44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/6/24 5:20:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, yes, thefts did increase in 2023. However, contrary to what the Conservatives may say, Bill C‑5 did not abolish minimum sentences for car theft; not at all. The Conservatives can claim all they want that it is not enough, but there is a major problem with their statement. It was the Conservatives who added section 333.1 with Bill S‑9 in 2010. The accusations and attacks need to stop. We need to act quickly.
What does my colleague think? We have to deal with this car theft situation. Sooner or later, it could be mine or his that gets stolen. We need to act quickly.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:21:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, mandatory minimums do change with time. I will remind the House that it was not long ago that Internet luring, a defence I believe should have life imprisonment, was at five years. The hon. member for Abbotsford had to petition to get it to 10 years, and then under the Harper government it went to 14 years. I believe there was no mandatory minimum before the Harper government imposed it.
However, times change. Right now, auto theft, as the hon. member mentioned, is up substantially. She asked whether we have to address this quickly. We do have to address this quickly, because it is not working. We want to look at this issue as a whole. People say that it was like this eight years ago, but car theft was not like this eight years ago, and changing times require changing measures, and they require changing minimums.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:22:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives are always focused on tough-on-crime approaches and they are calling it common sense, but I think it is nonsense, and I will tell members why.
We know that recidivism rates for people who are incarcerated are higher than 80%. It costs over $225,000 a year to incarcerate one woman in a federal penitentiary. It costs well over $125,000 to incarcerate one male. I am wondering why the Conservatives want to waste all this money on solutions that we know do not work instead of investing those multimillions to billions of dollars into dealing with the root causes of crime.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:23:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague's comments, and I would agree with her that we do have to address the causes of crime. However, where I would part company is when she said that Conservatives were tough on crime. I do not know if that is the characterization I would use, but rather we are tough on certain crimes.
Something our leader has emphasized is the idea of recovery. What does recovery do? It addresses substance abuse, which is often at the root cause of crime. So, the two are not mutually exclusive. I would suggest that we can address serious crime and also address recovery, because when we address serious crime and that which it is impacting—
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:23:35 p.m.
- Watch
We must resume debate.
The hon. member for King—Vaughan.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:24:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick.
After eight years of the Prime Minister's soft-on-crime policies, we see crime, chaos, drugs and disorder rampaging through our streets. In our major cities, the spike in car theft since 2015 is extreme, increasing by 300% in Toronto. The Liberal government's dangerous catch-and-release policies have unleashed crime and chaos in our communities. The Prime Minister's reckless Bill C-5 allows for house arrest of these criminals, even those with long rap sheets. This means that they just walk out onto the streets and continue committing more crimes.
Increasing crime has been very troubling in the riding of King—Vaughan. I have to acknowledge Joe from @notonjoeswatch, a large social media page based in the city of Vaughan. He produces a page informing constituents of where the crimes are proceeding.
Over the past year, in Vaughan, which I represent, break and enters have increased by 45%, vehicle thefts by 30%, assaults by 13.8%, sexual violations by 11% and robberies by 10%. These are scary statistics, which are causing many in my riding and across the country to live in fear. I have heard many scary stories from my riding and around Canada. People are getting their doors kicked in, their houses robbed and their cars stolen. Crime is up and people are scared.
Recently I toured a neighbourhood in Kleinburg. They had to hire a security service company to protect their homes and cars, to the cost of $5,000 per household, which totals in excess of $200,000 a year, not included in their property taxes. How ridiculous is that? We need to ensure that we can protect our citizens based on the security of what we now feel is weak.
The Leader of the Opposition, who, by the way, for those who are not aware, will be our next prime minister, will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
333 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:27:02 p.m.
- Watch
Order. It being 5:27 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is as follows.
May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion to the House]
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:29:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:29:53 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 7, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada.
This bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the House.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:30:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:42 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:31:05 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight and pursue the discussion of a very complex piece of legislation. It did not start out being complex, when our colleague initially put it forward as Bill C-234, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. Of course, this is the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act as it relates to on-farm use of fossil fuels. It has now been amended in the Senate to exempt one of the larger uses of fossil fuels on farms. Of course, farm communities are not pleased; however, I wanted to step back.
This piece that would now be exempted under the Senate amendments is the on-farm use of propane fuel for grain drying. In other words, activities that take place in buildings are now no longer exempt from the fossil fuel exemption that came through in the first version of Bill C-234. As the Green Party members and I voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity, if I may, to explain why we voted that way and what I think we should do for a fundamental reconsideration of the way we price carbon on farms so that it has some intellectual and scientific coherence.
Let me first start with why we voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration. I recall really clearly when carbon pricing came forward, which we favour, to be very clear. We think we have to monetize carbon. If we treat pollution as something free, nobody will pay attention to what it really costs society, what it really costs humanity to treat the atmosphere as if it were a large, free garbage dump for our pollution. That is clearly not acceptable. We moved forward, accepting that there would be, unfortunately, a patchwork, because some provinces had already moved forward.
British Columbia brought in Canada's first carbon tax, a well-constructed and logical revenue-neutral approach to carbon pricing. There have been changes, and some provinces brought in their own versions. What the current Liberal government brought forward was essentially a backstop; for those provinces that did not have their own systems, the federal government brought in a carbon price that would apply everywhere to try to equalize the pricing among all the different provinces and have a system that remained revenue-neutral.
British Columbia brought in the revenue-neutral carbon tax under the government of previous premier Gordon Campbell, who pretty much represented the right wing of B.C. politics. Nevertheless, it was a really well-designed carbon price. The revenue-neutral part of it was that, as British Columbians, we got tax cuts that were how we received what citizens now actually receive as a rebate check in those backstop provinces. This became a bit more complicated than it perhaps needed to be.
When the Liberals brought this in, they said they were not going to apply it on farms; farmers would not have to pay the carbon tax. At least, that was how it was communicated. When farmers realized that they were not paying a carbon tax on the diesel they put in their tractors or the farm equipment they use, but they were paying a big one on grain drying, they became quite concerned. That is the source of Bill C-234. We felt, in principle, that once the farming community has been told that carbon tax will not apply to them, one should stick to that.
It also happened that, because of the climate crisis, the need for grain drying increased. This is one of those things that may sound counterintuitive, of course, but we had what farmers in the Prairies referred to as “the harvest from hell” that winter. I am going to back up and say that I know it is not the first time we have ever had the need for grain drying. We have had wet harvests before. It was not a novelty, but it was particularly bad. They were still trying to get crops out of the fields when there was snow on them. Grain drying became much more intense, and the use of propane for grain drying actually increased. That is when farmers said, “Well, wait a minute. We were supposed to be exempt from carbon pricing.”
Before diving into what has happened to Bill C-234 since then, I want to step back and ask this: If we wanted to monetize carbon and, preferably, keep farmers who are essentially land stewards on board with the need to respond to the climate crisis, how would we do that? I would say that the reason farmers should be particularly on board with measures to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid an ever-worsening climate crisis is that, if there is one economic sector that is a big loser and at risk in a world of climate crisis, it is agriculture. In the Prairies now, there is a multi-year drought. Some of my friends who are farmers on the Prairies say not to call it a drought. They say to call it “aridification”, because it is just going to keep getting drier as a result of climate trends and global warming.
With respect to the impact on the cost of food, we talk about inflation in grocery prices, and a good chunk of that is the impact on certain agricultural products because of extreme climate events. Whether droughts or floods, extreme weather events wipe out certain kinds of food. The price of vanilla went sky-high because of the impact of storms hitting Madagascar, as but one example. Of course, grains all around the world started costing a lot more because of a combination of Putin declaring war on Ukraine and crop failures caused by extreme climatic events.
As someone who wants to see us all pull together, it was distressing that one component of Canadian society would be alienated from efforts to act on climate by what felt like and, I have to say, looked like a betrayal on a promise. This component is severely impacted by the climate crisis and, therefore, should be onside with doing something to keep it from becoming ever worse; at the same time, it is a part of our society that plays a big role in how carbon is sequestered. If the Liberals say they are not going to apply carbon taxes on farms, then farmers are surprised to be paying a walloping carbon tax, how did that happen? I am sorry to say this to my Liberal friends, but it is because the Liberals do not really understand a lot about farming; when they made the promise, they did not realize that fossil fuels used on farms were largely used in buildings to dry grain.
It is fine to exempt tractors and on-farm equipment, but here we come to the crux of what I wish we had done, which we could perhaps still do: We can enlist farmers as the creative land stewards they are, as farmers sequester carbon through their practices and on-farm activities, such as zero-tillage agriculture, getting rid of summer fallow, and making sure they are doing more perennial and fewer annual crops. Farmers are massively effective at sequestering carbon in soil, and guess what? We talk about planting forests as a way of sequestering carbon and carbon sinks in forests. Those things are real; that is true.
However, right now, and largely because of climate change, our grasslands are better at sequestering carbon than our forests are. Why? The soils hold an enormous quantity of carbon. Climate conditions causing forest fires wipe out the carbon we were sequestering in forests, releasing it by the millions of tonnes into the atmosphere. It is not just in the summer; every province in this country started having wildfires that were out of control in the spring, in May of last year, and all the way through late fall and some into the winter. When forests burn, we lose all the carbon.
Here is something interesting, and scientists are looking at this a lot: When grasslands burn, we do not lose all the carbon. Most of that carbon is stored well below the soil, in the root systems that do not burn. Therefore, if we are offsetting for greenhouse gas, I generally think we are better not to plant a tree but to plant a billionaire; I usually say that in jest, just to make sure everybody understands that. We are better off protecting the grasslands.
Where ecosystems exist with grasslands, it is better to sustain them and keep them robust, which means this: What if, instead of just having carbon pricing on the fuel they burn, we pay farmers for every tonne of carbon they sequester? What if we had an actual balance sheet on carbon pricing, thanking and rewarding farmers who have taken on board protecting ecological services, such as wetlands, protecting biodiversity and making sure they are restoring the health of soil, improving the profitability and the health of the food, and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere?
I say thanks to farmers.
1537 words
All Topics
- 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
- Feb/6/24 5:46:05 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask members to please refrain from trying to ask questions and make comments when someone has the floor. The hon. member knows that if he were speaking, he would want the respect of the House. He should give the same to the hon. member.
The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would note that Canada's emissions have dropped by a bigger percentage than those of any other G7 country since 2019.
It is true that one amendment would remove the relief associated with heating or cooling a building or similar structure used for raising or housing livestock or growing crops, but the relief for grain drying would remain, as would amendments to expand qualifying farm fuels to include natural gas and propane. The government does not believe that making it free to pollute is the right way to proceed.
We are taking action where it makes a real, positive difference in supporting farmers to make cleaner choices. As part of our strengthened climate plan and the 2030 emissions reduction plan, the Government of Canada has committed over $1.5 billion to accelerate the agricultural sector's progress on reducing emissions, while remaining a global leader in sustainable agriculture. This includes almost $500 million for the agricultural clean technology program to create an enabling environment for the development and adoption of clean technology that will help drive the changes required to achieve a low-carbon economy and promote sustainable growth in Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. This program is helping Canadians in the agricultural sector to innovate and to adopt clean technologies.
Farmers are taking action. They have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques that can help reduce emissions and save them both time and money. I have seen it in my riding with local companies; Terramera, for example, has been partnering with Microsoft to share information on precision agriculture at landscape scale. I have seen the sustainable farming practices being implemented locally that are making a big difference on climate change and on water use. The government is continuing to take action to support them.
Budget 2022, for example, provided $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program, cost-shared with provinces and territories, to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and to address other environmental co-benefits. It also provided $100 million to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero emission agriculture, and it provided $469 million to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.
Budget 2022 also renewed the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture, including federal-only programs and programs developed in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. Each year, these programs provide about $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. The Canadian agricultural partnership also includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2.3 billion of support, on average, per year. These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.
Our pollution pricing system is simply about recognizing that pollution has a cost, and about encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. The federal government does not keep any direct proceeds from pollution pricing under this system. Canada's approach to pollution pricing is not only one of the best ways to fight climate change; it also puts more money back into the pockets of Canadians. The direct proceeds from the federal pollution price are returned in the jurisdiction from which they were collected, to help with cost of living challenges while keeping the incentive to pollute less.
As 2024 kicks off, the Government of Canada reiterates its commitment to pollution pricing and its crucial role in meeting targets to cut emissions to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Estimates show that pollution pricing will contribute about a third of the total reductions in emissions that will occur between now and 2030. Putting a price on pollution and returning the bulk of the proceeds through rebates provides support not just for farmers but also for consumers and businesses, while also maintaining an incentive to reduce emissions.
Canada has been a world leader in fighting climate change through pollution pricing, and we should not do anything that would undermine this achievement, as Bill C-234 would for the reasons I have set out today. I am thankful for the opportunity to make the government's position on this piece of legislation clear.
747 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we are here tonight debating Bill C-234 again. Why are we? It is because the Liberal-appointed senators voted to gut the bill from its original form to prevent it from passing. The panicking Liberals are resorting to every trick in the book, trying desperately to prevent farmers from getting a carbon tax carve-out for drying grain, heating barns and other farm operations. This is ahead of the Prime Minister's plan to increase the carbon tax on April 1 by 23% as part of the NDP-Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax.
Farmers in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and from across this great country made their voices known to senators loud and clear by writing, calling and emailing their offices. They have done so with MPs as well over the course of the last two years that we have been seeing this important bill make its way through the parliamentary process.
Despite the farmers' best efforts to voice their concerns and let senators know that they need to pass the bill in its original form in order to bring the much-needed financial relief to their cost of growing food, and despite the testimony that was heard from industry about how the carbon tax will eventually price most farmers out of business while increasing the cost food for Canadians, Liberal senators instead gutted the bill and sent it back to this place for reconsideration.
This begs the question “Why?”. What possibly could have influenced Liberal senators to gut the bill when the overwhelming evidence shows that if the bill is not passed, the cost of production for farmers will keep rising and thus will continue to drive up the cost of food for Canadians?
The Liberals have denied trying to influence their so-called independent senators; however, as it turns out, the environment minister has actually admitted to calling senators and asking them to keep the carbon tax on. I will read into the record an exchange the environment minister had on December 14, 2023, at the environment committee:
Mr. Dan Mazier: Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?
Hon. [Minister]: Can you repeat the question, please?
Mr. Dan Mazier: Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?
385 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 5:53:42 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member mentioned the name of a member. I would remind members not to do that.
The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
My apologies, Madam Speaker.
I will continue with the exchange.
[The hon. minister]: I had conversations with five or six senators, yes.
[The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa]: ...five or six senators. What are their names?
[The hon. minister]: I don't have the names with me.
[The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa]: Can you table those?
[The hon. minister]: I'm sure we can make those available.
[The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa]: Okay, thank you.
Theenvironment minister did table with the committee three names of senators he spoke with, but only three names. However, the minister said that he spoke with six senators, so it begs the question who those other three senators are that the minister spoke with. This is just another example of a Liberal cabinet minister politically interfering when they want to get their own way.
No matter what the Liberals say about the senators they have appointed, it proves they are not independent. On this side of the House, we know that nothing about this bill needs to be reconsidered and that this bill must be sent back to the Senate in its original form.
No matter what happens with this bill right now, if Conservatives form government, Canadians can rest assured that we would axe the carbon tax for everyone. Farmers would have this reprieve because we know this carbon tax does nothing to reduce emissions; it only harms Canadians' ability to afford the nutritious foods they need to feed their families and makes everything more expensive.
If the NDP-Liberals refuse to support Bill C-234 in its original form, they would send a very clear message to farmers in particular. The message they would send is that they do not care about how their carbon tax negatively affects Canadians and contributes to rising food costs. They would show, sadly, how out of touch they are with Canadian farmers.
Being involved in the business of fresh produce and farming, I have first-hand knowledge of how the carbon tax increases the costs and makes the cost of food go up. I am passionate about farming to my core; I am sure everyone can see that. Agriculture is the backbone of the area where I grew up and is the backbone of the communities that I have the honour and privilege of representing here in this place. There are lots of different kinds of farming in my area, including grain farming, poultry farming, which includes turkey and chicken, as well as greenhouse farming and vegetable growing. There is a cost associated with that to the farmers who grow grain and who raise the poultry for market, and greenhouse growers as well are especially affected by the carbon tax.
Many farmers in my area have to use propane or natural gas to heat their barns or to heat their greenhouses, and it might be a surprise, but vegetable farmers heat their barns too while they are storing things. Not only that, they have to heat barns in order to dry onions enough to store them. One thing they all have in common is that, on their most recent gas bill, the carbon tax charge was higher than the actual gas charge. That is outrageous.
A greenhouse grower in Ontario recently told me about the devastating impact the carbon tax would have on their greenhouse operation. They told me the average farmer who grows in greenhouses has anywhere from 50 acres to 100 acres. They did the calculation of the carbon tax they pay now and calculated what the NDP-Liberal government's quadrupling of the carbon tax would do.
If the carbon tax quadruples, they would pay $50,000 per acre in carbon tax alone. That is $50,000, so a 50-acre farm would pay $2.5 million in carbon tax and a 100-acre farm would pay $5 million in carbon tax. They would have no choice but to pass those costs on to consumers. Common sense tells us Canadian families would pay more at the store. When the carbon tax rises so does the cost of production for farmers and producers. If it costs the farmer more to grow the food and the trucker more to ship the food, it would cost Canadian families more to buy the food.
Farmers are affected by the uncertainties of weather, and this is not new. Farmers have always been affected by weather. Every year, the climate changes. It is now winter in much of Canada, but soon, it is going to spring. Then it is going to be summer, and then it is going to be fall, and then it is going to be winter again. The uncertainty of the weather means sometimes farmers have to harvest their crops before they are dry.
For the last few decades, our farmers have had the option of using grain dryers. Farmers can take a crop off when it is still a little wet, they can bring it to the right moisture content in a propane or natural gas-fired grain dryer. It will dry it so the moisture content comes down. However, right now, there is no alternative to natural gas or propane grain dryers.
I want to remind my colleagues across the way that we live in Canada, and we experience wide ranges of temperatures. I know most of the Liberals are from Toronto and they do not get out to other parts of Canada, but it does regularly get to be -40° or colder.
Many chicken farmers have to heat their poultry barns throughout much of the year with propane or natural gas, because it is a humane necessity to keep birds alive.
Farmer Brian, a large chicken farmer in my riding, wrote to me and gave me his natural gas bills for one of his many chicken barns. For a period of 12 months in 2023, he paid almost $16,000 in carbon tax alone, just to heat one barn. That is just one barn, and the carbon tax is going to quadruple.
The carbon tax is going to rise again on April 1. The NDP-Liberals want to quadruple the tax. That is going to increase the cost of food. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it clear that this bill would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, which would reduce the cost of food for Canadian families that are currently struggling to afford groceries.
The profit margins for most Canadian producers are very narrow, and there is very little room for additional input costs. For Canadian farmers, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is an input cost on their production. Most producers are price takers, not price setters. That means that farmers have no way of recovering what they pay in the NDP-Liberal carbon tax from the next stage of the supply chain.
To be clear, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax takes from most Canadian farming families' profits, which reflects on the Canadian families' standard of living. I have said it before, it is not rocket science. If it costs farmers to grow food and truckers more to ship food, it is going to cost Canadian families more to buy food.
The existing carbon tax exemption for farmers' use of gasoline and other fuels raises another question related to science and math. The science says that natural gas and propane are the least-emitting sources available for heat.
Will the NDP-Liberals send this bill back to the Senate unamended, in its original form and let us get this bill passed for Canadian farmers so that they could have this tax relief from the carbon tax?
1288 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
