44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/6/24 3:07:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I said this in English, and I am pleased to say it in French. We put out figures on carbon pricing just before the holidays.
Carbon pricing will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% to 30% by 2030. We have already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 30 million tonnes. There is still a lot of work to be done because the Conservatives spent 10 years doing nothing to fight pollution and climate change.
Thanks to our programs, our actions and the actions of Canadians, we are starting to tackle this problem. The last thing we need is for the Conservatives to come back and wreck everything.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to resume debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-234, pursuant to the proposed amendments to the bill from the Senate.
Canada has the best farmers and food processors in the world. We are a global leader in agricultural production, and the sector is of great importance to our economy, to trade and to jobs. I know that in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we have some of the best small-scale farms in the country. The government understands that farmers are essential to our communities and to Canada's economy, and that is why it agrees with the intent of Bill C-234.
Supporting our farmers is, of course, of great importance. However, the bill is not appropriately structured to achieve this objective. It is important to deliver support for farmers that is effective in helping them ramp up production without undermining important goals like addressing climate change, which itself poses a severe threat to agricultural production.
Putting a price on pollution is a cornerstone of Canada's climate plan. It is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to more intense wildfires, droughts and floods, while putting money back in people's pockets and driving investment in cleaner alternatives. In B.C., of course, there has been a price on pollution for more than 15 years; it remains in place today. It is instead of the federal system, which applies only in provinces that do not bring in their own carbon pricing system.
Farmers are on the front lines of climate change, facing ever-increasing risks of natural disasters to their operations. Pollution pricing was designed to take into account the unique needs of farmers. Of course I have seen it first hand with a number of the farms in my riding, where historic droughts and water restrictions actually brought in a state of emergency that restricted access to water for some of these farms. I have also seen in recent years the crushing impact of the heat dome fuelled by climate change.
That is why, for all provinces where the federal carbon price is in effect, Canada's agriculture is already receiving significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors. Through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the federal system exempts gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, as well as biological emissions, such that roughly 97% of on-farm emissions are not subject to a price on pollution.
Greenhouse operators also received upfront relief of 80% on the fuel charge on propane and marketable natural gas. Additionally, farmers in provinces where the federal system is in place can receive a refundable tax credit, which, overall, returns the estimated total fuel charge proceeds in these provinces related to farm use of natural gas and propane for heating and drying activities, to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming.
This year, farmers in rural areas will benefit from the doubling of the rural top-up for pollution price rebates, which will give households an extra 20% of the value of the rebates in backstop jurisdictions. Putting a price on pollution and returning the proceeds to farmers helps them transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers while also maintaining a price signal to reduce emissions. These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.
Unfortunately, even as amended by the Senate, which did make some steps in the right direction, the bill does not reflect Canada's commitment to climate change or incentivize farmers to switch to less carbon-intensive solutions. It also risks weakening Canada's efforts to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that one amendment would remove—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
655 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, here we are again, another debate where the basis of the Conservative argument is that it should be free to pollute in this country, and that the most challenging crisis that we face, the one that will impact Canadians the most, especially in their pocketbooks, is something that they deny.
The previous speaker said that climate changes, winter to spring to summer to fall, as if to deny the seriousness of the crisis. What is the main driver of increased food costs? It is climate change.
I have asked Conservative members, and none of them are willing to answer this. Why have the increases in food costs gone up even higher in the United States than they have in Canada, when most jurisdictions in the United States do not have a price on pollution?
Mr. Greg McLean: You are making that up.
Mr. Chris Bittle: Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way is accusing me of lying, and that is truly unfortunate. They can look that up themselves.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it just goes to show that, when confronted with the reality that food prices are going up in jurisdictions that do not have a price on pollution, the cognitive dissonance that exists on that side with respect to the science on the issue is loud and clear. It is truly unfortunate that this issue, climate change, is going to dramatically affect costs for Canadians. We are seeing it all the time.
We saw it in the summer when we were debating a motion brought by the Conservatives to eliminate the price on pollution, when we could not even see into Gatineau from Ottawa because the smoke was so thick. Hurricanes have ravaged us, and again Conservatives are denying the impacts of climate change during their heckles on forest fires and their spread. They cannot get it through their heads that this is a crisis that is affecting them, and that their constituents are facing droughts and floods.
Yes, the hon. member who spoke before me is correct that farmers are impacted by the weather, but they are also dramatically impacted by radical changes in the climate. Much of the Prairies has been under significant drought. What is that going to do to the price of food? What is the Conservative plan on pollution? It is nothing except to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it is not an issue, when it is the central piece as to why food prices are going to increase. If they do not have a plan to address the climate, they do not have a plan to address rising food costs.
Conservatives are correct that farmers are stewards of this land. I have a quote from a Saskatchewan farmer, National Farmers Union former vice-president Glenn Wright, who stated:
Farmers will be among the hardest hit if we don't act fast to slash greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize the climate. For this reason—to protect farmers—the NFU supports pricing pollution; it is an important policy tool to reduce the harmful emissions fuelling the climate crisis and threatening farms and food supplies.
How do members of the Conservative Party deal with this? During this debate, they took to social media to threaten and harass senators. One of its members was even found to have violated the privileges of senators in the other place. Although they are independent senators, they accused them of being Liberal senators even though they do not sit in their caucus, while Conservative senators did not even show up to vote. I believe there were only one or two votes this pass-by, and Conservative senators, who sit in their own party's caucus, did not show up to work. Instead of coming here, and instead of trying to intimidate members of the other place, they should probably speak to the Conservative senators who come to their caucus meeting every Wednesday and ask them why they did not show up.
I would like to speak to a few things in order to clarify the record a bit. We have exempted gas and diesel for farm use from federal pollution pricing. We have created a rural top-up for rebates. We have returned $120 million to farmers thanks to carbon pricing proceeds. Over the last two years, we have invested $1.5 billion in programs to support farmers in reducing emissions on farms and growing their operations. Since the $500-million reinvestment through the agricultural clean technology program, more than 128 grain dryer projects have been approved. Nearly $500 million has been approved for research, development and adaptation for clean technology. There has been $12 million to reduce methane emissions from cattle and $670 million to support the adaptation of greenhouse gas reduction practices on farms.
What would the Conservative response be? It would be to gut everything, pretend climate change does not exist, just say that the unprecedented floods, fires and droughts are just the weather, and say that we should ignore the scientists and the experts.
It would be a much more credible thing for the other side to say that the bill needs to be passed, and that they have a plan to reduce emissions, but they do not. They have zero plans to address this existential threat that we face as a country. It is a pocketbook issue and a security threat; experts are saying this across the board, and farmers are telling us they are impacted, yet Conservatives stick their head in the sand and say that polluting in this country should be free.
They all ran on it, which is the other thing I do not understand. If we go back into our time machine, just a couple of years ago, we would see that Conservatives all ran on a price on pollution, but it was a little different from ours. We give rebates right back to people. However, for the Conservative's price on pollution, people would get a Government of Canada credit card and would build up points, and maybe they could buy a bike at the end of the day if they built up enough points. I think “The more you burn, the more you earn” was their slogan at the time, but it was good to see them acknowledge a price on pollution, all of them. Every single one of them ran on it.
It was interesting at the time, but it was good to see every major political party in this country addressing climate change. I thought it fell flat, and I guess voters also felt that it fell flat in addressing the climate crisis. However, what the Conservatives have taken from their poor attempt at pricing pollution is to ignore climate change, despite seeing it with their own eyes across the country with record highs, record droughts, record floods, atmospheric rivers and hurricanes that are stronger than ever. They abandoned their constituents.
This is the Conservative playbook. They talk a good game in terms of affordability, but when it comes to addressing the number one driver of that in terms of food prices, they are absent. They are silent, and their silence will be costly for Canadians. The farmers they claim that they stand up for will be the most hurt as they suffer from severe weather, which makes it harder to produce and impacts the bottom line for farmers. It is truly disappointing to see a Conservative Party embrace climate denial policies in the United States and try to bring that north.
This is a mechanism that works. It puts more money in the pockets of Canadians. It will be responsible for 20% to 30% of our greenhouse gas reductions. Again, if the Conservatives have a plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30%, I would like to know, but they do not. They have absolutely nothing. We want to return that money to the pocketbooks of Canadians.
I thought it was telling, when the Government of Saskatchewan was having a fight about carbon pricing, that it had to reassure its constituents not to worry, and they would still get the rebate. I think it was the first time I have heard Conservative politicians talk about a climate rebate in this country when their constituents were worried that it was going to be taken away. That is another affordability issue where eight out of 10 families receive more than they put in, and the Conservatives want to say “No, we'd rather give it to oil executives. It would be better in the pockets of the shareholders of oil companies than it would in the pockets of Canadians.” That is where the Conservative Party is right now. It is out of touch on the number one issue that is driving food prices.
I wish the Conservatives would go back and embrace what they brought in the last election and what they ran on, which was a price on pollution. It was a reasonable time, but none of them stood up at the time except one. I forget the member's riding, but I will give her credit. Also, there was one member who stood up at the time to challenge Mr. O'Toole on that policy, but all of them embraced it. They ran on it and took it home to their constituents. They went to the polls. They all got elected on that promise to price pollution, yet we see them sit and do nothing. They put their heads in the sand.
I have asked what the Conservatives will do when there is no action on the dramatic issues that are impacting climate. We know that carbon dioxide causes this. However, some Conservatives will say that carbon dioxide is great and that it feeds plants, as if to minimize the impact of carbon pollution in our society.
However, this is having a dramatic impact that we can see. Even in my own community, it does not even rain the same way it used to when I was growing up. All of us can see it. We can go outside. It is hitting us right in the face, and ultimately, the Conservative Party is going to ignore it.
I can appreciate that the Conservatives' want to see different changes to policy and, as I said, it would be a lot more credible to come up with a plan, any plan. When the Leader of the Opposition is pushed, he will say they are going to invest in technology, as if there is one magic bullet out there. Technology is part of the solution, but what will those members do when faced with a crisis so severe? Early on, there was basic denial and heckling that it even existed, that food prices increased in other jurisdictions and that climate change was the source of that.
1646 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the short answer is, “Yes.” I was here when the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought into force. I think it was in 2018. The reason I support Bill C-234 is that when the Liberals originally authored their bill, they put exemptions in the parent act that listed qualifying farm fuels, qualifying farm machinery and qualifying farming activity. When I look at the language that is in Bill C-234, looking at the heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses and also at fuels used for drying grain, I think those are legitimate farming activities that are in line and in spirit with the original act.
I can conclude and say very publicly here in this House that, absolutely, New Democrats will keep our vote consistent with the third reading vote that we gave, along with the Green Party, along with the Bloc Québécois and along with the Conservatives. We are choosing to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C-234.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 6:57:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. I would welcome anybody to review the testimony that was given today, and perhaps there will be a different interpretation of what was said.
The point of a price on pollution is to make sure that it is not free to pollute. However, they cannot then say that it will come out in the wash. Every single day we hear members of the opposition saying that the reason food prices are high is because there is a price on pollution, and yet the answer is there is no data available to show that, but we should trust them that it will come out in the wash.
I am sorry but I do not accept that as a legitimate or sufficient basis rooted in fact that permits them the ability to suggest with such emphasis and accuracy that that is in fact what is causing the inflation we are talking about in reference to this debate.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:21:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate today around the price of food inflation; the report that came from the agriculture committee, which I am proud to sit on; and some of the ideas we have heard over the last little while about how increases in the cost of food have affected Canadians in their day-to-day lives.
My friend from Battle River—Crowfoot just had a great point that he asked my colleague from Kenora about, and I asked this of Tyler McCann in committee today. I asked whether the point of a carbon tax, which the Liberals and NDP opine is the great resource they are going to use to lower emissions, was to change consumers' behaviour. Mr. McCann said yes, it is. We can go on Environment and Climate Change Canada's website, and see that the point of a carbon tax is to change people's behaviour based on an increasing price of a product.
It just so happens to be a product we are talking about today, which is food. I said in committee that it is amazing that a government is now fighting its own policy. Liberals and New Democrats are scrambling over each other to say that the carbon tax has not worked, because it did not increase the price of food. It was really one of the first times in my life in public service that I have seen a government arguing that a policy did not work when it did.
I see this in other areas of people's lives too. We see it in transportation, where mothers are having a harder time filling up a tank of gas to take their kids to hockey games, to ballet classes or to music lessons. In rural Canada, we have to drive. There is not public transportation service like there is in downtown Toronto, so people are making a choice about how many extra shifts they have to pick up to cover the next tank of gas. We see it with seniors, who are still in their homes, asking how many sweaters they are going to have to put on because they cannot afford to keep the heat up.
We see it time and time again. The Liberal-NDP carbon tax is making people change their behaviours in Canada, because it has made everything so much more expensive across our country.
We know it is working, because there was a little caucus revolt in the Liberal Party recently; Atlantic Canadian members, along with the Conservatives, who have called for a long time to axe the tax as part of our plan, said they had to exempt home heating. The proof is in the pudding. Why would the Liberal members in the Maritimes fight tooth and nail? It is because they are having political issues to get a carve-out from the carbon tax, since home heating is costing too much. It is almost like it is working, but the people within the Liberal Party and the NDP did not realize how much pain they were going to inflict on Canadians.
There is no other solution to heat a 100,000-square-foot barn. Today, in Ottawa, I met with a dairy farmer from just outside Regina. He said his heating bill for the barn has increased and increased. I have a SaskEnergy bill from another farmer, a chicken farmer. For one month, their gas supply cost is $1,092. Their carbon tax, with the GST on top of it, is $1,071. They are almost paying more in taxes on a monthly bill, $20 less, than they are for the gas they are supplying to heat their building. Maybe I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I do not think the Liberals and the New Democrats realized how much this was going to hurt.
From APAS, in Saskatchewan, Mr. Boxall was at our committee when we were talking about food prices. He said that, on the average farm in Saskatchewan, the carbon tax cost will be between $14,000 and $25,000. However, when it goes to $170 a tonne by 2030, Canada's Food Price Report for 2023 stated that a farm could pay $150,000 in carbon tax per year.
We asked Mr. Boxall in committee how that was going to affect farms. He said that:
It will have a huge impact—$150,000 on a 5,000-acre farm. It's unfathomable that we will get there on a carbon tax alone. It makes my skin crawl to think that's where we'll be, and then to be turned around and not recognized for the work that is done, ensuring that we have proper grasslands and that we have proper management of our farm soil. Farmers are the biggest stewards of the land in this country, and we care more about the environment than we ever get credit for. It really is going to be detrimental to Saskatchewan farmers.
That says it all. This Liberal government continues to punish our farmers, the people who put food on our plate, without a second thought of what the effect is going to be.
We talked to some witnesses today in the agriculture committee and one witness laid out three things that this government has done and wants to do that will affect food prices. Number one, he said, was the carbon tax. Number two was P2 packaging where the government wants to make sure that, in Canada, we cannot use plastics to ship fruit and vegetables, which the U.S.A. has already said it is not going to do, and so it is going to cut the supply of fruit and vegetables in our country. Number three is the fertilizer reduction targets. Those three things are what this witness said is going to inflate the cost of food exponentially year after year. This is from people who are on the ground from the fruit and vegetable growers in Ontario.
So, are we not going to believe a carbon tax bill that we saw from Saskatchewan where they were paying almost as much in taxes as in gas supply? Are we not going to believe members from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, APAS, who are on the ground tilling the soil and planting the seeds who have said that $150,000 for a 5,000-acre farm will destroy farms in Saskatchewan, because it will make them unsustainable, which will lower supplies again? Are we not going to believe a dairy farmer who says that it is going to cost more and more each year to heat their barn with this carbon tax?
The PBO said that, by 2030, farmers will be paying $1 billion a year in carbon tax. My friend for Huron—Bruce, who has put this through on a private member's bill, talked about the GST and HST that we pay on the carbon tax, which is about $490 million a year. So, combined, the carbon tax and then the tax on the tax is going to be $1.5 billion automatically out of farmers' pockets, and people do not think that is going to have an effect on food prices. That is irrational. It is taking $1.5 billion out of farmers' pockets.
How are we going to make that up? Two things will happen: one, consumers will see that on the till at the grocery store, and prices will increase because farmers have to make that up; or two, farmers go out of business, and no farms, no food. If we lower the food supply in Canada, that will also increase the food cost. Members can see, and I agree with my friend from Winnipeg, that either way, consumers in rural or urban Saskatchewan are going to have to pay more for food.
At this point in time I would like to move an amendment, which will be seconded by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with instruction that it amend the same so as to: (a) take into consideration that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, has been amended by the Senate in a way that will prevent farmers from getting a carbon tax carve-out for grain drying, barn heating and other farm operations, and that since the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made clear that this bill, in its original form, would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, reducing the cost of food for Canadian families currently struggling to afford groceries; and (b) recommend that the House adopt the motion rejecting the Senate amendments as soon as possible.
1516 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:33:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I see that we are surrounded by folks who are about to be riveted by the exchange, and I do not want to delay too long the late show, which I know is about to take place between my two colleagues.
I would just like to ask my hon. colleague from Regina if he could comment on the shift in economic policy we are seeing in places such as the European Union, where they are beginning to incorporate tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that are not seriously tackling a price on pollution. I would be curious to know what he or his leader would do, should they find themselves faced with having to create policy on behalf of the Government of Canada, in relation to our trading partners, on imports and that very critical component of a price on pollution, which they are starting to take seriously.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 8:05:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to address a couple of issues in what the member opposite just raised.
The first part is to take into account the very real issue of climate change. It is frustrating when I hear from members opposite not only that they do not have a climate plan but also that they have accepted and are willing to just let the planet burn at this point. That is unacceptable.
We are seeing drought right now in Alberta, for example. People are talking about the fact that they are not going to be able to use as much water in their daily living. We have been seeing wildfires across the country, including in northern Ontario; massive hurricanes impacting Atlantic Canada; and all sorts of other natural disasters. Those things are impacting people's daily lives. When people's homes are at risk and are being damaged by these things, it is impacting the cost of living. It is leading to increased insurance costs because of the fact that people are having to do repairs or are losing their homes. The way that the fees are being considered by insurance companies is takes into account these natural disasters.
Climate change is real.
The next part, though, is about carbon pricing. It is so frustrating to listen to the complaints being made about carbon pricing, because they are factually inaccurate. I say that because there is an economist from the University of Calgary, the home city of the member opposite, who did a study looking at how the carbon pricing system works in federally backstopped provinces. The conclusions to that study were that, if the carbon price was cancelled tomorrow, the people who would benefit the most are the people who earn over $250,000. That is not the affordability crisis that people in my community are talking about.
People in my community, when they talk about issues, talk about how we help the people who have the greatest need. Those are not the people who earn over $250,000, and those are the people who would be benefiting from the proposal that the Conservatives are putting forward. It makes no sense. They do not like hearing about how eight out of 10 people are better off with the carbon rebates and the system that we have in place for carbon pollution pricing, but it is true. As I said, it has been backed up by further research, including from his own home province. I would hope that the Conservatives would take that into account when they are doing this analysis.
When we are talking about issues around how we help people with fuel switching or reducing the cost of heating their homes, the oil to heat pump affordability program actually does that. That is applicable in the provinces that are signing up to help make it work. I would ask the member to please look into that option as well.
If we are talking about affordability, because that is the other main issue that we are bringing forward, we are also talking about things that we have made changes in, such as the Canada child benefit. There has actually been a massive reduction of child poverty right across our country. The Canada child benefit is a program that we brought into place. The Conservatives were sending $100 cheques to millionaires. We changed that system so that, now, the people who need it the most are getting the help. Statistics Canada, in their studies, has found that it is having an impact.
We are fighting climate change, and at the same time, we are going to be working on affordability and reducing poverty across our country.
617 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
