- Member of Parliament
- Caucus Chair
- NDP
- Cowichan—Malahat—Langford
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,733.69
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, related to today's discussion is Bill C-234. Conservatives have been campaigning loudly about how they would like to see the Senate amendments to that bill rejected and it be passed in its original form. I can say now, as I have said before, that the NDP supports that position because we think the bill's principles are in line with what is in the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Every time the bill has come forward to the House, it is lined up with Conservative speakers; thus we never seem to get to a stage where it will come to a vote.
I hear Conservatives complaining about all of these costs. When is the member's party going to let the bill come to a vote so that we can actually get these changes implemented?
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the short answer is, “Yes.” I was here when the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought into force. I think it was in 2018. The reason I support Bill C-234 is that when the Liberals originally authored their bill, they put exemptions in the parent act that listed qualifying farm fuels, qualifying farm machinery and qualifying farming activity. When I look at the language that is in Bill C-234, looking at the heating and cooling of barns and greenhouses and also at fuels used for drying grain, I think those are legitimate farming activities that are in line and in spirit with the original act.
I can conclude and say very publicly here in this House that, absolutely, New Democrats will keep our vote consistent with the third reading vote that we gave, along with the Green Party, along with the Bloc Québécois and along with the Conservatives. We are choosing to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C-234.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, here we go again with Bill C-234. It does not seem to want to go to the Governor General just yet.
As previous colleagues have said, this is a bill I am intimately familiar with. We did see a previous version of the bill in the 43rd Parliament, and of course, now that we are here at the beginning of 2024, the bill has had an approximately two-year journey to go through both houses of this Parliament, only to end up back in the House because the Senate has decided to amend it.
I want to remind hon. colleagues and all Canadians who are watching this debate of something, because I know a lot of the agricultural sector is probably tuning in right now, and members of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance have a very real interest in this bill and want to see us pass it in the same form it was passed by the House at third reading. What I want to remind everyone of is that the third reading vote is quite remarkable. The bill passed by a vote of 176 to 146. Just so everyone realizes this, that Conservative bill would not have made it to the Senate if it had not been for the support of the New Democratic caucus, the Bloc Québécois caucus, two Green Party members and a handful of Liberals.
We tend to try to bring a narrative in the House that it is just one party doing all of the work. The beauty of a minority Parliament is that sometimes the opposition can come together on an idea that has its merits and can use its combined majority vote to pass legislation the government may not agree with. It is a far better experience for members of the opposition than I ever had during my first four years in this place, when I was facing a majority government. It is a lot more worthwhile to members on this side of the House because we are able to work in a collaborative environment and to actually get things done when they may be in opposition to official government policy.
It was a notable vote, and that vote was the result of a lot of deliberation not only in the House of Commons but also at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have been a proud member since 2018. We have heard quite definitively from many witnesses with intimate knowledge of the agricultural sector that these exemptions are necessary.
I was here in 2018 when the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought in. I believe, if memory serves me well, it was part of a budget implementation act at the time. If we look at the original legislation, the existing statute of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, we can see that when the Liberal government at the time drafted the legislation, it included significant exemptions for farming activities. There is a list of eligible farming activities, fuels and equipment, because the government realized that agriculture is in a unique position and that sometimes farmers do not actually have an option to switch to a different kind of fuel source. Many sectors in agriculture are still reliant on fossil fuels to conduct their operations, and that is going to be a fact for the foreseeable future, hence the exemptions that were put in the original act.
When I look at Bill C-234, I think the language in the bill that was passed by the House at third reading is in line with the spirit and intent of the original statute, which is why I gave it my support. It is why I will continue to give my support for the version of the bill that was passed by the House at third reading.
The basic premise behind carbon pricing is to incentivize a change of behaviour to a less polluting fuel source. However, we heard very clearly from many people who are involved in the agriculture sector that there are not commercially viable alternatives for the farming activities referenced in this bill. If we cannot use this tool to incentivize a change of behaviour, it is not going to be very worthwhile. This is why, when we look at the text of the bill and how the agriculture committee amended the bill, we recognized some technologies may be coming online and showing signs of early promise but are not in any shape or form ready for commercial viability.
We also wanted to signal to the sector that we are putting a short time frame on this. That is why we see referenced in the language of the bill the fact that there is an eight-year sunset clause, so the provisions that originally existed in the statute will come back into force after eight years, giving the industry a break for a short amount of time and giving it the signal that we expect change in the coming decade.
With respect to the carbon tax debate in this place, I am filled with a lot of remorse at the state of debate. I do not think it actually does great service to the complexities and dangers that climate change is presenting to Canada and many countries around the world. I regret very much that the state of debate around the carbon tax is that it has been reduced to a rhyme on a bumper sticker. That is a great disservice to the very clear and present danger that climate change presents to our agricultural sector.
If we want to look at one of the key reasons food price inflation is so high, we need only look to the state of California, which has been going through unprecedented drought-like conditions because of a changing climate. Since California acts as a breadbasket for much of Canada, when farmers are unable to produce as much as they did in years previous, that, of course, means there is going to be a supply shortage and increased prices.
I am very worried about what the upcoming summer is going to be like. Look at the summer we went through in 2023, with fires burning out of control in so many different provinces, levelling a clear and present danger to many agricultural operations. We can see the snowpacks that are in such a reduced state in the Rocky Mountains right now. They feed all of the major river systems in the Prairies. What are we going to do when farmers start running out of water in our prairie provinces? That is going to be a monumental crisis, and I do not think the debate around the carbon tax gives enough attention to the significance of that.
I also do not think we give enough conversation to the fact that farmers are dealing with massive input costs. There are gross farm revenues, but the farmer gets only a small portion of that at the end of the day because of the input costs: fuel, fertilizer, transport and so on. Farmers have enormously high input costs, and one of the best ways we can serve our farmers is to put in effective policy dealing with those input costs, helping them change the way they farm and putting in strategies to help them reduce fertilizer use, because it is possible to do that and also maintain the same kinds of yields.
As well, we need to talk a lot more about the power imbalance that exists with the corporate-controlled grocery sector. That is why farmers have been on the front lines of asking parliamentarians to put in a grocery code of conduct.
Last but not least, if we are not going to talk about the ridiculous oil and gas profits, we are doing an extreme disservice to everyone who is listening to this debate. We can go on and on about the carbon tax and its costs for Canadians, but if we are not going to talk about the fact that since 2019, the oil and gas sector has seen over a 1,000% increase in net profits, that is a disservice to the debate. I keep asking my Conservative colleagues to confront the elephant in the room, which is that the real reason people are paying through the nose for so many goods and services is that oil and gas companies are milking Canadian families for all they are worth. High profits mean someone is paying. It is Canadian families from coast to coast to coast that are lining the bank accounts of a very profitable oil and gas sector.
I will conclude by saying that with respect to Bill C-234, New Democrats are going to honour the third reading vote that we presented to the House last year, part of the 176 votes to 146 votes. Therefore, we support a message to the Senate rejecting their amendments and honouring the bill in its form at third reading in the House.
1508 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of keeping the bill in the same form that passed the House at third reading.
I have been on the agriculture committee for a long time, and I hear the Conservatives talk a lot about the carbon tax. However, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague about the other costs. I do not think that is talked about as much in this place.
How does the Conservative caucus propose to deal with the immense costs that are being foisted on farmers from the effects of climate change? We know the summer coming up is going to be particularly bad for farmers in Alberta. What about the high input costs? What is the policy in dealing with those? Also, when are the Conservatives going to speak up to address the outrageous profits in oil and gas? Those, by themselves, completely obliterate any effect the carbon tax would have. Oil and gas profits have increased by over 1,000% since 2019. When are the Conservatives going to address that incredible cost on the backs of farmers and Canadians from coast to coast to coast?
190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion because it is consistent with my third reading vote on Bill C-234.
What the Conservatives are complaining about today is precisely the same behaviour they have used in previous Parliaments. They have used their Conservative senators to upend private members' bills in previous Parliaments. How can we take the Conservatives seriously when they call out behaviour that they are guilty of in many occurrences in the past?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, allow me to withdraw the comment and apologize. I want to recognize that the Bloc absolutely is in line with the NDP on abolishing the upper chamber.
The member is right. In addition to Bill C-234, there is a very important bill that we were proud to support, Bill C-282. There are a lot of supply-managed farmers in my riding who personally met with me. I met with many of their industry groups.
We were proud to support that piece of legislation, because we simply cannot trust Liberal and Conservative governments to honour the spirit of supply management. We agreed with the Bloc Québécois in putting that in legislation so that we can prevent future governments from negotiating away our supply-managed industries.
I want to give another shout-out. The member for York—Simcoe has Bill C-280 in the Senate. I hope that the Senate will respect the will of this House, because that is another important bill dealing with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the fresh fruit and vegetable sector.
Again, strong agricultural bills are coming from the House of Commons. I think one thing that Canadians deserve from us is for us to have consistency in our positions. If we look at the Conservative history at the Senate, it has been anything but consistent.
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we debate an opposition day motion the Conservatives decided to present to the House, which states:
That the House call on the unelected Senate to immediately pass Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, to remove the carbon tax on the farmers that feed Canadians, as passed by the democratically elected House.
Essentially, today's debate is on a motion to try to get a Conservative private member's bill through the Senate. I am amazed because today Conservatives are acting with outrage that the Senate is not moving quickly enough. It is as if they have not done far worse to move bills slowly in the past.
The cognitive dissonance and the absence of any historical grounding in today's debate is absolutely shocking. When thinking of my remarks for today's speech, two words came to mind: irony and hypocrisy. At best, we could be talking about the irony of this moment, but I think this is just plain and simple hypocrisy because I believe Conservatives are self-aware, and they know exactly about the entirety of their sordid history with the Senate.
Irony is about highlighting the human relationship with reality. It teases out the inconsistencies that reside in all of us, but this is far more than inconsistency. Hypocrisy is simple. It is about contradicting ourselves but with a more forceful and a more deliberate vein. Quite simply, hypocrisy is the pretense of consistency to hide one's inconsistency. Today's motion, if we look at the history of Conservatives' relationships with senators, is definitely one of inconsistency.
Again, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the sheer audacity of the Conservative Party of Canada to come to the House today to lecture members of Parliament and the Canadian public on the Senate. I will get into that in far greater detail in my remarks today.
I want to start with Bill C-234. It is important to acknowledge that the bill was duly passed by a vote of 176 to 146 in the House of Commons earlier this year. It is also equally important to note that the bill would not have passed the House if it had not been for the support of all opposition parties. They include the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. There were also three Liberals who lent their support to the bill. The electoral math in this place shows that those kinds of numbers are needed for any bill. I want to highlight that because often, when I hear speeches by the Conservatives, they tend to conveniently leave out that little fact.
It is also important to note in today's debate that we are not here to relitigate Bill C-234. That was done by the House. The bill went through second reading and then to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have been a proud member for the last six years. I was present for those meetings. I listened to the witnesses. I participated in the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the amendments to it, the reporting of it back to the House and its third reading. The House voiced its opinion on the matter. A clear majority of MPs decided to pass it, and we do not need to spend time talking about what was done.
At the time, I highlighted my support for Bill C-234 because I thought the provisions in it were consistent with the act it is trying to amend, namely the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which was passed by a majority Liberal government in 2018. If members read the parent act carefully, they will see exemptions listed in the act for qualifying farm fuels, farm machinery and farming activities. After careful consideration of the bill and after listening to the many farm groups that appeared before our committee, I agree with them. There are no commercially viable alternatives to propane and natural gas for certain farm activities. I thought this amendment was quite in line with the original document the Liberal drafters put together.
We did our due diligence on this bill. I do not think we need to spend much time dwelling on Bill C-234. I was quite happy with the amendments made to Bill C-234 at the committee stage. Its focus was narrowed so there is more clarity on what it would specifically be applied to. There was also a sunset clause introduced to signal to industry that there is a narrow window of time to start developing commercially viable alternatives. I know, from witness testimony, those efforts are well under way. It is a price signal sending a signal to the market that it needs to step up its game.
I have had the honour of spending, as I mentioned, six years on the agriculture committee. One thing I heard consistently from our farmers is that they are on the front lines of climate change. They are the ones dealing with shifting weather patterns caused by fossil fuel driven climate change. We had entire crops fail, whether from a drought or a flood. There was a shortage of feed, like we had in many parts of British Columbia, due to water sources drying up. That is now the norm in many parts of western Canada, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Anyone with a simple knowledge of scientific facts can see this situation is going to get worse.
When I hear my Conservative colleagues talk about support for farmers, I try to put that in conjunction with their support for the oil and gas industry, or their lack of effort in going after the intense corporate profits of the oil and gas sector, which are fuelling the planet's burning right now. There is a dichotomy where my Conservative friends like to say they stand on the farmers' side, but meanwhile, farmers tell us the greatest threat to their livelihood is climate change. I do not see any viable policy alternatives to address that fact.
Let us get to the heart of the matter today: the Senate. Canadians have legitimate questions about the Senate. In Canada's Parliament, we have a bicameral system. We have the lower house, which is the elected House of Commons, and we also have an appointed Senate. If someone is one of the lucky few who are selected for a senator's position, then one has a locked-in job until age 75. One never has to face the electorate. One gets to enjoy all the trappings that office has, with none of the accountability.
I, like every member of Parliament in this place, have to reapply for my job every certain number of years. I have to be accountable for the votes I make, for the speeches I make and for the policy positions I take because that is the heart of democracy. I am not here just by myself. I am here representing the entire riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and those are the people I report to. I have reported to them through three federal elections. Senators do not have to do that.
Only a handful of democracies around the world have an appointed upper chamber. I think many Canadians listening to today's debate would agree with me that in a modern, functional, 21st century democracy, an appointed upper house, with all the nominal powers of the lower house, has no room in this kind of system. The system we have has been begging for reform for many years. The NDP's position on the Senate is quite well known. We have certainly called for its abolishment. We note there are many countries around the world that do quite well with a single chamber of elected representatives.
Other places have indirect elections or have direct elections for their senators. Whatever system it is, at least those senators are accountable to the people they serve, unlike our upper body. This is an important context for today's debate. Ultimately, what we are doing here in the lower house is complaining about the appointed upper chamber thwarting the democratic will of the House of Commons. This is a moment in time, but it has to be placed in the context of history because this is not the first time it has happened.
I also want to underline that I have a good working relationship with a handful of senators, and many serve on the agriculture committee. I have had the pleasure of getting to know them and their work, and I do not question their commitment to their line of work. My comments today are based solely on the Senate as an institution and on the inherent contradictions it has in a 21st century democracy.
Let us go, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, to the Conservative hypocrisy and the Senate. I agree with the Conservatives that they have the right idea in today's motion in calling on the Senate to quit delaying the passage of a bill, in this case Bill C-234. We in the NDP have called on the Senate to do this many times over our history, so this is well-trodden ground for us. I would like to welcome my Conservative friends to the club. They may not be used to this, but trust me, as New Democrats we have a long history of calling for this.
For the Conservatives to bring in today's motion, given their history, is quite something. I really want to underline this for Canadians who are watching today's debate. It is a fact in this place that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have a sordid history with the Senate. They have both been guilty of not only appointing failed candidates, loyal donors and party operatives, but using—
An hon. member: Bagmen.
Mr. Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, my colleague used the term “bagmen” and that is absolutely a legitimate term.
They have used this appointed and unelected body to block bills from the democratically elected House. One only needs to look at our parliamentary history to see this is not a one-off situation. It has happened many times. To watch Conservatives and Liberals point fingers at each other goes to show that ultimately when it comes to this issue, these two parties are but different sides of the same coin.
With respect to the current Conservative Party, let us take a little walk down history lane. This is the party of Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright. The leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton, stands in this place and gives us a lecture on the Senate, when he is the person who, when in government and a representative of former prime minister Stephen Harper, had to day in and day out defend chief of staff Nigel Wright, who gave a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy because of living expenses. That is what the member for Carleton had to stand up in this place and do time and time again.
Mr. Gord Johns: Selective amnesia.
Mr. Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, we do have selective amnesia in this place. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for referencing that, because we lose sight of our history in this place.
The member for Carleton has been an MP for 19 very long years. I know the Conservatives have spent millions of dollars on burnishing up his image, but he has a long history in this House of Commons. If we do some digging, there are a lot of comments, a lot of questions and a lot of speeches from the member for Carleton that will give truth to who he really is.
However, it gets better, because the Conservatives have stood in this place accusing Liberals of bullying senators and imposing their will, when the Conservative Party is the only party in this House that still has 15 senators at caucus every Wednesday. Fifteen Conservative senators join their MP counterparts for every Wednesday meeting, and they get their marching orders from the member for Carleton on how to play games in the Senate. This has been the case for several Parliaments and we have seen it in the past.
Conservative senators have taken their marching orders from former prime minister Harper and have done the very thing that Conservatives are mad about today with Bill C-234. Senators took their marching orders from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and used their procedural shenanigans in the red chamber to block multiple bills on multiple occasions that were passed by the democratic House. Again, it is rank hypocrisy from the Conservatives.
I will outline a few notable examples.
Our former beloved leader Jack Layton, several Parliaments ago, had a bill that was passed by the House called the climate change accountability act. My God, how things would be different now if we had actually paid attention back then and passed that law. However, right now in 2023, we are dealing with the consequences of years of inaction from both Liberal and Conservative governments. That bill was held up. It died in the Senate because of procedural shenanigans instigated by Conservative senators.
We have also had other cases. Former NDP member of Parliament Paul Dewar, who represented Ottawa Centre, introduced Bill C-393. It was a bill to permit the shipment and provision of generic drugs to Africa, a worthy cause, but it died in the Senate because of Conservative senator procedural shenanigans.
Then of course, in the 42nd Parliament, there was the bill that brought us to where we are today. It was the bill introduced to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, Bill C-262. It was ahead of its time, ahead of where the puck was going, and it directly led to the government introducing its own legislation in the subsequent Parliament to make sure Canada's federal laws were in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill, which was duly passed by the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, was held up because of procedural shenanigans and games by Conservative senators at the request of their leader.
This is the amazing thing about the Senate. We cannot do that here in the House. With the rules there, one senator can throw in a wrench and jam up the entire works for days on end, and this tactic is used again and again. Conservative senators, under orders from their leader, have been doing precisely the same thing that Conservatives are mad about today when it comes to their own legislation.
These are the things we have to highlight. They are incredibly important because we have short memories in this place.
I am coming down to my final three minutes, and I very much look forward to the questions that will come. However, it does us well to understand that, first of all, Bill C-234 would not have passed in this place if it were not for all opposition parties working together to pass it because they saw merit in the bill. That is number one. Number two, we fundamentally agree with the principle that the Senate, as an unelected body, needs to respect the will of the House. The only party that has been consistent on that position through several parliaments is the NDP. We are the only party that comes out squeaky clean in a debate about the Senate, and all members would do well to acknowledge that fact.
Consistent with our third reading vote on Bill C-234, we will be voting in favour of today's motion, because that is consistent with the approach we have always taken. Had there been motions on our own private members' bills from several previous parliaments, we would have done the same thing. It is important to remind senators that we are the ones who have to face the electorate. We are the ones conveying the wishes of the people of Canada. Every seat in this place represents a distinct geographic area of Canada. We are the ones bringing the voice of the people here, and senators need to be reminded of that fact.
I will end by again highlighting the hypocrisy. I like serving with many of my Conservative colleagues, but as a party, we cannot take any moral lessons from them on the Senate given their history with appointing failed candidates, with party bagmen and with the instructions they give to their 15 caucus members who are members of the Senate. With the entire history they have of blocking bills, Canadians who are listening to today's debate need to understand that the last place we would ever go for a moral lesson on the problems with the Senate is the Conservative Party of Canada. I just want to make that very clear.
I will end my remarks there. I thank everyone for taking the time to listen, and I look forward to any questions or comments.
2886 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it has to be acknowledged that Bill C-234 would not have passed the House of Commons if not for the support of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party. However, I am amazed at the audacity of the Conservatives to lecture us on the Senate when this is a party that appoints failed candidates and party bagmen, and they have a history of using their own senators to block private members' bills in several parliaments past.
However, on the principle of it, does my hon. colleague agree that ultimately the Senate should respect the democratic will of the House of Commons and that no matter what the bill is, if we pass it here, based on the will of the people, the Senate should accede to those wishes?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Huron—Bruce for getting Bill C-234 to this stage in the legislative process. It is important to underline we would not be at this stage if not for the co-operation and collaboration of all opposition parties. It kind of highlights how delightful it is to work in a minority Parliament when we can outnumber the government at times and control policy.
As the agriculture critic, and I have served now on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food since the beginning of 2018, I have to say that of all the standing committees of the House the agriculture committee absolutely, despite some of our policy differences, is a fantastic place to work. It comes from a recognition that ridings across Canada, this great country of ours, have farmers and agricultural activities represented by Liberals, Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and by New Democrats. There is a desire at that committee to put aside some of our more confrontational aspects to work really on behalf of farmers and try to make sure we are presenting good policy on behalf of farmers.
The great theme we need to talk about of course is the threat climate change poses. Farmers will tell us right away they are on the front lines of the battle with climate change. They are the ones who have had to deal first-hand with irregular weather patterns, intense amounts of precipitation, wild forest fires and heat domes. I have often talked about my home province of British Columbia that, in 2021, in the space of three months went from a heat dome to an atmospheric river. The term “atmospheric river” is now part of our lingo, and no one ever really had experienced that kind of torrential downpour. It was particularly brutal in the Lower Mainland, in what it did for many farmers.
Farmers are absolutely trying their best and are going to be a key part of the solution, not only from the carbon sequestration or the different farming techniques they are employing but also just from the efficiencies that have been generated. If we look at the amount of fuel that is burned now to take off harvest from the land, our farmers have definitely been some of the leaders in taking up new technologies in trying to make their farms more efficient.
If we look at the volatile nature of prices for fossil fuels, it is absolutely in farmers' best interests to try to find alternatives to that. If we look at the very tight margins many of our farms operate by, they absolutely are trying everything they can to save money.
With Bill C-234, I have heard the arguments from the government against this bill. I understand concerns with any attempt to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. I believe a price on pollution is important. It is important to try to get that innovation to alternative fuel sources. However, that only works if there is a viable alternative. What we have heard repeatedly at committee from members of the agricultural community is that when it comes to drying grain there currently are no commercially viable alternatives. That was said repeatedly and it was presented with evidence. Sure it might come in time, but at present there just simply is not an alternative.
I listened to the Liberals talk about their concerns. It is important to understand that, when they first brought in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in 2018, when they authored that act at a time of a majority government, they took the time to identify in the definitions what a qualifying farming fuel was. They took time to define the activity of farming, what eligible farming machinery was and what eligible farming activities were. They did that so in the bill, their original act, they could carve out exemptions for agricultural activities.
The Liberals, in 2018, realized that for certain agricultural activities exemptions needed to be carved out from the application of a price on pollution because there were no alternatives that were commercially viable. That is an important fact we need to remember within the context of our discussion on Bill C-234.
The agriculture committee had about 30 witnesses, and the overwhelming majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee were in favour of Bill C-234. Going back to the collaboration and co-operation of all opposition parties, I was glad to see some of my amendments pass. They were very helpful in narrowing the scope of the bill so that it applies specifically to buildings that have a verifiable agricultural purpose.
To send a signal to agricultural producers that this is a temporary measure, it was very important to have the sunset clause. The provisions of this bill would expire in eight years, and at that time, Parliament can take up the cause to review the state of the technology in the industry and decide whether further amendments are needed. It is very important to underline the fact that this bill is going to be in effect for eight years only. That, in itself, is an important price signal and is going to encourage the development of alternative forms of fuel and energy.
We did our due diligence at committee. Language was put into the bill. It was amended in a way that has tightened its scope, and it has an important sunset clause. I know from having spoken with many agricultural organizations that there is widespread support for this, and I am happy to continue my support for the bill. When we get to a vote, I will definitely be voting to send it off to the Senate. Hopefully the other place will make short work of it.
974 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remember that when the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was brought into force in 2018, even at that time the Liberal government recognized that there had to be important definitions for qualifying farming fuel for the activity of farming, for what eligible farming machinery was and what eligible farming activities were, so, even at that time, the Liberals recognized that special exemptions had to be carved out in the original act for agricultural activities.
I am wondering if the member for Huron—Bruce can comment on that and juxtapose that with the Liberals' opposition to this bill when, back in 2018, they recognized that these exemptions were actually important.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise to speak to Bill C-234. I would like to acknowledge the member for Huron—Bruce, who is bringing forward this bill, which is a revival of what was called Bill C-206 in the 43rd Parliament. I would like to indicate that, as the New Democratic Party agriculture critic, I will be giving my support to the bill, demonstrating that we review every private member's bill that comes before us based on its merits and the principle behind it. I feel the principle behind this bill is sound.
I have been our party's agriculture critic for four years now. I have spent four years on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and I am very familiar with the predecessor to this bill. I was present on the agriculture committee when we did a deep dive into the provisions of Bill C-206. As I will reflect later in my speech, this is something that the agricultural community is most definitely calling for.
Before I get into that, it is important to set the table with regard to the difficulties that are being posed by climate change. The fact that human-caused climate change is occurring is no longer in dispute. It is very much a verifiable scientific fact, and many parts of the world are starting to face a climate emergency. It is one that will manifest itself in increasingly costly ways, not only to our natural environment, but also to our economy. We will see more extreme weather events, and it is our farmers who will suffer because, as I have heard time and time again at the agriculture committee, farmers are on the front lines of this fight.
This climate emergency is leading to changing precipitation patterns. We are seeing increased occurrences of catastrophic flooding and catastrophic droughts. These are going to have real economic costs. We saw that in my home province of British Columbia last year when, in the space of a few months, we went from a heat dome and massive wildfires to flooding that essentially cut the port of Vancouver off from the rest of the country. That led to major disruptions for our agricultural producers in the prairie provinces.
We as a country need to acknowledge this fact, and we need to put in place policy that is going to treat it like the serious matter that it is. It is the fight of the 21st century. Unfortunately, the continuing political fight that we have seen in this place over the carbon tax has ignored many of these realities and it has sidelined the leadership that we as a country need to take against climate change. However, what has been missing in this conversation is the important role that farmers and our agriculture sector do and can play in this conversation. That centres on the theme of carbon sequestration.
It is time for us to start placing our farmers up on a pedestal and acknowledging the important work they do. The only way we are going to meaningfully solve this climate change problem is if we significantly reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere and find ways to put it in the soil where it can play a stable role.
I have been inspired by so many in Canada's agriculture sector who are adopting regenerative farming practices. They are going beyond sustainability as a principle and are observing the patterns and principles in ecosystems to reduce their input and help purify the air, the water, rebuild the soil and increase diversity. In this way, our agricultural leaders are building resilience against climate change by tackling and overcoming challenges without being completely overwhelmed by them, and we must find ways as parliamentarians in this place to be strong and firm partners with those leaders.
In 2020, I took a trip to the interior of southern British Columbia where I talked with ranchers who had won sustainability awards. I do want to acknowledge the work of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, which are showing the way by trying to replicate the natural ecosystem that used to exist on Canada's Prairies and that requires a symbiotic relationship between plants and animals through rotational grazing techniques, which actually leads to healthier grasslands, which in their own way are putting carbon back into the soil where we need to put it.
Despite the advances that we have made in good agricultural practices in the fight against climate change, it is still an inescapable fact that farmers today do depend on fossil fuels. This is especially true when it comes to the drying of grain.
Many of my colleagues here will remember the wet autumn of 2019, which was called the harvest from hell. That was extensive and prolonged rainfall that happened right before and during the harvest in many parts of Canada. Of course, the early snowfalls and frosts also ruined many crops. Farmers in those situations were forced to use propane and natural gas heaters to dry their grain. Without the use of those dryers, their cash crops would have become worthless because rot would have set in, and it would have been a massive economic hit.
As it stands, there are currently no viable commercial alternatives to the use of propane and natural gas for the operation of these dryers. This was explained very clearly to the agriculture committee in the previous Parliament. During that time, when we were examining Bill C-206, we received eight briefs and had 29 witnesses over six meetings. In particular, I will highlight some of the testimony that we received from the Agri-Food Innovation Council.
The council acknowledged that we want to move to alternative and renewable energy sources. It also pointed out the fact that we are not yet at a point where farmers have those alternative options available. Many of the renewable or clean energy options are still in an experimental stage and they have nowhere near the scaling-up capability that farmers need to employ them on a mass scale. With that being said, there was also an acknowledgement that Ottawa can play a key role in helping develop further research into alternative, renewable and clean energy sources.
I also want to acknowledge that we had several witnesses come before the committee who expressed concern with Bill C-206. However, again, when I pressed them on the fact that there were no viable alternatives, I did not, in my own opinion, hear a convincing argument to lead me to go the other way. There is a very real interest in trying to repeat the work that we did at the agriculture committee. Let us bring Bill C-234 there, so that we can again do a deep dive into it and find ways, hopefully, of making some slight improvements.
It does not need to be said in this place that the value of our agricultural crops out of the Prairies, especially with grains and canola, numbers in the billions of dollars and is an incredible economic driver in those regions. Those sectors need to have our support, especially when they are facing challenges and especially when no viable alternatives exist. It is a significant part of our economy as many of my colleagues will attest.
In the final couple of minutes with respect to Bill C-234, I will say that the main thing it would do is make definitions as to what a qualifying farm fuel is and what eligible farming machinery is. With respect to a qualifying farm fuel, the bill would be making sure that natural gas and propane are provided in the list of fuels. With respect to eligible farming machinery, I think this is an improvement on the previous Bill C-206. The bill is specifically making reference to grain drying but also making room for providing heating or cooling in a building. I will just highlight that this particular section might be too broad a definition, and it is something that I am interested in taking a closer look at in committee. That being said, there is some room for improvement and some room for negotiation on hopefully improving this bill and reporting it back to the House.
In conclusion, I hope that, in our conversation on Bill C-234, we also take this opportunity to acknowledge the incredible costs that farmers are bearing. This has been detailed quite considerably by the National Farmers Union, which has recognized that Canadian farm debt is now listed at over $100 billion and has nearly doubled since the year 2000. Since 1990, the corporations that supply fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, fuels, technology services and credit have captured nearly all of farm revenues, leaving farmers with just 5% of the total revenue.
While I think that the measures in Bill C-234 are going to have a measurable impact, we also need to use this opportunity to have a broader conversation on how we support farmers and make sure that, in most of the work that they are doing, the financial rewards are in fact staying in their pockets.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as the NDP's agriculture critic, I look forward to supporting this bill so that we can have a closer look at it in the agriculture committee, just as I did with Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament.
We often are talking about the punitive aspects of policy, but the member did talk a bit about the work that farmers are doing. I was wondering if he could expand on the amazing potential that exists on farms for renewable energy sources. If we look at the area that is on barns, we could help farmers with solar panel installations. There are also some tremendous possibilities to use natural gas that is naturally derived from the decomposition of materials on farms. Could the member expand on how Ottawa can maybe partner with those farms, instead of having an Ottawa-knows-best approach, and really try to put those farmers on a pedestal, show good examples and maybe increase the knowledge transfer so that all regions across Canada are benefiting from that knowledge?
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
