So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/30/24 2:01:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a big congratulations to all the grade 8 and grade 12 students who are graduating this year in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and beyond. We are all proud of them for reaching this significant milestone in their educational journey. Their hard work, dedication and resilience have paid off, and they should be proud of their achievements. This year's ceremony is extra special for our grade 12 students, who were denied a proper grade 8 graduation because of the pandemic. I hope their high school graduation ceremonies are made even more memorable to mark overcoming such a challenging time. As they move on, whether to high school, post-secondary education, trade or entering the workforce, I remind them to embrace every opportunity, continue to strive for excellence and never stop learning. They are the future of Canada. Celebrate this momentous occasion with joy. Best wishes for continued success and happiness, and congratulations again to the class of 2024.

166 words

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/28/24 2:48:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the answer from the NDP-Liberal government that it wants Canadians like Allan and Willa to be poor and miserable. Canadians deserve a break. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and how does the government repay them? It increases the carbon tax by 23%. I will ask the question again: Will the Prime Minister adopt our common-sense plan to axe the tax on gas this summer, so Canadians can afford a summer vacation?

80 words

Willa

May/28/24 2:47:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the hunger and homelessness. Allan and Willa, seniors from Melbourne who have worked their whole lives, have told me that they cannot even afford a small vacation because everything is too expensive. Conservatives are calling on the government to axe the tax this summer and save Ontario families nearly $600 to help pay for food, housing and maybe a small family vacation. Will the Prime Minister adopt our common-sense plan to axe the tax on gas this summer, so Canadians can afford a summer road trip?

100 words

Afford

Apr/29/24 4:59:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I have heard from constituents across Middlesex and across London who are facing hard times right now. They cannot afford food. They are going to food banks in record numbers. Of course, we have a rural area around London where people are paying a high carbon tax. Would the member for London—Fanshawe like to comment on why she continues to support the Liberal government with the carbon tax and why she will not vote in favour of Bill C-234 to axe the tax for our farmers?

91 words

Apr/29/24 4:58:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has told us that she does not belong to part of the government, but in my hand I have a copy of the supply and confidence agreement that was signed by the NDP. It is the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal government. I would like to table this document. I have it in both official languages. Perhaps—

65 words

Apr/29/24 4:06:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask for unanimous consent to table the NDP-Liberal government's supply and confidence agreement. Some hon. members: No.

24 words

Context: House Hansard - 300 - Apr/16/24

Apr/29/24 2:47:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, “Food banks in Canada are being pushed to the brink with high demand and donations not keeping pace”. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, that was this morning's headline. Canadian families cannot afford to buy food, and our farmers who grow food face punishment, not progress. No farms means no food. From high cost to empty store shelves, the Prime Minister and his costly carbon tax are not worth the cost, so will the Prime Minister finally axe the carbon tax so our farm families can stay in business and Canadian families are not forced to use food banks?

106 words

Context: House Hansard - 300 - Apr/16/24

Apr/16/24 2:43:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, even the polls tell us that the majority of Canadians are fed up with the Prime Minister overspending, over-promising, under-delivering and failing this country. Over $52 billion will be spent on servicing his debt alone. While Canadians are struggling, he raised the price of gas, groceries and home heating, raising the carbon tax by 23% just two weeks ago. This is punishment, not progress. In his big-deficit budget later today, will the Prime Minister finally axe the tax on farmers and make food cheaper for Canadians?

91 words

Context: House Hansard - 297 - Apr/10/24

Apr/16/24 2:42:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost, but let us hear from some rural residents. Judy from Arkona writes, “The carbon tax is killing us”, and Scott from Tupperville says, “As a senior, I am finding it hard to cope.” Walter from Alvinston writes, “I have not even received a carbon rebate.” In his broken-promise budget, set to be delivered at 4 p.m. today, will the Prime Minister finally axe the tax on farmers, make food cheaper for Canadians and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

103 words

Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24

Apr/10/24 4:32:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege, and this is concerning false information contained in the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2340, which was filed by the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. While it may seem unusual for me, as a Conservative member, to be rising about a government response to a question filed by the NDP, this is not just about the member who filed the question but about all members of the House who suffer and whose rights are infringed upon when the government tables information which is clearly false and inaccurate in the House. The response to Question No. 2340, which was tabled by the government on Monday, contains information that is clearly false, which is proven by the government's own records. The question asked was: ...since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding? The response, signed by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, says: ...since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to Loblaws, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys or Costco. We know that this is not true. The government took a lot of pride in announcing millions of dollars for fridges for Loblaws. If one types the word “Loblaws” into the government's proactive disclosure portal, under grants and contributions, one will see that there are three separate listings for government grants and contributions to Loblaws between November 7, 2019, and April 26, 2021. The most significant of these is a contribution for $12,019,723 on November 7, 2019, from Environment and Climate Change Canada for low global warming potential refrigerant conversions in supermarket systems. In other words, it was $12 million to Loblaws to buy new fridges. That one entry, by itself, listed in the proactive disclosure database, proves that the government's response to Question No. 2034 contains false information. In addition, a quick search on the government's own website will show us that on October 24, 2019, it gave $15,803,515 to Costco for “Energy Savings Rebate Program Funding Regarding Canadian Appliance Source”. It is crystal clear, from the government's own data, that the response in the tabled document by the minister on Monday contains false information. This is not a matter of debate or opinion. This is proven by the government's own reporting on proactive disclosure. I had wished that the NDP member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford had raised the question of privilege on his own, but as we all know, his party has an agreement with the government that stunts its ability to criticize the Liberals or to point out the hypocrisy of the NDP supporting a Liberal government that is giving handouts to Loblaws and Costco. When the House of Commons is provided with untrue information or lies, all members of the House suffer and all members have the right to receive accurate information. What the government did here is a breach to all members' rights. On page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, it clearly states that it is a prima facie case of contempt when someone “deliberately attempts to mislead the House or a committee”. While the record will show that Speakers have been reluctant to intervene on the basis of a quality of an answer or a non-answer, this is a case of the government deliberately withholding the truth from the House. On December 16, 1980, on page 5797 of Hansard, the Speaker said: While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.... Should you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

675 words

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Mar/19/24 4:20:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, all day long today we have heard that people get more back in the carbon tax than they pay, which is categorically false, as proven by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Conservatives know common sense. If one does not take the tax in the first place, one will not have to give back anything to Canadians. With respect to Bill C-234, and I am wondering whether my colleague could comment on this, we hear from the Liberals all day long that it is Conservatives who refuse to bring the bill back up for debate. We have brought the bill up six times, and I have had the opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation that would give farmers a reprieve from the carbon tax. Taxing farmers and making their inputs more expensive would pass costs along to consumers. I am just wondering whether my colleague could comment on Bill C-234 and why we need to get the bill passed in its original form.

169 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Feb/15/24 5:06:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-7 Bill C-62 Bill C-314

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a question of paramount importance and profound concern to many of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex: Will Canada cross the Rubicon and expand access to assisted suicide for otherwise healthy individuals whose mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, or do we have enough common sense and moral clarity to stop this radical and dangerous expansion of MAID to mental health cases? The issue at hand stands at the juncture of ethics, medicine and our societal values. This is not merely a policy decision. It is a profound moral question that strikes at the heart of who we are and how we value life and respond to suffering. The core concern here is the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of determining with certainty that mental disorders are irreversibly incurable. Unlike many physical ailments, the trajectory of mental illness is often unpredictable and can respond to treatment over time. The NDP-Liberal government's push toward expansion, despite substantial opposition from medical professionals and the public, raises serious questions. It reflects a troubling trend of policy-making that seems to prioritize ideological considerations over careful, evidence-based deliberation. How can we, in good conscience, move forward with a policy that many experts in psychiatry and mental health view with significant trepidation? The opposition from the medical community, particularly from mental health professionals, is not just significant but deeply insightful. The expert panel on MAID and mental illness, the very panel established by the government to study this issue, acknowledged the complexities involved. It noted the difficulty in predicting the long-term prognosis of mental disorders, underscoring the near impossibility of determining with certainty whether a mental disorder is truly incurable. Leading psychiatrists across Canada have expressed reservations. The Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of the psychiatry departments of all 17 medical schools in the country, called for a delay in implementing MAID for patients with mental disorders as the only underlying medical condition. Its concerns centre on the challenges in assessing incurability and differentiating genuine MAID requests from suicidal ideation rooted in treatable mental health conditions. Surveys conducted within the psychiatric community reflect this opposition. For instance, a significant majority of Manitoba psychiatrists have indicated that Canada is not ready for the implementation of assisted suicide for patients with mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition. A similar sentiment was echoed in a survey conducted by the Ontario Medical Association, where a two-to-one majority of respondents opposed the availability of MAID for such cases. These results are in line with public opinion, which has consistently shown discomfort with this expansion. In fact, I have heard from hundreds of residents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who are opposed to this expansion, and polls such as those conducted by Angus Reid reveal substantial public reservations about MAID for mental illness. If we ignore experts' warnings and the public sentiment and proceed with this expansion, we risk making irreversible decisions in cases where there might be potential for recovery and improvement with the appropriate treatment. The ethical implications of such a scenario are profound and disturbing. In our examination of this issue, we must not overlook the societal context in which decisions about MAID are being made. The CEO of Food Banks Mississauga recently issued a stark warning that the inability to afford basic necessities is pushing people towards considering MAID. This is a harrowing indication that, for some, the choice to pursue assisted dying may be influenced more by socio-economic despair rather than by unimaginable physical or mental health conditions. This revelation is deeply troubling. It compels us to question whether we are addressing the root causes of such despair or merely offering a tragic and irreversible solution to what are fundamentally social and economic problems. This is particularly concerning in light of the ongoing mental health crisis that was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's divisive response. Additionally, we must also reflect on the alarming reports concerning our veterans. There have been stories of veterans being offered MAID. This raises profound concerns about the support and care that we provide to those who have served our country. These individuals, who have sacrificed so much, deserve better than an expedited path to assisted death. These stories underscore the need for robust mental health support and the dangers of expanding MAID without adequately addressing these needs first. When the Liberal government has such a cavalier attitude toward assisted suicide, with a one-way slope toward access expansions and safeguard removals, is it any surprise that, according to the latest available numbers, the annual growth rate of MAID between 2021 and 2022 was 31.2%? Between 2016 and the end of 2022, 44,958 people died by MAID. That is more than the number of Canadians who died in military service during World War II. My point is that Canada's current MAID access may already be the most discretionary in the world. That is before the proposed mental health expansion. We are the only country whose legal system does not see assisted suicide as a last resort. What can we expect to happen to the growth rate if the House enables the “treatment” of mental illness with assisted suicide? We would be past the slippery slope concern if that were to happen. Crossing the Rubicon here would put us closer to free fall. Why are we debating the radical expansion of assisted suicide? Just four months ago, the hon. member for Abbotsford's bill, Bill C-314, was in the House. Conservatives urged the House not to give up on Canadians living with mental illness. Nevertheless, the government voted against the bill, sticking to its original plan, as per Bill C-7, to expand access to MAID to Canadians who are healthy except for their mental disorder. If it were not for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying's tabling, on January 29, 2024, its findings and recommendations, the unprecedented MAID expansion would have been implemented within two months. Thankfully the committee, after extensive consultations and a review of expert testimony, concluded that Canada is not ready for the expansion of MAID to include cases where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition. The report highlights the unresolved issues in accurately assessing the irremediability of mental disorders and the challenges in distinguishing between genuine requests for MAID and those stemming from treatable mental health conditions. The report confirms what common-sense Conservatives have been saying for months: Expanding assisted suicide to those suffering from mental illness would result in the deaths of those who could have gotten better. That is why, just like last year when the government introduced eleventh-hour legislation to put a temporary one-year pause on expanding assisted suicide to those suffering with mental illness, we are once again here at the eleventh hour. There is no question that there is an urgent need to pass Bill C-62 to delay until 2027 the implementation of MAID in cases where a mental disorder is the sole underlying cause and condition. As highlighted by the report of the special joint committee and the voices of experts and Canadians alike, a mere delay may not suffice. What is required is a comprehensive re-evaluation of our approach to MAID, particularly in the context of mental health. The issues at stake are not just medical or legal but are deeply rooted in our societal values and the respect we need to afford the dignity of human life, especially in its most vulnerable forms.

1283 words

Context: House Hansard - 276 - Feb/6/24

Feb/6/24 5:53:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

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

Context: House Hansard - 271 - Jan/30/24

Feb/6/24 5:51:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

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

Context: House Hansard - 271 - Jan/30/24

Jan/30/24 2:37:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, the two million Canadians who rely on food banks deserve better than that cheap deflection. One in five Ontario households who struggle to put food on their tables deserve better. They need this government to stop inflating food prices. They need the Prime Minister to stand up to his radical environment minister and carve out the inflationary carbon tax for our farmers, producers and ranchers. Would the Liberals finally do the right thing, reject the Senate amendments to Bill C-234, remove the carbon tax for farmers and lower the price of food for Canadians?

97 words

All Topics

Jan/30/24 2:36:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians who used to belong to the middle class are going hungry. The Prime Minister and his radical environment minister know that if it costs the farmer more to grow food, it is going to cost Canadians more to buy food. This Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Farmers, ranchers and producers are asking for Bill C-234 to lower their costs. Will the Liberals finally reject the amendments to Bill C-234 from the Senate, remove the carbon tax completely and lower the price of food for all Canadians?

101 words

All Topics

Jan/29/24 8:20:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, I will say to Canadians that Conservatives on this side of the House will vote to axe the tax. We are calling on the House right now to send Bill C-234 back to the Senate in its original form so we can give producers and farmers a break on the carbon tax so their input costs go down and Canadian families can pay less at the grocery store.

71 words

All Topics

Jan/29/24 8:17:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, this year we have seen record yields. I can say that in our harvest in the last crop year, I have seen record yields. In the 50 years that my father farmed, and my grandparents before my father, and in my 45 years of life, I have been through years when we have had droughts, when we have had floods, when we have had record crops and when we have had not so good crops. Farmers are the biggest risk-takers I have ever met in my life. It is a gamble every year. They put something in the ground and pray and hope that Mother Nature is going to bring good weather so they can have an abundant harvest to make a good living. Unfortunately, all the costs that we see, including the carbon tax, are not making farmers profitable, and if farmers are not profitable, they are not going to stay in business. That is going to mean for Canadians that food security is going to be in jeopardy, and not just food security, but food sovereignty. The Liberal government and my colleague with the NDP need to stop propping up the Liberal government and actually support farmers and support axing the carbon tax for our agricultural producers.

213 words

Jan/29/24 8:16:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will take the opportunity to wish my colleague a happy birthday as well. As my colleague said, yes, I have spent years of my life in food production. In fact, we heard from one of my colleagues on this side of the House today and from many farmers in my area this year that they have actually had a bumper crop. They have had higher yields than they have seen in years with some of their crops. Yes, the carbon tax does affect the cost of food. As my colleague pointed out, we may agree to disagree with some of the references we hear, but on an overall scale, as a producer, I know first-hand that my input costs have gone up. If my input costs are going up, if the fuel is going up and everything is going up, I have to increase the price of the produce that I am selling to wholesalers. My costs increase, and therefore I have to pass those costs on to those who buy from me. As wholesalers, they have to make a profit as well, so they have to pass those costs on to the retailers that they sell their product to, and of course the retailers, because they are paying more now for the product, have to increase their prices to consumers. Therefore, I disagree with the premise that the carbon tax does not have an effect on the cost of food, because first-hand knowledge tells me that it absolutely does.

255 words

All Topics