SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 69

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22
Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I listened carefully to the previous speech and I want to reassure my colleague that we fully support the pollution pricing principle. It is an important principle, because polluting has to cost something. However, this tax is supposed to be an incentive. We do not want to tamper with the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. That is not what we want to do. However, we think that exempting certain farm fuels from the tax is the right thing to do. The bill before us today was already debated in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-206. Everyone remembers that. A democratic vote was held by the political parties that hold a majority in the House in the context of a minority government. It passed third reading. However, just before it was passed in the Senate, the Liberal government decided to call an election, which means that we have to start the entire process all over again. I want to take the opportunity this evening to say that I think that is unacceptable. That was an undemocratic move. If we need to start over, then let us start over. The main principle of Bill C‑234 is simple enough. The carbon tax puts a price on pollution to encourage people to make the transition. However, we need alternatives if we want people to make the transition. That is the problem. Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I have been hearing conversations since I started my speech.
272 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 69 - May/11/22
Mr. Yves Perron
Madam Speaker, what I was saying is that it is an incentive. For an incentive to lead to a transition, there needs to be a possibility for change. If I decided to buy a sports utility vehicle with a V8 engine to drive home from my work when I do not need it, it would make a lot of sense to tax the vehicle to encourage me to buy an electric vehicle or a smaller one. I would be in favour of such a measure. However, I would not support such a measure being applied to grain producers who absolutely have to dry their grain. To begin with, we have to look at the basic context of North American agriculture. We do not have the same climate as our competitors. At harvest time, the grain often has to be dried. If the grain is wet when harvested, there is no choice but to dry it; otherwise it cannot be stored. There is no other way to dry grain that is as efficient, as fast, and less polluting as with propane. That is what this measure is all about. I hope that my clarifications at the beginning of my speech reassured people about my party's intentions. The Bloc is in favour of taxing pollution. We are in favour of transition measures. However, in this case, we must also act wisely. If we put a tax on fuel we will see real repercussions: Either we reduce our agricultural producers’ margin, which is already very small because they do not control the selling price of products sold on international markets, or we increase the sale price of the product. This measure will not reduce pollution. We need to act where it counts. Where it counts is in oil, natural gas, deposits and new projects. Where it counts is in not approving the Bay du Nord project, for example. I want someone to promise me that the oil sands development will be scaled back because the Bay du Nord project was approved, but that is not what we are hearing. We need to act where it counts. I spoke earlier about the bills that failed because the Prime Minister called an election. There was Bill C-206. The conversations in the House distracted me a bit, but I also wanted to mention that the bill respecting supply management was at the end of the process. We will also reintroduce that bill. What Bill C-234 does is quite simple: It changes the definition. There are already exemptions for farming fuel because there is no alternative, and natural gas and propane are simply being added. We will not be polluting more because we are adapting this bill. We are going to ensure that we do not hike the costs of agricultural production. Agriculture is the basis for everything else. That is the big difference. As members know, the bill does not affect Quebec directly. In Quebec we have a parallel system, the carbon exchange. In theory, farmers are exempted from the carbon exchange, but they still feel the indirect impact, because when they purchase fuel, part of the costs incurred by the major companies is passed on. There are claims for that, but that is managed by Quebec. Nevertheless, our farmers in Quebec tell us that we need to pass Bill C-234 because it is the right thing to do. It is what our farmers need. Therefore, that is what we will do. The principle behind our support is a fair transition. I could draw a parallel with products, for example, pesticides used in fields. My colleagues know that this is a sensitive issue, and that the Bloc Québécois was among those who reacted vigorously last July when there was a rather sneaky attempt to increase limits during the construction holiday in the hope that no one would notice. This issue is a very sensitive one for us. However, before taking a product off the market, we need to make sure there is an alternative and look into what will happen after that. Sometimes we must act prudently, but we should still use common sense and go even further. What does going further mean? It could mean establishing the famous environmental partnership I keep talking about. What is this environmental partnership? We are asking our farmers to make an effort to reduce their environmental footprint. That is fine. They are essential to us, and they almost always volunteer to do the right thing. However, we will be asking them, for example, to stop farming a buffer strip they have been harvesting for 25, 30, 40, 50 years or more. We are asking them to give up part of their income for the common good. That is fine, since it is the right thing to do. What is not fine is imposing this burden entirely and solely on these farmers when the entire community benefits. I think we need to provide direct support for these measures and compensate farmers fairly. This will provide a considerable incentive for our farms to improve their performance on the ground. This is not my first time saying this in the House, but I am convinced that we need to trust our people and decentralize these funds. Some programs are well designed and make sense. Consider, for example, the on-farm climate action fund, which is a step in the right direction. However, we need to stop asking farmers to fill out huge forms when the government decides it needs them. We must decentralize these decisions. For example, the amounts we would pay to compensate the non-use of a buffer strip or its reforestation would be deposited in an account, a bit like the AgriInvest program. That way, the entrepreneur, in this case the farmer, would have access to it for the next technological innovation. Two years later, the farmer could use that money to build a new stable using geothermal energy. That would be another innovation made at the right time, and we could provide compensation so he could have that money for the next innovation. None of the farmers I have met want to pollute. They are the first victims of floods and droughts. Members will recall how bad things were in the west last summer. Farmers are aware of that and they have always been aware, long before these problems arose. They work on the land all week long. They understand the situation far better than we do. We need to trust them. Let us make the compromise proposed in Bill C-234 and provide financial relief for our farmers for a limited time. Let us foster the transition.
1119 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border