SoVote

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Dec/8/22 10:26:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my opposition colleague for finally recognizing that there are at least some problems with the environment and the fact there is a price on pollution. He talked about the price that businesses have to pay. Does he really believe that pollution should be free or does he believe that we should put a price on pollution? Should people be able to pollute without consequence or should we instead tell them that the more they pollute, the more they must pay?

84 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/8/22 10:26:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax does not work. The only thing it does is take money away from Canadians and put it in the government's coffers, but that does not help the government meet any of its targets. A recent international conference recently took stock of how different countries are performing. With its carbon pricing, Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. Let us remember that number. We rank 58 out of 63 with the Liberal carbon tax. That is not doing much to help the environment.

88 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/8/22 10:27:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I used to eat ramen noodles when I was in CEGEP. I would like to thank my hon colleague from Quebec, whom I hold in high esteem. It is always a pleasure to work with him. Now, I agree that the federal government ranks near the bottom when it comes to protecting the environment and fighting greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is crystal clear. Statistics do not lie. Canada ranks 58th out of 63. That is not a great record. That being said, does that mean we should allow major polluters to pollute with impunity? There is one thing that Conservatives never do when they talk about going after money. Have the Conservatives ever asked themselves why the big oil companies are making exorbitant profits, record profits, this year, and why the government does not go get that money and redistribute it to Canadians? I have never heard the Conservatives wonder why the government is not going after big oil's huge profits. I would like my colleague to answer the question.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/8/22 10:28:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I went to do groceries with my wife last week, and I was walking up and down the aisles. When I saw that all the prices had gone up, I began to ask myself some serious questions. How can we help families deal with these price hikes? The report said that the price of lettuce went up 12%. That is not correct. The price of lettuce actually jumped from 99¢ to seven dollars. Things are so bad that we can no longer even afford to eat vegetables. Imagine how much more expensive meat is these days. It is absolutely essential that we give Canadians a little breathing room. We need to focus on what Canadians need right now. They need to put enough food on the table to stave off hunger. We could help them right now by putting an end to the carbon tax on everything up and down the food supply chain. I encourage my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to think about that.

173 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Dec/8/22 10:29:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would offer that the impact on food prices from the climate crisis and from the price gouging of the big box stores and big grocery retailers far outstrips the impact of carbon pricing. My question is this. When farmers across this country are facing massive crop failures and the infrastructure needed to ship our food is being ripped out by climate disasters, why do the Conservatives not have a plan to tackle the climate crisis, the most significant crisis facing us as a population? Why do they refuse to come up with a credible plan?

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/8/22 10:30:26 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think there is some information that my colleague is not aware of. This year, in Canada, we had the third best harvest on record. Usually, when more and more food is available on the market, prices are supposed to come down for consumers. That is not happening. Despite the third best harvest in history, prices are at a 40-year high. There is a problem. The main cause is the Liberals' carbon tax. We are asking them to eliminate this tax to give Canadians and farmers across the country some relief.

94 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Dec/8/22 10:31:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for tabling this opposition motion today as it shows our farmers, producers and ranchers, as well as consumers across Canada, that the Conservative Party certainly understands food security and their economic viability. In my opinion, the Liberals have a stark decision to make in the next few months. The decision is either to continue on this activist, ideological agenda, increasing carbon taxes and taxes on producers, or to start to understand that food security and the cost of food should be a priority for all Canadians. For a government that prides itself on making science-based decisions, clearly the policies it is putting forward are not based on sound science. What is stark and what is really the impetus for the motion is the new 2023 food price report. It showed that by 2030, when the carbon tax would be tripled by the Liberals, farmers of a 5,000-acre farm, not a large farm by any means but a typical one, would pay $150,000 a year in carbon tax. I would ask the government how it could possibly think a farm family is going to absorb that cost and still be able to produce affordable, nutritious food, not only for Canadians but to help feed the world. How does the Liberal government possibly feel a farm family could absorb $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone and still remain economically viable? It simply cannot. That is the stark reality the Liberal government needs to understand sooner rather than later. When it makes these extreme ideological policies, there are consequences. Part of that food report also stated that the average family of four would see its grocery bill go up more than $1,000 a year to a total of close to $17,000 a year in one year alone. The consequence of that, as we saw in March, is that 1.5 million Canadians were accessing a food bank, the highest number in our history. I cannot believe this is happening in Canada, a G7 country, where we are unable to feed our own people and where food security is at risk. As my colleague said in response to the Bloc question, we did have the third-best harvest in our history this year. Why, if we had such a great harvest, are we talking about food insecurity and the economic viability of our farms, which are at risk? When there is a large harvest, the issue is that if the input costs far exceed the value of that crop, then the farmer is further behind at the end of the year rather than being ahead. At committee yesterday, we had Rebecca Lee, executive director of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, say that 44% of its members are selling their products at a loss. Almost half of the produce growers in Canada are selling their products at a loss. They cannot afford the massive increases in fertilizer costs. They cannot afford the massive increases in fuel costs. How long does the Liberal government expect these farmers are going to stay in business? If they go out of business, we have to import more of those foods from other countries around the world. What will that do to our GHG emissions? What will that do to the government's climate change philosophy and policies? We had Dr. Sylvain Charlebois at committee, one of the most respected food scientists in the country, from Dalhousie University. I am paraphrasing a bit, but he basically said, and I quote this part, the carbon tax is a bad idea. The carbon tax is putting farms out of business and putting our food security at risk. That is one of the top food scientists in Canada. He is saying the carbon tax is a bad idea and we are losing farms as a result of it. When we lose farms, food prices go up. When food prices go up, food security is an issue. As a result, we see what has happened with more Canadians having to use the food bank. There is more to that as well. This is where I think the Liberals are missing the point when they make these decisions not based on sound science and data. For example, we asked the Minister of Agriculture yesterday at committee why the Liberals are imposing these massive carbon tax increases on Canadian farmers when we are already more efficient than any other country on earth. The data show that out of Canada's total GHG emissions, which is about 2%, 8% of that comes from agriculture. That is 8% of 2%. That is infinitesimal on the global scale. The global average is 26%. That is a stark contrast when comparing where we are to the rest of the world. Why is the Liberal government not celebrating those achievements of Canadian agriculture? Instead of punishing farmers with massive increases in the carbon tax, which is going to have a profound impact on food security in Canada, why is the government not saying to the rest of the world, “If you want to reduce your GHG emissions from agriculture, we are already there and we will show you how to get there. Use our technology and our practices, and we will export our manufacturing”? We are already using zero till. We are already using cover crop. We are already using precision agriculture. We manufacture air drills in Canada that we are happy to export for other countries to use in their production. We use 4R nutrient stewardship. All of these things are already being used in Canada, but they seem to be ignored by the current government. We asked the minister yesterday how she expects the family farm to absorb these types of costs. Her answer was that she does not understand what our definition of a family farm is. She is the Minister of Agriculture. If anyone should know what a family farm is, it is the Minister of Agriculture. What makes it worse is the Liberals put forward Bill C-8, which included a rebate on the carbon tax for farms. We know from the Ontario grain farmers association that their members get back about 15% of what they spend on the carbon tax. Finance Canada said the average payback for a farm family is about $860. The government can compare that to the $150,000 that the farmers are going to be paying. They are going to get $1,000 back. Does the Minister of Agriculture not understand that? She was saying the families are going to get that back, but that the farm is a business. Ninety-five per cent of farms in Canada are family farms, owned by the family. Yes, they may be incorporated, but they are family farms. It is not possible to separate one from the other. That is why we put forward our private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to help with grain drying, heating of barns and those operations that are integral to the family farm. We have the support of all the opposition parties on that private member's bill, including the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party. The opposition understands how important agriculture is to the Canadian economy and our food security not only here at home, but around the world. I am hoping the opposition parties also will be supporting our opposition motion today. It reinforces the importance of Canadian agriculture, and that the decisions impacting our families must be based on sound science and sound data. Instead of apologizing for the incredible achievements of Canadian agriculture, a Canadian government should be going around the world, as proud as it can be, being a champion of what we do and not apologizing for it.

1327 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.)

Dec/8/22 10:40:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to serve on the same committee as the member opposite, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The member mentioned in his speech Sylvain Charlebois, who came before our committee. Just the other day when asked a question about whether the price on pollution is affecting food price inflation he, very explicitly, said no. Does the member opposite recollect that? The other thing I will just add is that the recent report done by the Canadian Climate Institute shows there is going to be $25 billion in losses due to climate change by 2025, and that the number is going to rise to $100 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. This actually undermines the entire growth of our economy. How does the member reconcile that with the statements he has made today?

142 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Dec/8/22 10:41:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at committee there are pushes to increase these carbon taxes to reach our climate change goals, but we will not have any farms left. There will be no farms and no food. If we tax them into bankruptcy, then what? The most frustrating part is that the Liberals continue to ignore the accomplishments of Canadian farming, in terms of our standings with emissions, carbon sequestration, stewardship and conservation, but they increase these carbon taxes, and they have not met a single target. If they were increasing these carbon taxes, which they say is the best way to meet our GHG emission goals, they have not hit a single one. The proof is in the pudding. They do not work and they are causing harm across Canada.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/8/22 10:42:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find that fascinating. Indeed, I am going to ask my Conservative friends the same question today and I think that not one will answer. How is it that, in 2022, and probably in years to come, the oil companies, banks and major food chains are making record profits and that the Conservative Party, which professes to stand up for the middle-class and workers, is blaming the carbon tax rather than looking for the money in the excessive profits of the big corporations? If Canada is ranked 58th out of 63 countries in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions, it is because it continues to subsidize oil companies, which are protected by the Conservative Party. I would like someone from the Conservative Party to tell me when they are going to do something about the oil companies' excessive profits and give the money back to the people who are paying too much for gas.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Dec/8/22 10:43:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I should have been prepared that this question was coming. Obviously, speaking as an Albertan, those energy companies are critical to our economy. They pay for those middle-class jobs and they ensure our economies, not only across Alberta but across Canada, are operating. I am not endorsing taking the carbon tax off large emitters. In fact Alberta was the first province in Canada that implemented a carbon tax on large emitters like the energy companies. We understand there are ways we can incentivize improvements and innovation in technology, and there are areas in which those taxes should not be imposed. Canadian agriculture and food production is certainly one of those.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Dec/8/22 10:44:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague for his excellent private member's bill. It would be an improvement for farmers. I am surprised, though, that the Conservative motion did not mention the grocery store chains. First of all, we know we are plagued by lack of competition. We know some of these chains actually hedge some money overseas and had to pay a CRA fine for hiding money in Barbados. They fixed the price of bread; the Competition Bureau proved that was true. They have excessive profits from COVID-related policies because restaurants were closed and the chains lacked competition. They ended hero pay to their workers unilaterally, despite the fact they should not be working together behind the scenes. Their CEO bonuses and manager salaries would make a robber baron blush. Finally, they have predatory pricing for local produce on shelves that restricts some of the distribution by farmers. How can the Conservatives not mention the situation with the grocery store chains?

167 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Dec/8/22 10:45:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should remember the NDP has already put in a motion, which was passed in the House several weeks ago and is being studied at committee.

30 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Dec/8/22 10:45:27 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer, who will be up next. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in a debate on the higher cost of living that Canadians and the world are experiencing. Let me reassure the hon. member that the government is well aware of these challenges, and that our priorities remain helping the most vulnerable in our society cope with the higher cost of living. That is why the government has an affordability plan, a suite of targeted measures totalling $12.1 billion in new support in 2022. The affordability plan is designed to help address the needs of low-income Canadians who are most exposed to inflation. Because of investments the government has already made in the last two federal budgets, many of the measures in our affordability plan are in place right now to help Canadians. In budget 2021, the government enhanced the Canada workers benefit, putting up to an additional $2,400 into the pockets of modest-income families, starting this year. I am pleased to say that most recipients have already received this increased support through their 2021 tax return. This enhancement of the Canada workers benefit is extending support to about one million Canadians and helping to lift nearly 100,000 people out of poverty. The government also proposes to provide automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit to people who qualified for the benefit in the previous year, with these advance payments starting in July 2023. Workers would receive a minimum entitlement for the year through the advance payments, based on income reported in the prior year's tax return. We are also fully aware that Canada and the rest of the world have been experiencing a period of higher inflation, including for food and groceries. This is part of a global phenomenon driven by the impacts of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has led to sharply higher food and energy prices, as has been described today, as well as persistent impacts from supply chain disruptions and the COVID pandemic. That is why we are also providing targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families by doubling the goods and services tax credit for six months. This is delivering $2.5 billion in additional support to those who already receive the tax credit, including more than half of Canadian seniors. With the passage of Bill C-30, many Canadians have already received this additional payment. Single Canadians without children are receiving up to an extra $234, and couples with two children are receiving up to an extra $467 this year. Seniors are receiving an extra $225 on average. What is more is that the money is coming to them through a straightforward process. That is because the extra GST credit amounts are being paid to all current recipients through the existing GST credit system as a one-time, lump-sum payment. Recipients will not need to apply for the additional payment. They need only file their 2021 tax return, if they have not already done so, to receive both the current GST credit and the additional payment. Finally, we know that the costs of climate change are significant. Climate change is real, and we know that carbon pollution pricing remains a pillar of Canada's climate plan as an efficient way to incent reductions and drive innovation. Carbon pricing lets industry, households and businesses choose the lowest-cost ways to reduce emissions and creates demand for low-carbon technologies, goods and services. The pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, announced in 2016, gives provinces and territories the flexibility to implement their own carbon pricing systems aligned with common minimum national stringency requirements, referred to as the “federal benchmark”. The federal carbon pricing system serves as a backstop in jurisdictions that requested or that do not implement a system aligned with minimum national requirements. All direct proceeds from the federal system will continue to be returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected. In order for a provincial or territorial government to receive these proceeds directly to use as they see fit, they were required to request the application of the federal system and commit to not using the proceeds to negate the carbon price signal. More importantly, 90% of the projected fuel charge proceeds will be sent to households in the form of quarterly climate action incentive payments, administered by the Canada Revenue Agency. The majority of households will receive more back than they pay as a result of the federal system. This will help Canadians to pay for the food and basic necessities their families need. Lower- and middle-income households will benefit the most. Also, there is a 10% supplementary amount for residents of small and rural communities. The other 10% of projected proceeds will be returned through federal programming, while 1% of the proceeds will be returned to indigenous recipients based on co-developed approaches and priorities; the remaining 9% of proceeds return through the environment and climate change programming for small and medium-sized enterprises in emissions-intensive, trade-exposed sectors. Last month, the Minister of Finance specified climate action incentive payment amounts for the 2022 to 2024 fuel charge year. Those have been announced in the House. In provinces where climate action and incentive payments will continue to be paid, there will be four equal quarterly payments starting in April 2023, so that households will receive these ahead of costs incurred and are not out of pocket. A family of four will receive, each quarter, $386 four times a year in Alberta; $340 in Saskatchewan; $264 in my home province of Manitoba, so over $1,000 a year; and $244 in Ontario. In provinces where the federal fuel charge will start to apply in July 1, 2023, and where climate action incentive payments will be paid for the first time, there will be three equal quarterly payments starting in July 2023, in the following amounts for a family of four: $248 in Nova Scotia, $240 in Prince Edward Island and $300 in Newfoundland and Labrador. Overall, a price on carbon pollution reduces pollution at the lowest overall cost to businesses and consumers, and it provides an incentive for climate action and clean innovation, while protecting business competitiveness. Just to conclude, the measures I have highlighted today are delivering timely, effective financial help to millions of Canadians. For our neighbours who need this support the most, this means more money for them this year to help make life more affordable. While putting a price on pollution remains the most effective way to fight climate change while making life more affordable for Canadians, not only does pollution pricing ensure it is no longer free to pollute anymore, but for the eight out of 10 Canadians who receive climate action incentive payments, the federal pollution pricing system actually puts more money back in their pockets.

1166 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Dec/8/22 10:54:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member lives in Winnipeg. Just south of Winnipeg, I am sure there are a number of those 5,000 typical family farms that would be very near where he lives. What does he have to say to those operators, those family farms that he just accused of polluting through the use of fertilizer? What will he say to Canadians when those farmers are looking at a potential additional $150,000 by the time this tripling of the carbon tax takes effect? What is going to happen to Canada's emissions as those farmers go out of business and we are importing more food? What is the price of our food going to be when this carbon tax is tripled?

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Dec/8/22 10:54:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to Manitoba to see those beautiful landscapes. I toured that area this spring. It was under water. About a third of southern Manitoba was out of water. There was a late spring, so farmers could not plant their crops in a timely way. However, in 2021, many of those farmers had to plow their canola fields under because we had the worst drought in 60 years. We had two one-in-300-year floods that cost $1 billion each and destroyed agriculture in many parts of the Assiniboine Valley. The impacts of climate change are real, and I would ask the hon. member where his climate plan is, because the Conservative Party has no plan.

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/8/22 10:55:41 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with my colleague that the Conservatives do not really have a climate plan, but maybe he should think about whether the Liberal plan is a good one. The Liberals opened the door for the Conservative Party to criticize the carbon tax, because Canada ranks 58th out of 63 in the fight against GHGs. The problem is not the carbon tax itself, but the subsidies to the oil industry and the fact that the government is approving drilling off the coast of Newfoundland in areas where biodiversity is at risk. The Liberal Party is great at controlling their image, but terrible at delivering results. I asked the Conservatives this question, but I did not get a response. Could my colleague tell me whether the Liberals have a different opinion? Are they going to go after the oil companies' excess profits? Are they going to go after the banks' excess profits? The big grocery chains are making excess profits. Are the Liberals going to go after that money and give it back to the middle class to address not only GHGs but also the cost of living?

190 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Dec/8/22 10:56:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that oil profits are at record levels. They need to put their shoulder to the wheel and help us reduce emissions. We are working hard with them to cap oil and gas emissions. We will be introducing a clean fuel standard, and we will be removing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We have already removed eight. We are on our way to completely eliminating them two years ahead of schedule.

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/8/22 10:57:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we also agree that putting a price on carbon is critical. In British Columbia it was actually the right-leaning BC Liberal party that brought in the carbon tax in 2009, but it is now supported by all provincial parties, because we understand the impacts of climate change. We have seen Lytton burn down. We have seen flooding. We have seen the impacts of climate change, which I have talked to my colleague about a number of times. My concern here, and I share this concern with the Bloc, is that there is no excess profit tax on oil and gas companies right now. We have seen the U.K. take leadership, as well as other countries around the world. We have seen over $100 billion in record profits for the oil and gas companies, but we see Liberals and Conservatives standing side by side, letting them get a free ride. It is unacceptable, because that money could be used for taking pressure off people today by removing the GST on home heating, which would apply to electric heating, something that Conservatives had in their platform but do not support today, as well as removing the unacceptable 39.5% surcharge on Canada Post. Will my colleague finally charge oil and gas companies the excess profit tax that they should pay and take the pressure off everyday Canadians?

229 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Dec/8/22 10:58:34 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find myself agreeing with the spirit of the questions my opposition colleagues are asking me. Oil profits are up. Emissions must come down. The oil and gas sector and the energy sector must put their shoulder to the wheel. They must work with us. Come hell or high water, we must meet those emissions targets of 40% to 45% reductions in emissions below 2005 levels. We have emissions targets. We will meet them.

76 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 144