer is now paying $45,000 in carbon taxes. My math is not always the greatest, but between $45,000 and $800 there is a big gap, which certainly shows that the carbon tax is not revenue neutral.
The frustrating thing is that the finance department know it and the Minister of Agriculture knows it, and the Liberals continue to allow this to happen. The Minister of Agriculture is complicit in seeing Canadian farmers being taxed to death. They are going to be losing their businesses.
We have put forward two private members' bills: one in the previous Parliament and one in this Parliament. The one in this Parliament is Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from all farm fuels. I am very happy to say that we have the support of all the opposition parties, which include the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Greens. The holdout is the Liberal Party, the government, which still does not see that this was an error. The carbon tax should be exempt on all farm fuels and not just a couple. This is imperative to the financial success of Canadian farmers.
Farmers are the ones who are paying the carbon tax over and over again. When buying fuel, buying feed, buying fertilizer, transporting grain and transporting cattle, they are paying the carbon tax every single time. Here is the kicker: Many Canadian consumers see this as an agriculture problem and a rural issue, but farmers have nowhere to pass those costs on to. The result of that is seeing food prices go up more than 10%, which is the highest rate of inflation on food in more than 40 years. This impacts every single Canadian in every single corner of the country, as many Canadians are unable to put food on the table.
By tripling the carbon tax, which we are asking the Liberals not to do in a time of record inflation, they are demanding Canadians to pay more to fuel their out-of-control spending. They are demanding seniors to pay more. They are demanding that youth pay more. They are demanding single mothers to pay more. They are demanding our small business owners to pay more. They are certainly demanding our Canadian farmers to pay more. It is nonsensical, especially in a time of global food insecurity, when we need our Canadian agriculture to be firing on all cylinders to meet the demand that we are going to see, not only here at home but also around the world.
Therefore, I am asking my colleagues from all parts of the House to support our opposition day motion to ensure the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers first and foremost because they are part of the solution. They are not the problem.
1558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:56:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if this opposition day motion is just a sneaky way to put in place the Conservatives' carbon tax plan. Earlier, my colleague referred to the 2021 Conservative platform, which spoke about the carbon tax that the Conservatives, had they been elected, would have implemented.
I am curious as to whether the hon. member spoke to farmers and if he got feedback on the fact that the Conservatives were going to implement a carbon price, but instead of cash in their pockets, people could redeem it for a bicycle or a transit pass. I am curious as to whether the member opposite spoke to farmers and his constituents and asked if they would prefer a bicycle, some Air Miles points or a transit pass, instead of cash in their pockets, like our plan has.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:57:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I speak to farmers every single day. I am not sure if my colleague can say the same, but here is where the Liberals are so out of touch. We have the Liberal Minister of Agriculture saying farmers are in support of a carbon tax. We have the previous Liberal minister of agriculture saying farmers are in support of a carbon tax.
However, I can tell members that I have not talked to a single farmer, ranch family, agri-food producer or processor in Canada who supports the Liberals' carbon tax plan. This puts them out of business. This puts Canadian food security at risk, and this is why we are bringing our opposition day motion. The least the Liberals could do would be to support our PMB, Bill C-234, to exempt all farm fuels from the carbon tax.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:58:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
As I said earlier today, this feels like déjà vu since we are once again discussing the price on pollution and the carbon tax. It seems like every time the Conservatives run out of things to talk about, they bring up this old chestnut. It seems that the page—
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:59:10 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I cannot hear a thing. I ask that the member repeat his question.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:59:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I feel like we have gone back 10 years. The Conservatives are still talking about the price on pollution and the carbon tax. They cannot seem to get over it. Every time they run out of things to talk about, they come back to this debate that was supposed to be settled.
To anyone who takes climate change seriously, this measure is one of the rare tools that the federal government has that works. The Liberal government does not do enough, but at least we have this measure. Without it there is nothing left. We will keep increasing our greenhouse gas emissions and that will be dangerous for future generations.
To combat inflation, the NDP has offered other proposals that are much more tangible and help the less fortunate.
What does my colleague think of that?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:00:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would have to question the premise of his question that this is one of the tools the government has that is working. It is obviously not working. Emissions under the government have gone up every single year, despite it increasing the carbon tax, so I am not sure what data he is looking at that says the Liberal carbon tax, which is supported by the NDP coalition government here, is working.
I think it just shows how out of touch the NDP is, that it does not understand the impact this is having on Canadians. Certainly, he must be going back to his riding and talking to his own constituents who cannot afford to put food on the table, cannot afford to fuel their vehicles and are now wondering how they are going to heat their homes, but he wants to double down on a failed policy, when Conservatives are looking at constructive ideas such as technology over taxation.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my hon. friend from Foothills correctly stating Green policy, because we do support Bill C-234. We think that what happened here was that the government's intention was to not put a carbon tax on farm fuels, and then we had that extremely flukey weather situation. We had farmers with wet grains, and they had to spend a lot more money than usual to dry the grain. To catch the additional costs of that fuel should have been covered in exemptions, so we completely support the member.
One quick point as well is that Green policy is to ban the importation of all foreign oil. That has been our policy for many years, and the hon. leader of the official opposition mis-stated it earlier today.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, and if she keeps talking like this, she may as well cross the floor and join the Conservative Party.
In all seriousness, I do want to thank her for supporting Bill C-234. I agree with her. I do believe that is how this came about. However, it was not flukey weather, it was winter, and our farmers face winter every single year. When temperatures are low during calving season, we are heating barns to bring calves in. I know our farmers across the country are having to dry grain most years, and that is an increased cost they are going to be facing, which again puts their financial health at risk.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:02:32 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Taxation; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Agriculture and Agri-Food.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:03:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating the obvious: Inflation is a real, serious problem. That is the first thing. Some people are even talking about a recession. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, estimates that we have a fifty-fifty chance of ending up in a recession. Back when he was a separatist, that very same François Legault said that if a slowdown or a recession were to happen, Quebec would be entirely dependent on Canadian federalism.
He was quite right, but I want to get back to the topic of inflation. In July, the price of goods and services in Canada rose 7.6% from a year earlier. In August, the consumer price index rose 7% year-over-year. Inflation slowed down a bit, but that was only because the cost of gas went down in August. I remind members that gas prices skyrocketed at the beginning of the summer. In August those prices dropped a little, as we recall. That is the only reason why inflation slowed down a bit.
Turning to the cost of food, the situation is serious. Food prices have increased by more than 10% annually, which disproportionately affects low-income households for an obvious reason. These households cannot just simply decide to cut other expenses to offset their higher grocery bills. That is very serious. It seems to me that any discussion about inflation should include a discussion about fighting poverty.
According to a recent poll, 56% of households report that they are financially unable to keep up with inflation. It is 41% for Quebec. Up to 80% of Canadian households and 70% of Quebec households report that they have had to cut spending because of the higher cost of living. Therefore, the situation is extremely serious.
I see that there is some movement behind me. It is not the subject matter that is making me laugh, but quite simply the indecisiveness of my colleagues behind me.
On September 7, the bank raised its key rate for the fifth time. It is now at 3.25%.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I have some terrible colleagues who have no sense of solidarity.
For consumers, this new increase in the key rate will lead to higher interest and mortgage rates—
391 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:05:44 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I will give the member one minute. I do not know what is happening.
The hon. member for Mirabel on a point of order.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:05:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot certainly does not have terrible colleagues.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:06:01 p.m.
- Watch
That is not really a point of order.
Now that everything is okay, I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 5:06:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, wages are catching up with inflation. The labour shortage is forcing employers to increase wages in order to remain competitive and continue to attract employees. Wages are therefore catching up a bit in some respect.
However, the Government of Canada only started talking about it last month. There was nothing about it in last spring's budget, nor was there anything new in the speech given by the Deputy Prime Minister on June 16 at the Empire Club on Bay Street in Toronto.
We agree with the Conservatives that the Liberals are taking a laissez-faire approach—that is indeed a reality—but of course, we are not going to launch a childish campaign with a play on words using “inflation” and the Prime Minister's first name. However, we do not agree on the Conservatives' analysis of the cause and the solutions. This is where the problem lies.
Contrary to what the leader of the official opposition said when the member for Richmond—Arthabaska left the Conservative caucus, just because we do not agree with the Conservatives' solutions does not mean we are opposed to fighting inflation. Let us be clear about that.
The motion explicitly targets the carbon tax. This does not affect us in Quebec, because we have the carbon exchange system, which was created by a famous Conservative, none other than Jean Charest.
There is some question as to how this proposal will really help anyone or anything, apart from businesses operating in the oil and gas sector. The Conservatives' political interests may also be served. They are trying to get political mileage out of people's suffering. This summer, the recent jump in the price of crude oil greatly benefited businesses operating in the oil industry.
The motion is even based on an untruth, in that it attributes inaccurate statements to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He did not state that the carbon tax was currently causing a loss for 60% of households. Rather, he spoke of what might happen between 2030 and 2031 at a price of $170 per tonne. Furthermore, the tax remains progressive because of the refund. Lower-income families will see a net gain.
This is not to say that the carbon tax is not problematic, particularly when it comes to equity. Small and medium-sized businesses are subject to this tax, yet large carbon emitters are entitled to relief programs.
However, the issue of inflation cannot be reduced to simplistic, electioneering solutions that would have the additional effect of eating up significant parts of the government's budget.
That said, there are real solutions. If we are unable to single-handedly fight a global phenomenon through government policies alone, we can at least offer meaningful relief to its main victims, such as seniors or low-income earners, who need our support to increase their purchasing power. We cannot forget that, for the most part, our seniors do not work.
Why not reimburse them for the GST in the quarters when inflation exceeds the Bank of Canada's target? Or reimburse those feeling the pressure of rising gas prices, primarily farmers, taxi drivers and truckers?
There are so many opportunities for action, from tackling the labour shortage and restoring supply chains to housing, where governments can increase funding and redirect it from private developers to housing co-operatives and community associations. We could also talk about how important it is to amend legislation to promote competition because we know that monopolies result in higher prices.
If the Conservatives' motion included potential solutions to these issues, the Bloc Québécois certainly would have been very open to studying and debating them. Had they concocted a motion that, at the very least, identified the problems we just talked about as priority issues in the fight against inflation, we would have been happy to work with them, but there is nothing like that here.
I am sure no one will be surprised that there is one crucial aspect that the Conservatives left out of the motion. I am talking about the need to reduce our dependence on oil to build a more diversified economy. Since the very foundation of this country, Canada's economic development has been centred on the extraction of raw materials. This has been the pattern since the very beginning of Canada. Historically, the Canadian colonies specialized in bulk commodities, which, at the time, were raw materials for export. These products did not require much processing in a market that was in large part dictated by international trade.
The consequences can be even greater if this sector starts struggling as well, as a result of the depletion of resources or fluctuations in the price of a barrel, for example. The price of oil is chronically unstable. It is so known for its tendency to increase suddenly and drastically that most measures of inflation do not factor in energy. Since the cost of oil is essentially tied to the London and New York stock exchanges, there is little that can be done to mitigate the fluctuations and price hikes.
Today we are paying the price for the unwavering support that Ottawa, the banks and the pension funds give to the Canadian oil and gas sector. The pension funds have increased their investments in this sector. The pensions of Canadians and Quebeckers are in jeopardy because they are dependent on oil fluctuations. That is not really a winning strategy. Just look at the share of foreign investment in Canadian oil. It has steadily declined over the past few years, meaning there are very few royalties to be had. For example, shale oil development is a very bad business proposition, and yet Canada cannot seem to escape it.
One of Canada's biggest disappointments is definitely that in the global marketplace, in the midst of this great geopolitical struggle, Canada is ultimately a minor player with basically no influence. It is easy to see the problems that come from putting all our eggs in one basket, especially when that basket is the oil sector. The problem is that it is really tough to get out of oil. When the price is high, investments pour in, and when the price is low, individuals and companies consume more. In other words, it is a lose-lose situation.
We wish we were debating a motion that dismantled deep-seated prejudices instead of relying on them to score political points. For now, this motion is not even worth a bitcoin.
1096 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
