SoVote

May/1/24 7:37:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that there was one truth in what he said, which is that Canadians want action on the climate crisis. Unfortunately, this is just a tax. He talks about how they have reductions, yet there is no data to show that. There is actually data to prove that carbon emissions have gone up ever since the COVID situation. During COVID was the only time when the amount of pollution actually went down. That is because people were not flying. There were no jobs at the time. Therefore, that is the only time. Since that date, though, emissions have continually and steadily increased, which proves that this carbon tax is not working. Can the member actually show the information? The Minister of Environment did not say they are collecting any data to prove that emissions are lowering or that the carbon tax is actually working. It would be quite interesting if the parliamentary secretary has information that the Minister of Environment does not have.

168 words

Mr. Darrell Samson

May/1/24 7:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Canada carbon rebate returns fuel charge proceeds to Canadian residents through direct deposit and cheques. I want to remind my colleague that, every three months, he is receiving that cheque and that eight out of 10 Canadians are making more than what they are spending. The remaining proceeds return to indigenous governments and small and medium-sized businesses through other programs. As Canada's approach, carbon pricing reduces pollution at a lower overall cost to businesses and consumers. Eight out of 10 households receive more money back through the Canada carbon rebate than they pay toward the fuel charge.

102 words

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

May/1/24 7:39:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to expand a bit more on a question I asked on February 8. I ended that opportunity with a request of the government to axe the carbon tax. Let me first set the context of the situation. Food inflation at the time had been running higher than general inflation for quite some time. It has moderated a bit, but people sometimes confuse a lower inflation rate with dropping prices. A lower inflation rate means that food prices are rising more slowly, but they are still rising. Food bank visits at the time were at about two million per month. Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, who has testified numerous times at committee, predicted another one million new visitors to food banks in 2024. The last number I heard was that we are sitting at 2.3 million visits to the food banks per month. Dr. Charlebois also predicted that food prices for the average family of four would rise $701 this year. The situation we are facing now is the same as when I asked the question. I stated in the premise of the question that both the amount and the type of food Canadians were buying were decreasing. What does that mean? It actually means that the carbon tax is working. The carbon tax is designed by nature to change people's behaviour. That is its purpose. I think about taxes on smoking and tobacco products and taxes on alcohol. They are designed to curb people's behaviour, and that is actually what makes the minister of ECCC's response so bizarre. I asked him to axe the tax, and he responded as follows: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Conservative member for Regina—Lewvan, who recognized that there is absolutely no data to support any link between the price on pollution and higher grocery pricing. In fact, there is no pricing on pollution in the United States of America, and its grocery prices are the same as we have here in Canada. He said that there is simply no link between pricing on pollution and higher grocery prices. First of all, the minister completely mis-characterized the member for Regina—Lewvan's comments. I was in the committee room when the member stated them, and what he stated was in response to the fact that third party data has yet to come up with a single global number for the impact of carbon pricing on our food systems, because we have so many different food value chains that the carbon tax impacts differently. My history is as a processed vegetable grower. There are many greenhouse growers in my riding. There are fresh vegetables and processed vegetables. Even those two simple systems, which are but small examples in our food value chain, have the carbon price impact their inputs differently. Therefore the statement is taken completely out of context. The carbon price is so interwoven in our systems that it is hard to tease out one number, but make no mistake: The carbon tax is driving food prices higher. It is embedded in our grocery prices. I will close with this point. The minister stated that there is no food price difference between Canada and the U.S. I live in Leamington, very near the Detroit-Windsor border. I have talked to colleagues who live between Niagara Falls and Buffalo, Sarnia and Port Huron, and all along the 49th parallel in western Canada. Canadians come back into Canada with American groceries. Americans are not buying groceries in Canada and taking them back to the U.S. I am not going to state that every single food price is cheaper in the U.S. than in Canada, but the majority are, and that is why Canadians are bringing groceries back. The price on carbon has to go, especially on our food system.

649 words

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.)

May/1/24 7:43:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, farmers are the backbone of our country. Their work is difficult, especially with climate change impacts heavily affecting their livelihoods. They face climate change's harsh realities. Drought, wildfires, floods and invasive species are all becoming more prevalent. Most Canadians recognize what the Governor of the Bank of Canada has recognized: that putting a price on pollution is not contributing to inflation. The real cause of energy and grocery cost increases is not the price on pollution. It is driven by world market forces such as the massive supply chain shocks that took place during COVID-19 and Russia's illegal war on Ukraine. I would also remind members opposite that most of the emissions from the agriculture sector are not subject to pollution pricing. We provide exemptions for gasoline and diesel fuel used by farmers in agriculture activities, and there is no price on emissions from livestock. There is also a partial rebate for commercial greenhouse operations. As well, we are returning a portion of the proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in the backstop jurisdictions through a refundable tax credit. This would apply to farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador. We are also creating economic opportunities for farmers that take further action to reduce emissions through Canada's GHG offset credit system. We are standing with our farmers, who are on the front lines facing climate change. As responsible stewards of the land, Canadian producers can lead the way in our transition to a low-carbon economy while supporting food security and environmental sustainability. Just as important, some of these practices may generate positive economic benefits. Canada's approach to carbon pricing reduces pollution at the lowest overall cost to businesses and consumers. It provides an incentive for climate action and clean innovation while allowing businesses and households to decide for themselves how best to reduce emissions. It is a win for farmers, it is a win for the environment and it is a win for Canada. Spreading misinformation will make it harder for us to deal with the real source of the problem, which is climate change. This is why carbon pollution pricing is key. It is one of many tools to address climate change. It cuts emissions. It addresses climate change head on. It sparks new ideas to cut down on pollution. By putting a price on carbon emissions, we are signalling the environmental and societal costs associated with fossil fuel consumption.

422 words

Mr. Dave Epp

May/1/24 7:46:39 p.m.
Watch

That is misinformation, indeed, Madam Speaker. I would invite my hon. colleague to fill the galleries of this hallowed chamber with the farmers who support the carbon tax. I have yet to meet one. The member referenced the farmers in his rebuttal to me. Let me bring up Highline Mushrooms, which is headquartered in my riding. I raised it in my question on February 8. It competes directly with mushroom farms right across the border in Michigan. There is no exemption for mushroom farms, none. They compete head to head. Where does the cost go? It goes to the consumer. The member mentioned the greenhouse industry. By 2030, the greenhouse industry will pay another quarter of a billion dollars in carbon taxes. Where does the hon. member believe that cost goes? That is at a partial exemption. The carbon tax is embedded into our food systems. Yes, on-farm diesel and gasoline are exempted. The rest of the costs are not. None—

163 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/1/24 7:47:44 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Darrell Samson

May/1/24 7:47:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, Canada's approach to carbon pricing is designed to reflect the true cost of pollution, incentivizing a collective move toward less carbon-intensive choices in energy production, home heating and transportation. In provinces where the federal carbon pollution pricing system applies, the majority of fuel charge proceeds go right back into the pockets of individuals and families via the Canada carbon rebate, with the remaining proceeds returned through other programs to indigenous governments and small and medium-sized businesses. Residents in these provinces living in small and rural communities also receive a rural top-up, which Conservatives voted against in Bill C-59, which proposes to double the top-up from 10% to 20%. Our measures balance support and the environment together. It is through this approach that we will—

133 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/1/24 7:48:49 p.m.
Watch

The member's time is up. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill not being present to raise during Adjournment Proceedings the matter for which notice had been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn. The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)

73 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 306