44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 28, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/28/23 11:13:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to my colleague across the way, there seems to be a lack of common sense that has been percolating from the other side for a long time. We have farmers. We heard earlier from my colleague that they are paying $480,000 a year in carbon tax. That is absolutely outrageous and unsustainable because food is not a luxury.
I would like the member to talk to farmers directly, through the camera, to tell them that they also have to pay GST on that amount.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:27:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know how to explain it. I know the member well. We met in a previous life, when he was president of Quebec's federation of municipalities, the Fédération québécoise des municipalités.
I will say it again and, honestly, I cannot be any clearer than this: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec because we have the carbon exchange. The tax does not apply. Quebec farmers will not pay a carbon tax because it does not apply.
I do not know how else to say it because he simply does not want to understand. I am surprised to hear this from an MP who knows a lot about agriculture and Quebec. He is playing his party's game. He is trying to mislead Quebeckers and farmers.
I cannot be any clearer than that. It does not apply.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague clearly state whether or not that applies to Quebec.
I am asking him again to clearly tell the House whether the carbon tax applies to Quebec, as claimed in the disinformation campaign by Conservative members from Quebec who have the audacity to rise in the House. I do not think they are very interested in talking about the Conservative government's record under Harper, which cut $200 million intended for farmers. That affected Quebec producers.
I am therefore asking my Bloc Québécois colleague again: does Bill C‑234 apply to Quebec?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member for Jonquière spent a lot of time not talking about this morning's motion in which we call on the Senate to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible. I was told that this bill does not apply to Quebec. I am going to try again and ask my colleague from Jonquière to check and see what is happening in his riding. If he has the opportunity to speak to farmers who use propane and natural gas to heat their buildings, I would ask him to check with them to see whether there is an additional amount on their bills.
The carbon tax also applies indirectly, because not everything we grow and eat in Quebec comes from Quebec. It is therefore really important to eliminate this tax and to get Bill C‑234 passed as quickly as possible. I hope we can all agree on that.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is rather confusing.
My colleague is telling us that the carbon tax applies but that it applies indirectly. It is hard to see what he is getting at.
If we really want to help farmers in Quebec, then we need to defend the supply management bill. My advice to my colleague is to talk to the Conservative senators and ask them to pass Bill C-282 and move it forward a bit more quickly. I am sure that all farmers in Quebec will be much happier with him for doing that than for fiercely defending a tax that does not apply to us.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his speech. I appreciated almost all of it, except the part where he said the NDP was the only party that has supported the abolition of the Senate. I would like to remind him that this is also the position of the Bloc Québécois.
On this matter, our decisions are predictable. This allows the people who vote for us to know why they vote for us and to anticipate the decisions we will make in the House. I find it a bit sad that the Conservatives' decisions depend on what will serve their ends in the moment.
Consider Bill C-234, but also Bill C-282, which was passed by the House to protect supply management. The Conservatives are doing exactly what they are now scolding senators for doing, namely slowing down the passage of a bill. The only thing the Conservatives are consistent about is that if they can insert the words “carbon tax” somewhere, they will use it as an excuse to vote against something. This makes for some particularly bizarre decisions, like their decision to vote against the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine.
I would like to hear from my colleague as to whether he thinks this lax approach, this cherry picking, is disappointing for the public, because it does not give voters a sense of where the Conservative Party is generally headed.
252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 12:54:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the New Democrats continue to come here with their carbon-tax religion, failing to recognize that carbon is actually a building block of life and it is plant food, and that the carbon tax is not a climate change policy and has nothing to do with the environment.
Does the member think the carbon tax is making our farmers less competitive, less productive and less profitable? At the end of the day, it is creating food insecurity in the country. Like the Liberals are doing in Canada, Putin is doing the same in Ukraine?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 1:54:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the farmers who pay into that union, I would ask the member to table the document that professes what he says it professes, because I am doubtful that it exists. Living in a farming community, I have not had one single person come to me to say they want the carbon tax to stay.
My request is simple. I would ask the member to table the document. Then I would be happy to concede.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see how the Conservatives bring everything back to the carbon tax. The conflict in Ukraine is all about the carbon tax. Now, the Conservatives are saying that the problems farmers are having are because of the carbon tax. The Conservatives' common sense boils down to one thing: eliminating the carbon tax, even if it does not apply in Quebec.
All of the Conservatives' efforts over the past 18 months have been focused on the carbon tax. I have a very simple question for my colleague, who says he wants to help and support farmers. If that is what he wants to do, then there is a very worthwhile bill that is also sitting in the Senate, the supply management bill. If the Conservatives want to help farmers, why do they not focus their efforts on Bill C-282?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting the importance of getting Bill C-234 across the line. Could she once again explain to the members opposite how the carbon tax escalates the cost of food throughout the supply chain?
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 1:58:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is an important question for all of us to understand, because many are without comprehension of how the carbon tax continues to accumulate.
The farmer puts the seed in the ground and uses fuel to do so. That seed is then watered and energy is used to bring the water up and apply it to the land. After watching that seed grow, it eventually has to be harvested and there is a carbon tax attached to that process. Then, when drying it, there is a carbon tax attached to the process. Eventually, when that material, that raw good, is transported, there is a carbon tax attached to that. Then when it is processed, there is a carbon tax attached to that. It is then transported again and there is another carbon tax attached to that. Eventually, it will make its way into the grocery store, and there is a carbon tax attached to keeping it there. Then it is purchased, and there is a carbon tax attached to that. Once it is transported home, there is a carbon tax on that. Eventually, once it is cooked and prepared, there is a carbon tax on that as well. There is a whole lot of carbon tax.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know why the Prime Minister is blocking the carbon tax carve-out for Canadian farmers. It is because his environment minister has threatened to quit if Bill C-234 passes.
The environment minister does not care about Canadian farmers. He is jetting off to Dubai for two weeks. It is the middle of the day in Ottawa, but it is the middle of the night in Dubai.
Will the Prime Minister at least allow senators to pass a carbon tax carve-out while his minister is asleep in Dubai?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:19:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during question period today, on numerous occasions the Conservative Party of Canada referred to carbon pricing as a tax. Conservatives talked about the respect of our institution. They should—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:34:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the substance of the matter. I asked it during question period and did not get a satisfactory answer.
Greenfield Global operates in Chatham. It converts corn into alcohols, everything from the special ingredient in White Claw to biofuels and hospital-grade pharmaceutical alcohols. It buys Canadian corn and American corn. The American farmers do not pay the carbon tax, and they truck right into Chatham and compete with Canadian corn.
What does the member say to the Canadian farmers trying to compete against American corn in that market in our own backyard?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:47:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the work that the hon. parliamentary secretary has done on sustainable finance. I know he is sincere about the need to act on climate change.
I wonder, around carbon pricing, if the parliamentary secretary can riddle me this: There are viable affordable alternatives to home heating oil, yet his government put in place a carve-out for the price on carbon. For grain drying, there are no affordable viable alternatives, yet there is no carve-out for carbon pricing. Could the member explain the contradiction between these two things?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, a couple of the Liberal colleagues today have put out this statistic that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax. That is completely and utterly false. We know that the vast majority of farmers pay much more in carbon taxes than they would get in any rebate. In Bill C-8, which I am sure my colleague is referring to, the average farm gets about 15% to 20% back on its carbon tax. However, there is no exemption on natural gas and propane, which we are talking about today.
Can my colleague please table with the House the document that states that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax? I would love to see where the Liberals come up with that number.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:37:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it boils down to the fact that Conservatives do not understand the impact that climate change is having on our country and around the world. The majority of members of the EU all have a plan with a carbon tax, yet the Conservatives clearly do not support it, do not want to support it and do not believe in it. Maybe they need to spend a little time focusing more on the impacts climate change will have next year and next summer.
If we look at exactly what is going on as a result of climate change, it is causing serious damage, threatening the lives, the homes and the future for all of us in this country and around the world, and we need to take much stronger action, frankly, than what we have been taking. Instead of worrying about the carbon tax, I would suggest Conservatives should be putting their energy in something more profitable.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:39:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here we are having another debate on carbon pricing. It feels like the only thing we talk about here in the House is carbon pricing. Some claim that it is a “carbon tax”.
I know all about taxes. Taxes generate revenues that the government pockets. In the case of the price on carbon, all revenues, all the funds generated are returned to individuals or, in some cases, to businesses to allow them to invest in the transition to a clean economy.
I have been sitting here, day after day, listening to what I consider to be a false narrative on the price on carbon. First of all, it has been given an incorrect name. It is not a carbon tax. A tax is something that generates revenues that go to the government coffers. When one talks about a price on carbon, and this is the beauty of it, as it is extremely effective, all of the monies received from the price of carbon are returned to Canadians or Canadian businesses. As a matter of fact, if the price on carbon were removed, the climate action incentive payment would disappear and a vast majority of Canadians would be worse off. We do not hear that truth from the Conservative Party.
What we hear is what my former colleague and Canadian hero and hockey great Ken Dryden used to call “truthiness”. Truthiness is something that sounds true, but it is just not true. Day after day, we are treated to a simplistic but false chain of causation that the Conservatives trot out. It sounds true and anyone listening would say, “Yes, that sounds very logical”, but the chain breaks all along the length of it if one spends any time thinking about what is being said.
Every day in question period, it sounds like the ankle bone is connected to the shin bone, which is connected to the knee bone, which is connected to the thigh bone, except they say, “If one has a price on carbon, it costs a trucker a little more to ship. That means the distributor has to pay a little bit more, and that means that the retailer pays a little bit more, and then Canadians pay a little bit more.”
That is not how it works at all. As a matter of fact, studies, and we know that the Conservative opposition is not keen on academic studies or rigorous studies of any kind, have shown that the price on carbon contributes very little, an minuscule or infinitesimal amount, to the food price inflation. Although we would not want to let academic studies get in the way of a good “truthy” argument coming from the other side.
I think the Conservative Party is using the price on carbon as a red herring. I get very frustrated when constituents write to me and say, “Please take the price on carbon off”, and I write back to say, “Sir, madam, the price on carbon does not apply in Quebec.” Quebec has been pricing carbon since 2007, and B.C. has been pricing carbon since 2008. It does not apply in Quebec.
I have had other people come to me, and I guess they listen to Conservative propaganda because they say, “Where is my climate action incentive payment?” I have to say to them, “Sir, madam, I am sorry. You do not get the climate action incentive payment because you do not pay the price on carbon.” They write back and thank me for explaining it to them. They did not realize. That is a bit of the job of a member of Parliament, which is to explain the facts about government policy and why government policy is the desired policy.
I have talked about this before in the House, but I will mention it again. The Leader of the Opposition fancies himself to be a great monetarist economist in the tradition of the Chicago school of economics, the school that was made famous by Milton Friedman. However, Milton Friedman thought that the price on carbon was a wonderfully simple and effective policy instrument for pricing pollution. It is what we call an externality, which is something that is not priced and is therefore not reflected in the market, so it leads to a greater use of something that is not necessarily a societal good, which is what the price on carbon is really all about.
We can keep talking about this, I am sure, until the cows come home, and I am prepared to stand up in the House over and over again to set the record straight about the price on carbon. However, let us face it, we are going through an affordability crisis in Canada and around the world, as a matter of fact. Fortunately, in Canada we have one of the developed world's lowest inflation rates. As I said, the challenges remain, but I think we have to look at the international context and see where we fit within it.
Now, the government recognizes that we have an affordability crisis, and it is acting to help Canadians weather this crisis. Fortunately, we have seen the inflation rate come down recently, and this was predicted a couple of years ago. I wanted to wait and see because we want to see the reality, but many economists were telling us a year and a half to two years ago that, by this time, inflation would start to come down. In fact, it seems to be happening, but we will wait and see over the long term. In the meantime, the government is acting, and I will give members an example of one of the inflation relief measures that our government instituted to help Canadians weather the inflationary storm.
Budget 2023 introduced a new, one-time, targeted grocery rebate to provide inflation relief for 11 million Canadians and families who needed it most, which is over a quarter of the Canadian population. That is not peanuts. The grocery rebate provided $2.5 billion in targeted support, with eligible couples with two children receiving up to an extra $467 and single Canadians without children receiving up to an extra $234, which included single seniors. Now, the Conservatives may say that is not enough and does not really count, but they can tell that to somebody who is dealing with the high cost of food as a result of international developments, such as the war in Ukraine. I do not think it is something to sneeze at.
The government, of course, is doing other things. For example, it is addressing junk fees. Junk fees are taking a real bite out of Canadians' incomes, and they are having a disproportionate impact on lower-income Canadians. Through budget 2023, we announced our government's intention to work with regulatory agencies, provinces and territories to reduce junk fees for Canadians and continue to ensure that businesses are transparent with prices to help make life more affordable for Canadians.
At this point, I want to digress a little bit because we have noticed that the price of automobiles has been rising. It is not because of the price on carbon that the new car a person is leasing or buying has gone up a tremendous amount of money. I will explain why this has happened, and it is related to the pandemic. That is not a novel idea. On the other side of the House they seem to have forgotten the pandemic and the impacts of it, but there is a lot going on in the economy still today that is related to the pandemic. What happened in the pandemic with the sales of automobiles is that supply chains were interrupted for car dealers.
I was just getting going, but I am out of time, so I will stop there. Maybe some other day I will talk about why the price of cars has gone up, but it has nothing to do with the price on carbon.
1353 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:49:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, the member opposite talked about academic studies. I would challenge that member to actually table academic studies showing that there is no correlation. In fact, Sylvain Charlebois of The Food Professor Podcast has actually specifically said there has not been that. He says, “It is imperative that we conduct a rigorous evaluation of how carbon pricing affects food affordability for Canadians and the long-term competitiveness of our industries.” So much for the member saying that he is on the side of academics and that the science is done and settled.
I would like him to actually name the researchers. While we are on the subject of junk fees, I have raised in the House how shippers are utilizing the carbon tax. There is a food processor in my riding who receives bills that shows carbon levies in addition, which are added on. I have raised it with this chamber. Does the member believe the government has a duty to try to keep these prices down by tackling junk fees such as the carbon tax? He should just get rid of the whole thing all together.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 4:50:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bank of Canada has said that the price on carbon is not contributing in any significant way to food inflation. Now, I do not know, maybe the hon. member does not accept studies and analyses by the Bank of Canada as legitimate academic studies. I know his leader does not think much of the Bank of Canada and puts the blame of everything on the shoulders of the Bank of Canada.
There is a price on carbon. It is being added to the cost of things. The point is that it is not responsible for the biggest chunk of the rise in food prices.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
