SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 293 - Mar/21/24

Mar/21/24 4:32:18 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, International Development; the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.

59 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.)

Mar/21/24 4:32:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion, which is an opposition day motion by the Conservative Party of Canada. I stand here today, first and foremost, to speak as the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, the community that has given me the great honour to serve it in the House. As someone who knocks on doors often and speaks to his constituents, as many members in the House do, I can say that fighting climate change is the number one issue that I hear about when I am speaking to my constituents. In fact, I recently sent out a mailer to all my constituents. I am sure many members received it; many of them live in my riding when they are here working on behalf of their constituents. It was a pre-budget consultation document; I like to reach out to as many constituents as possible, asking them to share their thoughts on what should be included in the upcoming budget. I got thousands of responses back, both on paper and online. We just went through and analyzed the information that we received, and the number one issue that was highlighted was climate change. They wanted Parliament and the Government of Canada to do more to fight climate change to make sure we are reducing emissions and doing more for that. In that commentary, I did not hear issues around the price on pollution; I heard a request, need and demand to do more. I admit that affordability was also one of the issues recognized. Better health care was another issue that was part of the feedback received. However, climate change, and fighting climate change, was the number one issue. I am a very factual guy, and I want to discuss the issue around the price on pollution in a factual way. What we are debating right now, and Conservatives are entitled to oppose this system, is identifying that carbon is a pollutant that is causing global warming and that greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced in order to effectively fight climate change. Moreover, from an economics perspective, putting a price on pollution is the best way to help change people's behaviour and ensure people are not using products that cause pollution. That is basically what this scheme is. It is to ensure that the way we incentivize solutions that are less carbon intensive and cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions is by making the use of fossil fuels more expensive. Therefore, we have chosen a mechanism that puts a price on pollution. As we heard when the member for Vaughan-Woodbridge mentioned it earlier, the federal government's scheme is just a backstop. The provinces and territories are free to have their own mechanisms. In fact, someone mentioned the province of Ontario. I had the honour of serving at the provincial level when we brought in a cap and trade system in Ontario, putting a price on carbon that way. In fact, it was the same system that exists in Quebec and in California, and we actually engaged in a carbon trading mechanism. Premier Doug Ford, who is a Conservative, got rid of that system. However, if it were in place today, there would be no price on pollution in Ontario. The provincial system would have prevailed, as is the case in Quebec and in British Columbia. As such, this particular price on pollution mechanism exists as a backstop only for those provinces and territories where there is no price on pollution. That is point number one. The price on pollution is in place in order to help incentivize innovation, change people's behaviour and have them move away from using more carbon-intensive or fossil fuel-intensive products. We recognize that this price on pollution will cause some hardship for those who do not have that much disposal income and that the cost of certain things will go up as a result, as the transition is being made. However, this is why the second element of this program or this scheme is really important. That is the Canada carbon rebate. At the end of the day, Canadian families and the consumer are paying the price on pollution. The rebate makes sure that the money collected goes back to Canadians, so that they are not left behind. That aspect is really important. The Canada carbon rebate goes to 80% of Canadian families, and in my province of Ontario, a family of four receives $1,120 per year. That is about $280 every quarter that they are receiving in order to offset the cost that they may be paying in the price on pollution. We have thought through both of those elements in terms of how we can effectively reduce emissions by making pollutants, such as carbon, more expensive and, at the same time, making sure that the monies collected are then given back to Canadian consumers and Canadian families. Thus, they are not left behind and are able to make ends meet. From a public policy perspective, I think we all recognize the fact that climate change is real. However, in order for us to have a strong economy, meet the international obligations that we are part of through the Kyoto protocol and work with other countries that are also taking action on climate change, every political party that wants to govern needs to have a credible plan to deal with this. What I find baffling in this debate is that we only hear slogans from those in the Conservative Party. There is nothing about a plan; they have just created a tag line and a bumper sticker. Perhaps they are entitled to do that, but before they ask for another election, they need to be able to come with a credible plan or acknowledge the fact, which is perhaps what they believe, that climate change is something they do not want to address. There will be another election. Welcome to democracy, Mr. Speaker; thankfully, that is a given. However, whatever the case, let us hear it; Conservatives should tell us their views on climate change. I can tell members that, in speaking to my constituents in Ottawa Centre, inaction is not a plan. They want real, concrete action by their government in order to address climate change. They do not want just a plan on the back of a napkin, but a credible plan that would actually make a difference. However, as I think the member for Waterloo said, this is not a new idea. Mr. Mulroney has been mentioned a few times; he championed the Montreal Protocol, which resulted in stopping the depletion of the ozone layer. Aside from that, one of his biggest legacies was to put an end to acid rain, which was caused in the eastern part of the country by sulphur dioxide emissions. Yes, it was a cap and trade system. However, what was the cap and trade? It was a price put on sulphur to make it more expensive to emit sulphur dioxide, which resulted in the elimination of acid rain. The point is, we can look at different kinds of mechanisms, and that is what we are trying to do. However, we need to hear a credible plan from the Conservatives. This is a plan that is making an impact, and we are starting to see a reduction in emissions in Canada because of our action.

1243 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Mar/21/24 4:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues are talking a lot today about the legacy of former prime minister Brian Mulroney. We are all proud of his record as one of the most environmentally friendly leaders in the western world, but they keep talking about what he achieved in terms of addressing the hole in the ozone layer and acid rain. These were incredible successes for a Conservative prime minister. My colleague talked about cap and trade, but it was a cap and trade on the emitters. I would ask him: When Prime Minister Mulroney was the prime minister, how high was the carbon tax to resolve the ozone layer and the acid rain? What was the cost of the carbon tax?

120 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Mar/21/24 4:42:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member just made my point, because cap and trade is actually a price on pollution. That is exactly the point. In the case of Quebec, they do have a cap and trade system. In the case of Ontario, until 2018, we introduced a plan that was a cap and trade system. The mechanism is the same, which is to put a price on pollution. He could speak to any economist; in fact the economists were probably advising the member and telling him that it is the most efficient way, the most effective way to actually reduce the use of a pollutant. They need to come up with a credible plan and not campaign on slogans. It is not going to work.

124 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Mar/21/24 4:43:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives are constantly raising the costs, my question is whether the hon. members have had the same experience I have had. I have had constituents come to me and say that they have been quoted a 100% increase in their fire insurance. They have come to me and said that they cannot get flood insurance and that the insurance companies say it is because of climate change. While we talk about the carbon tax as increasing costs, I find that my constituents are facing far higher costs as a result of climate change than anything that is going on with the carbon tax. Of course, there is no rebate when insurance premiums go up by 100% or people cannot get flood insurance at all.

128 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Mar/21/24 4:44:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member, and I thank him for raising the point. As I was saying earlier, inaction is not a plan. We can decide to make very short-term decisions right now, burying our heads in the sand and letting future generations be responsible for themselves, or we can take our responsibilities as parliamentarians seriously and make sure that we are making decisions today that are going to impact the lives of future generations. That is our role. We are here, not to make decisions for ourselves today, but to make sure that Canada and Canadians prosper. I have an 11-year-old son and an 8-year-old daughter, and the way they speak about climate change is very different from how I spoke about issues like that when I was their age, or from how we do now. This is a real threat for the prosperity of our country, and it is incumbent upon us, all of us, to be serious about this and to come up with a credible plan. I would ask the members opposite to do the same.

187 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Mar/21/24 4:45:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to share how uncomfortable I am with the debate we are having today, and that we also had on Tuesday, about the carbon tax. As a Quebecker who, like most Quebeckers, believes in the fight against climate change, I find this all rather embarrassing. The Grits have been in power for eight years and are not doing anything to fight climate change. Canada ranks near the bottom when it comes to nearly every quantitative measure of climate change performance. Its allies on the Canadian left get all worked up about climate change but still always vote with the government in power. On Tuesday and Thursday, the Tories moved motions saying that the Grits and the Dippers are no good and that Canada is broken, but they themselves want to do even less for the climate. I want to ask my colleague a simple question. Is he really proud of his government's climate record?

158 words

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Mar/21/24 4:46:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I agree with the member. We need to do more, absolutely. We have a good foundation. I really do believe that we have a good starting point. For once, Canada has a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are starting to see that happen. The way to move forward is not with slogans. We need to build on this. Climate change is not going to get solved in just one day or overnight. That is why inaction is not a plan. We need to strengthen what we are doing in terms of fighting climate change, and we need to do more to ensure that Canada remains a leader when it comes to building a better and prosperous future.

129 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Mar/21/24 4:47:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Foothills. In exactly one hour, a vote will be held here in the House. It is a very important vote that millions of Canadians and even millions of Quebeckers have been waiting for. I will read the motion to clearly indicate what we are calling for today and what the vote will be about. That the House declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and his costly government for increasing the carbon tax 23 % on April 1, as part of his plan to quadruple the tax while Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat and house themselves, and call for the House to be dissolved so Canadians can vote in a carbon tax election. That is today's motion, and it is clear. People are expecting a motion that calls for the dissolution of Parliament so that we can have an election. Today's motion is about the carbon tax. My Bloc Québécois colleagues keep saying that it does not apply in Quebec. We understand that the federal carbon tax does not apply directly, but it does apply indirectly and has a major impact on all the things that make food more expensive. The Union des producteurs agricoles is complaining about it. Everyone is complaining about this federal tax, which has an indirect impact in Quebec. What is more important is that, today, we have an opportunity for a non-confidence vote. Since 2019, the Bloc Québécois has had 219 opportunities to take part in confidence votes, such as votes on budgetary allocations. On 201 occasions, or 92% of the time, it has voted in such a way as to support the Liberal government and its Prime Minister. Today, the Bloc has a chance to get its act together. That is where we are at. Everyone is asking for this. Everyone, except those who still vote Liberal, is saying enough is enough, this government has to go and an election has to be called. Conservatives do not have confidence in this government, and we will vote for the Prime Minister to resign so that an election can be called. After eight years, life has never been so expensive. To make matters worse, on April 1, the Prime Minister is going to play an April Fool's joke on Canadians by raising the carbon tax again, this time by 23%, on gas, home heating and groceries. Seventy per cent of provincial premiers and 70% of Canadians oppose the Prime Minister's April Fool's Day tax hike. As I said earlier, the carbon tax has an impact on Quebec. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois insists on saying the opposite. Every cost incurred outside Quebec has an impact on the consumer price of goods sold and transported in Quebec, so it is not true that there are no repercussions. Bloc members really believe that taxing people, making people pay more fees, will have a positive impact on the environment. We just do not see eye to eye on this. That said, of course we want to do things for the environment. However, the tax is not working. The proof is that Canada ranks at the bottom of the list of countries with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. The tax is not what is going to help the environment. Other things will, but not if we if keep supporting this government. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois keeps saying that the Liberals are doing nothing. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert just said that the Grits have done nothing for eight years. Why is he keeping them in power if they are no good? We are talking about the environment here, but every day, public finances and health transfers give the Bloc Québécois good reason to complain about the government here in the House of Commons. I often agree with it because we complain about this government too. We have been complaining about the Liberals for eight years for a number of reasons. There are other things besides the tax, which is the centrepiece of today's motion and has a major impact on the country. Incidentally, if the carbon tax does not affect Quebec, why do the Bloc members vote on issues that have do with the carbon tax? They could just abstain. Anyone voting remotely can use a feature in the app to abstain from voting. They do not have to vote for or against. If something does not concern Quebec, they should ignore it and let the other members from the rest of the country vote on behalf of their constituents, who are suffering more because of the Liberal government's taxes. As I was saying, the tax is one element, but there is a very long list of things. I have a few pages of reasons we have had enough of this government. That is why this confidence vote is so important. We have reached the point where it is clear that this is a confidence vote. The vote will take place in 45 minutes. I know the NDP does not want to vote against the government, which we do not understand. The NDP is something else altogether. Their little alliance with the government is a bit strange. Today, the Bloc Québécois has an opportunity to vote with us to at least show that enough is enough, that the government is not doing its job and that we want a change. Let us think back on all the things that the Prime Minister has done over the past eight years. There was the Aga Khan scandal. The Ethics Commissioner formally reprimanded the Prime Minister. There was also the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould held her ground and she was pushed out. She resigned. She left. Today, we know that she was right. I was telling my colleagues that there are all kinds of scandals like those. Some lasted a few weeks and others a few months. Eventually, people forget. Then a new scandal comes to light. When we look at everything that has been done, it starts to add up to a lot. It never ends. There are many scandals that we never got to the bottom of. The opposition parties did their utmost in committee and elsewhere. At some point, things trickle off, but then, a few years later, they come back. This morning, we moved a motion in committee. The Bloc Québécois supported us. I thank them. The NDP, however, said no. It did not want to shed light on the current scandal involving former justice minister David Lametti, who interfered in a situation concerning former Justice Delisle. We are doing our utmost to get to the bottom of matters like these, but at the end of the day, people forget. Our job is to remind them of these events. That is what we are doing today. We are reminding people. The price tag for WE Charity was $912 million. It was an unbelievable scandal. We dug it all up, but it ended up going nowhere, even though $912 million had gone into this scandal. Then there was the infamous trip to India that the Prime Minister and his family took, in costume. It was more of an image problem. The whole world was laughing at us. Then there was Queen Elizabeth II's funeral. It was not enough for him to attend the funeral. The Prime Minister stayed in a room that cost 4,800 pounds sterling. Some might say that is not so bad. Let us not forget that a Conservative minister once stepped down over a $17 glass of orange juice. With the Prime Minister, we are talking about millions of dollars. Now the Winnipeg lab story is back. It took four years to get the documents, and now we have a 300-page stack. We have learned a lot. Remember, an election was called to hide this scandal. The Prime Minister used the 2021 election to hide the Winnipeg lab scandal. During the pandemic, there were important measures that had to be taken. We agreed. However, what is still hidden or unknown is that, of the additional $500 billion spent on top of the operating budget during the two years of the pandemic, $300 billion was used for the pandemic, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer still cannot explain where the remaining $200 billion went. In addition to the $300 billion, we have learned that $60 million was spent on the ArriveCAN app, which should have cost $80,000. There are scandals everywhere, and there are more to come. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It never ends. The government did get organized with the Emergencies Act. There was a little investigation, and the judge said things were fine. Recently, the Federal Court found that it was unreasonable. Why did the government use it? Let us not forget that they made a show of it. They tried to demonstrate their power. We proved that here in the House. Of the 14 criteria, 13 did not pass the test. We already knew that, and the court confirmed it. Actually, the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert, who is still with them, made a statement that got a lot of press. He said that the government had decided to impose restrictions and divide and stigmatize people during the pandemic. The member for Louis-Hébert could not believe how his government used the pandemic. There are also all those stories about vaccination and public servants, stories that were used to divide the population. I could go on for another half hour recapping all this for the Canadians watching us now—or, as the Minister of Industry would say, the millions of Canadians watching us. I want to remind everyone why it is important to vote in favour of the Conservative Party motion, in favour of a motion of non-confidence in the Liberal government. We need a federal election so Canadians can weigh in on whether they want a new Conservative majority government.

1730 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Mar/21/24 4:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just demonstrated that inflation is not just economic. It is verbal. The Conservatives are hearing the siren song of power. According to the polls, if there were an election tomorrow morning, they would get around 220 out of 338 seats in the House. No wonder they want to have an election immediately. They know full well that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition and that the vote on their motion is already sunk by the other side. Now they want to fob the problem off on Quebec by claiming that the Bloc Québécois is a bad party that does not stand up for Quebec's interests. I did not hear François Legault oppose the carbon tax, because it does not apply in Quebec. I did not hear the members of the Quebec National Assembly get worked up over this motion, saying that the House of Commons must adopt it and that they are in favour. The Conservatives want a free pass. They say they want to get rid of the carbon tax, but they are not proposing an alternative. They want to make this tax a campaign issue. What a vision for society.

203 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Mar/21/24 4:59:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was trying very hard to figure out where my colleague was going with all that. First of all, the carbon tax is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. Second, my colleague from Montcalm just said that the government's official dance partner is the NDP. I mentioned in my speech that I do not understand why the NDP continues to support the government, but that is their problem. What I am saying, however, is that the Bloc Québécois, as an opposition party, can join the Conservatives. Bloc members complain about various government measures every day. Forget the carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois criticizes everything the Liberal government does. Why would the Bloc Québécois hesitate to take advantage of today's opportunity to pass a non-confidence motion by voting with us against this government, which is terrible for Quebeckers and Canada?

157 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/21/24 5:00:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague. He said that we need to remember things. Well, we need to remember the Harper regime, which was the worst government in our entire history. Back then, housing prices doubled. Lineups at food banks also doubled. We witnessed all that and it was awful. We cannot let ourselves forget the Harper regime. That said, we need to look at what we have to do now. Of course, the Liberals have done a little better than the Conservatives on fighting climate change. They did even more when the NDP forced them to implement measures like the dental care program. Of course, there are thousands of seniors in my colleague's riding who have signed on to the Canadian dental care program thanks to the NDP. I have a very simple question for my colleague. Has he asked his constituents if they want the dental care program to continue? Does my colleague understand that the Conservatives must support this program, and all the other programs that the NDP has put in place, to help the people in his riding?

183 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Mar/21/24 5:01:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course I speak with my constituents. They elected me because most of them feel pretty much the same way I do. People are really fed up with the Prime Minister and his government. Every time I meet with people in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, they ask me when this Prime Minister is going to leave. They want him to go because they are fed up. That is what people tell me every time I attend a public event. They are fed up with this government. I would remind my colleague that when the Conservative government was in power, people were not lining up at food banks as they are today. There were not 800,000 Quebeckers who needed food banks. Parties like the NDP can say what they want, but before the 2015 election, the Conservatives had a budget surplus. We got Canada through the 2008-09 economic crisis brilliantly. I have nothing bad to say about the Harper government, quite the contrary. That is why I wanted to be a Conservative, and I am very proud of that today.

184 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Mar/21/24 5:02:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the House we often hear that the carbon tax does not apply to people in Quebec. We hear that quite a bit, but the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that this affects everybody all across Canada. What he meant is that today's inflation rate is 2.8%. A huge chunk of that, 0.6 percentage points, has to do with the carbon tax scam. If we were to eliminate that or axe the tax, as Conservatives would say, the doubling of mortgage rates could probably come down because it would lower inflation and interest rates could start coming down. That is how big an effect it has on housing and the inflation that we see today. I wonder if my hon. colleague could talk a little more about how much of an impact the carbon tax scam has on Quebeckers.

146 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Mar/21/24 5:03:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, Quebec imports food from the rest of Canada. The farmers who grow the food pay the carbon tax. The food processors pay the carbon tax. The carbon tax that is paid by those who transport and process Quebec's food has an impact on the price. People will not see any mention of the carbon tax on their grocery bills. However, maybe an $8 bunch of celery would only have cost $7 were it not for the carbon tax paid by the farmers who provided the product. That is a simplified example, but that is how it works. This is having a major impact. As I also mentioned in my speech, Canada is currently ranked 58th out of 63 countries for greenhouse gas emissions, so imposing a tax to save the environment is completely ridiculous.

144 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Mar/21/24 5:04:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here to speak about such an important issue and about our demand to allow the Liberals to have a carbon tax election. Why are we asking for this? It is because 70% of Canadians, 70% of the premiers, are now saying that they oppose the Liberal-NDP carbon tax because of the impact it is having on their everyday lives. I find it interesting, throughout the speeches today, that my Liberal and NDP colleagues keep professing that this is not impacting the cost of living and that this has nothing to do with affordability. That is simply not true. We have the facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Parliamentary Budget Officer testified at committee, and he said, “once you factor in the rebate and also the economic impacts...the majority of households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax.” Canadians are waking up to this every single day. Certainly my constituents in Foothills are, who are paying $2,900 a year in the carbon tax. The Liberals say that they are so much better off. They are getting about $1,800 of their own money back, leaving them a thousand dollars worse off. I do not understand why the Liberals and the NDP are fighting so hard to say that this is not impacting the cost of living. They should be celebrating this every single day when they hear about Canadians struggling to feed themselves, heat their homes, pay their mortgages or pay their interest rates. This is exactly what they want from the carbon tax. They want the carbon tax to be so expensive that it forces Canadians to change their behaviour, regardless of the fact that in my riding of 33,000 square kilometres, we do not have public transit. It does not exist. There are many parts of this country where we do not have alternatives. That is what makes this so frustrating and why Canadians have just had enough of the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition. They also talk about how they have won elections while campaigning on the carbon tax. They misled Canadians in those elections. They said they would never increase the carbon tax higher than $50 a tonne. On April 1, it goes up 23% to $80 a tonne, on its way to $170 a tonne by 2030. The promise to Canadians from the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition was that the carbon tax would never go over $50 a tonne. It is amazing how the song changes when we are not in an election year. That is why we are saying that, if they are so confident that Canadians support their 23% increase in the carbon tax, then go to an election and let Canadians decide. However, I am doubtful that they will vote to make that happen today because they know that 70% of Canadians oppose the carbon tax, right across this country. The other part that they do not mention is that the GST is charged on top of the carbon tax. We also now have the numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Officer for just how punitive that GST is and what Canadians are paying. Last year, Canadians paid $486 million in GST just on the carbon tax. Next year, when they increase the carbon tax by 23%, that number will be a billion dollars. Cumulatively, since the Liberals brought in their carbon tax, Canadians have paid $6 billion in GST just on the carbon tax. Not only is the carbon tax not reducing emissions and is clearly a tax grab, but the GST is just the whipped cream on top of their tax ice-cream cone. It is unbelievable, the amount that Canadians are being punished through the carbon tax, a tax on a tax. Thankfully, again, Conservatives have a private member's bill to remove the GST from the carbon tax, and I certainly encourage my colleagues from across the floor to support that. The carbon tax also has an incredibly devastating impact on Canadian farmers, which certainly leads to higher prices for Canadians on the grocery store shelves. I know my colleagues have mentioned that today. Common sense says this: If we increase taxes on the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who transports the food, the manufacturer who processes the food and the retailer who sells the food, do we know who will feel it at the end of that supply chain? It's the consumer who buys the food. That is why food inflation stays well above the Canadian inflation index. Farmers are paying the carbon tax over and over again, when they buy fertilizer and fuel, when they plant their seeds, when they move their products to market and when they are hauling cattle or grain. Every single time, they are paying the carbon tax. The Agriculture Carbon Alliance did a survey of 50 farms earlier this month. That survey of 50 farms showed that those farms across Canada were paying more than $320,000 in carbon taxes in one month. That is just 50 farms. We have close to 200,000 farms in Canada. If a small percentage is already paying more than $320,000 a month, and if we extrapolate that over every farm in Canada, members can understand why farmers are so frustrated with the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition and the punishment it is laying on them again on April 1, increasing the carbon tax by another 23%. I have to ask, why? We put forward Bill C-234, which would give an exemption of the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for farmers to heat and cool their barns, to dry their grain and to power greenhouses, which grow fresh produce for Canadians across this country. However, the Liberals have been playing games with that bill, trying to kill that bill in the Senate and, again, here in the House of Commons. We know that legislation would save farmers close to $1 billion a year, making them more economically viable and making food production more affordable for farmers, and certainly for Canadian consumers at the grocery stores. However, the Liberals do not want to support legislation that supports Canadian farmers. Their answer, all the time, is that farmers are very supportive of the carbon tax. That is what the agriculture minister says every time I ask him a question on this issue. I have spoken to farmers right across this country, and I have not spoken to a single farmer, not one, who has said that we should keep the carbon tax in place and that they are very supportive of the carbon tax. Farmers do not support the carbon tax, and it is not only due to the punishing higher input costs they have to pay but because it is making them look like laggards. In fact, Canadian farmers set the gold standard in sustainability and stewardship. A recent report from the Global Institute for Food Security showed that on a ton of canola grown in Saskatchewan, the carbon footprint is 67% lower than anywhere else in the world. A trainload of Canadian wheat could travel around the world three and a half times before it has the same carbon footprint as wheat grown in Europe. These are incredible achievements. Farmers should be lauded for those accomplishments, not punished with higher carbon taxes, but that is exactly what the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition is doing. How did farmers do this? It was not done through punitive regulation and carbon taxes; it was done through embracing new innovation and new technology, something they do every single day. There are consequences to these carbon taxes. Canadians feel it every single day. I want to talk about some specifics. Collwest grain farm in Collingwood, Ontario, paid $36,000 in carbon taxes in one month. Quattro Farms in Bow Island, Alberta, paid $93,000 in carbon taxes in 2023. The Kielstra farm in my riding of Foothills paid $180,000 in carbon taxes last year to heat and cool their barns for their chickens, which is an animal health issue. A farm in the riding of Simcoe—Grey paid $25,000 in carbon taxes in the month of November alone. This leads to higher food costs, and we are seeing two million Canadians go to food banks every single month. Those are unprecedented numbers. The Liberals say it has no impact on food costs. The Food Professor, the expert on food pricing in Canada, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois at Dalhousie University, said that inflationary pressures and uncompetitive policies, like the carbon tax, on growing, processing and transporting food will increase the costs of wholesale food by 34%. That is the impact that these policies are having on farmers, on truckers and on Canadian consumers who are just trying to feed their families. This is unsustainable for Canadian consumers. This is unsustainable for Canadian farmers. My challenge to the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition, if they are so proud of this carbon tax and if they think Canadians will support this 23% increase on April 1, is for them to put their money where their mouths are and to call a carbon tax election, and let Canadians decide for themselves.

1555 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/24 5:14:35 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:15 p.m. and the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. 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.

91 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/21/24 5:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/21/24 5:15:34 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/21/24 5:59:13 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion defeated.

5 words