- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Chatham-Kent—Leamington
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $153,134.70
- Government Page
- Nov/8/23 2:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians are seeing the Liberal-NDP government for what it is. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. He continues to divide Canadians over the carbon tax. He still plans to quadruple the tax on home heating, gas and groceries for 97% of Canadians, but he decided to pause the tax for 3% of families in areas where he was plummeting in the polls and where Liberal MPs were revolting. The Liberal rural affairs minister said that if people in other regions want to have the same pause, they should elect more Liberals. Is that politics or policy?
The people in Thunder Bay—Superior North did elect a Liberal MP, yet her constituents are not getting the pause. Why did she not use her influence with the Prime Minister to bring relief to her constituents? Why did the Prime Minister not allow the MP for Thunder Bay—Superior North to freely vote to take the tax off the heat and keep the heat on for her constituents?
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's raising grocery costs. Let us put some things on the record here: The day after the photo op with the five retailers, the retailers decreed to their suppliers, starting with the largest one and the second ones following suit, that they would accept no price increases from their suppliers for the next 12 months. The PBO's analysis of the carbon tax is not specific around food inflation. It is a general analysis. Food production is energy intensive.
If this hon. colleague were to convince his government partners to put a profits tax that would take the entire retail profit into the form of a tax into government coffers, that would lower the cost of groceries from a $25 set to $24, which is 4%.
With carbon tax being applied to the farmer, to the trucker and to every step of the process, with retailers saying they will not absorb it and there are no price increases, who should pay that carbon tax? Is it the farmer, the supplier to the farmer, the trucker or the distributor?
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 2:49:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government's policies are akin to death by a thousand taxes as Canadians watch their life savings bleed away. Gas prices are draining their bank accounts, as Liberal carbon tax 1 adds 41¢ per litre and Liberal carbon tax 2 adds another 17¢ per litre. However, do not forget that, just like adding salt to this open wound, the government's GST is a tax on a tax on a tax. This combination will add a whopping 61¢ to the price per litre of gas for Canadians.
I ask this again: When will the minister get the facts and stop the tax?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 3:01:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister likes the carbon tax so much that he created a second one. Carbon tax 1 is already inflating the price of groceries. It is going to cost a family of four more than $1,000 more in this coming year. Carbon tax 2 is only going to make that worse. Food bank use is already at record highs with one in five families skipping meals. Now a family farm will face up to $150,000 more in taxes by the time this carbon tax is through.
When will the Prime Minister get the facts and stop the tax?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:00:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I noticed at the beginning of my hon. friend's speech that he listed a litany of external reasons we are experiencing inflation. None of them are attributable to the government.
Since the government has added half a trillion dollars in debt, how much more debt does he think it would take for it to actually have an effect on inflation, if half a trillion is having no effect?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:25:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I recall, it was a Conservative government that put the truth and reconciliation recommendations in place, and it is the Liberal government that has not followed through. I will gladly support clean drinking water for every first nation, but there were 1.5 million trips to the food bank by Canadians.
Every single Canadian eats. This opposition day motion would reduce the cost of food and would not hinder our environmental targets. I will support ensuring that every Canadian eats.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:22:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as stated earlier, we are not opposed to having incentives or disincentives placed on large emitters where it makes sense, where there are options and where there are other practices that can lead to a reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. A carbon tax is not that plan across the food value chain.
That is the point of our opposition motion today. All the carbon tax does is raise food prices for consumers. Of the 2% of greenhouse gas emissions that Canada adds to the world, 8% come from our agriculture. The motion would not impact our climate change targets, and the carbon tax, as it is being presently administered across Canada, will not impact Canada's goals.
Our neighbour to the south has been meeting and will be meeting its climate targets, and there is no carbon tax there. Our agricultural and food systems are so interrelated that we are being made uncompetitive by the additional environmental charge here that is not helping us address our climate targets.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:21:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Newfoundland is very familiar with the fact that the federal government and the provincial governments have different jurisdictions, and with the trepidation that any federal government would have over imposing a tax on the provinces. However, this would certainly help the majority of provinces where there is a federal program and would go a long way in showing leadership. Removing the punishing carbon tax from our food value chain would set the example, and I do not think those provinces would continue with this.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 12:11:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and honour to rise and bring the voice of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place.
I will be splitting my time with my hon. friend and colleague from Thornhill.
Food inflation remains a top priority for Canadians from coast to coast, with almost six million people reportedly living in food-insecure homes in Canada last year. This is per Canada's Food Price Report. This number is expected to be even higher in 2022.
Food inflation is impacted by a number of factors, including general inflation, supply chain issues, geopolitical situations and, of course, internal policies. General inflation in Canada has reached the highest level in decades, as the more the government spends, the more things cost.
We have seen local supply chain issues caused by the global pandemic, and there are global impacts on food, especially fertilizer supply, as a result of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. Yes, these events are not controlled here, but here at home, the Liberal carbon tax continues to drive up the price of all goods, along with all of the other non-pandemic-related spending that the government has chosen to do.
Canada's general inflation rate is 6.9%, the highest it has been in 40 years, and food inflation has exceeded general inflation for 13 consecutive months, with food prices surpassing even the high-end predictions for 2021 to an astonishing rate of 10.3% this past September. This has led to food banks experiencing their highest level of demand in decades.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has had global impacts on food prices through trade restrictions and further supply chain interruptions. This ongoing conflict has especially affected the fertilizer market here in Canada, and more than it should have since Canada should be far more self-sufficient in nitrogen and potassium than it is. We have the national gas here to provide our nitrogen fertilizers, but not the pipelines across Canada to get the gas to eastern Canada. Railcars do some of the cross-Canada shipping of our petroleum products, which ties up and makes more expensive the option of railing potassium to eastern Canadian markets. Saskatchewan is a very large producer of potash, or potassium, but instead of using our own, we have became dependent on imports.
As Russia is also the world's largest exporter of fertilizer and as trade restrictions remain in place, the shortage of fertilizer puts pressure on global prices. However, instead of helping farmers, the government has demonized our farmers' use of fertilizer. The introduction of a fertilizer emissions reduction target of 30% could not have come at a worse time, and this unscientific scheme is not based on any measured baseline data. Progress could not even be directly measured, because there is no base to measure from, nor a way of directly measuring emissions. Canadian farmers are already outproducing the world on sustainability and continue to improve their environmental record, as they are already up to 70% more efficient in fertilizer use than many other countries.
Russia is also the largest gas exporter in the world, meaning that sanctions imposed on Russia by Canada and a number of other countries have placed pressure on other suppliers of gas, once again driving prices up. Higher fuel costs affect food prices in every step of our food value chain, as suppliers are forced to pass along their increased costs at every step up the chain and then, of course, ultimately to consumers.
The government's carbon tax, the subject of today's opposition motion, is yet another factor driving up food costs across Canada, as its exemptions are currently limited to only on-farm fuels and it is still applied in many other areas of the food supply chain. Not only does the carbon tax directly raise costs for Canadians, but it has far-reaching indirect effects as well, especially if the government insists on tripling it. It is important to note that a large part of inflation, and certainly the carbon tax, is the result of internal policies over which the government has control.
In my remaining time, I want to spend some time on an important issue that has been a priority for me since I first became a member of Parliament. It is the role that grocery retailers play in our inflationary challenges.
On the one end, our food supply chain continues to be crippled by the government's cash grab carbon tax, and we are certainly hearing about that in the House today. However, let us look at the other end of this equation and at the role of the large grocery retailers that complete the double whammy of the carbon tax.
The government has the opportunity to address the crisis of food inflation and lower food costs, namely through the implementation of a grocer code of conduct. Farmers are often called the first step in the food value chain. However, the “field to fork” expression is a bit of a misnomer. Farmers have many suppliers, so they are not the first step in the value chain. These suppliers, in turn, incur the carbon tax on many of their products and of course on the transportation of their products to the farm, and these costs are once again passed along to the farmer. Food manufacturers and processors are next, and then on to food distribution, which is either retail or the food service industry. The carbon tax is incurred at each step of this chain, eventually ending on the consumer's lap.
There are two seemingly contradictory statements being bandied about these days. The first is that retailers are seeing record profits. The counter-argument from the industry is that retailer margins have not changed in percentage terms throughout the pandemic. Both these statements can be true, as retail volumes have increased during the pandemic since consumers shopped more retail versus the food service that supplies the restaurants and institutional trade.
The carbon tax, which applies to the delivery of farm inputs and outputs and to the transportation all along the food chain, has increased costs, so retailers, maintaining their margins in percentage terms, which is what they are claiming, are applying this margin to a higher cost from suppliers and to higher volumes generated by the change in the market from consumers shopping retail versus food service. Of course, their profits then set records.
However, there is an opportunity before us that could accomplish many goals if we get it right. When properly implemented, it would result in increased profits for food manufacturers because of fair trading practices and reduced administrative costs in attempting to comply with the many “rules” applied by retailers. It would also lead to reduced costs for the retailers themselves in administering all these programs allegedly used as profit centres. Most importantly, it would reduce food costs for consumers.
Right now, shelf listing fees, fines for short or late deliveries and a host of other administrative exercises are adding costs that eventually end with the consumer paying a higher price. There is certainly an international precedent for such a solution, as the U.K., Ireland and Australia have all gone down this road with varying degrees of success.
Initially, retailers were afraid imposing a code would lead to a reduction in the number of retailers with gross sales meeting the threshold for the application of the code. However, the U.K., since fixing its original attempts, has seen more retailers succeed. At the outset of the program, only 10 retailers reached the threshold of dollar value throughput, but now 14 are large enough, meaning that the code has not driven consolidation.
In addition, and this is very important as well, it would allow the 10,000 independent grocers, which are crucial to so many parts of rural Canada, to be treated on par with the big five that control 85% of the grocery retail trade.
In conclusion, an appropriately structured code results in lower consumer prices and fairer trading practices within the value chain. Punishing farmers with an unscientific fertilizer emission target and applying a carbon tax to almost every step of the food value chain only serve to drive up food prices and drive more Canadians to the food bank.
1389 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/18/22 11:57:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a month ago I asked the current government to give Canadian families a break and cancel the tripling of the carbon tax, which is applied to every step in the transportation of food production, processing and manufacturing. The response from the Minister of Environment was that a carbon tax stops hurricanes. The reality is that, with the storms we now face, there are many things outside of our control, but one option we do have control over is crippling taxation.
Will the minister support Canada's food security by immediately cancelling the tripling of the carbon tax?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure this morning to continue to put some thoughts on the record regarding the fall economic statement implementation act.
Seven years ago, the current government inherited a balanced budget and a robust economy, but instead of maintaining balance or even paying down some debt, let us consider that for a moment, perhaps to prepare for the unknown, such as a pandemic or an unexpected war, it immediately began to add more spending, took the government finances back into a deficit and again started to add to the debt.
Then came the COVID–19 pandemic, which required additional spending. We supported those early programs. However, of the half a trillion dollars, yes, $500 billion, of added debt by the current government, $200 billion was not pandemic-related.
Program spending by the current government is now 30% above prepandemic levels. We now have structural deficits presently embedded in our finances, and of course the more that the government spends, the more things cost.
When the current government came to power seven years ago, it promised transparency. Do members remember “sunny ways”? This is what its own Parliamentary Budget Officer had to say on the transparency of the fall economic statement:
In this year’s FES, the Government identified $14.2 billion in new measures without providing specific details on this spending....
This lack of transparency presents challenges for parliamentarians and the public in scrutinizing the Government’s spending plans, particularly given the magnitude of measures, $14.2 billion—the largest amount announced without specific details since the 2016 [FES].
On top of all the other spending already outlined, the $20 billion, the current government is now asking the House for a $14.2 billion blank cheque. Are these sunny ways? Hardly. We will not be supporting this.
In my remaining time, I want to spend some time on one issue that is not addressed in the fall economic statement.
Last week, I had a series of eight meetings with my own constituents. The primary issue I heard from them was the rising cost of living, particularly the costs of food, fuel and housing. Those are the main things I heard, and in particular, food. Last month, as we are all now aware, there were 1.5 million visits to food banks, that in the country of Canada, a country that is considered a breadbasket.
The FES missed an opportunity to address an issue that has the potential to lower food costs, namely the status of the implementation of a grocery code of conduct.
First, we have heard much in statements in the media today about two seemingly contradictory statements, record grocery retailer profits and the counter-argument from industry that retailer margins have not changed in percentage terms through the pandemic. Both statements can be true, as retail volumes have increased during the pandemic as consumers have shopped more retail versus the food service that supplies the restaurant trade and institutional trade.
Second, the carbon tax, along with other issues, that is applied to the delivery of farm inputs and outputs, and to transportation all up and down the food chain, has increased costs for suppliers. Retailers maintaining their margins in percentage terms are applying this margin to a higher cost of goods from suppliers and to higher volumes generated by the change in market from consumers.
However, there is an opportunity for us to accomplish many goals if we get it right. What do I mean by getting it right? We can increase profits for food manufacturers and processors because of fair trading practices, and we can reduce the administration costs in attempting to comply with the many “rules” applied by retailers in an updated code of conduct. We can reduce administration costs for retailers in all these programs that are allegedly used as profit centres, but most importantly we can reduce consumer food costs.
Right now, shelf listing fees, fines for short or late deliveries and a host of other administrative exercises are adding costs that eventually the consumer pays. The U.K., Ireland and Australia have all gone down this road of a grocery code of conduct. Retailers were afraid that imposing a code would lead to a reduction in the number of retailers with gross sales meeting the threshold for application of the code. The U.K., since fixing its original voluntary attempts, has seen more retailers. It started with 10 and now has 14 retailers meeting the threshold dollar value, so the code has not driven consolidation there.
In conclusion, an appropriately structured code results in lower consumer prices and fairer trading practices within the value chain. In addition, it allows 10,000 independent grocers, who are so crucial for rural parts of our country, to be treated on par with the big five that control 85% of the grocery retailer trade.
The fall economic statement missed an opportunity to advance this issue for Canadians. Instead, the statement adds more government spending, which would only lead to higher inflation over time and the hurting of our most vulnerable citizens. With that I will conclude, and I look forward to questions.
866 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to bring the voices from Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber.
When I started farming professionally some three and a half decades ago, I am not sure if I would have personally supported a measure like the one we are debating today. I would have thought it unnecessary.
I live on a home farm, and I am a third-generation farmer. When my father began farming, everyone was either from the farm, had an uncle on the farm or had a personal farm connection. Today, it is much different.
We often hear of the 80-20 scenario, where 80% of a product or service is delivered by just 20% of a population, those who are providing that service. With food production, farming in particular, if we go back and look at census data, 2% of our Canadian population are farmers. Under the census, that means they produce more than 7,000 dollars' worth of farmed goods per year. In reality, half of 1% of our farmers produce 85% of the production grown on our farms.
If we look in the chamber, there are 338 members. With table officers and others, there are around 400 people on a full day. The means two people would be the represented population.
I do celebrate this day and the opportunity to speak because it provides us an opportunity to educate people and talk about local food. More importantly, we can talk about the whole food chain.
I want to credit Senator Black for his leadership in the Senate and my colleague from Perth—Wellington for shepherding it through this chamber. I also want to credit Anita Stewart from Wellington County who pioneered the first Food Day.
The member for Perth—Wellington said in his speech about a month ago, “Since that first Food Day in 2003, it has indeed grown into a wonderful celebration of the food our farmers grow and the food that all Canadians enjoy every single day, whether at their kitchen tables or at restaurant tables across the country.” I add my voice to that celebration and that encouragement of local production.
I live in a part of the world where we have access to fresh fruits and vegetables produced locally almost 10 months, or even more than 10 months, a year, depending on the vegetable, because of our innovative greenhouse sector.
Our roadside markets are plentiful, with direct lines from the producer to the consumer, which is great. However, for much of Canada, roadside markets are not accessible all year round, especially in the winter. We all know winter is coming.
Canada is a trading nation. We produce so many good foods, but our coffee production and our orange juice production is not top-notch. We do not have access to it and, as Canadians, we cannot eat all the wheat, canola or pork we produce. We are a trading nation. We rely on food chain systems, both here in Canada, for our own domestic production, be it at our kitchen tables or at restaurants, and with our international trade.
I wanted to say that to lead into three points today. The first is that this day offers us an opportunity to enhance food literacy to our general population. We rely on this agri-food value chain to feed us year-round, and because, as I shared earlier, such a small percentage of our population has a true connection to the farm, food literacy has dropped in Canada.
This gives us an opportunity to describe how complex our food system is. Given that it is so complex, and given the times we are in, food is becoming more expensive. September's food inflation rate, year over year, increased 11.4%, and that is growing. Here in Canada compared to much of the world, we are still lucky as Canadians.
In 2020, 11% of our disposable income was spent on food. In 2021, in calculations by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, it was 10.7%. They declare that day one day earlier, on February 8, 2022, when the average Canadian has spent their percentage of disposable income to purchase all the food they needed for the year. I suspect that will be much later in 2023. That is unfortunate for many low-income Canadians.
Why are food costs rising? I can share that the food inflation rate has certainly outstripped general inflation, and yes, the commodity markets are strong. A lot of crops that are negotiated in price relative to the strong commodity markets have also risen at the farm gate. The costs to our farmers have outstripped the prices they have received at the field.
Fertilizer tariffs and shipping costs have sky rocketed. There is an exemption for on-farm gas and diesel, but there is the carbon tax and everything else. There is carbon tax when it is shipped to the farm and on the barns being heated, and the grain is still being dried this year.
I would implore this House to pass Bill C-234. I had the opportunity to speak to it earlier.
Make no mistake. Farmers are conservationists. The fact they need an exemption so they can compete with the rest of the world and reduce the cost of producing food is not a reflection of their ability as conservationists. I could spend a whole 10 minutes just talking about the advances that our farm community has made on that.
I want to touch on another cost driver, labour, which is affecting every sector of our economy. I hear that from our farm community. I want to celebrate the fact that Canada has a temporary foreign worker program. It is critical to so much of our farming sector and is also of great benefit to the host nations from where many of these valuable workers have come. It is one of our best foreign aid mechanisms, and many parts of the world are jealous of this opportunity. Again, I could spend 10 minutes just on that.
Another cost driver is obviously the borrowing costs to finance assets and the growing cost of crops, which is another thing our farmers are facing.
Farmers are often called the first step in our food value chain. This leads me to the third and final point that I wish to make today.
We often hear our food system being described as field to fork, but that is a bit of a misnomer. Farmers are not the first step in our food chain. I note that the bill's title refers to establishing a national food day, not a national farming day. I think it is rightfully titled. As farmers, we have so many suppliers that supply us with our crop inputs and everything from steel to bearings to financing. We are not the first step. I want to acknowledge that. In this food value chain we have in Canada, and actually much of the world, food manufacturers and processors are next, and then it is on to food distribution, whether it be the retail or the food service mechanisms.
We hear two statements being bandied about, “record retailer profits” and “retailer margins are not changing much in percentage terms”, throughout the pandemic. Both those things have been in the news recently. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. Because the pandemic has shifted, somehow much of the food supply has come to our bodies more through home cooking and the grocery retail chains. The volumes being sold through retail have increased and food service has diminished. With increased volumes, even though the margins of our retailers have remained roughly steady within a certain range, between 2% and 4%, the profits have actually increased. Today we are in a state in Canada where we have an opportunity to address some of these mechanisms in our food value chain if we get it right.
What I am talking about is a grocery code of conduct. I had two excellent meetings last week with Restaurants Canada and Food and Beverage Canada. They mentioned labour availability as being their number one issue and talked about the temporary foreign worker program, but that is not where I want to go. Restaurants are telling me the very same things our farmers are experiencing. We have all gone out and noticed that the cost of restaurant meals has also climbed, but their margins are also shrinking because of the cost structures they are experiencing.
A grocery code of conduct actually gives us the opportunity to address some of the behaviours in the food chain, the fines, levies, listing fees, and the like, all those mechanisms that the value of our food production is being transferred from the food processors and manufacturers to the retailers. Manufacturers are spending on administrative costs and keeping an eye on that. Food retailers are spending on administrative costs in that mechanism.
The United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia have all gone down the road of a grocery code of conduct and have actually experienced greater profits throughout the transmission chain of food, the value chain. Most importantly, food costs for consumers have relatively dropped because costs have been stripped out of that system. That is the big point I want to make. Canada has an opportunity to get that right. I want to mention the 10,000 independent grocers across this country that are very critical to our rural fabric.
I know my time is quickly running out. I want to thank the sponsor of this bill.
I would just note that we have inflationary pressures driving up costs. We have an opportunity through a grocer code of conduct to address these inflationary costs.
1634 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 3:01:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when asked, farmers have stated that their number one worry is not the market, it is not the weather, it is not international trade; it is the policies of the federal government.
The delivery of seeds and plants to the farm incurs the carbon tax. The manufacture and delivery of fertilizer incurs the carbon tax. The delivery of farm products to market incurs the carbon tax. The government's plan for the carbon tax is to triple it.
In a time of 10% food inflation, will this government finally give Canadian families a break and cancel this planned tax increase?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 11:20:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member just concluded by stating that we need to use every tool in our tool box to fight climate change. The previous parliamentary secretary stated that Canada's emissions are counted by all of the fossil fuels burned here in Canada. I assume that includes our imported fossil fuels, as well.
Can the hon. member explain then why the price on pollution applies to Canadian-generated natural gas and oil, and not to imports? Is it because they come into eastern Canada versus western Canada? I wonder if he can help me understand why every tool in our tool box does not include a price on carbon on imported fuels.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the chamber and speak on behalf of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington and, indeed, on behalf of agriculture across Canada.
I am also pleased to speak to my colleague from Huron—Bruce's private member's bill, Bill C-234, which affects so many constituents, including our own family farm.
The bill seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by adding natural gas and propane to the list of qualifying farm fuels, and that is for the purposes of both grain drying and heating and cooling farm buildings.
I did have the opportunity to speak to this bill's predecessor, Bill C-206, in the previous Parliament where it was passed, only to die in the other place when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election.
Our farmers are the first environmentalists and our farmers are great competitors. They can hold their own against anyone, but not with one arm tied behind their back. They cannot continue to be first-rate environmentalists when they are hamstrung by policies that their competitors do not face.
Before getting into the specifics of this bill, I wish to remark on four different framing points that will outline where I am going.
One, as I just stated, as individuals, farmers are environmentalists by nature and by necessity. The drive to leave the land in a better condition than when they found it is innate to every farmer that I know. Farmers are environmentalists by necessity. It is the condition of their land, the condition of their flocks and of their herd that supplies the farm family with a return on their labour, on their investments and on their inputs, so it is in their own self-interest to leave the vehicle of their own prosperity in better condition for the next generation.
Two, collectively, agriculture has a strong record of reducing its environmental footprint, be it through the adoption of low till or no till; be it through the refinement of working through nutrients, such as through the lens of the 4Rs, putting the right nutrient at the right place at the right time with the right amount; be it through more intensive use of cover cropping or rotational grazing. Farmers have largely done all of this without regulation and without additional taxation or without an additional government-imposed price signal. I will come back to that point in a moment.
Three, agriculture has a strong record of innovation, of adopting new technologies, such as the use of GPS technology on the farm, the use of variable rate technology in seeding and in crop protection products, robotics in our dairy sector, and climate controls and automation in our greenhouse sector. Believe me, as soon as a viable commercial alternative to fossil fuels is available in rural Canada, farmers will adopt it and quickly, without the stick or a price signal embedded in a tax. That leads me to my final framing point.
Four, by and large, farmers are price takers. They cannot effectively pass along cost-input increases to their buyers.
Let these four points set the stage for my remarks on Bill C-234. When we initially debated its predecessor, Bill C-206, the harvest from hell in 2019 had just occurred in western Canada. That really demonstrated the need for this carbon tax exemption. It was a particularly wet fall where, with frost and rainfall, et cetera, interrupting the harvest, the use of natural gas and propane was required to put the grain into a storable condition.
Farming in Ontario and in eastern Canada requires the use of grain dryers each and every year, particularly for grain corn, but also for soybeans, wheat, canola, oats, et cetera.
When we studied Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament at committee, we did look at alternatives to fossil fuels. In many parts of our economy, electrification is a potential alternative, but given the obvious nature of agriculture being situated in rural Canada and the lack of our grid capacity, this is simply a non-starter.
We also looked at a second option, and that was the use of crop residues as a fuel source. That means gathering them after harvest and then burning them in heaters. While there are some prototypes being trialed, they are simply not available at scale.
Even more problematic with this approach, crop residues are incorporated into the soil or are left on the surface, and they become organic matter for our soils. They sequester carbon and they increase soil organic matter levels, which help both with crop production and our climate goals.
The voluntary adoption of reduced or eliminated tillage provided improvements in soil moisture retention, a reduction of soil erosion and, of course, an increase in carbon sequestration, all without the imposition of a tax. This is something that was not acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.
It does not make sense to apply a tax to reverse the environmental improvements that the farmers put in place voluntarily. However, the question remains, does it make any sense at all to apply such a tax on fossil fuels to increase the agricultural community's focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels? The answer to that is no, for several reasons.
There simply are not commercially viable, scalable alternatives to using natural gas and propane available today, but because there are not viable alternatives, the demand for fuel tends to remain unaffected by price. That makes these additional fuel charges simply an additional tax and an inefficient policy to lower carbon emissions. This very fact was confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The recent budget, which has been alluded to in other speeches here this evening, did put some more funds into the agricultural clean technology fund to upgrade present drying systems to a higher efficiency, but these funds only have the potential to update 500 of the 50,000 grain dryers across Canada. That is 1% of them.
Also, as opposed to granting an exemption from paying the carbon tax, they have proposed in Bill C-8 a rebate program to maintain, in their words, a “price signal” to the farm community to change their ways even though there are no viable alternatives.
I explored with several of my constituents the impact of these two approaches. My riding is a large rectangle and in the northeastern corner, Ron and Francine Verhelle farm with their family. This past year, they needed 89,670 litres of propane to dry their almost 7,000 tonnes of corn. They paid over $5,550 in carbon tax. If the 2022 conditions on their farm are the same, they are anticipating that cost to go up to almost $7,000 this year. Under the Liberal plan, the eligible farm costs on their farm would have to be over $3.2 million using the planned $1.73 per thousand in eligible farm expenses in order for that rebate to recoup their carbon tax cost. Farm input costs are definitely skyrocketing, but fortunately they will not be that high or no farmer will be in business this coming year.
Paul Tiessen and his family farm just down the road from my home farm. They are a third generation grain farm and their total natural gas bill for 2021 to dry 107,000 bushels, or just over 2,900 tonnes, of corn this past year was $10,010, of which almost $2,500 was a carbon tax. Under the Liberal proposal that would have been in place for 2021 rebating back $1.47 per thousand in expenses, they would only get a fraction of their carbon tax cost returns from this past crop.
My final point is simply to call for basic fairness in the marketplace. Our Canadian grain competes directly with American grain. It is priced off of the Chicago Board of Trade. No customer of grain will pay more for Canadian grain because it incurs a carbon tax, not if they can source it from the Americans.
The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act did exempt gasoline and diesel fuel on the farm for this very reason and Bill C-234 is looking to correct the oversight regarding natural gas and propane for grain drying and barn heating and cooling.
Surely if the government cannot control its spending ways, it does not have to use farmers' bank accounts as a cashflow mechanism to finance its own spending. Making farmers pay this carbon tax in the fall and then having them file their taxes the following spring to apply for a rebate, all that does is return a portion of their costs plus now incurring all the administrative costs on the farm and the administrative burden on government to manage this program.
In fact, this past budget estimated that cost for the government alone to be $30 million. What does that do? All that does is serve to increase the size of government and not add any additional value to our climate goals.
In conclusion, I would again urge all members of the House to support passing a bill that removes the potential of being at cross purposes for lower greenhouse gas emissions. Please support the removal of a tax where the users have absolutely no viable options and please support basic inherent market fairness.
1567 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 1:39:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments about agriculture. I would like his opinion on the different approach we are taking to the carbon tax on farm fuels. The government is proposing that the farmers act as the bank account for the government. This is setting aside the fact that $1.73 per $1,000 of expenses does not come close to covering the cost of the carbon tax. What would the member's opinion be on the utility of having the farmers be the bank account for the Government of Canada versus granting an exemption up front?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 12:53:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's raising the request for the guidance documents. I met with representatives from CropLife Canada this morning. They, too, have been looking for them since December 8, so I hope he has the opportunity to encourage the minister to release them very soon.
I want to ask the member more specifically about the price on pollution for fuels, particularly for grain drying. Why does he consider the approach the government is taking in Bill C-8 superior to the one being proposed under Bill C-234? He mentioned that the government wants to keep a price signal. However, when there are no viable alternatives, what is that price signal doing? Is he hearing from his constituents, as I am from mine, that his is the more preferable approach?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
