44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/6/24 3:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is really hard to be listening to the debate right now with the level of noise from the Conservative bench. It is like a coffee chat over there while we are trying to do some important work.
I would ask them to please listen.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate thus far. To begin, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding when we are talking about affordability and carbon pricing. I am really wondering what the members opposite are concerned about when talking about affordability.
There was a study that came out of the University of Calgary from an economist. It talked about what would happen if we cancelled the carbon price tomorrow and the rebate that goes along with it. It is not just the carbon price. There is also a rebate cheque that gets sent to people where there is a federal backstop. The economist from the University of Calgary found that, if that were cancelled tomorrow, the people who would benefit the most would be the people who earn over $250,000.
I can only guess, from the fervour that I hear from the other side of the House, that the people they are concerned about, who they really want to make sure have no affordability issues, are the people who earn over $250,000. This study from this economist found that those are the people who would benefit the most from this big push we are hearing of every day to end carbon pricing and the rebates that get sent to people who are paying the carbon price in federal backstop provinces. I would like to have some clarity on that point because it seems perplexing to me.
Today, we are talking about Bill C-234. It is about farming. Farmers feed us. They are such an important part of our community and our country. Agriculture is a cornerstone of rural communities right across our country. When we are talking about this, I think we need to start with that point and recognize the importance of farmers in our country.
When we are talking about this bill, we are actually talking about protecting farming and agriculture right across our country. We are seeing natural disasters, like the atmospheric rivers and the droughts. There is a drought right now that we are hearing about in Alberta, and people are talking about having to reduce their water use. We are talking about wildfires. We saw the atmospheric river that happened in the interior of B.C. That impacted farms. Those were farms that got washed out.
When we are talking about fighting climate change and about taking action on this really important issue, it is not something that is nice to have, but it is essential. We need to do it for our own survival, and we need to do it to support farmers. They are the ones who are bearing the brunt every day, and they are seeing the impacts of natural disasters caused by climate change.
That is why we need to continue to take action. It is also why it is very shortsighted. It is not going to help affordability. It is not going to help our farmers to not take action on climate change. I believe it is really important, when we are looking at this bill and when we are talking about these issues, that we take into account those parts. The last thing I will say on affordability when talking about farming is that, when our farms are impacted by natural disasters, the price of food goes up. That is what we saw. In fact, we saw that with the price of iceberg lettuce when it shot up when natural disasters were happening in California. We see it time and time again.
One of the things we can do best, as a country, if we want to make sure we are protecting farms, our sources of food, while dealing with affordability issues, is to continue to fight climate change and protect our communities from natural disasters.
Let me talk about Bill C-234. The first part of the bill would be redundant because the agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors of the economy under the carbon pollution pricing system. In fact, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act already provides upfront relief from the fuel charge to farmers for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. It also relieves 80% of the fuel charge from natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.
There are now refundable tax credits in place, which return a portion of the fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in the backstop provinces covered by the federal fuel charge. I do not think, in this conversation that we are having, we talk enough about those parts. People would think they do not exist. Let us just remind Canadians that, when we are talking about this bill, there is already relief built into the system to support farming and agriculture.
On the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned to farmers is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas for heating and drying activities. This aims to ensure that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers in the provinces that are backstop provinces.
When I talk about backstop provinces, what provinces am I talking about? The provinces are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Farmers in those provinces are the ones I have been talking about.
Quebec is not covered by the federal backstop. Quebec had a price on carbon pollution before the federal one, so it was actually ahead. The farmers in Quebec, for example, do not pay the federal fuel charge, so they also do not receive the farmers tax credit.
The refundable tax credit for farmers does not undermine the effectiveness of pollution pricing because it does not return fuel charged proceeds according to a farm's actual natural gas or propane use. What it does is put a price on pollution and then it returns a portion of the proceeds to farmers to help farmers transition to ways to lower carbon emissions in farming.
By providing support to farmers, we are also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions. In contrast, Bill C-234 would completely remove the price signal needed for carbon pricing to work by directly relieving the fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities in addition to the existing relief for gasoline and diesel that already exists.
1079 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:48:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hear from the opposite side that they are always talking about the carbon pricing system, half of it, but I do not hear them ever talking about the rebate that people in their communities are receiving.
The average family of four in Alberta would be receiving $386 four times a year, plus, if they are in a rural area, they actually get a rural top-up.
When they are talking with constituents about carbon pricing, are they also asking constituents how they feel about the fact that they are not going to be getting that rebate cheque? That is money right into their accounts, $386, four times a year, plus the rural top-up.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:58:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we expect procurement processes to be properly followed and any person who commits wrongdoing to face the appropriate consequences.
As my colleague knows, the president of the CBSA has referred allegations of misconduct received in 2022 to its professional integrity division, which has been actively working on its administrative investigation since then.
The president of the CBSA has already implemented changes in how the agency manages and oversees procurement. Better controls and oversight have been put in place, including those people with procurement authority in headquarters retaking their training. Also, it is having a senior committee review every task authorization and is centralizing procurement responsibilities within the organization. These controls will be calibrated over time with a fuller of understanding of what happened and why. This will also be informed by the internal review that is ongoing with respect to the contract documents associated with ArriveCAN.
The CBSA has also suspended its contracts with three companies, including GC Strategies, through a stop-work order from Public Services and Procurement Canada. While investigations are ongoing, it is committed to acting on findings from all audits and reviews to inform the future of contractual arrangements. The CBSA will continue to work with PSPC to improve procurement practices and processes.
I will conclude by stating that the current investigations should not in any way undervalue or dishonour the incredible work the frontline border officers and all CBSA employees do every single day to serve and protect Canadian citizens at the border and in support of our country's prosperity.
258 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 8:00:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we understand and take very seriously the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. member. This government is committed to transparency and accountability. The CBSA and the RCMP are investigating the allegations and the government welcomes these ongoing investigations.
The CBSA was fully engaged with the Office of the Procurement Ombud and will implement its recommendations. The agency will also make improvements based on the upcoming report of the Office of the Auditor General and its own internal review of contracting. The president has also already implemented measures to strengthen and improve procurement processes and internal controls.
I assure all Canadians that the government will continue to prioritize efficiency, accountability and transparency in the management of public resources.
121 words
- 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
- Feb/6/24 8:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going back to the main issues I spoke about. This is about fairness and making sure that we are protecting Canadians right across this country from natural disasters that are impacting their homes and their livelihoods.
We are taking actions. These actions include the carbon pricing system and others as well, which are so important as part of an entire, cohesive system that works together. We are going to keep on standing up for Canadians and fighting climate change. I hope that the members opposite will join us in that.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 8:14:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to focus on the part the member opposite raised that concerns carbon pricing because that was the subject of this Adjournment Proceedings question. Therefore, while I have a lot of respect for the member opposite, I will ask him to seek his answers about the Indigenous Services Canada issues he is raising at another time.
When we are talking about carbon pricing, I appreciate the question he has raised. I just want to talk a bit about the way the carbon pricing system works, where there is a federal backstop such as in Ontario. The federal carbon price is revenue-neutral, with proceeds from the federal carbon pricing system being returned to the jurisdiction where they are collected. Provinces and territories that requested the federal system receive these proceeds directly; they can use it as they see fit. However, in other jurisdictions, which would be like those in Ontario, the federal government is returning proceeds to individuals, families, business owners, farmers and indigenous governments through direct payments and targeted programs. This helps make the carbon pricing more affordable and enables households to make investments to increase energy efficiency to further reduce emissions.
The question that the member had raised was specifically regarding indigenous communities, so I do want to address that piece. The Government of Canada recognizes the unique circumstances of first nations, Inuit and Métis people and is returning 1% of the fuel-charge proceeds to indigenous governments in jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge programming is in effect. A total amount of $282 million, representing 1% of the proceeds collected from 2020-21 to 2023-24, is being returned to indigenous governments in eight provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Environment and Climate Change Canada is working collaboratively with first nations in Ontario, including the Chiefs of Ontario, on the process to transfer $160.6 million in fuel charge proceeds to indigenous governments in Ontario specifically.
The Government of Canada's objective is to return these proceeds in a way that supports economic reconciliation and that helps to strengthen indigenous-Crown partnerships on climate action. The Government of Canada acknowledges the concerns that the Chiefs of Ontario and other indigenous partners have raised and continues to explore potential solutions to address the impacts of carbon pricing on first nations, Inuit and Métis people.
404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 8:17:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canada has repeatedly heard from first nations that ambitious global and domestic action is needed to address climate change. It recognizes the importance of first nations climate leadership and the need for the federal government to support self-determined action to advance climate priorities. That is why Canada has committed to advancing first nations climate leadership as the cornerstone of Canada's response to climate change.
In collaboration with the Chiefs of Ontario and other first nations partners from across Canada, we are working together to develop a first nations climate leadership agenda. It is an important opportunity to develop a joint road map on how to improve Canada's partnership with first nations on climate, and it will enable us to meaningfully implement the declaration in our climate action.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
