Bill C-234

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

This enactment amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of eligible farming machinery and extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.

Main Estimates 2024-25

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and his comments that are always appropriate. We sit together at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I realized that he shared my view on this budget: There is almost nothing in it for agriculture. If we want people to be fed, we might want to take care of that.

Bill C‑234 came back to the House because it was amended. In fact, it was gutted of all substance by the Senate. My colleague from Foothills proposed an amendment to restore the bill to its original form. I would like to know if my colleague would be in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Foothills for Bill C‑234 to revert to its original form. We must not forget that heating buildings is just as important as drying grain.

Opposition Motion—Government's Economic Analysis on Carbon Pricing

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who set the bar high, as usual. When we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, share our speaking time with each other, we always want to go first because we are all good and that puts pressure on the next person. I will try to make sure my speech is as good as my colleague's.

Today's motion is indeed repetitive, as my colleague mentioned, but it is quite simple. It calls for information. It is too bad that I cannot address the minister directly to ask him the question. I hope he will ask me or that he will want to participate in the exchange, but the first question that I will raise in the House is the following. Why did it take this motion for the document to be released? That bothers me tremendously.

What I find the most difficult about politics is not the long hours, the travel or the documenting work. It is working with so many elected officials who are not always working for the common good or who do not always seem to be doing so. There is a lot of partisanship in political parties in general. One might wonder why the Liberal Party did not make this study public. Is it because it confused its electoral interests with the interests of the public? I am throwing that question out there because it is important and because we have a responsibility here. However, not everyone lives up to that responsibility.

Today is another Conservative opposition day on the carbon tax where we are hearing nonsense. Earlier, a member even referred to the line of the report that gives the projected impact the federal carbon tax would have in 2030, if it applied in Quebec. The cost would be $5 billion. That number was used in question period today and members said that Quebec was losing $5 billion every year. What is that if not a cheap populist approach? I would invite parliamentarians to elevate the debate and show some discipline.

They got the documents. Now, they want something else, they want the notes and the emails. What will they then do with those? That question deserves some thought, considering how the tables obtained today were used. In very short order, the information in the documents was cherry picked rather than subjected to serious analysis. What would happen with the emails and briefing notes? It is a worthwhile question.

I want to reassure everyone, however, that the Bloc Québécois has always supported transparency, and that we are not afraid of information. We want to know how measures like the federal carbon tax will affect the environment, even though the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. We know that we are here, in the federal Parliament and that we are called upon to deal with things happening in the other provinces now and then. That is fine. We have to know the repercussions.

However, we should also find out how much it costs not having measures in place. How much does insurance cost? In recent years, the cost of insurance has risen by tens of billions of dollars. There have been increases of over $30 billion. Do the claims for natural disasters not cost anything? I did not realize that. The floods and torrential rains that affected our farming operations, did that not cost anything?

Many businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. This week I received a delegation of produce growers. According to what these Quebec strawberry and raspberry producers were telling me, dozens of members have announced that they will not be farming this year, because they lost too much last year and the government programs are not working.

They are now telling themselves that climate change is not going to stop, because there is a group of real winners promising to abolish the measures that can help mitigate climate change. It is rather astonishing. That same group of winners actually includes a decent number of elected representatives in Quebec, who agree to speak 9.5 times out of 10 on measures that do not apply to their constituents. That is what amazes me the most.

For a year I have been watching members from Quebec rise in the House and get all worked up over the big bad federal government, over the carbon tax. They say that our farmers are suffering. That does not apply in Quebec. Are they not supposed to be working for their constituents? I keep asking questions. I do nothing but ask questions.

To inform my Conservative colleague who is rising while I am in the middle of making a speech and who seems to be unaware, Quebec is covered by a carbon pricing system called the carbon exchange in association with California. This represents a much bigger market than Canada can offer, by the way. These measures are very effective. What we are seeing in Quebec is that having those measures ends up being less expensive for people and is having an impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Maybe the people in the other provinces who are unhappy with the big bad federal carbon tax should look at what Quebec has put in place, as they are doing on child care and as they want to do on dental care and on pharmacare. Let us look at what Quebec has been doing since 2014. We are still ahead on this. Let us look at what Quebec has done and how this has affected Quebeckers. Maybe some will wish they got on board at the time, but no, because these people want pollution to be free.

I have a lot to say. I am going to run out of time again. However, I want to raise one important point today, concerning the much-touted Bill C‑234. We, the Bloc Québécois, agreed to support this bill even though it did not apply in Quebec. We did so because we thought it seemed reasonable to give people who produce food credits for grain drying and for certain buildings. The bill came back from the Senate in early January. My first speech in 2024 was about Bill C‑234. It had come back with amendments. Instead of returning it to the Senate and having it come back or not come back, or leaving it stuck there without making any progress, we thought that since it had something to offer grain farmers, that it could give them the credit for drying grain, we should support it. I understand the Conservatives' reaction. They initially said no because they wanted the bill to stay in its original form. That is fine; it is part of the debate. However, once the debate ends, voting has to follow.

Now, I am going to talk about hypocrisy. It is June. We are coming up to the summer adjournment and we still have not voted on Bill C-234. As I said earlier, the first speech that I gave in early January was about this bill. Sometimes bills stall in the Senate, but that is normally not the case in the House of Commons. How does someone stall a bill? It is easy. Every time the government wants to put it back on the agenda, people keep rising to fill the time so that we cannot finish the debate and can never vote on the bill. One has to wonder why the Conservatives would want to avoid voting on their own bill. It is because they are getting political mileage out of it. They talk about the bill at least 12 times a day. If we do not vote on the bill, then they can call the government incompetent, unfair and mean. However, they could vote on the bill now and give grain farmers the credit next fall.

I hope there are farmers listening, and I hope they realize that their Conservative MPs are working in the interest of getting themselves elected, not in the interest of our farmers. That really irks me. It grates on me. It gets under my skin when MPs put their energy into scoring political points, posting clips on social media and launching fundraising campaigns. They are raising money. The people who donate that money do not have all the information. I just gave them all the information. The people who are up in arms about the carbon tax are currently blocking Bill C‑234. So much for integrity. So much for noble intentions to help our farmers.

Earlier, I heard a member say that this is why grocery prices have gone up. We know there are all kinds of reasons for that. As my colleagues said earlier, the impact on Quebec is minimal. Yes, inflation is high, and there are other reasons for that. The member stands to answer questions, and he says the answer is no, it is the carbon tax. He can say that a dozen times, but that will never make it true. I would like MPs to be a little more diligent. Let us get serious about working for the common good. I think that would be a good thing.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take to my feet today and talk about the common-sense Conservative motion to release the secret report, which the environment minister had the PBO hide from Canadians, and to reveal the truth to Canadians.

Before I get to the substance of my presentation, there are two things I want to say.

First and foremost, this will be the last time I have a chance to be on my feet and to wish a Happy Father's Day to fathers across Canada, which is coming this Sunday. My wish for Father's Day is that the Oilers get two wins. I will put on record that it was the first time an NDP member has ever clapped for anything I have said in the House.

Second, I will be splitting my time with the member for Foothills. I am looking forward to hearing his presentation later in this debate.

It has come to light that the environment minister has been gagging the PBO and has not been allowing him to let Canadians see the full effect of what the carbon tax has been doing to our economy. Hurriedly this morning, the Liberals were forced to release some, but not all, of the report. That is why this motion is so salient today, because we would like to see the full, unredacted report released so that Canadians know how much the job-killing carbon tax is crippling our economy. The report states that $30.5 billion is going to be put at risk in our economy because of this carbon tax when it is fully implemented. We do not have to look very far to see the results of what is going to continue to happen.

This all came to light because of some very good work done at the finance committee by one of my colleagues. The PBO stated, “it doesn't change the overall conclusion...as I pointed out...our numbers have been out there since 2022. In that time...the government...has not published anything regarding the economic impact of the carbon tax.” He went on to say, “We know...that the government has these numbers on the economic impact.... They have not published anything....”

Our colleague went on to ask, “you understood that the government had economic analysis on the carbon tax that it has not released. Are you saying that the government has not been transparent with the analysis it has?”

The PBO stated, “I mentioned that the government has economic analysis on the impact of the carbon tax itself and the OBPS.... We've seen that—staff in my office—but we've been told explicitly not to disclose it or reference it.”

Our colleague said to the PBO, “The government has given you their analysis, but they have put a gag on you, basically, saying you can't talk about it.”

The Parliamentary Budget Officer responded, “That is my understanding.”

This revelation is something that should be quite shocking to Canadians. We know that the Liberal government has had a disregard for the rule of law. We saw it bring in the Emergencies Act. It had a disregard for the rights of Canadians when it came to trying to divide us based on a personal health choice. We know that the radical environment minister is an eco-terrorist and has no respect for the law, because he was actually arrested climbing a tower. Therefore, to have such little respect for the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer is not out of character for the members of the government, who really believe, as they are so out of touch, that they can do whatever they want and that Canadians should just go along with it.

Now, we are talking about the long-term damaging effects to our economy. We know that our GDP continues to decrease and that it is one of the lowest in the G7. That is a direct result of the radical fiscal policies, and one might say the wacko policies, that the NDP-Liberal costly coalition has forced on Canadians.

I had the honour to attend the 111th AGM of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association on Monday. We had conversations about this, constantly, because it is getting harder for ranchers and for farmers to try to make ends meet. We know the PBO has also said that by 2030, when the carbon tax is fully implemented, it is going to take $1 billion out of the ag sector alone. It is going to cost the average farm about $170,000 a year. Who can eat that kind of a tax increase? It is going to be harder for farm families to make ends meet and to put food on the table, because if we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who trucks the food, then we tax all Canadians who buy the food.

I really think it is important that we look at how the Liberals have continued to put terrible policies in place that are affecting our farmers. The fertilizer reduction tariff is making it harder for farmers to grow food, as is the carbon tax. We did have a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, that was going to actually lessen the weight of the crushing carbon tax on our Canadian farmers. The Senate sent it back and gutted the bill, and now the Liberals and New Democrats will not let us get this bill passed. There are things we can do, and have tried to do, to ensure that our farmers are able to be better off, but that is just not something the current government is focused on, trying to help ranchers, farmers and producers across the country.

When it comes to the hidden report that Canadians were not allowed to see, I appreciate the member for Whitby, who is famous for saying that Canadians will go through pain because of the carbon tax. He got that part right. Canadians have felt pain all over this country, as we see millions lined up at food banks. That is the type of pain the member for Whitby was talking about. However, he is also the one who actually brought up the hidden report in the first place at committee. I think it is very interesting that we have not heard him speak on this motion, as of yet, but I would love to hear some of the comments that he might have on a $30.5-billion hit to our economy.

We are now saying that the environment minister is unfit to have his job. He should resign or the Prime Minister should fire him, because he purposely misled Canadians on the Liberals' flagship tax policy. I think it is time that he does the right thing and that he resigns from his position as the environment minister. The Prime Minister does not show leadership on this front. We all know that he is flailing in the polls, but it is time for him to actually show some leadership, which he has not done in nine long years, and get rid of the environment minister, who is making it harder for Canadians to make ends meet.

When it comes down to it, $30.5 billion from this crippling carbon tax is going to hurt our Canadian economy, and Canadians everywhere will be out about $1,800 a year, for every Canadian family. That is unconscionable, and it should stop.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour today of a very reasonable motion that I believe members of Parliament from all parties should support, moved today by the leader of the official opposition.

When making any major decision, it is important to weigh the costs and the benefits. That is true in the private sector, true in life in general and especially true for politicians when we are deciding on government policy. That includes environmental policy, and the Liberals' carbon tax, their hallmark policy meant to address global warming and climate change, should be no exception.

When the Liberals introduced their carbon tax in 2019, it was set at $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalents, a little over 4¢ on a litre of gas. Since then, the Liberals have increased the carbon tax every year so that it now stands at $80 per tonne, about 18¢ per litre. The Liberals say that they will continue to increase the carbon tax every year for the rest of the decade until it reaches $170 per tonne, about 40¢ on a litre of gas.

To look at it another way, if the gas tank of a typical car holds about 50 litres of gas, that means that in 2030, the average Canadian will pay an extra $20 on a tank of gas each and every time he or she fills up the car at the gas station.

However, the carbon tax applies to so much more than just filling up one's tank with gas. It applies to home heating. It applies to heating of commercial businesses. It applies to heating of schools, hospitals and municipal buildings. It applies to farmers who have to heat their barns and dry their grain, which is why the Conservatives have been advocating for the passage of Bill C-234 to exempt farmers' grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that these costs would not be passed on to consumers.

In fact last winter, Environment and Climate Change Canada was even going so far as to contact pizzeria and bagel shop owners about their wood-burning ovens, to see whether they should be subject to the carbon tax. Fortunately, it did not go through with the measure, but it shows just how wide-ranging and sweeping the Liberals' carbon tax has been on every aspect of Canadians' lives.

It seemed perfectly reasonable that, last April, the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested from Environment and Climate Change Canada its internal analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax. When Environment and Climate Change Canada responded last month, there was one sentence in the reply letter that was very troubling. It read, “The data the Department is providing contains unpublished information. As such, I request you to ensure that this information is used for your office’s internal purposes only and is not published or further distributed”.

I see no good reason for the government's analysis of the economic impacts of the carbon tax to be withheld from members of Parliament or from Canadians at large. If we as elected officials are responsible for making the best decisions possible for Canadians, if we are responsible for weighing the costs and the benefits of the policy, then it makes no sense for the costing analysis to be withheld.

This morning, because of today's motion, the Liberal government released at least part of the information. We now know, according to the government, that the carbon tax is costing the Canadian economy $20 billion per year, roughly $1,200 per household. I have to say that it is extremely frustrating that a government that once claimed to be transparent by default is still playing games and blocking access to important information.

Now that I have outlined some of the costs of the carbon tax, I think that it is fair for Canadians to ask, “What are the benefits?” The stated objective of the carbon tax is to prevent global warming and climate change, so this question has to be asked: “By how many degrees Celsius has global warming decreased as a result of Canada's carbon tax?” That question is fundamental to the whole issue. Is it half a degree Celsius? Is it 0.1°C? Is it 0.01°C? Canadians deserve to know what we are getting for that extra $20 on a tank of gas.

I would like to read a quote from the government's report entitled “How Pollution Pricing Reduces Emissions”, which was referred to in the department's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The first line of the report reads, “Every day, we see the increasing impacts of climate change and they’re costing Canadians more and more.”

The Economy

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up tonight on my previous question to the government about the skyrocketing use of food banks in this country. It is going in the wrong direction. We have seen the national statistics, but tonight I want to provide an update on the local scene, which is not much better.

Let us remember what Food Banks Canada said in its recent report: Two million Canadians are using a food bank per month. That was last year. Looking ahead, it is expecting one million more visits to food banks in 2024. There are numerous food banks in every part of this country that are not only sharing heartbreaking stories of Canadians, many for the first time going to food banks for help, but are also talking about the increased pressure and demand on their staff, volunteers and suppliers to provide such a basic necessity to Canadians in their time of need. We know that this year alone, with inflation continuing to be a problem, numbers building on even worse numbers from previous years, the average Canadian family will be paying $700 more on their grocery bill.

I am grateful every single day for the not-for-profits that are working in my community of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, the city of Cornwall and Akwesasne helping those people who need some support. There was a local group that supplemented many of the national reports that paint the picture of how food insecurity is not just an issue in big cities but is also hurting our part of eastern Ontario. The “Voices United II” report by Food Banks United used data created by the Agapè Centre in Cornwall; the Community Food Share in Winchester, Morrisburg and Finch; the House of Lazarus in Mountain and Ingleside; and the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Alexandria.

Here are the statistics from that report: Forty per cent of survey respondents in the area are personally hungry and do not have enough food, and 38% are missing meals in order to pay their hydro, heat or rent instead. Thirty-three per cent of food bank clients in our area are going whole days every month without eating, and 34% of food bank clients in eastern Ontario are children.

The scary part is the growing number of people who are employed, working hard to make a living and make ends meet; there is a 37% increase over just the last year in the number of people who are employed and still cannot make ends meet. Their rent or mortgage, food bill, or whatever it may be, is becoming too much to bear.

We are seeing a correlation revolving around the carbon tax. The more that the government increases the carbon tax, the farther it is putting people behind, and the more people are using food banks. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, if Bill C-234 passes, the common-sense conservative bill, it would save Canadian farmers $1 billion in carbon taxes in the coming years, with zero rebates.

No one believes the Liberal and NDP math saying we could put $1 billion on the agricultural industry and not have that passed along to consumers. Putting more carbon tax on truckers, grocery stores and small businesses, without the rebate, cannot help but drive up costs.

When will the government get with the program and understand that the carbon tax is hurting families and driving them to food banks? It should axe the tax, provide some relief and finally bring down food bank use and food prices in this country.

Carbon Pricing

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the “Liberal Bloc” continues to make life more expensive for Canadian farmers and families. By allowing the Senate to gut Bill C‑234, it is contributing to the demise of a generation of farmers. The Bloc Québécois and the Prime Minister are not worth the cost. Food prices are at an all-time high, and food bank use in Beauce has increased by 25% in the past six months.

Will the government commit today to voting for what Canadians want and passing Bill C‑234 in its original form?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers know, but the member apparently does not, that 95% of all farm fuels are already exempt from the price on pollution.

As for Bill C-234 and the very tortuous parliamentary process that party has submitted that bill to, I am glad that my counterpart, the Conservative House leader, has finally relented and allowed the bill to be debated today. However, we will see how the opposition determines to go forward on that bill, which it presented and is responsible for.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is another fairy tale from a Liberal who clearly does not understand food production.

The government cannot deny that paying $25,000 in a single month in carbon tax is punishing this farmer. The NDP-Liberals live in la-la land if they do not think that these costs get passed on to Canadian families.

When will the government leave fantasy land, stop hurting our farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Canadians are struggling to afford food and the NDP-Liberal government does not care.

From its carbon tax to red tape to its ban on plastics for produce, every single bad policy the government announces hurts our farmers and makes food more expensive. One farmer paid over $25,000 in a single month in carbon tax alone. Farmers cannot absorb these costs, and, no, they do not get a rebate cheque.

When will the NDP-Liberals get out of the way and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, we have been blessed with incredible natural resources and abundance. From sea to sea to sea, we have been so richly endowed with our land, which produces food and feeds not only Canadians, but the entire world. Our agricultural sector is world-class in sustainability and efficient farming practices, and it is the envy of the entire world.

Our farmers and agricultural sector are essential to our national prosperity. However, examining the government's policies over the last nine years, so many farmers have written to me and have asked me a simple question: “Is the government trying to put us out of business as farmers?” With escalating carbon taxes, restrictive punitive regulations, onerous red tape and constantly shifting fertilizer rules, many farmers are asking if the Liberal government's objective is to destroy their farming business to advance its ideological goals.

It is clear that farmers are paying the price of the punitive carbon tax, and Canadians are also seeing skyrocketing increases in their grocery bills. What this government has failed to understand is that when we tax the farmer who grows the food and we tax the trucker who ships the food, we are essentially taxing the Canadians who buy the food. That is just basic economics. That is why Bill C-234 is back in the House and presented again. It would provide a needed carve-out for farmers from the Liberal carbon tax. This carve-out would ensure that farmers are not punished for drying grain, heating barns and essential farm operations.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that carbon tax on propane and natural gas used for greenhouses, heating and cooling livestock barns, and drying grain will cost farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030. In Ontario alone, with the April 1 carbon tax increase, farmers will pay $53 million in carbon taxes over the next year. By 2030, they will have paid $566 million in increased carbon taxes. This is just not affordable, nor is it sustainable.

Bill C-234, in its original form, would ensure that $1-billion worth of tax savings would go back into the agricultural sector so that farmers could continue to produce the food that feeds Canadians. Let us be clear, the amendments made by the Senate essentially gutted the original bill, and there is no point to this bill if these amendments are allowed to stand.

There is no evidence put forth on an environmental basis that would support not giving a carve-out to farmers. The Liberals have always defended this ideological tax by saying that, without it, carbon tax emissions will continue to go up, global temperatures will rise and Canada will burn without the carbon tax. Yet, they fail to mention that the Canadian agricultural sector already leads the world in sustainable farming practices. If this government believes that its carbon tax is working, why does it not have measures? Why does it not have a means to measure the impact of this tax on greenhouse gas reductions? Let us not forget that the whole point of this carbon tax is to reduce carbon. How can farmers and Canadians trust this government when the Liberals do not even believe in the efficacy of their own carbon tax policies? They have no means of measuring how efficient the carbon tax is at actually reducing carbon.

The reality is that the Liberal policies have directly contributed to food insecurity in Canada. Across our nation, even though we should have some of the lowest food prices, we are seeing outrageous costs for food, and it is because of the carbon tax on the farmers. Today, in Canada, we are witnessing one in four Canadians skipping meals just to get by. We are seeing families paying $700 more for food this year than they did in 2023. The unfortunate situation is that two million Canadians are actually accessing food banks every single month. This is atrocious.

In Haldimand—Norfolk, the community where I reside, the health unit came out with a report earlier this year to warn that a growing number of residents do not have enough money to buy healthy food for a healthy diet. I will quote the report. It said, “incomes are not enough to cover even basic expenses”.

Despite the suffering of Canadians, the government continues to hike the carbon tax every single year. There is no common sense in that, and there is certainly no compassion. If the Liberal government refuses to axe the carbon tax, at the very least, it must consider supporting the proposal to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C-234. The government must pass the important legislation, in its original form, so that we can get back to supporting farmers and families. Then, farmers can once again feed Canadians. That is what the bill is about.

We know that the Liberals could do this tomorrow if they had the political will. They have done it already. A few short months ago, the Liberals announced a carve-out for home heating oil. They know that most people who heat their homes with oil have no viable alternatives, so to tax them would be burdensome and completely wrong. Farmers face the same situation, and they are in desperate need of this carve-out.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a bit of a trip down nostalgia lane for me when we start talking about Bill C-234 because one of the first things I did when I became elected in 2019 was bring forward private member's bill, Bill C-206. Bill C-206 was in many ways a precursor to Bill C-234. I remember initially coming here after being elected and I really did not understand the process of the private member's bill. A little bit of a humorous story is that my staffer came to me and told me that I had won the lottery. I wondered, “What lottery?” It was the private members' bills lottery. For those who do not know, the private members' bills are drawn and I think we were number 16.

We went through a significant significant consultation process because we wanted to make sure we made the most of this opportunity. We talked to stakeholders and constituents, to people far and wide, about what we could possibly bring forward that would have the most beneficial impact for the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South as well as Canada.

We were really taken by a conversation we had with a number of stakeholder organizations and a farmer and a great man, Mr. Sid Atkinson, who has since, unfortunately, passed away. He told us of the challenges that farmers were having with respect to the cost of grain drying and other expenses of the carbon tax. He made a very strong case and I will attempt to repeat it, though probably not as eloquently as Mr. Atkinson did. He told the story of the struggles that farmers were often having. Farmers are, after all, price takers; in many cases, they do not get to set their own prices. Prices are set either by exchanges in far-off lands or by large grocery stores here in Canada, so whatever price farmers have, they have to make it work. One of the new expenses they were facing was, of course, the carbon tax. Mr. Atkinson then went on to say, “I've lived on this farm and we've been on this farm for generations, so of course we care about the land, we care about climate change, but we also have to be fiscally responsible as well.” Bill C-234 would not do either because the way it is written right now, dirtier fuels, gasoline and diesel, would be exempted, but cleaner ones such as natural gas and propane would not.

Back then, in 2019, I had the naïveté to believe that this was a mistake; that I would bring this to the Liberal government and the members would say, “Of course, we have made an error here” and ask, “Why would we exempt dirtier fuels like diesel and gasoline and instead tax those cleaner fuels, natural gas and propane?” Particularly natural gas has been pointed to by many, including environmental activists, as an excellent option as a transitional fuel because it is much cleaner than fuels such as coal and other fuels.

Therefore, we brought this Bill C-206 to the House and I was very pleased at the time that my colleagues from both the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party supported that. At the time, we even had the support of the Green Party, so that was fantastic, because they saw this as not necessarily a fight over the carbon tax, though Conservatives are pleased to have that argument, particularly in an election, but those members saw it as just a common-sense provision that was just trying to give farmers equal access.

Along the trail, we have actually had a couple of Liberal supporters. At the time, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell was a supporter of the bill and actually voted against his party and supported this. We had a consensus of support and we actually were moving along. We got it through second reading, made it through committee and got all the way to the Senate. Unfortunately, it was the summer when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary $600-million adventure, which he called an “election”, to leave us in exactly the same spot we were in terms of the number of representatives. I should say, though, that I am pleased that we were able to be joined by the great member for Peterborough—Kawartha as well as the member for Bay of Quinte, which is tremendous. That $600-million cost unfortunately ended our debate and ended Bill C-206.

However, I was so pleased to see the member for Huron—Bruce take up the mantle and actually improve Bill C-206 with Bill C-234. Bill C-234, once again, received support from the majority of the members of the House, made it all the way from second reading to third reading to the Senate, where, unfortunately, and at least not to my recent recollection, there was an unprecedented all-out push by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment to get this bill amended. Let us call a spade a spade here. The bill was not amended in an effort to improve it, but so that it would not pass through the Senate and receive royal assent. When a bill is amended at the Senate, it has to come back to this place. At that point, the government has the ability to push it back and, ultimately, defeat it through the use of time, if not time alone. Despite the fact this bill, at least initially, had the support of enough senators, with the all-out pressure of the Minister of Environment and the Prime Minister, it was amended in a very unfortunate way, because it removed barn heating as well as greenhouses.

Of course, in Northumberland—Peterborough South, we have some of the best farmers, the best farms and the best farmland in all the country. I can tell members that, from numerous discussions with farmers in our riding, it is costing them thousands of dollars in barn heating and carbon tax. The thing is, as was mentioned here, there is no rebate for farmers on this tens of thousands of dollars. The reality is that, oftentimes, it is either money that these farmers have to directly give up or it gets pushed on down to the consumer. Ultimately, if the price of eggs, milk or cereal goes up, the millionaires, billionaires and wealthy individuals of this world will be okay, but it is the most vulnerable who will hurt.

I might add that our rural communities are really challenged out here in Northumberland—Peterborough South. I know the member for York—Simcoe has talked numerous times about the economic challenges that his community is facing. What is wild is the way the Liberals have even done the calculations for the rebate, because those folks who are the most vulnerable are paying these tremendously high costs and often do not even get the benefit of the rural top-up. I have been to the member's riding. It is a beautiful place. It may not be quite as beautiful as Northumberland—Peterborough South, but it is a beautiful place. It is the soup and salad capital of Canada and it is facing these costs without the benefit of the rural top-up. I encourage anyone to drive down there. If they do not think that certainly parts of it, if not the majority of it, are rural, they certainly have not been to the beautiful riding of York—Simcoe.

To bring this to a conclusion, the facts are in and the judgment is in. When we take into account the economic and fiscal impacts, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said unequivocally, and it is right in his report, that the majority of Canadians will face a net loss. That is the reality. Those are the numbers. If anyone had any doubt about that, that doubt dissipated at the finance committee last week when the member for Whitby asked the PBO how he knew that his measure of the economic impact of the carbon tax was correct. He said that, because he had seen the homework and the federal government's analysis, it was correct based on that.

Therefore, we are calling for the end of the carbon tax cover-up. If the Liberals truly believe their own misinformation that the carbon tax is not creating a net loss and making life more unaffordable for Canadians, then they should just release the report.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out the disrespect shown by the Finance Minister, who could have tabled her notice in the period between two speeches. I think that is the least she could have done. I myself did so in the past, when I asked the member of Winnipeg-North if he would mind if I interrupted him during his speech. He consented. I think what the Finance Minister just did, which is to interrupt a member right in the middle of his remarks, is insulting, especially when every 10 minutes there is an opportunity to speak without interrupting anyone. I just wanted to point this out. I hope ministers will take this into account during future interventions and will refrain from such flagrantly disrespectful behaviour. There is no need whatsoever for this.

This government's lack of respect toward Canadians, however, is by no means surprising. We saw it with Bill C‑234, where amendments were brought by the Senate to amend legislation that had been duly voted on and adopted here in the House. We are talking about independent senators who were appointed by the Prime Minister and who do the work of the Prime Minister when he is unable to do things properly in this chamber. That is what happened.

At the very start of my speech, I was saying that time is of the essence for producers, because their situation is extremely difficult. After nine years under this Prime Minister, they cannot take it anymore. This Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost of taxes. Canadians do not have to take my word for it. They can read it in an article published in Le journal de Montréal about a survey of the Union des producteurs agricoles, entitled “One in five farms unable to pay their debts: a heartfelt plea from farmers”. The article says that farmers are at the end of their rope. They can no longer deal with the vagaries of weather, the interest rate explosion and the high cost of transportation—because the carbon tax does indeed add a bit to the high cost of transportation—that are preventing them from competing on a level playing field with Mexican vegetables being sold at a lower price in stores.

Think about it. It costs less to buy vegetables grown in Mexico, with all the gas and diesel it takes to get them here, than to buy vegetables produced here in Canada. It makes no sense, and the Liberals, and unfortunately the Bloc Québécois, encourage and support it. We do not understand why the Bloc Québécois did a 180 on the important issue of protecting Quebec's agricultural producers.

I will quote one agricultural producer. Philippe Leguerrier, a carrot producer in Blainville, said that he has not paid himself a salary since December. That is serious. When the people who produce food and feed Canadians can no longer pay themselves for their work, that is a sign that something is wrong with the system. Because of that, Canadians are having a harder and harder time feeding themselves. We saw that in the food banks, with 30%, 40% or 50% increases in recent years and long lines outside. Some 900,000 Quebeckers visit a food bank every month because they can no longer pay for their groceries, a direct consequence of this Liberal Bloc government's decisions, of its desire and its ideological determination to impose a carbon tax on pretty much everything.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois will say that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. The government still wants to drastically increase it, and not in Quebec. Everywhere else the carbon tax applies, everywhere else truckers who produce these vegetables have to export them to Quebec, they will have to pay more. Who, in the end, will be footing the bill? Obviously Quebeckers, families and workers who can no longer make ends meet at the end of the month. Clearly, with the sort of coalition it has formed with the Bloc Québécois the Liberal government has simply stopped supporting farmers.

As I mentioned, this bill is supported by every stakeholder in the agriculture sector. In committee, my colleague from Beauce had the opportunity to talk to groups from every region of the country and Quebec, and he was forced to admit that most if not all the people he spoke to are against the Senate's amendments to Bill C‑234. In fact, this morning we received a statement from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business begging members to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C‑234.

Why? It is because farmers are against the amendments proposed by the Senate. These amendments were imposed by unelected senators against the will of elected members of the House of Commons. A total of 81% of farmers say that they are against the amendments and 80% of them believe that these amendments will make the bill less effective for their business. They believe that this bill is essential to lower costs for farmers.

The agricultural industry needs a break on the carbon tax: 88% of farmers said that the carbon tax exemption on natural gas and propane used for drying grain and heating and cooling barns would be useful for their business.

That would enable them to do more and to save their farm and their business. We are talking about more than just businesses. We are talking about a way of life. Farming is a way of life in the regions of Quebec. It is a way of life in small towns. It is a way of life in communities in Plessisville, Laurierville, Thetford Mines and Beauce. Entire communities are currently wondering how they will be able to continue their primary activity, which is farming the land to feed Quebeckers and Canadians. That is where things stand right now.

Just so people understand, let us recall that this bill was sent to the Senate. It was totally gutted. Building heating was completely removed. The time allocated to the exemption for grain drying was slashed to three years. It was just pushed back. They think we will be able to replace propane and natural gas within the next three years. No expert says this will be possible.

I am about to tell the Bloc Québécois and Liberal members something that may be a secret to them. I do not think they know this, but winters in Canada and Quebec are cold—very cold, even. Although energy is needed to heat barns and dry grain, the Bloc Québécois members and the Liberals think it is a good idea to continually hike taxes. Remember, the Bloc Québécois has said repeatedly it wants to radically increase taxes. This applies to farmers too. We do not understand why, on the one hand, the Bloc Québécois claims to defend farmers, but, on the other, acts to undermine them by supporting tax hikes and these Senate amendments. It is unacceptable and incomprehensible.

My colleague's committee heard from several farmers and numerous technology specialists who were very clear. There are no viable alternatives to propane and natural gas for drying grain now, and there will not be any within the next three years, period.

A comment we too often hear from the Liberals and Bloc Québécois members, as I said, is that the tax does not apply to Quebec. This is false. We import most of our propane from Sarnia, Ontario. If we buy it in Ontario, where the carbon tax applies, we pay the carbon tax when it is imported. It is a fact, that is the math. Already, something is not quite right in the Bloc Québécois's discourse. We also pay the carbon tax indirectly when we pay for imported products delivered to grocery stories.

Let me quote again from the article in Le Journal de Montréal to illustrate how, when the government taxes the farmers who produce the food, the truckers who transport it and the grocers who sell it, prices become unaffordable:

Today, the price of fuel and rising wages are hurting farmers like Philippe Leguerrier more and more. Without his wife's salary to fall back on, it would be hard to make ends meet.

In closing, I will quote my colleague from Beauce:

Canadian farmers are stewards of the land. They are very concerned about their animals and the environment. They work so hard to feed our families and support our economy.

These farmers need support from members of the House of Commons and they need us to stand against the Senate amendments and pass Bill C‑234 in its original form as quickly as possible.

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C‑234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I implore members of the House to reject the Senate amendments to Bill C‑234.

The subject is simple. It is imperative that we block these amendments and get back to Bill C‑234 in its original form as quickly as possible. This is an emergency. The situation facing producers, farmers—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to address the critical issue affecting not just farmers in Westman, but every farmer across our great nation, which is the impact of the Liberal carbon tax.

The carbon tax is not just an environment plan, like the Liberals tried to sell it for many years. It is a tax grab that punishes our livelihoods, our food security and our economy. Today we debate our Conservative bill, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

The bill was intended to axe the carbon tax on fuels used in certain farm settings where there are no current, imminent viable alternatives, areas where the Liberal carbon tax not only makes zero sense, but straightforwardly penalizes farmers for doing their job. Let me be very clear about this. The Liberal government is punishing farmers with this carbon tax, yet it is not even measuring the impact of the tax on emissions.

The NDP-Liberal coalition members love to repeat their talking points that their tax grab is designed to change behaviour, but when there are no alternatives to power, heat or cool farm activities, equipment and buildings, it just takes away the very capital farmers would be able to invest in their own operations to adapt to the various challenges nature brings to their farming operations.

That is why Canadian farm organizations from coast to coat to coast stand united in their support for our legislation proposal, recognizing its importance for the economic and environmental sustainability of Canadian farms. Rarely has a single piece of legislation garnered such unanimous support. Moreover, Bill C-234 was duly passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate in March 2023, reflecting a non-partisan effort with backing from all opposition parties and even several Liberals at second and third readings.

According to the polls, the majority of Canadians want the carbon tax on farms scrapped. They recognize the burden this tax places on our agricultural sector. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself reported that the carbon tax on propane and natural gas used for greenhouses, heating and cooling livestock barns and drying grain will cost farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030. This is a staggering figure that highlights the need for immediate action.

The PBO also reported that Canadians will pay $486 million in GST on the carbon tax this year alone, and this figure is projected to exceed $1 billion by the year 2030. The administration cost of the carbon tax is another area of concern. In 2022, it cost nearly $83 million to administer the tax. Since 2019, it has cost taxpayers nearly $200 million just to manage this tax.

According to the 2023 food price report, the carbon tax will cost a typical 5,000-acre farm $150,000 by 2030. This is an unsustainable financial burden for farmers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated in 2022 that growth in expenses such as the carbon tax outpaced the rise in farm income.

Total farm operating expenses increased by almost 20%, the largest gain since 1979. Fertilizer prices for Canadian farmers increased by over 50%; commercial feed expenses for livestock producers increased by 20%; and machinery fuel expenses increased by more than 50%. The reality on the ground is even more dire. We have heard that 44% of fresh fruit and vegetable growers are already selling at a loss, and 77% cannot offset production cost increases.

Even with an 80% exemption on carbon tax from natural gas, one Canadian pepper farmer still pays $150,000 a year in carbon taxes. Meanwhile, mushroom farms do not get this exemption, but greenhouses growing cannabis do. This makes no sense. The carbon tax currently costs greenhouse operators $22 million a year, and they will pay between $82 million and $100 million by 2030 when the carbon tax quadruples.

The numbers speak for themselves. There are 145,000 farms in Canada, and 15,000 of those are in Manitoba. According to the PBO, Manitoba farmers paid $3 million last year in carbon taxes on natural gas and propane to dry grain, heat and cool livestock barns and grow food. On April 1, the carbon tax increased by 23%, and Manitoba farmers will pay another $3 million in carbon taxes over the next year. Cumulatively, by 2030 they will have paid $37 million in Manitoba in carbon taxes on natural gas and propane.

Long story short, our Conservative bill, Bill C-234, will help our farmers, growers and ranchers, and widespread support is clear. Despite the decision by the majority of elected MPs, the Senate introduced amendments to Bill C-234 that severely undermine its effectiveness. These amendments, passed after prolonged procedural hurdles and frequent adjournments, removed relief for heating and cooling livestock barns, greenhouses and other growing structures. Furthermore, the amendments impose a sunset clause of just three years, which does not provide adequate time for viable alternative fuel sources to emerge.

The PBO estimates that the Senate's amendments to Bill C-234 will cut carbon tax relief to farmers by $910 million, with dozens of millions of those in Manitoba, which would help consumers immensely. The actions by senators appointed by the Prime Minister effectively pick winners and losers within the agriculture community, exacerbating the challenges faced by our farmers.

Farmers, growers and ranchers demand that Bill C-234 be passed in its original form, with no changes proposed by the Prime Minister and his radical environment minister, who used the Senate in a very ugly campaign that cost Canadians in their everyday cost of living.

Let us do a quick recap of what happened in the Senate. The Senate agriculture committee held an unprecedented seven meetings to study the bill, which had been passed by the elected House. Liberal senators introduced amendments identical to those that the Liberal MPs failed to pass on our side of the Parliament. Knowing their flaws, the Prime Minister then announced that the carbon tax on home-heating oil would be paused for three years for Atlantic provinces, targeting 3% of Canadians whose support the Liberals were desperate for at that time.

Right after that, the committee report was presented in the Senate, but a majority of senators voted against the proposed amendments, marking a tactical victory of common sense. Then, in came the environment minister, who threatened to resign over Bill C-234 and asked the Prime Minister's Office to call senators in an effort to defeat the bill.

We Conservatives launched a massive campaign, including an opposition day motion, to force the Liberals to let senators work independently. Conveniently enough, at this point in time, the Prime Minister decided to appoint four new senators. Days later, the Liberal senators reintroduced defeated amendments. This time, they had just enough votes to pass them. It is unbelievable.

A majority of farmers, elected MPs and all Canadians support this bill, but one radical environment minister and a few senators decided that they know better. That is why we Conservatives will keep fighting for Bill C-234 to be passed without any amendments.

Manitobans are among the 97% of Canadians already left out in the cold by the Liberal government, which voted down our Conservative motion that would have removed the carbon tax on all forms of home heating. Now Liberals want to continue their plan to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers, a tax that will continue to increase the cost of food, making the cost of living crisis tougher every year.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made clear that this bill will save farmers $1 billion by 2030, reducing the food prices for Canadian families currently struggling to afford groceries. When the government taxes the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who transports the food, it taxes the single moms, seniors and all others who buy the food. All we are seeking with this bill is to get a carbon tax carve-out for farmers, like the one the Liberals have already given for a smaller number of Canadians on home heating.

Recently, during testimony at committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that the government had provided him with a copy of its own estimates of the impact of the carbon tax but had put him under a gag order not to talk about it. Even in the few instances where Liberals claim to have some data, they will not share it. We Conservatives will keep fighting to axe the tax on everything for everyone for good.

In conclusion, our farmers deserve better. They deserve a government that understands the critical role they play in feeding our nation and supports them in their endeavours. The current carbon tax policy is a burden that our farmers cannot bear, and it is time for us to take decisive action to relieve them of this undue pressure.

The Liberal government has already shown that it is willing to make exceptions for its carbon tax when it serves its political interests. It is now time for it to demonstrate that it will accept a carve-out when it is in the best interests of everyday Canadians. Let us work together to ensure that our farmers can continue to thrive and provide for all Canadians.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are not too many bills that go through Ottawa where their number becomes synonymous with an issue. Over the course of the last couple of years, Bill C-234 is known in every farm in every part of our country. I get asked very often, when I am out in my tours not just in my part of eastern Ontario but across the country, what the status is of the Conservative bill that was passed in the House of Commons quite a long time ago. When will the Liberal-NDP government listen to what farmers have been saying, listen to the Conservatives and listen to what a majority of members in the House have said, and pass this bill in its original form?

We are here still debating this because of deliberate attempts by the Liberal government, thePrime Minister, Liberal cabinet ministers, trying to gut the bill and minimize the positive impact this could have on the pocketbooks of Canadian farmers. Once the bill was passed here by opposition parties, despite the opposition from the Liberal government itself, as only a handful of Liberal MPs joined our cause, it went over to the independent Senate.

All of a sudden we found out, as things started to percolate and go on, that the environment minister, who is quite well known and not very well received by Canadian farmers, I would argue, was lobbying independent Senators to oppose and gut the bill. It got stuck in the Senate. It just dragged on and on and, sadly, it was amended to gut the bill that we had in place to try to minimize its impact. They took the exemption of having to pay the carbon tax off of buildings and greenhouses. If we accept these amendments, this is going to cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars. That is wrong. It is going to drive up the cost for barns on our farms and the cost for greenhouses in the country.

It is so important that Canadians hear these numbers, not just from me or Conservative MPs, but from the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is not on too friendly terms with the Liberal government these days. It has a carbon tax cover-up on the report he wants to release about the broad impact, the full impact, the carbon tax is having on all Canadians.

I want to highlight the report that the PBO was able to publish. It shows that if we do not pass this bill, Bill C-234, in its original form, which has passed the House, and have these amendments from the independent Senate rejected, it will mean that Canadian farmers between now and 2030 will be paying one billion dollars in carbon taxes, zero rebate, by the way. Farmers do not get any rebate on what they will be paying. There is nobody in the country who says that we can add a billion dollars in cost to Canadian farms over the course of the next few years and not have that increase the price of food and farming.

If that does not trigger Canadians enough, they should always remember that the government does not just charge the carbon tax. Here is the proof that it has a tax-and-spend problem in Ottawa under the Liberals and NDP. The government taxes the tax. It puts GST and HST on the carbon tax as well, further driving up the cost, with zero rebates.

If there is an irony about how out of touch and just tired the Liberal-NDP government is after nine years, it is its approach and inability to reason with science and fact when it comes to greenhouses. The leader of our party has raised this several times, because it is in his own riding of Carleton, SunTech Greenhouses in Manotick, as well as Carleton Mushroom Farms in Carleton county in the south part of Ottawa as well.

Greenhouses pay carbon tax. The CO2 that comes from the greenhouses that are paying and getting nailed for the carbon tax goes into the plants to grow them and sell them close to home. It is shown that if we do not get this passed in its original form and stop the amendments that the Liberals were driving the independent Senate to try to remove, it is going to be $250 million that greenhouses are going to pay in carbon taxes by 2030. No one can tell me that is not going to drive up the price of tomatoes and mushrooms in Canada. It has been those businesses that have shared their stories of frustration.

SunTech Greenhouses is now saying that it is cheaper for grocery stores in Ottawa to buy tomatoes from Mexico than it is from Manotick, and it is only going to get worse. The carbon tax is going to quadruple on the price of gas. It is going to nearly triple on natural gas and propane in the coming years.

Carleton Mushroom Farms, south of Ottawa, last year paid $150,000 in carbon taxes alone. That is not its entire bill. That is the carbon tax portion of its bill. It expects the carbon tax amounts for 2024 to be about $175,000. When all is said and done, in the Liberals' current plan, if we do not give this exemption that Canadian farmers are desperately calling for to help with food prices, Carleton Mushroom Farms, one business south of Ottawa, is going to be paying $450,000 in carbon taxes alone. The government is out of touch. If it is already cheaper for a grocery store in Ottawa to buy Mexican tomatoes and have them shipped up here, just imagine what is going to happen when the carbon tax bills triple for greenhouses in this country.

There is an irony to it, is there not? In the name of the environment, we have to charge a carbon tax. First of all, the Minister of Agriculture, through the agriculture committee, and Agriculture Canada do not even quantify and explain how these carbon taxes are going to lower emissions and help Canadians. They cannot even quantify it, and refuse to, but worst of all is the irony of taking a tomato from Mexico and shipping it all the way up here by truck or ship, whatever it may be, in the name of the environment because the carbon taxes are too high to be competitive right in our own backyard in eastern Ontario. Do members not find that the height of irony?

The local food movement means having as much food as possible grown here in Canada and consumed by Canadians, and maybe shipped around the world, which would be a great thing too. We are now hearing stories, right here in the backyard of Parliament, of companies saying they are going to have to shrink their production and footprint because they cannot compete with food coming in from around the world, when we have some of the best lands for agriculture in all of the country right here in eastern Ontario.

Why is it so hard for the Liberal government to accept common sense? It should give the exemption to Canadian farmers that they deserve, and take the carbon tax off buildings, dairy farms, all farms across the country, greenhouses and the drying that happens in this country. There is so much frustration right now, and it is not just the carbon tax. The Liberals are increasing other taxes and making it more difficult for farmers to do the important work that they do. It is just common sense.

The House of Commons has voted on this. I would tell any Liberal or NDP member of Parliament, because the NDP is waffling big time on whether it is going to accept the amendments as part of its coalition deal, that we want assurances, and I think we could get them. If Liberal MPs spoke to greenhouses in their regions or ridings and spoke to farmers in their yards as they are drying grain to get a true understanding of the costs and how punitive this carbon tax is, they would agree to keep Bill C-234 in its original format and stop the radical environment minister from calling up independent senators and lobbying them to gut this bill. Instead, let us provide Canadians some relief on food prices, which are already at record highs and going up this year. This is a tangible way the federal government can provide relief to lower the costs.

It is very clear that we are ready for a carbon tax election right now. We have been very clear with Canadians that we would axe the tax entirely. We would not need to do these carve-outs on home heating. We would not need to do these carve-outs for farmers. We are ready for the election right now, and Canadians are, too. They have had enough. I am ready to get my running shoes on and go door knocking, not just in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry but, I can assure members, in rural ridings across this country. I will be speaking to farmers to make sure they know that after years of effort and after the bill passed in the House of Commons, it was gutted in the Senate and is being delayed by the government. Liberals are refusing to provide relief at a time when they know Canadians are hurting because of food prices and farmers are frustrated.

It is common sense. We need to reject these amendments and pass the bill in its original form. Let us give farmers the true relief they need after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege again to rise in this place on behalf of the people of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to speak to the gutting of Bill C-234, arguably one of the most contentious amendments introduced into the House this session. Why is it so contentious?

I opened my remarks as I usually do. It truly is an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of our constituents to this place. In fact, the bringing of those voices of Canadians to this place is the role that all 338 of us are supposed to do, through the process of debate, committee and voting in this chamber. Therefore, it is not a throwaway comment that I make when I begin my interventions.

I am speaking with the weight of the vast majority of my constituents and of Canadians when I speak to the amendment that would restore the intent of the original Bill C-234 to exempt on-farm propane and natural gas for grain drying and for barn heating.

This amendment would remove the most contentious part of the amended bill that came to us from the other place, and it reflects what Canadians want.

This was a billion-dollar bill, a billion dollars worth of carbon tax cost that was to be avoided with the passage of C-234, and this cost would be borne by our farmers and, ultimately, by consumers by 2030. The amendment brought back to this chamber by the other place, which guts the bill, would cut this relief to farmers and ultimately to consumers by $910 million, or 91% of that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is gutting.

A recent Leger poll confirms that the vast majority, seven out of 10 Canadians, support this exemption for farmers using natural gas and propane, because there simply are not viable alternatives for the farmers. Let us put this in perspective. Canada contributes 1.6% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and agriculture only contributes 8% of that 1.6%, so this carbon tax is only a virtue-signalling exercise that drives up the cost of food.

The carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. Therefore, I do hope that the other place, the place of sober second thought, takes note of what the will of the people is and ignores the browbeating they received from the Prime Minister when they considered this bill a sober second time.

Before going on to the significance of the bill to my constituents, I want to take note of a few observations made by the independent PBO, and that is a gagged PBO, by the way. The PBO reports that Canadians will pay, in addition to the carbon tax, another $486 million, so another half a billion dollars, in GST on top of the carbon tax by 2030. This is a tax on a tax. In 2022, the carbon tax also cost $82.6 million just to administer. That cost was for 465 federal employees. Since 2019, this cost taxpayers nearly $200 million, or a fifth of a billion dollars, just to administer.

I am going to focus the remaining of my time on two industry groups that do not immediately come to mind when we are thinking about the removal of barn heating from the carbon tax exemption. I am sure my colleagues who will follow with their interventions will speak to the more traditional aspects of barn heating.

The bill is of particular significance to my riding, as Chatham-Kent—Leamington is home to 60% of Ontario's greenhouses, 2,730 of Ontario's 4,000 acres. In fact, the greenhouse acreage in CKL is larger than the entire U.S. greenhouse industry combined, making it the largest concentration of greenhouses in North America. Total farm gate represents $1.2 billion. Therefore, naturally my constituents are gravely concerned with the consequences of the Senate amendments.

Greenhouse farmers did receive an 80% carbon tax exemption in the original 2016 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Why? Because they grow food and because they recycle much of the CO2 back into the greenhouses, because, as we learned in high school science, plants grow better with CO2, tax or no tax applied. However, even with that exemption, Ontario greenhouse farmers will pay over $18 million in carbon tax this year, and that will rise to $40 million a year by 2030. Cumulatively, Ontario greenhouses alone will pay almost a quarter billion dollars in carbon tax by 2030, and this is with the 80% exemption, but as I said earlier, it is ultimately the consumer who pays. These are big numbers.

At a time of high food insecurity across Canada and the world, the gutting of Bill C-234 is just another example of the Liberals' virtue-signalling ideology that will inflict more financial hardship on farmers and, in turn, subsequently on Canadian consumers.

However, as difficult as it is for greenhouse farmers, it is that much worse for our mushroom farmers. They did not receive any consideration in 2016, so they are paying the full carbon tax plus HST. Let us think about this for a moment. A greenhouse cannabis producer gets an 80% carbon tax exemption, but a mushroom farmer gets no consideration. Is that virtue signalling?

Carleton Mushroom Farms co-owner Mike Medeiros summed it up best when he said, “Instead of it being a staple, it's going to be a luxury item and it's going to affect sales. By affecting sales, I may have to cut back my farm, make it smaller.” Mr. Medeiros paid $150,000 last year in carbon tax and is on track to be out of pocket another $173,000 this year. By 2030, he estimates it will reach $450,000. This is on top of his heating bills.

This mushroom farmer is an example of Canadian farm families setting the gold standard in efficiency, innovation and sustainability. He uses heavily insulated boilers that are powered by natural gas. Mushroom farmers in Canada will pay $7.4 million this year because of the tax, and by 2030 that bill rises to $16 million.

Another mushroom producer, one that I am even more familiar with, is Highline Mushrooms. It operates 10 farms across Canada and is headquartered in my hometown. Almost all the farms are near the U.S. border, so they compete with U.S. producers for retailers both in Canada and the U.S. Of course, U.S. producers do not pay a carbon tax and so, logically, industry expansion in this industry could very well go to the U.S.

Similarly, back to the greenhouse, its industry representatives recently testified at an agriculture committee hearing. They said that the U.S. industry was becoming a much more attractive alternative for expansion; this by our very own Canadian producers.

This Canadian carbon tax is also directly contributing to food insecurity. Under pressure from high food prices, a 2023 Agri-Food Analytics Lab survey showed that almost half of Canadians were prioritizing the cost of groceries versus the nutrition of their groceries.

Food Banks Canada backs up these figures with some startling figures of its own. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits, and they expect another million new users this year. One in 10 people in Toronto is having to rely on food banks to survive.

This past weekend, I, together with the Leader of the Opposition, visited the Waterloo regional food bank. It has experienced a 50% increase in usage over the past year, and a fivefold increase in the past decade. That should not happen in Canada.

The Conservatives have introduced an amendment to reject the Senate amendments and demand that the bill be passed in its original form, which would support our farmers and our families. When we tax the farmer that grows the food and we tax the trucker that delivers the food, we ultimately tax the Canadian consumer who consumes and buys the food.

I call on our NDP and Bloc Québécois members to hold to their original vote on this bill and reject the Senate amendments. It is high time that the government puts aside its ideological agenda and does what is best for Canadians, as Canadians are calling for. Better yet, it should step aside and let the Conservatives restore hope and sanity to our country, uniting our country and our home; my home, our home, let us bring it home.

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑234 is important to our farmers. That is exactly why I voted in favour of that motion.

The bill stands in the name of the member for Huron—Bruce, a Conservative member. I would remind my hon. colleague that I was frustrated with how the Conservatives moved this bill forward. Quarrels were started and threats were made against senators by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and by the leader of the Conservative Party in the Senate, which then required an apology for their behaviour in the Senate.

Consequently, yes, I absolutely think this bill is important. I hope that the member for Huron—Bruce will bring this bill forward for a vote soon. However, I want to reiterate that the Conservatives are also responsible for the mishandling of this bill.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him on his excellent French.

He said that today's motion does not propose any solutions that would help farmers in a way that would then have a direct impact on food prices for consumers.

My esteemed colleague and I are both members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which studied a bill that had been introduced here in the House of Commons. Bill C-234 was making its way through the legislative process, but as we know, this bill has stalled.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, could my colleague encourage his fellow government members to vote to bring this bill back in its original form, which would give our agriculture sector a major boost?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague from Winnipeg talked about his experience on the agriculture committee and the work that we have done on a couple of studies on stabilizing food prices and the cost of food production in Canada. It is unanimous from every agriculture stakeholder that they want Bill C-234 to be passed in this House in its original form, unamended. This would save farmers close to $1 billion over the next few years, which would help reduce food costs. We have heard that from every commodity stakeholder in the sector, and yet the member's government, with a clear tool to help reduce food costs, still refuses to support Bill C-234 unamended. Why?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to my colleague across the way. I appreciate that he is thanking his farmers because we all appreciate our farmers. However, what I do not understand and what I find a bit rich coming from the member across the way is that he talks about lowering food prices, yet his government still supports a carbon tax for farmers. Farmers have to pay the carbon tax on many different facets throughout the supply chain. That is what is actually driving up the cost of food and the cost of production for our farmers.

I wonder if the member would support Bill C-234, in its original form, to help lower the carbon tax for farmers on all the things that they have to pay it on, in order to get food to the grocery stores, which would help lower the price of food for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Summer Tax Break

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years under the Prime Minister, Canadians are being forced to cancel their summer vacations, as the Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda has made even a simple road trip unaffordable. Parents can barely afford basic necessities, much less a summer vacation. The Prime Minister may be able to jet off on a $230,000 luxury vacation, but most Canadians are having to scale back and cancel their summer plans after the Liberal carbon tax made gas and groceries unaffordable.

Like all MPs in the House, I am getting emails and calls from moms and dads who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. I am hearing from seniors who worked for decades to save for their retirement, only to see inflation eradicate their income and their financial security. As someone who represents a large, rural constituency, I know how the carbon tax disproportionately impacts the people who call Westman home.

At a time when life is costing far more for my constituents, the Prime Minister's recent budget does nothing to bring the relief families desperately need. As the costs of groceries, gas and home heating continue to increase, the NDP-Liberal government fails to listen to Canadians.

I am glad to be splitting my time with my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

As my constituents back home know, the Liberals have voted down numerous calls from our Conservative team to scrap the carbon tax. Instead, the Liberals increased it even more, despite the financial hurt Canadians are feeling. The reality is that more and more families are struggling to afford basic necessities. When people find themselves in financial troubles, as they are today, even simple pleasures end up falling by the wayside.

For many, a summer vacation is not a big, dramatic, expensive getaway. It could be a long weekend at the cottage, a week-long road trip or simply a few days of camping. It is a treasured opportunity to get away from business as usual, unplug and recharge with loved ones. Kids need time with their parents and grandparents; they need the chance to experience the outdoors and appreciate the beauty of our great country here in Canada.

Unfortunately, thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, the Prime Minister was able to hike his carbon tax by 23% on April 1, further driving up the cost of everything. The fact is that 70% of Canadians oppose this tax hike; moreover, 70% of the provincial premiers have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase, and for good reason.

Canada's Food Price Report predicted an additional $700 annual increase in food expenditures for the average family this year over 2023. The most significant increases range from 5% to 7% in the categories of bakery, meat and vegetables. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits in a single month, with a million more visits expected in 2024. Homeless encampments are now common in every city across Canada, and their number continues to increase.

The decline in the Canadian economy since 2019, created by the Liberal Prime Minister, means Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. While the American GDP per capita has grown by 7% since 2019, Canada's has fallen by 2.8%. This is the single largest underperformance of the Canadian economy in comparison with our United States neighbours since 1965.

We have already seen the real-world impact of this in our own backyard. In Brandon, the Samaritan House food bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, a dramatic increase of 12,000. As I have said in the chamber a few times, this was 50% above its normal annual average. This is in line with trends across the country, showing that families are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. We recently found that more than 50,000 Manitobans are now regularly using a food bank. That is the highest number ever recorded.

While we can get bogged down in statistics, we must never forget that we are talking about people: our relatives, our neighbours and our friends. Food banks are being used by full-time workers more and more. In some communities, one in six visitors says they are employed, which is an 82% increase over 2016. That number continues to grow. More than 60% of visitors are first-time food bank users. It is heartbreaking. There are hundreds and thousands of Canadians who have been forced to stay in line in food banks only because the NDP-Liberal coalition is determined to make life equally miserable for all Canadians.

Let us be clear: The rising cost of food and other necessities cannot be divorced from the NDP-Liberal government's tax-and-spend policies. The carbon tax alone is driving up the cost of everything. It is contributing to the cost of growing our food and other expenses along the entire food supply system. It gets passed down until everyday Canadians get stuck with the bill.

Despite numerous claims by the Prime Minister and his radical environment minister, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that families are seeing a net loss under this ideological policy. People pay more in the carbon tax than they receive back from the rebate. Conservatives have been pointing this out for years. Nothing is more insulting to the millions of Canadians trying to heat their homes in the winter than when the Prime Minister decided to temporarily pause his carbon tax on only 3% of households. It is no wonder that provincial governments are up in arms.

The most recent example of how out of touch and stubborn the Prime Minister can be is his position on Bill C-234. This is a Conservative bill that aims to remove the carbon tax for farmers, thereby lowering food costs that are passed on to consumers. Instead of using an opportunity to lower food prices by passing the bill, or at least letting it pass with no political interference, he did everything possible in the House of Commons and the Senate to delay change and undermine it. Moreover, the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners decided to hike the carbon tax by 23% in April. That was just one step in their plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years, making everything more expensive at the worst possible time. At the same time, their inflationary spending and ever-increasing taxes are already taking their toll, and paycheques are not going as far as they once did.

While the NDP leader is trying to save what is left of his political legacy, we must not forget that every NDP member voted 23 times to keep the Prime Minister's carbon tax in place. I will not stop calling on them to do the right thing and support our Conservative motion this time.

This year, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost Manitobans an extra $1,750. This summer alone, it will take more than $600 from family budgets. These costs add up, and even the most basic summer vacation plan suddenly becomes out of reach for people. The constituents of Brandon—Souris are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. The riding covers more than 17,000 square kilometres. It is the ninth-smallest riding in Canada. Brandon—Souris is roughly the same size as three Prince Edward Islands put together. That may be hard to picture for the finance minister, who lives in downtown Toronto. The Liberal government needs to start realizing that its policies affect rural and urban Canadians quite differently.

We know the Liberal carbon tax is playing a role in raising the price of everything, so we are fighting to axe the tax and bring relief to Canadians. Let us save $603 this summer for Canadians. They need it. People know better how and where to spend their own money, and the Prime Minister must recognize this fact. Let us put a pause on the carbon tax, the federal gas tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel for the summer. We must do it now.

If we want to help young people, families and seniors deal with the rising cost of living, I implore all my colleagues to vote in favour of our Conservative motion. A future Conservative government will axe the tax on everything for everyone in a carbon tax election, but until that can happen, the Prime Minister must adopt this common-sense measure to give Canadians a break this summer.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that two people from my riding are here in Ottawa. These two young people are just embarking on their political careers. Audrey-Anne and Annabelle have been learning a lot during their time in Ottawa. I hope they will enjoy the debate. I am very pleased to have them here in Ottawa with us. I would also like to thank my colleague from Calgary Midnapore for her excellent speech.

After nine years, this Prime Minister and his Bloc Québécois supporters are just not worth the cost of $500 billion in Bloc-endorsed inflationary spending that is forcing parents to skip meals to save their families.

Today's motion is about suspending the gas tax for the summer. While the Bloc Québécois leader and a number of the MPs on his team are campaigning to radically increase gas taxes, Quebeckers in the regions who do not have access to public transit are paying a hefty price. Talk about being completely out of touch with Quebec. I will say more about that later in my speech.

I have a few statistics about the impact that nine years of this Prime Minister's government has had on Quebeckers. This year, food banks are helping 872,000 people every month. That is a 30% increase over 2022 and 73% over 2019. In 2019, 500,000 people were helped by food banks every month. Now there are 872,000. Behind those statistics shared by the press are human beings, vulnerable people, families, children, single people who are experiencing food insecurity and do not know whether they will have enough to eat each day. More and more working families are seeking help because people just do not have the means to cope with all the increases imposed by nine years of this Liberal government.

I want to quote from an article entitled “Housing has become a privilege”:

Soon, there will be nowhere for us to go, those of us who do not make a lot of money and who live in vulnerable situations. Housing prices are so high!

Among them, there are people who will end up in the encampments that are popping up everywhere.

In another article entitled “Housing crisis and mental health: Quebec organizations call out for help”, a spokesperson for the Regroupement des comités logements et associations de locataires du Québec states the following:

We hear from tenants who intend to commit suicide. This is more than just despair. They do not see a way out, and they want it to be over. That is what it has come to.

I have one last article from the Journal de Montréal entitled “Proof of of the housing crisis, she will soon be forced to live in her van”. Here is a quote:

This is what's become of me. I feel ashamed. I'm mad at myself, but also at the government, which treats it like a political issue. It's not a political issue, it's a crisis!

Nine years of Liberal governance has led us to this crisis, and we need to find solutions. We need to take action to help Quebeckers and Canadians get through this. The Bloc Québécois is certainly not helping Quebeckers by supporting $500 billion in inflationary spending by this government.

What is $500 billion in inflationary spending? It is the government's budgetary appropriations. These appropriations represent the money we voted on in Parliament. What are they funding? They are funding the bureaucracy, the consultants, the agencies, and the contributions to corporations and lobbies. In short, it is the money being used to fuel the big federal monster from which the separatists want to separate. It is rather surprising. We would think that a separatist party would vote against this budget that helps fuel this big federal monster. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The leader of the Conservative Party raised a very important point in the House. He said that he found it fascinating that a so-called separatist party from Quebec literally never supported reducing the tax burden on Quebeckers. That party never supports tax cuts. One would think that a separatist party would never support forcing Quebeckers to send their money to Ottawa, but no. In their own words, Bloc members want to drastically increase taxes.

When we think about it, it is true. Today, the Bloc Québécois claims to vote in the interest of Quebeckers, but we see that it is not true. We see that it is just a slogan. What the Bloc Québécois is really saying is that it will always vote in the interest of its party and its little brother in Quebec City, the Parti Québécois. The Parti Québécois does not represent all Quebeckers.

If the Bloc Québécois really wanted to vote for all Quebeckers, it would not hesitate to vote for Bill C‑234 as it was written. It was designed to abolish the carbon tax imposed on farmers. As everyone knows, if we tax the people who make the food, the food will cost more. Who is going to pay for more expensive food? Everyone, obviously.

If the Bloc Québécois were truly the party for Quebeckers, and not the federal branch of the Parti Québécois, it would think about people in the regions. I am talking about people in Matane, Joliette, Thetford Mines, Mirabel, Saint-Hyacinthe, the people who need their vehicles to get around, to go to work, for recreation. Yes, these people need their vehicles to get around.

A study was published by Le Journal de Montréal in 2023. The article was entitled, “Cost of living: How much does it cost to live outside the big cities?” I would like to quote from it:

Living outside the major centres of Montreal, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay, Sept-Îles, Gatineau and Sherbrooke can get expensive pretty quickly. The further away you live, the higher the cost of living. A family of two adults and two children can survive on a livable income of $71,161 a year in Montreal, but it increases to $76,918 in Sept-Îles. In Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, in the Gaspé Peninsula, that number rises to $78,621.

Why? The answer is simple, “The big difference between the cost of living in town and in the regions is the need for a car. If you have a family, you have two cars.” A father of four in Cap-d'Espoir said, “They need gas and gas is more expensive than it is in Montreal. It all adds up, so yes, there are things that cost more.”

Like the Liberals, the Bloc wants people in the regions to pay more for getting around. They would like the carbon tax to be drastically increased. I have a pile of statements here from Bloc Québécois members calling for the tax to be drastically increased, who say that the tax is not high enough and that we should immediately triple it to make people pay for pollution. For people living in the regions, pollution is the fuel they put in their car to get around, to go to work, to take part in leisure activities.

Not wanting to budge from that sort of ideology has consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences are that Quebec families, workers in the regions are paying the price. I would like the Bloc Québécois to realize that. The Bloc Québécois members want to punish Quebeckers to appease their conscience by making them pay more for fuel. It is an essential commodity for those who live in the regions, who do not have access to structured public transit services like those in the big city.

I am eager to see whether the Bloc Québécois will support our motion today to suspend federal taxes on fuel. Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Quebeckers should keep their money in their pockets instead of sending it to Ottawa? If we were to ask that question to anyone in Quebec, they would say that that is surely not what the Bloc Québécois wants.

However, from what I have heard today from the representatives of the Bloc, it is apparently not that easy or straightforward. One would expect it to be a no-brainer for a party that wants to separate from the big federal machine. Unfortunately, I would be very surprised if the Bloc Québécois supported us, because, as I said earlier, they want to drastically increase gas taxes. To keep expanding the big federal Liberal machine, the Bloc Québécois will keep sending Quebeckers' money to Ottawa. Once again, I will quote the member from Carleton:

The Bloc Québécois supports high taxes, massive federal debt and a bloated bureaucracy that meddles in everything but is good at nothing. We should also remember that the Bloc Québécois supports a justice system that frees repeat offenders and bans hunting rifles. In fact, an independent Quebec with the leader of the Bloc Québécois as premier would be almost identical to the federal state led by the current Prime Minister.

When we look at the facts and at the action taken by the members of the Bloc Québécois in the House, we cannot help but agree with the words of the Leader of the Opposition. To really change things so that Quebeckers have more money in their pockets, members need to support this Conservative motion, which seeks to suspend the federal gas tax. I think that there is only one real option for Quebeckers who want more money in their pockets and that is the Conservative Party's common-sense plan.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I want to start with questions about the Auditor General report that came out earlier this month. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development issued a pretty scathing report on agriculture specifically. Minister, it stated that you implemented agriculture programs and policies without proper consultation, with incomplete measurements and without any clear plan or strategy. In fact, the report shows that you've achieved less than 2% of your 2030 overall greenhouse gas emissions targets.

You've repeatedly said that farmers support the carbon tax, but you voted against Bill C-234, you voted in favour of a carbon tax carve-out for home heating in Atlantic Canada but not for farmers, and you voted in favour of quadrupling the carbon tax.

Can you tell me, as a result of that report, what the emissions reductions from agriculture specifically will be when the carbon tax is quadrupled? Has Agriculture Canada done that work?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Well, you're not, so I'm just going to move on to the next one.

We know you're not going to axe the carbon tax completely. That's pretty clear. You're opposed to it. You have this obsession with taxation. Your government has this obsession with taxing Canadians to the point where they cannot afford to feed themselves, heat their homes and provide for their families.

At the very least, then, can we meet each other halfway? Will you commit today to passing Bill C-234, in its original form, to support farmers and farm families so that we can bring down the cost of living by removing the carbon tax on farm operations? Please answer yes or no.

[Dave Carey]

Yes. Bill C-234 is only for on-farm activities related to natural gas and propane use. However, all the costs that we all see as normal Canadians, as well as transportation—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that, and I hope my Liberal colleagues are watching, because quite often they say, “Oh, well, because you get money back, therefore everything is a wash.” However, it's that impact on competitiveness that is very significant, and Bill C-234 does address, at least in its original form, a key part of that.

However, you're saying that it's so much more than that in terms of the impact on the sector as a whole. Am I correct in that?

[Dave Carey]

It does. My organization has been a proponent of Bill C-234 since its inception. That would alleviate the carbon pricing on a farm. However, every time the price of carbon goes up, whether that's rail, inputs or custom haul trucking, that all gets passed down to the farmer in many ways. For canola, Canada has 60% of the world trade, but Australia is our largest competitor. They're much closer to markets, and they do not have a carbon tax. Anything that takes money out of the farmers' pockets to reinvest in their operations does impact our ability to compete with places like the United States, Australia and South America.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, a month ago I rose in this place and talked about the Conservative delay on Bill C-234, a bill they have been championing. This week, we found out they delayed it two weeks forward, again, to play politics on farmers' backs. On this side of the House, we act. On this side of the House, we support farmers, and we are proud of farmers. What we do not do is play politics on their backs.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The Conservative Party continues to delay Bill C-234. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agri-Food and Agriculture can give us an update.

Opposition Motion—Federal Intrusions in the Exclusive Jurisdictions of Quebec and the Provinces

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague quoted me during his speech, I would like to ask him a few quick questions.

First, I would like to know why he committed the sin of omission when he assumed that we were inconsistent. Conservatives are very consistent. We did not support the Bloc Québécois's proposed subamendment on the budget for a very simple reason. In its subamendment, the Bloc Québécois wanted to eliminate the protection we wanted to give to farmers. The Bloc proposed respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and granting Quebec and the provinces the right to opt out with full compensation. That is what the Bloc is doing today too, and we support that.

However, the Bloc Québécois also suggested that we withdraw our subamendment, which proposed abolishing the tax imposed on farmers, which then gets applied to food, by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form in order to build housing, not bureaucracy by requiring cities to increase residential construction by 15% every year as a condition for obtaining federal infrastructure funds.

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I sincerely wonder how he can live with himself, trying to mislead people like he just did a few moments ago.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of this Prime Minister, excessive spending and anti-agricultural policies are driving our farmers into bankruptcy. According to the Union des producteurs agricoles, one in five farms is no longer able to pay its debts.

With the help of the Bloc Québécois, the government is stifling our agricultural sector by blocking Bill C‑234 and voting for centralizing and inflationary spending.

When will this Liberal-Bloc government give our farmers a break so they can feed our already hungry population?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleague from Whitby for the intervention. I think that is part of the problem, and that's what I'm trying to explain to the room so that he understands the carbon tax. The PBO has said that eight out of 10 Canadians don't receive back more. The Prime Minister and my Liberal colleagues here love to say otherwise, but do you know what, Mr. Chair? Even if we stretched that—I hate to use the word “untruthful”, but we'll stretch it—what about the two out of 10? They always say the eight out of 10, and I reflect on what our Canadian Forces say: We leave no one behind. There should never be an eight out of 10. There should always be a 10 out of 10.

I'm trying to explain to my colleagues the rural top-up. Again, talking about affordability now for my residents and standing up for my residents, the carbon tax is basically just a pool of money. It's like an Amway scam almost. We'll look at it like that. It is a single pool of money, and York—Simcoe, I feel, technically could send a bill to the federal government for the rural top-up that we haven't received. It is probably north of $40 million that my residents should have received.

Why does the government not want to recognize the rural top-up for York—Simcoe? It's because it would mean everyone else will get less. I'm in a Conservative riding—this big blue dot in the middle of York—Simcoe—and if they were to give me the rural top-up, everyone else in this room would get less.

If we look at Bill C-234, speaking of the economy and the environment, the carbon tax pool, I believe, is heavily subsidized by farmers. I've seen the bills in my community. In the northern end of the riding, we bring in a lot of grain for drying by propane, and there are other farmers coming into York—Simcoe to dry their grain. In the soup and salad bowl of Canada, drying onions has to be done, but I want my colleagues to understand that we are starting to see more onions coming in from Morocco, from Egypt, from different parts of the world. Why does that matter to Canadians? It's about food security.

For things grown here, we are starting to see less and less. Because of affordability and because of inflation, margins for farmers have shrunk so much, and Canada is losing the competitive edge. Now there are onions coming in, being imported. Because of those margins, we can't compete internationally now. We can't do it, and that is so unfortunate to see.

Again, the people of York—Simcoe are not getting the rural top-up. On the housing accelerator fund, not one town in the northern six got any money. On aged infrastructure, we see taxpayer money going to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and not being spent on our infrastructure. We can't get natural gas lines. It's aged infrastructure again with hydro. I have farmers who want to create businesses and start small canning operations, but they can't even get three-phase power.

When my colleagues sit in the House and wonder why people in York—Simcoe say this government is not listening and why people are frustrated, this is why they're frustrated, just to start with those things. The government says it's doing this; it's doing that, and it has free dental care and pharmacare for everyone. I would challenge any member of this committee to come with me to York—Simcoe for a day. This is about standing up for residents. Do you know what people in my riding are saying? They're saying, “I'd love a family doctor, Scot.” Think about the government programs that have come from this government. They can't even manage immigration, and there's another program and another program and another program.

Things are getting worse. People in my riding can't even get a family doctor. As shocking as it is, I know my colleagues here like to blame everybody else for the situation that everyone is in. First they'll tell you that Canadians have never had it so good and that we have a AAA credit rating, even though you can't put a AAA credit rating on a hot dog. I think we all know that. Tell that to the millions of people who are going to food banks. However, they'll say we've never had it so good. I think that's why it's important to understand this. We don't even have a hospital.

On technology, my colleague from Whitby should google how long it takes to walk from Georgina Island to the hospital to visit a loved one. The only hospital, Southlake, is outside of the riding of York—Simcoe. It takes 23 hours to walk there. This Liberal government will try to square the circle and say, “Scot, you're part of Toronto.” This is where my residents of York—Simcoe get very upset. They are being classified as Toronto and are quite frankly being ripped off on something they're entitled to. After all, we know that this is a big bait and switch with the carbon tax. It's their money that they're owed. It's not the government giving them money. It actually took money from them, which it owes them.

To recap, we're here today talking about why things are not working for the people of York—Simcoe. The recap is important so that people understand that the circle has never been squared. I think the most frustrating part about being an MP is not being able to help people when you know there's a solution to the problem.

Believe me, I will never put words in anyone's mouth, but I have to walk through this. I did speak with the Minister of Natural Resources about the rural top-up. He agreed that there is a problem with the CMAs, but he said, “Scot, you'll have to see the minister of rural affairs. That was done out east.” I then went back to the announcement, and I think what was even more shocking for me was the Liberal government dividing and gaslighting Canadians based on geography. I looked at their announcement out east on the heat pumps and I was shocked. All of a sudden, for the Minister of Housing's riding and the riding of the member for Avalon, which was supposed to become urban under the CMA, they announced a doubling of the rural top-up. As I always say in life, read the fine print. They actually rolled the CMA data back to 2015 so those Liberal ridings would receive the rural top-up.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

On that point of order, I don't want to put words in my great colleague Scot Davidson's mouth, but I understand that so far everyone's interventions have had discussions on what the budget does and doesn't have in it. We're talking about the carbon tax scam, and it is mentioned in the budget. It's just something that Mr. Davidson didn't see.

I will remind everyone that Bill C-234 was one of our demands for the budget, which is very relevant. The topic at hand, which Mr. Davidson is talking about, was a demand from the Conservatives for us to maybe look into it and help pass it, but it was not included. I think Mr. Davidson was just making that point.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It makes absolutely no sense, and again, it's shocking.

I take the tack of looking at my community and the rural top-up. I'm sure the members of the Liberal Party are thinking, “Scot, you're talking about the rural top-up, so that means you agree with the carbon tax.” No, I don't agree with the carbon tax. We will axe the tax, and I can tell you this: While I'm the member of Parliament for York—Simcoe, I will fight for every nickel that my community deserves. After all, it's their money.

I represent the soup and salad bowl of Canada, so we can talk about Bill C-234. If we look at the—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

In the spirit and good faith of trying to help improve food security for Canadians, I would like to move the following motion that has been put on notice:

Given that:

a. Food insecurity is a serious and growing issue in Canada;

b. In Toronto alone, the Daily Bread Food Bank served 301,354 clients in February 2024, up from 215,848 in February, 2023 and from 52,522 in 2015;

c. All members of the House should work together to address this issue;

The committee recommend that the House expeditiously pass Bill C-234 unamended in order to exempt farms from the carbon tax and lower the cost of groceries for Canadians.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

—in this place, that our farmers in Canada grow safe, nutritious food not only to feed Canadians, but also to feed the world. They are also an integral part of helping with food insecurity abroad. I think that's very important to note.

We know the Trudeau carbon tax is particularly punishing for our farmers, and it jeopardizes the long-term viability of farms in Canada, which is where we get our food from.

We know Canadian farmers, as I said, provide safe, nutritious food not only to Canadians, but also to those around the world. Why, then, did you vote against Bill C-234, which would have removed the carbon tax for farmers and made food more affordable for families to purchase?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It really is a pleasure. I always joke that I am not sure how a kid from North Kamloops ended up in the House of Commons, but here I am.

Before I begin, I want to recognize some people from my riding. The first is Bruce Barrett. Mr. Barrett, as I called him, was my art teacher at Westsyde Secondary School. I just saw that he has passed away. Bruce Barrett had a very gentle heart. I did not get to know him well, but I knew him to be a very good person. I send my condolences to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

I also want to recognize the life of Pearl Bostock. I went to high school with some of Pearl's grandchildren. I see that she has recently passed away. I send my deepest condolences to her family. May perpetual light shine upon her.

Lastly, I want to recognize the life of Marlene Campbell. I went to kindergarten with Marlene's son. To this day, I would often call her Mrs. Campbell because I had trouble calling her by her first name. I was in her daughter's wedding party. I have known her for over 40 years. I still have not come to grips with the fact that she recently passed on, and there are some lessons that she taught me that I am going to touch upon in this speech. I offer my condolences to her husband, Bruce, to her daughters, Claire and Joan, and to sons, Matthew, Luke and John. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I was speaking about Mrs. Campbell, and one of the things that I learned from her, and sometimes we would agree and sometimes we would disagree, was the value of simplicity, frugality and transparency. I walked into her house a couple of years ago, and I said that it felt like I was back in 1986 because the house was exactly the same.

There is a part of me that thinks government should be like that. Why does government have to be flashy? The whole point of the government is to get the job done. If the government is actually getting the job done, we should not need a 400-page document, and it really looks like a mini phone book now, telling us how great the government is, that we have never had it so good.

This is a government that is creating board after board, tribunal after tribunal, making government bigger and bigger. I believe the public service has grown by 42%. However, is the passport service any better? Is immigration any better? The former immigration minister and now housing minister lost track of what, a million people? Is he a potential leadership candidate? He lost track of all of these people, and with this inflation, not only in finances, but with government just building upon government.

Perhaps the question we have to ask ourselves is not why we are spending but how we should be spending efficiently. The reason I say that is because I have frontline government workers that come to me day after day, it feels like, saying that they get told from the top, but nobody talks to them about efficiency. They are actually being told to cut because the government has promised so much.

We chuckled when the member across the way talked about building four million houses. This is a government that cannot even plant two billion trees. Planting a tree is a problem. Staying out of the penalty box with the Ethics Commissioner is a problem. They cannot even do that. They cannot plant a tree. They are actually double counting. I filled in at a committee, and the government was double counting from two different programs to make it look like it was meeting different targets in planting trees. These are not the lessons of simplicity and frugality.

The government can extol its programs all it wants and say something is a success. I received a letter from a dentist who services my family saying to hold on a second when it comes to dental care. He said this is not what we think it is. In fact, I would love to bring the letter to the House. Perhaps I could bring it to the House to give it to the member for Winnipeg North. We could table it. Liberals are so confident that dental care is the be all and end all.

What about the people who cannot find child care services? What about that? Unlike Mrs. Campbell, the government does not fashion itself on simplicity, transparency and frugality. In fact, it is a government that said it would be open by default, yet all it does is attempt to obfuscate when the going gets tough.

Members can look at ArriveCAN, where Liberal friends got rich, and they do not want people to know that. They are fine spending money, but more concretely, these Liberals are fine spending our money, Canadian's money and my family's money, the tax money.

I love pasta as much as the next person. I will admit it. My mom makes the best gnocchi out there. For those who do not know, gnocchi is a little dumpling. She makes them by hand using two fingers and they are hand rolled. They are very labour intensive because each one literally needs to be hand rolled. I like pasta. I would like to think I even make a mean carbonara.

Here, what do we have? A private business, presumably making a profit, and the government is giving it $1.7 million for 10 jobs. It looks great. It wants to save the riding, so they are giving $1.7 million for 10 jobs. The government calls that an investment. The NDP will do cartwheels talking about corporate bailouts and corporate giveaways, and then will vote with the government on the line items that enable that very giving. I like pasta, and there is a lot of pasta to be bought. I do not know why the government is saying, to perhaps four to five families, that every dollar they pay in taxes will go to the tune of $170,000 per job.

Let us talk about these auto contracts the government loves to talk about. There are some estimates that we are subsidizing to the tune of $1 million a job. I drive an electric car. I drive it, but what I am seeing is that demand is going down. I really like my vehicle. I do, but demand is going down, and they are saying they are investing. I have made some bad investments in my day, and when the stock went down, we suffered from it.

This budget talks about protecting farmers from the cost of climate change. If Liberals want to do something for farmers, they could pass Bill C-234 in its original form, rather than obfuscating and the member for Winnipeg North telling us we have never had it so good.

At what point will the government wake up and realize the budget does not balance itself, that it has doubled the debt, and now with interest rates being double, and in some cases triple, Canadians are hurting. Its members talk about school programs. How many students are going hungry because of their policies? I could go on for hours about this. I could go on for hours about what the member from Winnipeg said, but I am going to move a motion, seconded by the member for Edmonton West. It is an amendment to the motion.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-59, an Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses with the view to amend the bill so as to give Canadians a break this summer by eliminating the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and GST on gasoline and diesel.”

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to the budget.

A big part of what politicians do is decide which problems in society need to be solved by governments and which problems are best left to individuals and to families and to the private sector.

The Liberal government, with its NDP coalition partners, spends a great deal of time, effort, energy and taxpayers' money trying to solve all sorts of problems, while unfortunately accomplishing very little and more often than not being counterproductive.

I remember when the finance minister presented her budget last month. She received one partial standing ovation from the official opposition when she said:

There are those who claim that the only good thing government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way.

The finance minister went on to cite the example of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as an example of her government's success when it comes to government intervention in the economy. It was not too long ago that resource companies and international investors were excited about all of the potential pipeline projects in this country, such as northern gateway, Keystone XL and energy east, just to name a few.

Building pipelines such as these is something that private sector companies are able to do in most countries, but sadly not in Canada. All of the blueprints for all of these pipeline projects have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust for years because the Liberal government has made it practically impossible for the private sector to get projects like this built through its anti-development legislation, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and Bill C-48, the “west coast oil tanker ban”.

It is sad that the finance minister would cite, as a success story, the one lonely, solitary pipeline expansion project that the government decided to take over while all the others were being chased away. It is also worth noting that this was not a new pipeline being built. It was simply the twinning of an existing pipeline, with a new pipe being laid right alongside the old one. This raises the question: How long did it take to build the new pipeline and how long did it take to build the old one?

The proposal for the original Trans Mountain pipeline was submitted for approval in 1951. Construction was finished in 1952. Compare that to the decade that it has taken for the expansion to be completed. That makes this project hardly anything for the Liberal government to brag about. One also cannot help but be concerned about the cost overruns that have happened under the Liberal government's watch. The Trans Mountain expansion was originally estimated to cost $7 billion. The final price came in at $34 billion.

When a fivefold increase in total cost is touted as a success story, that should give all Canadians pause the next time the Liberal government sets out on one of its interventions into the economy. The finance minister went on to talk about her government's new school lunch program. It seems that the Liberals have just recently discovered what Conservatives and food banks have been saying for years, namely that food bank use has skyrocketed under the Liberal government.

According to a report by Food Banks Canada, nearly two million Canadians had to use food banks in March of last year. That is a 32% increase from the year before. Furthermore, one third of food bank users are children. I did not hear the finance minister mention under whose watch food bank use skyrocketed. I did not hear anything in her speech about the Liberals increasing their carbon tax again this year on the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food and the grocers who refrigerate the food, and about all of those costs being passed on to consumers at the grocery store.

I also did not hear anything from the finance minister about passing Bill C-234 in its original form to exempt grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that those costs are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher grocery prices.

I did not hear anything about the Liberals' $40-billion deficit driving up interest rates or the $60 billion in debt servicing charges making it more difficult for Canadians to make ends meet and causing Canadians to have to choose between putting a roof over their heads or putting food onto the dinner tables.

Instead of focusing on the root cause of the cost of living crisis, the Liberals have decided to bring in yet another government program. This time, it is a nationwide school lunch program. While school lunch programs are certainly a reasonable and beneficial public policy, anyone who bothers to take a brief skim of section 91 and section 92 of our Constitution will tell us this is clearly the jurisdiction of provincial governments and best left to provincial ministries of education and social services.

What I find so frustrating about the Liberal government is not only that it is bad at capitalism, but also that it is just as bad at socialism. Take, for example, the new Canada disability benefit. This program resulted from the passage of Bill C-22, a bill the Liberals introduced almost two years ago. The stated objective of this bill was actually very reasonable; it was to provide a social safety net for Canadians living with disabilities so that no one has to live in poverty due to a disability.

Personally, I have always felt programs such as this are best left to provincial governments. In my home province of Saskatchewan, we have a program called the Saskatchewan assured income for disability, SAID, program. I also believe very strongly in an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, so if the federal government wanted to join in, I certainly was not going to stand in the way. It seems that everyone else in this chamber felt the same way since Bill C-22 passed unanimously last year.

When the details of the Canada disability benefit were announced in the budget, they were certainly a disappointment for disability advocates everywhere, with the maximum benefit being only $200 per month and not one thin dime being paid out until July of next year. Two hundred dollars per month is not enough for anyone in this country to live off, even before inflation and the cost of living skyrocketed under the government.

After nine years of the Liberal government, and with the introduction of this budget, the size of the federal government and the cost of the federal government have now doubled under the Liberals' watch. After nine years, the government has come to the point where literally all of the revenue from the GST goes toward merely paying the interest on the federal debt. The Liberals are adding another $40 billion to the federal debt this year, which now stands at well over $1 trillion and rising.

I come back to the finance minister's statement, when she said that the only good thing the government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way. A more accurate statement would be that the only good thing that the current government can do is to get out of the way.

It is time for a new Conservative government to replace the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners and to fix the budget as well as the many other problems they have created. Therefore, Conservatives will vote against this budget and we will vote non-confidence in the government.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, if the leader of the Conservative Party has made one thing clear, it is that, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. It is not worth the cost for the out-of-control spending. Federal government spending is up 43% since 2019. It is not worth the cost for increasing the deficit. Canada's total debt has ballooned to $1.4 trillion, up from $600 million in 2015 when Stephen Harper was prime minister. It is not worth the cost for interest payments. Canada's interest payments are higher than what we spend on health transfers. Plus, the incompetent finance minister forgot to lock in Canada's debts at lower interest rates, costing us billions more. It is not worth the cost for our hard-earned savings, as it is imposing the largest capital gains increase in decades. Because this budget, the government and the Prime Minister are not worth the cost, I will be proudly voting against this budget.

Before this budget came down in mid-April, common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget: one, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; two, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homes each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and, three, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, so the government must save a dollar for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refused to listen and the result is a budget that the NDP-Liberal government delivered just a few short weeks ago that is just more of the same that broke our country in the first place.

Common-sense Conservatives will not support this runaway train wreck of a budget, nor will we support the NDP-Liberal government, which has broken our country, because the truth is that the budgeting of the government is like pressing the accelerator on a runaway train. Its budgets have boosted spending by 43% since 2019, which is like pouring gas on the inflationary fire, which drives up interest rates. This increased spending further endangers our social programs and jobs by adding more debt and more interest payments. Frankly, this spending spree will not stop until common-sense Conservatives are able to start governing, stop that runaway train and turn it around.

The Liberals and their costly NDP partners are not worth the cost for any generation. The government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. Food is getting so expensive that food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million additional visits expected this year.

While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the NDP-Liberals are spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending. Former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that this budget is the worst budget since 1982. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the NDP-Liberal debt. This is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with all this additional spending, but the Liberals did not listen. As a result, the Bank of Canada has implemented the most aggressive interest rate hikes in its history. As millions of Canadians are renewing their mortgages and know this right now, the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost.

Let us talk about the carbon tax. We will hear many myths coming from the NDP-Liberal government concerning the carbon tax. I want to dispel some of them for the people back in Saskatoon West who are watching.

The first myth is that the carbon tax does not add to inflation. Canadians know that is not true. They know it is making everything more expensive and miserable for everyone. The International Monetary Fund defines the carbon tax. It states:

Carbon taxes, levied on...oil products...in proportion to their carbon content, can be collected from fuel suppliers. They in turn will pass on the tax in the form of higher prices for electricity, gasoline, heating oil, and so on, as well as for the products and services that depend on them.

This is black and white. Carbon taxes are meant to make everything more expensive. Energy, products, food and everything else that we buy are all more expensive. Boy oh boy, has the NDP-Liberal carbon tax been very successful in making everything much more expensive. Anyone who goes to the grocery store knows the price of food has increased astronomically since the carbon tax came into effect. One cannot buy carrots, potatoes, eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, beef, pork or even Kraft Dinner without burning through one's paycheque. The Prime Minister has blamed this laughably on the war in Ukraine. How much of our cheese, milk, carrots and Kraft Dinner come from Russia or Ukraine? Let me say that it is zero, yet, as any common-sense Saskatchewan person can tell us, Canada produces and manufactures our own food.

What does affect the domestic price of food is when the Canadian farmer must suddenly start paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in carbon taxes to fuel his farm equipment, keep the greenhouses hot, and move the manufacturing line and processing facilities. These costs get passed on to the retailer. The retailer, of course, has their own carbon taxes to pay on the electricity to keep the lights on and keep the fridges and freezers cold while absorbing whatever extra carbon tax costs were incurred by the transport trucks delivering the food to that retailer. All those taxes get added up and passed on to the consumer. That is how the carbon tax is making everything more expensive. That is inflation, plain and simple.

There is a second myth to dispel about the carbon tax. The Prime Minister goes around touting his so-called carbon rebate cheques as his new Marxist wealth redistribution project. He tells Canadians to not worry about paying carbon taxes because he will just give it back to them with a quarterly cheque. Is that true? Like everything the Prime Minister says and does, it may seem true in his world, but in the real world, he is absolutely wrong.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of Parliament who is not beholden to any political party, looked at the Prime Minister's claims and produced a very detailed report. Using the Prime Minister's own figures and math, he went across Canada and examined how much everyone pays in carbon tax and how much they get back in these so-called rebates.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, this year the Liberals will collect an average of $2,618 from every family, but the Liberals will only rebate on average $2,093. That means that each Saskatchewan family will lose $525. Only in the Prime Minister's head does losing over $500 mean that someone is coming out ahead. Within five years, as the carbon tax quadruples, that net loss would be well over $1,700 per year for each family. It is clear that only in the alternative reality the Prime Minister lives in does a loss of $1,700 every year turn out to be a win.

As such, myth one is that the carbon tax does not make everything more expensive, but we know that it does exactly that. Myth two is that families get the carbon tax back, when the truth is they do not, leaving each family $500 in the hole. The third myth is that the NDP is somehow not to blame for the Prime Minister's brazen disregard for the Canadian public every time he raises the carbon tax.

The fact is that the coalition government agreement the NDP and Liberals struck is akin to one of the greatest heists ever committed against the Canadian taxpayer. Did the Prime Minister put the gun to the taxpayers and pull the trigger? He absolutely did, but it was the NDP that loaded the gun, kept the getaway vehicle idling when the dirty work was being done and then put its foot on the accelerator to make sure the Liberals got a clean getaway.

Myth number four is that the home heating oil exemption was not meant to help Liberal MPs in the Maritimes. The truth is that they created this exemption so people heating their homes in Atlantic Canada did not have to pay carbon tax. I can clearly see that in the announcement filled with all the Liberal Maritime MPs.

When Saskatchewan thought this type of exemption should also apply to people heating their homes in our frigid province, what did the Prime Minister do instead? If I turn to page 408 in annex 3 of the budget, it would give the Liberals the legal authority to prosecute the Saskatchewan government for not collecting the carbon tax on natural gas. As such, exempting home heating in Atlantic Canada is A-okay for the Liberals. Exempting home heating in Saskatchewan would be a criminal act, so obviously this shows the lengths to which the Prime Minister is willing to go to favour one region of Canada over another.

Ultimately, as a member of Parliament, I must make a decision on how I will be voting on the budget. How do I represent the interests of the people of Saskatoon West? Do I vote in favour of higher taxes, out-of-control spending, massive inflationary debt payments and no end in sight? Many folks in my riding email me, almost on a daily basis, imploring me to stop doing these very things.

They are very concerned that our activist Prime Minister is breaking Canada. They see the crime, chaos and destruction are on our streets. They feel the pinch of higher grocery prices and higher taxes. As such, do I vote against another wasteful budget, a budget that is meant to harm Canadians, a budget that raises their taxes and increases inflation?

I am a Conservative, and I believe in common sense. I am voting no to the budget. I am voting non-confidence in the NDP-Liberal government, and I am voting in favour of us having a carbon tax election as soon as possible.

Let us bring it home.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years and eight consecutive deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the debt, adding more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined. Housing costs have doubled under his watch and, now, two million Canadians are forced to visit their local food banks in a single month. That is twice the population of Nova Scotia. With the budget, we can see another $50 billion of inflationary spending. The budget and the Prime Minister are simply not worth the cost. I will be voting no confidence.

Common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the home, fix the budget and, yes, stop the crime. Since he became the Prime Minister, the wealthiest .01% of Canadians have been living lavishly, receiving major subsidies from their corporations that are bigger than ever in the history of our country and huge loan guarantees that prevent them from losing money on bad investments.

Who foots the bill for the out-of-control Prime Minister? The hard-working taxpayers. Contractors like those from GC Strategies are among the .01% thanks to the generous gifts from the NDP-Liberal government. Who else is in that .01%? The Prime Minister himself. As a matter of fact, he is considered one of the world's wealthiest politicians. Yet, over the past nine years, Canada's personal income growth has fallen behind that of other G7 nations. Today, average Canadian families and seniors are forced to choose between paying their mortgage and putting food on their table.

Let me make one thing clear. Conservatives are not against spending. We are against wasteful spending, which the NDP-Liberal government excels at. Conservatives will support programs that deliver proven positive outcomes. Take the government's dental care program, for instance. Who will it really help? Is it helping seniors? No. Did the government consult with the Canadian Dental Association before announcing it? No. The result is a program rushed out the door in a desperate attempt to buy votes with no real thought or consultation behind it.

I have heard from many dentists and one thing is clear. These dentists care about their patients and have worked tirelessly to build their business, but the Canadian dental care program in its current state will not allow them the same high level of patient care they provide. The proof is in the extremely low sign-up rate by dentists. Canadians have been promised free dental care, but are now upset due to the massive limitations and restrictions imposed by this ill-conceived NDP-Liberal program. Eligible treatments are insufficient for the prevention and maintenance of good oral health. Dentists should be able to make recommendations based on the individual needs of their patients and not the constraints dictated by this government and covered up by their insurance company.

The public is being misled about the scope of coverage and the fees. Most patients will be surprised by out-of-pocket expenses such as copay balances and limitations of service. The burden will fall on dental teams to explain these deficiencies. After analyzing the CDCP benefit grid, most treatments will be reimbursed to the dental team at around 80%. The Liberals claim this is to avoid overburdening the taxpayers. Is that not rich? They awarded Sun Life $747 million to administer this program. Clearly, the Liberal government does not understand the cost of providing quality health care. To be a provider, dentists were told to sign an open-ended, unilateral contract. Who would sign a contract where the details are unclear and unfair?

The Minister of Health has said dentists should just try it if they like it. That does not even make sense. It is an insurance plan, not a pair of gloves. Dentists cannot just try out a plan to see whether it fits. This is neither sensible nor ethical. What happens if they decide not to continue? How can they morally or ethically stop treating a patient based on insurance coverage?

Let us also talk about patient privacy. Accepting the claims processing and payment agreement gives Sun Life rights and access to the entire patient chart. Client consent is obtained as part of member enrolment in the CDCP, meaning that personal health information and dental charts will be readily available to Sun Life and the government.

The plan has little to no thought on how it would work. To sell it as free dental care is nothing more than false advertising and wasteful spending, not unlike the billion-dollar arrive scam app.

I googled the meaning of the word “budget”, and this is what came up: “A budget is a plan you write down to decide how you will spend your money”. That part of the definition the government seems to understand, but it is the next sentence where it fails: “A budget helps you make sure you will have enough money every month. Without a budget, you might run out of money before your next paycheck.”

The NDP-Liberal coalition has spent so much money that more Canadian tax dollars are used to service the debt than are spent on health care. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, confirmed that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending is not helpful in bringing inflation down and lowering interest rates.

After nine years, the Prime Minister's budget is just more of the same of what got us into this mess. He did not stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop endangering our social programs and jobs by adding more and more debt. His government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. His record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with an additional million expected in 2024. He will not stop until common-sense Conservatives start governing with common sense for this country.

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget includes over $61 billion in new inflationary spending. This would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Former Liberal Governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge said that the current budget is the “worst since 1982.” Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that his spending is pressing on the inflationary gas pedal, driving up interest rates.

Struggling families cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything, keeping interest rates high. That is why common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. First, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Second, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal infrastructure money. Third, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refuses to listen.

Common-sense Conservatives will not support this budget, and the people of my constituency are just waiting for us to form government and beat the current Liberal government.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by saying it had been predicted that this year's NDP-Liberal budget was likely to be the worst budget since 1982 when the Prime Minister's father was running the government. That prediction was made by the former Liberal-appointed Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge.

Mr. Dodge was speaking about the budget before he even saw it, but what he already observed was $40 billion in announced new spending. Someone does not have to be a former Bank of Canada governor to realize that doubling down on a failed approach is a bad idea. The proof is out there in the lived experience of real people across our country. Canadians deserve better.

In my speech today, I will highlight a number of reasons the Liberals have failed to respond to the needs of everyday Canadians, including the good people of Westman.

First, the NDP-Liberal budget fails on tax relief for struggling Canadians. At a time when life is costing far more for Westman residents, the Prime Minister's budget does nothing to bring the relief families desperately need. As the cost of gas, groceries and home heating continue to increase, the Liberals have deliberately chosen not only to leave the carbon tax in place, but also to increase it even more, despite the financial hurt Canadians are feeling.

Thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, the Prime Minister was able to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, further driving up the cost of everything. The fact is that 70% of Canadians oppose this tax hike, and 70% of the provincial premiers have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase. The simplest, fairest thing to do is to axe the carbon tax for everyone, everywhere, for good. That is what Conservatives are working toward.

Instead of siding with Canadians facing an affordability crisis, it was very frustrating to see the NDP and Liberals join forces to save the Prime Minister from a carbon tax election last month. In fact, the parties have voted together 22 times to keep this tax grab in place since 2019. Those who are watching can rest assured that common-sense Conservatives will continue fighting to axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everyone.

Second, the NDP-Liberal budget fails on measures to restore affordability. Under the Liberal government's watch, the cost of rent, mortgage payments and down payments has doubled. The Liberals' record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million more people expected in 2024.

In my riding, the Samaritan House food bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, a dramatic increase of 12,000, which was a 50% increase above its normal annual average. This is in line with trends across the whole country as families struggle to make ends meet and put food on the table.

As the Prime Minister and his ideological environment minister keep taxing the farmers who grow the food and the truckers who transport the food, at the end of the day, they are adding to the cost of food for everyday Canadians who buy it. That is why one thing the Liberals could have done to bring tax relief is axe the carbon tax.

Third, the Liberals could have moved to stop inflationary spending. The finance minister green-lighted a deficit of $39.8 billion, which would bring Canada's national debt to a staggering $1.25 trillion. It has been proven time and time again that it is these exact deficits that are driving inflation in Canada and making life more unaffordable for Canadians across our whole country.

The ever-increasing rates of spending in Canada are causing the Bank of Canada to maintain or even raise the interest rate, which is now at 5% versus the 1% of two years ago. These were the worst two years for millions of families who trusted the Liberal Prime Minister when he claimed that interest rates would stay low forever.

That is why Conservatives demanded that budget 2024 include a commitment to cap spending, with a dollar-for-dollar rule, to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every dollar of spending, so Canadians no longer see the value of their dollar drop thanks to rising inflation.

The Prime Minister's reckless spending is leaving less money available for health care. This year, Canada will spend a shocking $54.1 billion on interest servicing our national debt, more money than the entire Canada health transfer. Should the NDP-backed Liberal government continue on its spending spree, it would simply mean more money for wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt, while less money flows to the doctors and nurses who keep our communities healthy. If we continue to go down this road, the pot of cash that is available for health care in Canada will only continue to get smaller, endangering our rural and remote hospitals, clinics and care homes.

Another failing is the government's approach to housing. In its 2015 platform, the Liberals said they would “conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need.” That did not happen. Now its 2024 budget is restating that commitment nine years later.

Under the Liberal government, Canada is building fewer homes than we did in the mid-1970s when we had half the population, making housing more expensive for everyone. Reannouncing old pledges will not help to build the 5.8 million homes that are needed to restore housing affordability for Canadians. Even in Brandon, the rent of a modest unit has risen from $989 to $1,242, an increase of more than $250 a month, not to mention the rising cost of everything else. A common-sense Conservative approach would build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring that cities permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money.

This budget “falls short for Canadian farmers.” That is a statement we heard from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Despite a specific Conservative demand to axe the carbon tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form, no such commitment has been made by the Liberals. Instead of saving farmers $1 billion between now and 2030, which is exactly what passing Bill C-234 in its original form would do, the Liberals continued to ignore farmers. The result is that all Canadians will continue to pay more at the grocery store because higher expenses for farmers lead to higher prices for consumers. Conservatives will keep fighting to bring home lower food prices for all Canadians.

Another failing of the Liberal budget is our growing national debt. The Prime Minister has doubled down on $40 billion of new spending, $2,400 in new government debt and new inflationary spending alone for every Canadian. Not only have the deficit and debt grown at substantial rates, but the interest payments due on the debt continue to grow at skyrocketing rates. In fact, all of the GST Canadians pay this year will be needed to pay for the Liberal government's interest payments on the debt. For the first time in a generation, we are spending more on debt interest than on health care.

I would ask every Canadian watching to remember this. Every time they pay at the cash or close a business transaction, the extra 5% they pay in goods and services tax is all going toward interest on the Prime Minister's debt. After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada is now spending more money paying off interest on his debt than on Canada health transfer to provinces. Meanwhile, housing prices have doubled and food banks are overwhelmed.

The decline in the Canadian economy since 2019 created by the Liberal Prime Minister means Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. While American GDP per capita growth has grown by 7% since 2019, Canada's has fallen by 2.8%. This is the single-largest underperformance of the Canadian economy in comparison to the United States since 1965. It is long past the time to bring home affordability and restore common sense. Unfortunately, I could not support budget 2024 as it failed on both accounts.

National Strategy to Reduce Food Waste and Combat Food Insecurity

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion to create a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity.

I do believe that this motion put forward by the Liberal member is presented with good intentions, but like most of the things that the Liberals have done for the last nine years, the unintended consequences of good intentions would cause more problems than it would solve.

Let us start with the facts. Over 20% of food produced in Canada goes uneaten and is considered wasted. It is also true that many Canadian families are dealing with critical levels of food insecurity. The government thinks that reducing food waste is the solution for the problem of food insecurity. That is where, of course, the narrative falls apart. It is not food waste that is causing spiralling food prices. Canadians, by and large, could afford to put food on the table just nine short years ago.

In a single month last year, there were two million visits to food banks in Canada. Today, food banks are expecting to see a million more people use their facilities on top of last year's record high, and a third of food banks say they will have to turn hungry Canadians away.

It is incredibly saddening that the Liberal government has put parents in such a precarious position that we now seem to need a national school food program in order to make sure that children have food to eat, when their parents used to be able to afford to buy it for them.

Food waste is not necessarily the most pressing issue. The reason that we are even speaking to this motion today is due to the inflationary spending and outrageous agricultural policies that have been implemented by a government that clearly does not understand the industry. The result of these disastrous policies is that the average Canadian family will have to pay up to $700 more in food in 2024 than it did just last year in 2023. That is just one year's worth of inflationary increases.

After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, the price of beef is up 30%; chicken, 34%; rice, 30%; eggs, 38%; apples, 39%; butter, 45%; tomatoes, 63%; fish, 28%; lettuce, 48%; flour, 25%; potatoes, 60%; and baby formula is up 27%. I could continue, but I think Canadians who are watching get the point. It turns out that there are consequences to taxing our farmers, truckers and grocers.

What are the examples of some of these disastrous policies? A prime example, of course, is the carbon tax. This tax has done little for the environment, but has driven up the cost of food, as the cost of carbon pricing compounds through the supply chain with every single transaction that the food system endures.

Conservatives understand the cost borne by our agricultural sector. That is why my colleague from Huron—Bruce introduced Bill C-234 to expand carbon tax exemptions, of course, for our struggling farmers and the agricultural sector. The bill would have saved $978 million by removing the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for drying grain, as well as heating and cooling barns, greenhouses and other structures. That is $1 billion that has to be added into the price of food for Canadians.

Recently, the Liberal Party-aligned senators masquerading as independents gutted most of the exemptions from Bill C-234. With Liberals proposing a 30% fertilizer emissions reduction target on top of this, which they claim is voluntary, even though it is not, it is no wonder that Canadian farmers clearly mistrust the current government.

Ironically enough, the Liberal government laments the issue of food waste, when one of their own misguided policies has actually exacerbated the problem. In 2022, they put a self-imposed ban on P.E.I. potatoes being exported to the United States. In doing so, the government is mis-characterizing the entire province of P.E.I. as being infested with potato warts. During this incident, the government spent $28 million to destroy almost 300 million pounds of potatoes, and that sounds like fairly significant food waste to me. Maybe the government should indict itself as part of this new strategy.

If the past is any indicator of the future, then it seems that the Liberals have not yet learned from their failures in the realm of agriculture. Not long ago, the government indicated that it was looking at a P2 plastic ban as part of its commitment to move toward zero plastic waste. This policy seeks to ban plastic non-compostable price-lookup stickers and plastic packaging for fresh produce.

Although the government has paraded this plastics ban as an environmental initiative, a report commissioned by the Canadian Produce and Marketing Association and produced by Deloitte has found that this simply is not the case. They concluded that the P2 plastics ban could increase greenhouse gas emissions by 50% or 22 million metric tons of CO2. Deloitte has also found that it fails at reducing waste.

Alternatives to plastic packaging have consistently failed to meet modified atmosphere requirements. They also fail to meet the standard for food-borne illnesses. It has been estimated the reduction in shelf life engendered by the loss of these plastic products could increase fresh produce waste by more than 50%. This would constitute a loss of more than one million tons of fresh produce every year. Woke packaging laws are creating food waste.

Finally, it has been reported that the loss of these products could raise the cost of food by 35% and could reduce the availability of fresh produce by 50%. This would cost our industry $5.6 billion, and the cost would, of course, be borne directly by the consumer. These are the same consumers who are already struggling to put food on the table.

Furthermore, the lower consumption of fresh produce would have a trickle-down effect, costing roughly a billion dollars a year to our health care system. This increased cost would be borne disproportionately in rural and remote regions of Canada, which are already struggling with the increased cost of shipping.

I would now like to delineate what this new national strategy to reduce food waste and combat insecurity would actually do and why we actually do not need it. It calls for strategy to “establish of a national food waste hierarchy,” which sounds like a lot of bureaucracy to me, as well as to “align municipal and provincial regulations concerning food waste reduction and food donations”. We already have many organizations across the country doing their own thing with their own initiatives. They do not need any further direction, especially from Ottawa.

The national strategy would “lead efforts to reduce the adverse environmental impact of unused food resources, establish protocols and partnerships to facilitate food redistribution and rescue efforts, identify policy and fiscal incentives to reduce food waste”. It sounds like it would be creating a lot of jobs for bureaucrats, but I am not sure we would actually be putting more affordable food on tables for Canadians. We can see what what a list of good intentions looks like, but it is actually not necessary in any way, shape or form.

To us Conservatives, this reads as an excuse to expand the bureaucracy. Little emphasis is being put on doing work to solve the issue, but it would create more administrative positions and more government. The government has already grown by over 50% since 2015. Inflationary pressure is putting pressure on the economy and interest rates, and driving up the cost of food even more.

The Liberal government has already spent $20 million toward this initiative under its food waste reduction challenge in 2020, and the industry is making rapid strides in reducing food waste on its own. If the Liberals wanted a ready-made strategy without spending any more money, they could adopt the National Zero Waste Council's report, entitled “A Food Loss and Waste Strategy for Canada,” referencing its work as a national strategy.

I would like to conclude by stating that a national strategy to reduce food waste and combat food insecurity is not needed at the federal level. The issue of food insecurity can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the government and its ideologically motivated policies, and it has learned nothing from the previous mistakes it has made.

Imagine being a government that has mismanaged so much of the economy and the cost of living that salvation somehow lies in feeding food that is destined for the waste stream to millions of now hungry Canadians.

One cannot be the solution when one is the problem, and the NDP-Liberal government is simply not worth the cost. It is time for a Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Report Stage

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as always, to speak in the House. Tonight, we are talking about the fall economic statement. Yes, members heard me right. We are talking about the economic statement from fall 2023.

It is worth pointing out that the Liberals have an arrangement with the NDP to support them, so they actually have a majority. How badly does one have to mismanage the House schedule to not have finished passing the fall economic statement by the time one actually has introduced a new budget in 2024?

It is what it is. The reality is that it does not matter which budget or economic statement the Liberals bring forward, because their elements are all the same. The first thing that one will see in every budget or economic statement that comes from the Liberals is huge government overspending, a huge deficit.

The fall economic statement did not disappoint in that respect. We see, again, that they continue to pour deficit spending on the inflationary fire. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this makes it very difficult for him to lower interest rates, something that is hurting Canadians. We know that affordability is an issue, and this large deficit spending is just not helpful.

The second feature and benefit that one can always see in an economic statement or a budget from the Liberals is increased taxes. Once again, we see that they are increasing taxes in the bill.

The other thing one can count on is that there will be all kinds of programs, but the execution of the programs will not actually benefit anybody in the country. Those are really the main elements in the fall economic statement.

Interestingly, I have a new intern in my office. She is 20. She is very interested in getting involved in the political process. I gave her an exercise to go and write a speech about the budget. Without any of the usual talking points or anything, this is what she wrote, and I think it applies, to illustrate my point, equally well to the fall economic statement.

She wrote, “After nine years of this Prime Minister and this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are worse off than ever. Housing costs have doubled, interest rates have skyrocketed, and food banks can't keep up with the demand. Instead of helping Canadians, this new budget proposes billions of dollars in inflationary spending...which will only increase the cost of living and make life harder for Canadians!

“To briefly outline some of the main aspects of the budget, this coalition government promises to create economic prosperity within Canada, as well as building more homes and making them affordable. However, these promises are not new. Rather, they are almost identical to the promises made over the past nine years, promises that the Liberals failed to deliver time and time again. It seems this Liberal government believes that if they try the same thing over and over, it will lead to different results. That's the definition of insanity.”

That is what a 20-year-old thinks about the budgets and the economic statements that the Liberals are bringing forward. It is no wonder, because, in 2015, when I got elected, the Liberals promised to make housing more affordable. They have promised it and promised it; here we are, nine years up the road, and they are still promising to make housing more affordable.

The reality is that housing costs, mortgages, rents and down payments have doubled; the average Canadian is now spending 61% of their disposable income on housing. The Liberals have not made housing more affordable, and I do not see anything in the economic statement that is going to do the trick.

In fact, what I would say is that some of the ideas in here are unbelievable. They talk about leveraging the Infrastructure Bank to build housing. The Infrastructure Bank took $35 billion from municipalities, money that was supposed to build infrastructure in those municipalities, and put it into this bank with the idea that they would be able to attract private investment and leverage money to build projects. They loaded up with all the Liberal insider friends to run the thing and never built any projects.

Here we are, five years up the road, and now they think they are going to use that bank, which attracted no private investment, to build houses. It is ludicrous. It is not going to happen.

What I would say is that the Liberals have taken some of our Conservative leader's good ideas and they have put them in here. Taking the GST off new houses is one, which is a great idea, and there are a couple of other ideas that our Conservative colleagues had. I see a number of ideas from private members' bills that talked about maternity benefits and adoptive parent benefits, things like that, which were adopted in here, so it is good that the Liberals could learn from the good ideas that Conservatives have. Using federal lands and freeing up federal lands to build housing on is another great idea from the Conservatives.

Those are the highlights of the economic update, but one of the titles in the economic update is “Making Life More Affordable”. I already talked about the housing part of it. Let us talk about the rest of it. The Liberals have jacked up the carbon tax, and the carbon tax has driven the cost of everything up. It has added 17¢ a litre to gasoline. It is a multiplier on the increased cost of food. If I think about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he was saying that every year food prices have increased. The average person is paying $1,400 more for food than they used to pay. I add that to the carbon tax, which, depending on the province one is in could be $1,800 a year, and then I will talk about some of the other things.

I have a staffer who just got her insurance premium update, and it went up $1,000 a year. They said the reason that it was going up was inflation and car theft. Again, it is these Liberal policies that are driving inflation and not addressing the catch and release of criminals who are stealing vehicles. It is unbelievable.

Before the pandemic, 50% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. With all the things I just quoted, if I add those up, it is an extra $500 a month. Everybody is in the red. The Liberals have taken the middle class and they have turned it into the poor hoping to join back to the middle class. It is unacceptable.

We see that the Liberals, at the same time, have piled on with increased CPP and EI premium taxes, tax increases at a time when Canadians can least afford it, and they intend to quadruple the carbon tax. They also have increased the tax on alcohol and beer. This is something that is an every-year measure without any parliamentary oversight. It was put in a budget a few years ago, and Canadians are feeling the pinch.

Another title in the budget is “Making Groceries More Affordable”. Have the the Liberals been to the grocery store and seen how expensive it is? It is ridiculous. They offer support for Canadians in their energy bills. In addition to the carbon tax, we have brought forward some great ideas like Bill C-234 to take the carbon tax off farmers to make food more affordable, but the government is keeping that from going forward. It has done nothing to help keep food more affordable.

What about supporting small businesses? The government would not let them extend their CEBA loan repayments, even with the hard-pressed small business environment from the pandemic, and now they are getting squeezed with a capital gains tax, even though these small business owners were told that this is how they would accumulate money for their retirement because they do not have pensions as they are entrepreneurs. Now the government has changed the rules, and it has changed them retroactively. Instead of saying going forward it is going to change them, now it is punishing small business owners.

There are all these programs, and I do not have enough time to go into all of them, but the school food program has no food in it. It is provincial jurisdiction, so that is a waste of time. The dental program has no dentists signed up in most of the provinces. In P.E.I., Northwest Territories and Yukon there are none there. If I look, it is 25% or less in some of the other provinces, and people are left with the impression it is going to be free. It is not free. The government only covers 70%. People who cannot afford dental care cannot pay that other 30%, so it failed. That is my conclusion

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

—passing Bill C-234 in its original form to take the carbon tax off farmers and farm families to make food more affordable for all Canadians?

Carbon Pricing

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was an oxymoron in many respects. There is fear because Canadians are suffering. We are actually talking about the issues facing Canadians, particularly the cost of living increases that the government is imposing upon them with consistent tax increases.

Its whole time in office has been tax increase after tax increase after tax increase, particularly, in the case that we have talked about tonight, the carbon tax increase.

My colleague across the way spoke about all of the agricultural rebates that are available for the carbon tax, but he did not speak about Bill C-234 and that is one that his government has held up intentionally from getting passed in the House of Commons. It is one of the ways we could help farmers actually benefit from a rebate on the carbon tax, but he ignores all that and pretends that the government is actually doing something for farmers in this respect. I disagree.

If members take a look at the facts that we presented here, this is very factual. It is very clear that Canadians are actually suffering. It is not fear to indicate that Canadians are going to food banks. To not say it might be burying one's head in the sand. We are actually saying that, yes, Canadians are going to food banks at a record level. That is something the government has to address and has to consider in its response to the carbon tax and why it should be repealed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Okay. Go ahead, Madam Clerk, if you could, on the amendment that Mr. MacGregor moved on Mr. Barlow's original motion.

Colleagues, essentially what Mr. MacGregor's amendment would do is keep “Given that”, and then the text of paragraph “a)” would stay. Then he goes immediately down to the bottom of the piece and would add, after the text of paragraph “a)”, “regarding the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1 to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234.”

That's what I had. Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor, if we're wrong.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

My position on Bill C-234 is well known.

There's a lot of preamble here that I believe is unnecessary, so just for simplicity's sake, I would suggest a friendly amendment to my colleague Mr. Barlow to simplify the motion. It is as follows: “That the committee report the letters it received from agricultural stakeholders, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities regarding the 23% carbon tax increase on April 1 to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234.

It's just a simple to-the-point motion. I'm okay with having a vote on this, but I think it's important to understand what this would result in, procedurally, in the House. I've never been on a committee where we've simply reported letters to the House.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have lots of respect for my colleague on the other side and the letters that have come forward. I know that those letters are public, so I don't see how that will inform the debate. Bill C-234 is completely in the control of the opposition. Should they choose to read into the record those particular letters, they can do so at their will when it comes up for debate.

Bill C-234 has come before this committee before. We've dealt with it. It's been sent back to the House and to the other chamber, and it came back. I don't see what more we could add to this particular debate.

I've seen all of the letters. They're public. I don't see what value it would add to the House of Commons. I think most parliamentarians have seen those letters as well. They are in the public domain.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here.

Before I go to my questions, colleagues, I gave a notice of motion on April 9, and I would like to move that motion now.

Why this is coming today is that I went to one of my constituents on the weekend, a ranch near Kananaskis country that is a couple of quarter sections in size. Mr. Stronach, you'll be happy to know that we saw a couple of black bears and a couple of bald eagles.

However, what was frustrating for this ranch owner—we were riding horses throughout his property—is that his feed bill for his animals went up $1,000 in one delivery, and that $1,000 was completely as a result of the carbon tax on trucking.

We'd like to highlight the fact that this carbon tax is having a detrimental impact on people in Canadian agriculture and their ability to stay in business. This is a family rancher. Dewy is looking forward to passing on this family ranch to his grandson and granddaughter in the next few years and is questioning the financial viability of being able to do that with the impact that the carbon tax is having on their operation.

On April 9, I put forward a notice of motion that I'd like to move now.

Over the last few weeks, we've received letters from dozens of stakeholder groups representing tens of thousands of farmers and certainly tens of thousands of hectares of arable farmland that highlight the impact that the carbon tax is having on their operations, and certainly through this study alone, we've heard that 44% of produce growers are operating at a loss, which is certainly not long-term viability for their operations.

I asked my colleagues on April 9 for unanimous consent for the committee to report those letters that we received from a number of provincial agriculture ministers, agriculture stakeholder groups like the Association of Rural Municipalities in Saskatchewan, Grain Farmers of Ontario and a number of others, asking for the government to review its decision to increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1 and to take a look at the impact this is having on Canadian agriculture as part of the consideration for the debate on Bill C-234, which is coming back later this month.

I'm asking my colleagues for unanimous consent to table those letters in the House as part of the discussion on Bill C-234.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

I am honoured to rise in the House and add the voice of the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte to today's debate. I want to take a moment to go over the unfortunate state of this country's finances after nine years of deficit budgets and how the Liberal government's inflationary policies are affecting families in my community.

Under the Liberal government, mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled, rents have doubled, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating has skyrocketed and people cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. The Prime Minister said repeatedly that doubling the national debt would have zero consequences and the budget would balance itself. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not have the foresight to realize that doubling the national debt would drive up interest rates to historic modern highs, and now the government will spend over $54 billion in interest on the national debt. That is more than the government is spending on provincial health care transfers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his latest report, stated that budget 2024 marks the third consecutive fiscal plan in which the government's new measures, even after accounting for revenue-raising and spending reviews, have exceeded the incremental “fiscal room” resulting from economic and fiscal developments.

Conservatives had three simple demands leading up to this year's budget. We committed that if the Liberal government introduced measures to immediately pass Bill C-234 in its original form, require cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money, and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, we would give our support to the budget. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the finance minister ignored our pleas for a balanced budget, lower taxes and more homes for Canadians, and decided to add more than $60 billion in new spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. That means higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher rents and higher mortgage payments.

I would like to spend some time discussing three central issues that I hear often from members of my community: the high cost of housing, the carbon tax and public safety.

First, one of the top concerns for residents in my community is housing affordability. In my riding, the cost of housing has skyrocketed under the Liberal government. Residents in my riding are now forced to spend almost $2,000 a month on a one-bedroom apartment. The only solution to this crisis is for the Liberals to build more homes. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister told Canadians directly that housing is not a federal responsibility, and bureaucrats in his own housing department have confirmed that the government has no plans to bring down housing costs by building the homes that Canadians need.

According to Statistics Canada, between January 1 and November 30, 2023, Canada built 17,000 fewer homes than in the previous year. Instead of taking real action to address this issue, the Liberal government is concerned with photo ops and ribbon cuttings. The numbers do not lie. The government has failed an entire generation of Canadians who fear that they will never be able to own a home.

I see the crisis surrounding interest rates playing out in my community. I receive calls and emails constantly from residents whose mortgage rates have doubled. Recently, a retiree in my riding saw their mortgage jump from $1,100 a month to $2,600 in less than a year. It has not always been like this in Canada. Nine years ago, the average down payment on a home was approximately $20,000. Now the massive cost of even a modest home in my community is forcing residents to save for longer and longer. It now takes 25 years to save up for the cost of a down payment, and the needed down payment for a home has doubled.

Roughly 64% of the average pre-tax monthly income is needed to pay the monthly costs associated with housing. This crisis has made the dream of home ownership impossible for all but the wealthiest few. In fact, 76% of Canadians who do not own homes believe they never will. The Liberal government had nine years to address this issue. The housing crisis is a policy and leadership failure from the Liberal government.

I will go on to an issue that is directly affecting families and farmers in my community: the carbon tax. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister hiked his punishing carbon tax by 23% as part of his plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told members of this House that Canadians would be better off without the carbon tax, saying that they would experience higher income growth while the price of food would come down, but the Liberal government went ahead with its tax anyway.

To illustrate the impact this tax is having on the lives of Canadians, I want to share some of the correspondence I have received from people living in my community. I have a bill here from a family of six in my riding that is paying $142 a month plus HST in carbon tax on their home heating bill.

I have another Enbridge bill from a Barrie resident where the carbon tax makes up 33% of the total bill when the HST is factored in. This resident bought a programmable thermostat that automatically turns down the temperature in her home to 15°C from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. She believes that she is doing all she can do lower her gas bill, but she still feels punished by this costly carbon tax.

I hear this government boast often about the rural top-up of the carbon rebate. Meanwhile, we know that the calculations it made on who qualifies as a rural Canadian are deeply flawed. Residents in my riding who live in rural places like Anten Mills, Elmvale, Hillsdale, Midhurst, Minesing, Phelpston, and Snow Valley are deemed to be living in urban areas, according to the Liberal government's rural top-up formula. Budget 2024 finally says that the government will look to better define rural areas, but it only commits to putting forward a proposal to do so later in the year. This is unacceptable for residents in my riding who are forced to pay more in carbon tax, and it is proof of why we simply need to axe the tax for everyone, forever.

I will move on to how this tax is affecting the hard-working farmers in my riding. I am proud to represent a riding with a large, vibrant agricultural industry. I was recently sent an Enbridge bill for almost $10,000 from a farmer in my riding who runs a poultry operation. Their bill shows a carbon tax charge of $2,700 on the cost of fuel to dry grain corn. Shockingly, the carbon tax is more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustment. The Prime Minister just does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we end up taxing the food that a family buys.

Finally, I will spend some time discussing the crime and chaos that the Prime Minister has unleashed, which is deeply affecting members of my community.

Small businesses bring life and a sense of community to our downtowns and neighbourhoods, yet they are sounding the alarm about the impacts of crime on their livelihoods. These businesses, including in my community, face significant challenges related to vandalism, theft, loitering, and public intoxication.

In my riding, a beloved Italian restaurant named Limoncello Bistro was recently broken into for the sixth time. Thieves who recently broke into Limoncello Bistro stole everything from the restaurant, even the meat and seafood. These repeated break-ins have cost the owners thousands and thousands of dollars. One of the owners of Limoncello Bistro has stated, “I find it hard to swallow that I have to pick up and leave a place where 5 short years ago this wasn't as bad as it is today. We fell in love with downtown Barrie. The waterfront, the community and the people. We as business owners shouldn't have to leave because criminals are putting us out of business.”

I agree. Small businesses like Limoncello Bistro are on the front lines of the Canadian public safety crisis, and we urgently need to address this issue of skyrocketing crime rates. We know that the Liberal government caused this problem with its soft-on-crime laws: Bill C-5 and Bill C-75.

Another issue that is directly affecting small businesses in my community is the Liberal government's nonsensical attack on law-abiding hunters, farmers, and sport shooters. The budget proposes to spend $30.4 million on a hunting rifle buyback plan that does not exist. This is on top of the $42 million it has already committed. Members can think about that. The Liberal government will now spend $72.4 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners and businesses. Not one gun has been bought back after spending $72.4 million.

I recently received an email from a small business owner in my riding. He is a responsible business owner who gives back to the community and is facing devastating financial losses because of this failed policy. He is now struggling to pay for his everyday expenses. He has over 40 firearms, worth almost $50,000, sitting in safes that cannot be sold but must be insured and housed in a secure rental space, while the Liberal government forces him to pay GST on them. The owner of this business says that this government is “clearly bent on just winning political points and not truly caring about the safety of the general public surrounding firearms and criminals who use them.” I agree with him. While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals.

The only way to reverse the damage the Liberal government has caused is by reversing course and doing the opposite. Canadians want change. They want lower taxes, lower mortgage rates, lower grocery bills and safer communities. Most of all, they want a change in government. The Conservative promise is simple: no gimmicks, no half measures. We will axe the tax, build more homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home affordability for all Canadians.

I will be voting alongside my Conservative colleagues against the budget, and we will be voting no confidence in this costly NDP-Liberal coalition.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Minister, you can forgive Canadians for not being compelled by your comparison to a number in 2005. You've been in government for nine years, so let's just talk about what your claims have been, what your policies are and what the outcomes have been.

What your policy has been is to spike the carbon tax by 25% on April 1, despite eight premiers asking you not to and despite more Canadians being unable to feed themselves, house themselves, and heat and cool themselves when needed.

Your response has been your Liberal senators holding up the Conservatives' Bill C-234, which would provide carbon tax exemptions on farmers and farm fuels at exactly a time when Canadian farmers are struggling to produce food and Canadians can't afford to eat.

Carbon Pricing

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot wait for a Conservative government to restore all the rights and freedoms that the government has destroyed.

After nine years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister has driven two million people to food banks. With record-smashing demand and donations drying up, the CEO of Food Banks Canada says that food banks are becoming unsustainable.

Knowing Canadians are suffering, the Prime Minister raised the carbon tax by 23% and refused to pass Bill C-234 in its original form to make food less expensive for Canadians. He is not worth the cost. Why is the Prime Minister punishing the poor and exterminating the middle class?

[Mike Medeiros, President and Mushroom Farmer, Canadian Mushroom Growers' Association]

Thank you for the opportunity to talk here.

The carbon tax is yet another item that challenges the viability of mushroom farms, including mine. Mushrooms are already one of the most efficient water users. They have one of the lowest carbon footprints and grow on recycled agriculture material, and the carbon tax will cost mushroom farms an additional $7.2 million this year alone.

On our farm, we are paying over $16,000 per month in carbon tax. With the new 23% increase, that will go up to just under $20,000 for the heating bill for our farm. My farm and other mushroom farms export about 40% of the mushrooms we grow to the U.S. This also makes it very difficult for us to compete on that level.

I drive an electric vehicle, so I do believe in climate change issues. Back in 2018, we invested $1.8 million into a pipeline to bring natural gas to our farm, which is a cleaner fuel source. It cut down our propane usage by roughly 700,000 litres per year. A year later, the carbon tax was implemented. Any savings I was hoping for to help pay for my pipeline were gobbled up by my carbon tax. Also, I'm building a compost facility nearby in the Prescott area, which will have the lowest carbon footprint in the world of those making mushroom compost, yet my taxes continue to increase.

At the end of the day, the data is showing that the carbon tax will not reduce emissions for mushrooms, as they already have the most advanced technology, and there are no alternative options at the moment. We are trying to work with the Canada Revenue Agency to be included in the greenhouse rebate program, because mushrooms were left out. Despite mushrooms being under the same export pressure and having the same growing conditions, we are not able to apply for that rebate.

We are also supportive of the unamended Bill C-234, and are looking for ways for this committee to help our farmers remain viable.

Thank you very much.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am here today seeking clarity on unnecessary delays in passing the common-sense bill, Bill C-234, which is legislation critical for the financial health of our Canadian farmers. If passed unamended, this bill would save our farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030, yet this potential relief is compromised by amendments pushed through by Liberal-appointed senators, who threaten to slash nearly $910 million from these savings. They are attempting to gut this bill under the direction of the Liberal Prime Minister.

The changes proposed, specifically removing the exemptions for the heating of livestock buildings and greenhouses, directly undermine the bill and our agricultural stability. These amendments were defeated multiple times in the House and in the Senate before Liberal-appointed senators were told to push it through anyway. The amendments clearly do not reflect the will of the House and do not reflect the needs of Canadian farmers.

It is evident that the Liberal government has the power to pass Bill C-234 unamended. It could demonstrate genuine concern for our farmers by supporting this bill in its original, robust form. By not doing so, the Liberals show their true colours, showing that Liberals do not care about Canadian farmers.

When looking at the overarching issue of the carbon tax, the Liberals continue to make misleading statements. They claim that eight out of 10 families are better off with their Liberal rebates. It was a statement initially made in 2019 without full disclosure of how they came to this conclusion. When pressured, they scrambled, asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to somehow validate this shaky claim, yet the latest reports from the PBO tell a different story.

The 2023 report titled “A Distributional Analysis of the Federal Fuel Charge under the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan” states, on page four, “Taking into consideration both fiscal and economic impacts, we estimate that most households will see a net loss, paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes, compared to the Climate Action Incentive payments they receive”.

This tax reaches into every aspect of our lives. It raises the cost of gas, hikes heating bills and affects grocery prices, all while reducing take-home pay as businesses are forced to pay more in taxes. The reality is depressing; the majority of Canadians are bearing a heavier financial burden under this policy.

It is not just a carbon tax; it is a tax on our lifestyles, on our well-being and on our economic freedom. The evidence is overwhelming, and the conclusion is clear. The carbon tax is a flawed policy, punishing the very people it claims to protect. Our farmers, our families, and our economy deserve better.

I call on the Liberal government to prioritize the welfare of Canadians, to support our farmers by passing Bill C-234 unamended and, better yet, to axe the tax entirely. A common-sense Conservative government would get rid of this useless carbon tax and would pursue environmental policies that would actually work.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about budget 2024. The Liberal government claims that its ongoing investments are making life more affordable for Canadians and improving access to housing. That claim is straight out of the budget report. I was very surprised to hear that, because what I have heard from people in my home community, as well as from Canadians right across the country, is exactly the opposite: that the government's mismanagement of the economy is leading to making life less affordable for Canadians.

Think of the two million people who now regularly go to food banks. Food banks are even turning away people because there is so much demand. Those people do not think that life is becoming easier or more affordable.

How about improving access to housing? Housing is now twice as expensive as it was when the Liberal government first took office.

Munir is from my community. Together with his brother and his parents, they bought a house two years ago. With a low interest rate, their mortgage payments were $4,000 a month. Just last month, they had to renew their mortgage for $8,200 a month. They do not think that life is becoming more affordable.

Common-sense Conservatives have three demands to fix the budget and bring Canadians the relief that they desperately need. First, we say to axe the carbon tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original and unamended form. Second, we need to build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal infrastructure dollars. Third, we are demanding a cap on spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation.

The Liberals chose not to take our advice on that. Therefore, we cannot support this budget. There will be a non-confidence vote coming up, and we will vote non-confidence because we do not have confidence in the government.

We want an election. We are ready for it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have a really specific question. The hon. member for Huron—Bruce is the sponsor of a private member's bill, Bill C-234, which is extremely important for Canadian farmers across the country. I applaud him for bringing it forward. I voted for it here in the House and will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote unamended.

The member and I would perhaps take a different view on how the government has approached the issue, but we hear a lot about Bill C-234 in the House from the Conservatives asking the government whether it would support the bill. The government has been very clear that it would take a different approach, but the Conservatives have an opportunity to actually get relief for farmers by letting that vote come to the House and happen. There is a parliamentary majority. The Bloc has signalled that it would support the Senate amendments.

Can the hon. member tell us when we might expect Bill C-234 to come to a vote, if the member for Carleton will let him, so we can get relief for our farmers, including in Kings—Hants?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Huron—Bruce.

Just before I begin debate, I would like to wish a happy graduation to my niece. She has worked hard and deserves all life has to offer, and Auntie Tracy is proud of her.

I rise today on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country to speak to the 2024 budget, one of the most consequential pieces of legislation the House of Commons debates every year. This is now the ninth year the NDP-Liberal government has chosen to run deficits in its budget. I was in my community all last week meeting with businesses and not-for-profit organizations and attending all kinds of events. I had days with back-to-back meetings with people who reached out. Not one person said they were happy with the Liberals' budget.

One resident said the budget is like throwing spaghetti at a wall. Another said her family has lived in the Okanagan for generations and now the whole extended family is considering leaving Canada as no one can get ahead. Another person explained how moderately successful people who have worked hard and followed all the rules are being crushed by the government. A small business owner said, “So much for building up my small business to fund my retirement.”

For nine years, the Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, chose together to double the size of the federal debt, which is on track to lead to a generational debt crisis for the children of today and tomorrow. Together, those parties chose to support expensive, third-party consultants, at the same time as seeing a decline in accountability in federal department services, with many departments not meeting their own minimum service standards. They chose together to increase taxes, including the carbon tax, excise tax and payroll tax.

What are the results of the Liberals being propped up by the NDP? It is a cost of living crisis that is destroying the spending power of working-class families and causing a record number of Canadians to have to go to the food bank. People are losing hope.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, it now takes the same amount of time to save for a down payment on the average home that it used to take to pay it off. People have a lower quality of life than previous generations. People have more mental health and addiction issues than at any time in the past.

I was hopeful that the Liberal ministers, in their ninth year of government, might listen to Canadians.

Conservatives were clear about what we wanted in this budget in order to support it. We wanted the government to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form, which would give farmers in my community and across the country much-needed tax relief. We wanted the Liberals to build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure funding. We wanted the government to cap its wasteful spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, which presently impacts Canadians in many ways, including mortgage renewals.

Just like a family managing its household budget, Ottawa should always look to find a dollar in savings before looking for a dollar in new spending. Sadly, the NDP-Liberal government did not meet any of these common-sense requests. The finance minister has again chosen the same inflationary deficits that have pushed Canadians into a cost of living crisis.

In listening to the Minister of Finance present her budget, I was particularly struck by one line. In her budget speech, the Minister of Finance discussed the importance of not passing on ballooning debt to our children. That is exactly what the budget does.

That is what the NDP-Liberal government has been doing for nine years; just look at the numbers. Budget 2024 forecasts that the federal debt will rise to $1.2 trillion this year and the interest Canadians will pay in servicing that debt will increase to $54 billion this fiscal year. That is more than the government intends to spend on provincial health care transfers.

The budget also shows that the government raised $51 billion in revenue from GST last year. That means that every cent of GST that every Canadian, business or not-for-profit organization may pay on the products and services they buy will not go toward a single government service program. It does not matter if someone buys a key chain or a car. If they pay the government GST, it will not be used to pay for roads, health care or armed forces. Instead, that amount will be used solely to pay the interest on the government's credit card.

Canada is not paying down its debt. Canada is paying the interest on our debt, while the debt still grows. That means these payments will only increase by a projected $54 billion again next year, $57 billion the year after, $60 billion after that and $64 billion after that. From now until the end of this decade, taxpayers will provide the government with $289 billion, which would not be used to pay for any public services Canadians depend on.

As the shadow minister for persons with disabilities, I have been greatly concerned with the government's string of broken promises regarding the Canada disability benefit, which all parties in the House supported. The Liberal Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities will not even acknowledge that persons with disabilities are in a cost of living crisis.

I asked her three times yesterday at the human resources committee, and the most she would say is that it has been “a challenging time”. We heard testimony during the Canada disability benefit legislation at the human resources committee that persons with disabilities were considering medical assistance in dying because they could not afford to live.

The Liberal government's pushing off implementation until late into 2025, with a peek into the limited regulations and amounts that might be, saw widespread backlash from my local residents and from national groups representing persons with disabilities. Many persons with disabilities are already among the hardest hit by the cost of living crisis, but apparently the minister does not agree.

Five years of Liberal minister photo ops and announcements on this benefit have produced another broken promise. Ironically, the NDP-Liberal government's 2024 budget title is “Fairness for Every Generation.” Skyrocketing federal debt will consume more of our tax dollars, while potentially threatening future social, environmental or security initiatives. This is not worth the cost to any generation, and it certainly is not fair to young adults and kids who will bear the brunt of paying the debt down.

This unwavering commitment to higher debt and deficits has characterized the Liberal government's last nine years. We have seen a doubling of rent, mortgage payments and down payments. There are reports of people not meeting the mortgage stress test and having to sell their homes to rent, only to find rent to be more expensive than their mortgage payment. It is a real concern that there is a big wave of both residential and commercial renewals coming this summer. Insolvencies are already increasing.

This budget projects unemployment to rise to 6.5% this year. Despite the employment minister telling us, at the human resources committee in December, that he had a plan to address it. We have not seen that plan.

All these issues are not coincidences. They are the consequences of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal deficits driving up costs.

David Dodge, the former Liberal-appointed governor of the Bank of Canada, said that this budget is the worst he has seen since 1982. The previous finance minister, Bill Morneau, has also criticized it. The Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister, John Manley, both confirmed that the federal Liberal government's deficit spending was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal, forcing the Bank of Canada to balloon interest rates.

Liberal ministers have been travelling the country to create photo ops for their new spending. However, new spending outlined in budget 2024 would not meaningfully impact consumer costs if inflation is not brought under control, therefore, lowering interest rates. The government, at the same time, continues to increase taxes. Rising food and gas prices are predicted to rise through 2024.

I have no confidence in the government. My Conservative colleagues and I will vote against the Liberal government's ninth deficit-and-debt budget.

Cost of Living

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of reckless spending, the only thing the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government have succeeded at is making life worse for Canadians.

With families across the country struggling to make ends meet, the Prime Minister continues to spend more borrowed money than ever before. Gas prices have increased dramatically, with some areas of the country seeing the highest prices in years, due to the carbon tax, which adds nearly 20¢ a litre. Farmers, the very people who feed Canada and the world, are having to pay thousands of dollars more each year to run their operations because of the carbon tax, which increased by 23% earlier this month and will only continue to go up.

Given the Prime Minister's inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high, it is no wonder that Canadians are poorer. He needs to axe the tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form.

Canadians need relief and, sadly, they will not get it from the current Prime Minister, who simply is not worth the cost.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is fantastic to be able to rise once again on behalf of the great people of the province of Saskatchewan, particularly the people in the southwest corner, whom I have the privilege of representing.

Right off the top, I want to just talk about the month of May, which is MS Awareness Month. One of the big asks of the MS community, in particular by MS Canada, is to have the government fund $15 million towards research on the disease, as well as the prevention and repair side of things, for people who suffer with MS.

Normally, I do not get up to ask the government to spend more money, because we know the Liberals are fantastic at spending boatloads of money and accomplishing nothing with it. However, in this particular case, we know that there is over $3.4 billion in costs to the government and in lost wages by people who suffer from MS. A $15-million investment would actually result in a tremendous amount of savings for the government for the taxpayer. It would also result in a higher quality of life for people who suffer from MS.

I just wanted to start off my budget speech by mentioning that. If the Liberals were truly listening to what Canadians want and would like to see, this is something that they could have included in this budget to make sure that they are actually working to better the lives of people in Canada. Canada has the highest rates of people who suffer from MS in the world, with my wife being one of those people as well.

I could not help but notice in the budget that there is a very small amount listed for agriculture. In fact, I believe that agriculture is first mentioned on page 131 of the budget, and it continues for the next page and a half.

One of the issues in the budget concerns the livestock tax deferral. I just want to talk about that briefly, because a lot of ranchers in my riding have been dealing with droughtlike conditions for the last number of years, which is nothing new. We live in southwest Saskatchewan, a part of the country where rain has never been a feature. It is not something that we regularly get, so it is not new for us to have droughtlike conditions.

There is a government program called the livestock tax deferral. What happens is that the local RM has to declare a state of disaster. Then the government takes a look at the rainfall and the forage percentage over the year to see if it has fallen below 50%, I believe. There is quite a process involved in implementing or triggering the livestock tax deferral. Clarification around that would go a long way to help producers to have more certainty in their industry. An issue too, though, is that the livestock tax deferral can only be used for one year. We know that, in Saskatchewan, it sometimes takes more than one year for one's pasture to regenerate. A lot of producers and organizations, such as the Canadian Cattle Association and the Saskatchewan cattle association, are saying that allowing the livestock tax deferral to be used over a period of three years would actually be a lot more beneficial. It would allow for better environmental protection and for pastures to be able to regenerate.

My riding name is Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The “grasslands” part of the name comes from the fact that we have some of the largest amounts of still untouched native prairie grass in my part of the country. It has not been broken up. It has been grazed for years. Buffalo used to be the keystone species there; they have since been reintroduced to the grasslands. Cattle have done a tremendous job of being the keystone species in the grasslands.

For ranchers who have native prairie grass on their ranch, in their rotation, it is of huge value to them to be able to preserve that grass. When ranchers sell their herd, they will get the one-year livestock tax deferral. If they are forced to rebuy and to spend more on cattle to get them back on the land, there will be a degradation of that land. Having a three-year window would actually allow for the pasture to properly regenerate. Even if there is only a small amount of rainfall, that three-year time window would allow for better regeneration of the pasture. The environment would be taken care of in a way that would allow producers to purchase cattle, regraze the land once again and keep that keystone species on the land as well.

That is something that would happen with the livestock tax deferral. If the government were truly listening to the producer groups it mentions in the budget, then that is something it would actually be talking about and looking to implement. After nine years, it definitely has not done that.

One of the other parts about it, which actually took up about a page of the page and a half in that, is the government's commitment to starting consultations, once again, on interoperability. It is really funny that this is in there. I had the privilege to sponsor Bill C-294, which is an act to amend the Copyright Act for interoperability. There are many fantastic short-line manufacturers in Saskatchewan, and quite frankly all across this country, that make great agricultural products. They also make products for other industries, but I am going to focus on the agricultural side of it.

It is funny that this section is included in the “Affordable Groceries” section of the budget. The government is finally realizing that when agriculture is treated with respect and producers are allowed to grow food in the most economical way, if we let them have a choice, they will be able to grow food in a more efficient manner, which, in the long run, is going to have a positive impact on the price of groceries and hopefully lead to groceries being more affordable.

However, Bill C-294 was tabled over two years ago and still has not received royal assent. It did pass this House about a year ago now, and nothing has been done with it so far. In the 2023 budget, the government said it was going to start consultations then. It still has not done it. In 2024, it is once again committing to starting consultations, in June. It has a specific time frame in which it wants to start consultations, but given its previous track record of not doing it, we will wait and see what actually happens.

What would be even better is if Bill C-294 were able to get royal assent. My bill passed the House of Commons unanimously. When it went through committee stage, we were able to accept a friendly government amendment to the bill, which put it a bit more in line with some of the government's priorities but with the law as well. This is important because we want as much certainty as we can possibly get, even though we had done some legal work in the buildup to the bill. We accepted that friendly amendment. This is a bill that is non-controversial, but it is something that would get things done. It would have a whole-of-economy effect and impact.

If the government wants to go through consultations, I am going to make it even simpler. What the government can do is go back and read the report that was done by the government branch that used to be called Western Economic Diversification, which is now PrairiesCan. The government can go back and read the report, which was released in 2020, on this very issue. What it will find in that report is the economic impact that agricultural manufacturing has across the entire country. This is not just a southern Saskatchewan issue; this is a whole-of-Canada issue.

The government can read that report. It can see the dollar value assigned to it. It can see how every single province benefits from it. It is a nation-building exercise. It does not even have to do the consultations; that has already been done. The government department already did the report. The government can read it. The consultations are done.

We are counting on the Senate passing and giving royal assent to Bill C-294 as quickly as possible.

If the government wants to impact the price of groceries, what it could also do is have this House pass Bill C-234 in its original form. It came back from the Senate with a huge amendment that gutted the original intent of the bill, which was to put an exemption in place for all on-farm buildings for all types of fuel, which is important when we consider greenhouses, dairy barns, chicken barns and pig barns. There is a huge level of cost that goes into running those facilities with the carbon tax, so passing Bill C-234 in its original form would have a huge impact on the Canadian economy. It would have a huge impact on the price of food.

Removing the carbon tax in its entirety would be beneficial as well, when we look at the transportation costs and the costs to the grocery stores. It is a huge detriment, so scrapping the carbon tax altogether would also be of huge benefit, and I do not see any of that in the budget either.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Today I am rising to address budget 2024.

A common definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. This budget is, again, a “tax more and spend even more” budget. It is this government's ninth budget, or more correctly, eighth budget, since it did not bother coming to this chamber during the pandemic. It just kept spending.

I do not personally claim to be a financial expert, but I have run and have been part of businesses. I have borrowed funds, and I have been expected to pay them back. I have also had the privilege to be involved with and chair several organizations, so I have had the experience of being accountable to others for their money and for stewarding organizations to their collective goals. Responsible stewardship of one's own funds and, even more importantly, of others' funds, leads to growth and prosperity of one's business, one's organization, or, as we are discussing today, one's country.

Please do not take my word for it on this budget that it is evidence of insanity. Let us look at what others have to say.

Across the country, many people are sounding the alarm bells over the budget. Aaron Wudrick and Jon Hartley from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute state that the growth expectations and projections for Canada are “an anemic 1.2%” for Canada versus 2.7% for the U.S., largely driven by declines in the level of business investment. The OECD supports this severe prognosis as it projects that Canada will have the lowest real per capita GDP growth among advanced economies between now and 2060.

Our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that economic growth will remain “sluggish through 2024” due to restrictive monetary policy resulting from rising budgetary deficits. Furthermore, Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, states that the math simply does not add up on the expectation that the federal public service will shrink due to natural attrition by 5,000 FTEs over four years. He says that the Liberals have made too many promises, pledged too many things and made too many announcements for that to even have a shred of credibility. He says that we can expect the public service to grow, not shrink.

Here is another perspective: The former Liberal Bank of Canada governor David Dodge has warned that he believes that this budget will be the worst since 1982, and I will not say who was in this chamber then.

Canada will not reach par growth with other developed countries until 2060. Why is that? It is because this government's out-of-control spending has created an economic black hole that we will not be able to dig out of for 36 years, according to others' words. Again, members need not take my word for it.

Let us move to a more recent Bank of Canada representative's statement. Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, noted, in a recent speech in Halifax, “You know those signs that say 'In an emergency, break the glass?' Well, it's time to break the glass.” She cited the lagging Canadian productivity rates as one of the contributing factors. She went on to say that one of Canada's main issues dragging down our productivity rates is the lack of business investment.

While business investment has declined in Canada since 2014, in other countries, including the U.S., it has continued to grow. As a result, Canada's GDP per hour worked, the key measure of productivity growth, is among the lowest in the OECD. This budget will only continue this trend, as it does not incent business investment.

Another Bank of Canada guy, Tiff Macklem, our present governor, agrees and states that this budget has not significantly changed the government's fiscal path and it is unlikely to affect the government's macroeconomic trajectory in the near term. Why is there all of this discussion about economic growth? Why is it important? Should we not just focus on helping people?

Economic growth is what allows a government to responsibly and sustainably deliver social programming. Irresponsible fiscal management is exactly what jeopardizes a government's ability to maintain a strong social safety net and create the fiscal conditions for Canadians to thrive, in mainly low, predictable inflation and lower interest rates.

Even the often touted future Liberal leader, Mark Carney, stated that there is not enough focus on the net economic growth in this budget. Former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau, in his book related to the Prime Minister, would routinely announce bigger numbers for more spending because bigger numbers sound good. I agree that bigger numbers sound good within one's own bank account, but not so much when they add to the public debt.

Former Liberal Finance Minister John Manley said that, while the Bank of Canada was trying to press on the brakes of inflation with higher interest rates, the Prime Minister was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with his spending, which had ballooned interest rates in the first place.

The Prime Minister seems hell-bent on destroying the economic fabric of this nation for his own political gain, with no regard for the future generations he is fiscally handcuffing. He refuses to listen to reason, and here is the main point of my speech, he refuses to even listen to his fellow Liberals. He has added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. It now stands at $1.255 trillion, and there is no plan to bring that in balance or to control inflationary deficits.

Doug Porter, a chief economist with the Bank of Montreal, put it best when, in describing the value of growth, he cautioned that higher government spending is perhaps not where we want to see that growth. However, what does budget 2024 do? It includes $40 billion in new spending, which will continue to drive up the cost of goods we buy and the interest rates we pay.

This year, the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are forcing Canadians to spend $54 billion just to service his debt. That is the same amount that the GST brings in in government revenues. Sometimes, when we talk about millions and billions, and debt and deficits, it is hard for us to comprehend what that means in our everyday lives. Let us think about it this way: The GST has now become the DST. Instead of the GST raising funds for social programming, every single cent of it now goes to service the Prime Minister's debt. The goods and services tax has become the debt servicing tax. It is these very deficits and debts that have contributed to higher inflation and the resulting higher interest rates necessary to try to tap down inflation.

According to Scotiabank, the Bank of Canada would have only had to raise interest rates to 3% if government spending had not stoked inflation, meaning that rates are a full 2% higher than they need to be. Why is this important? The Liberal government's mismanagement has directly affected the lives of Canadians. Housing costs have doubled, as have mortgages and rents.

The Financial Post reports that 3.4 million Canadians will renew their mortgages by 2025, and a total of $900 billion in mortgages will need to be renewed in the next three years. More Canadians are going to have to sacrifice the basic necessities, such as food or clothing, to afford their rent or mortgage payments.

In 2015, the Liberals were elected on the promise of small and temporary deficits, less than $10 billion per year. They were elected on the promise of stable inflation and low interest rates forever. They were elected on the promise of sunny ways. Do members remember? After nine long years, it is clear the Prime Minister is definitely not worth the cost, and the budget does nothing to solve the problems that Canadians face.

Despite all the negativity that I have referenced in this speech, largely voiced by Liberals and independent officials, I do have hope. I have hope in Canadians because we have come back from disasters like this before, and we can do it again. After World War II, many families had suffered personal loss, and many soldiers either did not come home or came home wounded, but many came home after rescuing democracy and set to rescuing our economy, which was heavily indebted after the war effort. Record government surpluses that followed the war addressed the debt and a long period of economic prosperity followed.

Today, there is also hope on the horizon. A Conservative government would axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. We would build the homes, not more bureaucracy. We would also cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. Under a Conservative government, my children and grandchildren would know that, if they worked hard, home ownership would be a reality. It is their home, our home, my home. Let us bring it home.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise and speak today to the ways and means motion, budgetary policy. More specifically, I appreciate this opportunity to comment publicly on yet another awful budget tabled in this place by the Liberals, which shows just how out of touch they really are.

We have had nine years of deficit budgets, which have led us to the mess Canadians are facing today. Budget 2024 also shows that the Prime Minister has learned nothing from his mistakes over the past nine years. He continues to push inflationary deficits that drive up interest rates and that make life more expensive for Canadians. By continuing to add to his massive debt, he is endangering jobs and social programs like health care and education. In fact, after nine years of disastrous governance, Canada will now be spending more on its debt than on health care for Canadians.

The failures of the Liberal government are clear in this budget. It pushed off issues, kicking the can down the road, and now, those issues have come home to roost. Housing, crime, immigration and inflation, to name just a few, are the issues created by the government. These issues did not materialize overnight, but they were well known to the government years ago, yet the Liberals stuck their heads in the sand and were content to spend more money on their pointless policies to support their divisive and destructive ideology. Now that these issues have become full-blown crises, they have conceded that there may be a problem. However, rather than address the problem, they have decided to repackage their old policies in an attempt to fool Canadians into believing they are taking action. It is hard to know whether they are simply overestimating the positive impact of their policies or are completely disingenuous in their intent.

In this budget, the government's plan to repurpose federal properties to provide thousands of homes has come up short. As reported by Blacklock's, the Liberal government has found less than 400 vacant federal properties, many of which cannot be used for housing. Some of those properties include Parks Canada parking lots, a former National Defence firing range and an empty lot near a remote Coast Guard lighthouse. The review of federal lands has been a promise of the Liberal government since 2015. In that election, its platform stated, “We will conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need.”

In 2024, after the Liberals created a housing crisis, they decided to go ahead and to finally start the review. Their budget states, “The federal government is conducting a rapid review of its entire federal lands portfolio to identify more land for housing.” Perhaps I should have included the definition of “rapid” here in my speech. They are hoping Canadians have forgotten that this is a nine-year-old promise they are attempting to repackage as a new initiative. Putting aside the fact that this is an old promise in a new package, this measure is not a solution to the housing crisis.

The Prime Minister is asking Canadians to believe that he will build thousands of houses in old parking lots and in firing ranges. This is a sign of desperation. He wants Canadians to believe that, after nine years of ignoring the problem or introducing policies that have made the problem worse, he will now make the housing market fairer. He is the one who stole the dream of home ownership from a generation. He is the one who broke the system. Now, after breaking everything, he wants Canadians to believe that he will somehow find the capacity to magically fix it all. However, he has had more than enough chances to make life more affordable, which he has failed to do at every opportunity.

Conservatives gave him a chance to cut taxes or to avoid raising taxes on all Canadians, but he carried on his plan and raised the carbon tax. He also continues in his efforts to gut and block Bill C-234, which would take the carbon tax off for farmers. He continues to ramp up spending in the hopes that Canadians will not see it for the pitiful attempt at buying votes that it is.

Canadians are not fooled and are fed up with the irresponsible spending of the NDP-Liberal coalition that is driving inflation. Instead of using this budget to demonstrate that the government understands the effect its disastrous policies have had on Canadians, it is doubling down on those same failed policies. Adding $40 billion in new spending will only add more fuel to the inflationary fire. The repeated promises from the government for fiscal restraint have gone by the wayside as it continues to spend unsustainably, trading away Canadians' futures for its own short-term political gain.

Like many of my colleagues, I had the opportunity this past week to speak with constituents. Three main themes were raised following this budget. I outlined in my speech the first concern I heard: deficits and overspending. The cost of government has skyrocketed under the NDP-Liberal coalition, while it spends on its pet projects. This is going to have serious repercussions for our children's and grandchildren's futures. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation.

I also heard about the wasteful spending. Many are watching what is happening in parliamentary committees and, more specifically, in the government operations and estimates committee, of which I am a member. Canadians are shocked at the massive outsourcing contracts for Liberal insiders and at the historic levels of corruption being uncovered by Conservatives, all while the NDP-Liberal government tries to cover it up.

Favouritism by the Liberal government is rampant, funnelling of tens of millions of dollars to Liberal insiders and their companies. This is particularly insulting to Canadians as they struggle with a cost of living crisis created by the Prime Minister. While Canadians are asking for too much, it is clear that the Prime Minister's friends can never get enough.

Finally, a major concern brought to me is the government's underlying commitment to the carbon tax, which does nothing for the environment, but it adds to the cost of everything. As we enter spring, my constituents are seeing the full cost of the carbon tax across a winter on the prairies.

The carbon tax drives up the cost of gas and home heating, which are vital for Canadians living in rural Canada. These increased costs also extend to food and other goods, which businesses pass on to the consumer. This passing on of the cost of the carbon tax from businesses to consumers is a simple idea to understand, but it seems that only those outside of the government benches can wrap their heads around it. These added costs are putting more pressure on Canadians who are struggling with the Liberals' cost of living crisis, and this budget does nothing to alleviate that pressure.

In conclusion, it will come as no surprise that I cannot support this budget. It is more of the same failed policies from the NDP-Liberal coalition, which refuses to acknowledge its failures. Instead of having the humility to acknowledge its shortcomings after nine years, it refuses to take any responsibility and continues to blame everyone except itself. Canadians are suffering, and the government is refusing to help them.

Conservatives will bring common sense back to government after the next election, and that next election cannot come soon enough for Canadians.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite spoke a lot about the cost of food. One thing that the Conservatives wanted to see ahead of the budget was a plan to immediately pass Bill C-234 in its original form, which would support farmers and farm families by taking the carbon tax off food and making it a lot more affordable for everyone to buy groceries.

Can the member speak to why the government has been dragging its feet to do that? It is a very simple action that could make groceries more affordable for every Canadian across the country.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost of food. While Canadians are skipping meals, the minister who is in charge of lowering food costs for Canadians is rubbing shoulders with Hollywood celebrities and political elites at the most expensive dinner imaginable. He is dining out at the White House on the taxpayer dime. After nine years, the current Prime Minister is out to lunch and the ministers are out of touch.

Will the champagne coalition and caviar caucus lower food costs for Canadians and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, Bill C-234 is in the hands of the Conservative House leader. The member should speak to him.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the current Prime Minister, Canadians are skipping meals, and food banks are overwhelmed. Eighty-three per cent of Canadians are paying $80 more a month for food than they were just six months ago. According to Second Harvest, more than half of the food banks in the Toronto area cannot meet demand, and they are putting families on wait-lists. Families cannot afford to put food on the table, and the crisis is getting worse as the Liberal-NDP government increases the carbon tax by 23%.

Will the Prime Minister reverse his decision to increase the carbon tax, and pass Bill C-234 in its original form so Canadians do not have to dumpster dive for their dinner?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, if Bill C-234 was so important in the Senate, then why did five members of their own caucus not show up to vote?

By the way, Conservatives had the opportunity to debate Bill C-234 when it came back to the House, when we come back in one week. They traded two private members' bills. One was not Bill C-234. If it is so important, I would advise my colleague to lobby his colleagues and stop politicizing this issue.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, after the release of the tax-and-spend budget this week, everyone knows that the NDP-Liberal government, after nine long years, and the Prime Minister are just not worth the cost.

Bill C-234 was to provide some desperately needed relief for our farmers who produce food for Canadians. That bill passed this chamber. Then the Prime Minister bullied the senators into gutting that bill and leaving Canadians with higher costs.

When will the Prime Minister call for a vote on the original bill or call a carbon tax election?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government has hit Canadians with another carbon tax increase of 23%. Grocery prices are climbing, making families choose between heating and eating.

Conservatives tried to ease this burden by passing Bill C-234, which axes the tax on farmers. However, this week, the Liberals blocked it. They are hell-bent on making life more expensive. If they are so confident in their costly plan, will they let Canadians decide and call for a carbon tax election?

Carbon pricing.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I do not know why a member from Quebec is asking that question. The carbon tax has no impact on Quebec. I am pleased that a member from Ontario can tell him so.

In the meantime, I hope he will lobby his colleagues who are responsible for introducing Bill C‑234. The Conservatives had the chance to do it when we come back, but they traded two bills and Bill C‑234 was not one of them.

It is not my fault or the government's fault. It is their fault.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, speaking of people who are out of touch, they are providing a very clear illustration of that this morning.

I invite the government and the Bloc Québécois to go to Beauce today to tell the farmers that the carbon tax has no impact in Quebec. I have room in my car if they want to get in after question period.

If there is no farming, then there is no food. That is something that the Bloc-Liberal coalition does not understand. The Bloc Québécois wants to radically increase the carbon tax again, proving once more that it is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.

Will the government take action and pass Bill C‑234 in its original form?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I find it odd that a member from Quebec is asking a question about Bill C-234, because it will not apply in Quebec.

Perhaps he should talk to his colleagues. The Conservatives had a chance to make Bill C-234 a priority for next week. What did they do? They traded two bills, and Bill C-234 is not one of them.

It is important to walk the talk. The member needs to convince his colleagues to introduce Bill C-234. The House needs to vote on it, once and for all.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of this Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost, farmers are making an impassioned plea. This morning, they are protesting in large numbers in Beauce to show their anger at a government that is completely out of touch with reality.

Our farmers are being asked to fill our pantries while the Bloc-Liberal coalition is preventing the passage of Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax on the propane and natural gas needed to heat buildings and dry grain in order to bring down the cost of food.

Will the Prime Minister and the Bloc Québécois show some common sense and agree to this demand from Canadian farmers?

Carbon Tax

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, especially in British Columbia and the North Okanagan-Shuswap, Canadians are seeing that, after nine years, the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government are simply not worth the cost.

Their April 1 carbon tax increase of 23% has seen gas prices push past $1.75 per litre in the interior and over the $2 mark in other parts of B.C. The carbon tax only adds to the costs for farmers, who have no choice but to pay if they are to produce food for Canadian families. One chicken farmer in the Shuswap paid over $100,000 last year alone, just for his carbon tax bill. Because of the NDP-Liberal government that carbon tax bill will increase another 23% this year, making it even more difficult for Canadian families to afford food.

Will the Prime Minister take the step to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form, or will he continue to prove that he and his NDP partners are simply not worth the cost?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberal April Fool's Day joke was a 23% carbon tax increase. April Fool's Day jokes are supposed to last one day, but this one continues, fuelling high inflation.

In Ottawa, the Prime Minister's policies made the price of gas at the pumps jump by nearly 20¢ a litre, reaching its highest level since 2022. Still, the Liberals pretend their tax-and-spend policies are helping Canadians.

When will the government start helping people instead of hurting them? When will it do the right thing and pass Bill C-234 to axe the tax on farmers and food?

One thing we know for sure is that, as prices on everything continue to go up, driven by the costly carbon tax, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is ironically called “Fairness for Every Generation.”

After nine years of the Prime Minister trying to make things fair, he sure has not done a very good job. Things are not fair.

Is it fair to every generation that every year life is less affordable? Is it fair to every generation that rents are sky-high? Is it fair to every generation that one in four kids cannot afford to eat? Is it fair to every generation that it takes almost 20 years just to save up for a down payment?

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation. This is the ninth straight year of deficit spending. In 2015, the federal debt was $616 billion, accumulated from 1867, when Canada began. Today, it is $1.25 trillion, double. The Prime Minister has borrowed more money than all other prime ministers combined.

The result is that, after 20 years of low inflation and interest rates, the Prime Minister's irresponsible inflationary spending has upended Canada's stable economy.

This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion on interest to wealthy bankers and bondholders, instead of to doctors and nurses, to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is the same amount collected in GST. We should change the name of that tax from the GST to the DST, the debt servicing tax. It is also more money than the government spends on health care or on the Canada child benefit.

This is what happens when a Prime Minister does not want to think about monetary policy. The result is that mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled, rents have doubled, the cost of gas, groceries and home heating have skyrocketed, and people cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves.

Instead of reining in spending to bring inflation under control, the Prime Minister acts like a pyromaniac, throwing another $40 billion on the inflationary fire. This is despite warnings from economists, including Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, who cautioned that government spending is at the upper bound. This will make it much harder for the bank to lower interest rates.

This is not a partisan point. Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page expressed this yesterday, telling Global News, “We gotta get those interest rates down. So on a net basis, this is just not good for inflation.” Former Liberal finance minister John Manley also warned this government months ago that it was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with its spending. Even former Liberal-appointed governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge said he believes that this will be the “worst budget” since 1982.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. After nine deficits and doubling the national debt, Canada is less fair and Canadians are worse off.

Now the finance minister says that what Canadians really want is a stronger government to make things fairer. By making government bigger, the Liberals have made citizens weaker. Conservatives believe that smaller government makes for bigger citizens.

This is not a government that gives people everything they want. It is a government that takes everything they have. Members do not have to take it from me. Just yesterday, in the Financial Post, it was written, “we’ve become a growth laggard and our living standards have largely stagnated for the better part of a decade.”

Part of our declining standard of living has to do with the fact that Canada has the worst productivity in the G7. Our GDP growth has been driven primarily by population and labour force growth, not productivity improvements. That may increase the total amount of goods and services, but it does not translate into increased living standards.

This is a real crisis. From 2000 to 2023, the growth rate of Canada's real per person GDP was 0.7%. That is meaningfully worse than the G7 average of 1% and the United States', whose GDP per person growth rate was 1.2%, almost double. Our country is facing a productivity crisis that threatens to erode this country’s standard of living and erase many Canadians' hopes for a more prosperous future.

Just a few weeks ago the Bank of Canada's deputy governor Carolyn Rogers said that we have a productivity emergency, and “in case of emergency, break glass.” Even former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau says the budget is a threat to investment and economic growth.

It is time to take action by, for instance, reducing regulatory barriers to investment, celebrating entrepreneurship, bolstering the profit incentive for private investment and loosening the federal government's tight grip on the economy. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does the exact opposite.

There has been one change, though. The borrow-and-spend Liberals are now the tax-and-spend Liberals. On top of gouging Canadians with their April 1 tax hikes, they have decided that they know better how to spend businesses' money than the hard-working Canadians who actually run those businesses.

This is not a partisan point. Dan Kelly, president of the CFIB, said, “What worries me the most about [these tax] changes is the potential to demotivate Canadians from getting into business in the first place or working hard to grow a small business to a medium-sized business”. He is not the only one.

Harley Finkelstein, president of Canada’s greatest tech company, Shopify, said:

We need to be doing everything we can to turn Canada into the best place for entrepreneurs to build.

What's proposed in the federal budget will do the complete opposite. Innovators and entrepreneurs will suffer and their success will be penalized—this is...a tax on innovation and risk taking.

Our policy failures are America's gains. At a time when our country is facing critically low productivity and business investment our political leaders are failing our country's entrepreneurs.

For nine years, the Prime Minister has told Canadians that the rich would pay for the cost of his spending, but the truth is that it has been everyday Canadians who have been the ones paying. The Prime Minister has already raised his punishing carbon tax by 23% on April 1, and with $40 billion in new inflationary spending, Canadians will continue to pay the inflation tax that hurts the poorest among us the most. Whatever the Prime Minister says, it will not be him and his billionaire friends who pay for new spending. It will be single moms, workers and small business owners.

We cannot tax our way to prosperity, and no government program can increase productivity better than the power of the free market, spurred on by Canadian entrepreneurs. We need to celebrate entrepreneurship in this country, not punish it.

Conservatives had three simple demands for the budget: axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every dollar of spending.

The Prime Minister did none of those things, and for those reasons, Conservatives will not be supporting the budget.

Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it is good news when, after nine years of the Prime Minister, demand on food banks is at a record high and more and more Canadians cannot afford to feed their families.

In Prince Edward Island, the Caring Cupboard food bank is struggling just to keep its doors open. Its demand is up 70%. These are the agriculture minister's own constituents and what is his response? It is to increase the carbon tax by 23%, driving food costs even higher.

Why will the Prime Minister not ensure that farming and food is more affordable and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, Canadian farmers know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Over the last several weeks, I have received dozens of letters representing tens of thousands of farm families from right across the country. These are grain farmers, ranchers, mushroom growers, fruit and vegetable growers, provincial premiers and agriculture ministers.

They are unanimous. To ensure the sustainability of food production in Canada, they need the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition to reverse its 23% hike of the carbon tax and pass Bill C-234 in its original form.

Will the Prime Minister ensure that food and farming are affordable and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

The Budget

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. This year, Canadians will spend over $46 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt, but the Prime Minister's costly coalition does not stop there. On April 1, the NDP-Liberals increased the federal carbon tax by 23%. This increase affects the cost of living for all Canadians, including by a major increase in gasoline prices. This Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

It is not just Liberals like David Dodge and Bill Morneau who think the Prime Minister's spending is out of control; former finance minister John Manley said that his spending balloons inflation and interest rates.

Conservatives will vote non-confidence in this budget unless the Liberals cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down inflation and lower interest rates. For every new dollar spent, the government must find a dollar in savings, and it must immediately pass Bill C-234, in its original form, to axe the tax on farmers and food.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw that part of my statement unequivocally.

However, that member stands up here and continues to prop up the government, which has driven more Canadians into food banks than ever before, and then she has the gall to talk about farmers, when she completely supports almost putting our farmers into bankruptcy and not helping Bill C-234 pass in its original form so that we can bring down the cost of gas and groceries. The bill would help reduce costs for our hard-working farmers, yet they go on this attack on our farmers always and are okay with the cost of everything going up. They continue to prop up the government.

I think that member needs to stop protecting her leader's penchant for propping up the corrupt Prime Minister. It is time to get out of the way and go to a carbon tax election so that Canadians, and especially Albertans, can tell her and her government where they stand on the carbon tax. After the next carbon tax election, Canadians are going to scrap the Prime Minister and that NDP government.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

I feel I should comment, since this is something that I raised.

This is a result of information and personal anecdotes we've been sharing with the clerk throughout this entire process. I wasn't doing this to make this a fishing expedition for other issues. I've been here for a long time. I wanted us to deal with something that specifically happened at this committee. I certainly don't recall another instance of a study that we've been doing at this committee seeing this type of vitriol.

I certainly know all of us were getting emails and pictures and all those types of things from people. My worry is that if we don't make a statement here, this will continue to proliferate. The signal we'd then be giving is that this is okay, that you can treat people and potential witnesses like this. How are we supposed to invite witnesses to come here and testify when we have sensitive topics to discuss? Certainly animal agriculture is going to be one that is not going to end.

These witnesses, who have very important expertise to share with us, are not going to come here if they don't feel that their testimony is going to be safe and they are going to be anonymous, or if they are otherwise going to be opening themselves to public harassment and intimidation.

That's really why I have us focused on this particular issue at committee in comparison to Bill C-234. We did not have that type of response from people at all. That's why I want this focused.

To Mr. MacGregor's proposal for an amendment, I'm totally fine with having the report come to committee. I still strongly believe that this should be reported to the House. It's quite clear with the information that I've presented to the clerk over the last several weeks that this is an issue that was clearly a breach of privilege. I don't want to make that judgment, I guess, before everyone has a chance to see it.

I'm totally supportive of having the report come to committee first, but I still believe the report should be tabled in the House.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is a very serious issue. Obviously, we want to be sure that witnesses feel free to come and speak and testify. I think there are ways to protect witnesses already, through meeting in camera and other things, but certainly, if they have received threats....

I'm curious. Is this study specific to this bill, or will it also include other bills on which we feel people have been harassed or bullied, such as perhaps Bill C-234?

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Yes, it is well within the right of every member of this committee.

Again, Mr. Steinley talked about Bill C-234 and others for which I've been allowed some discretion where it's been a bit more grey. This one is a bit more cut and dried, based on what has been said by the procedural experts who have advised me.

I will go to Mr. MacGregor.

There is not usually much room for debate, but this committee does operate quite well, and we will go to a vote afterwards.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

As we saw on Bill C-234, we can challenge the chair's ruling. Let's put it to a vote so that we can have it on record that we have had a common-sense amendment put forward. I think you're right; it is appropriate to have this conversation. I would like to have a vote on the ruling and see where it lands.

Thank you very much for your comments. They're appreciated.

Mr. Barlow has a comment as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. Barlow.

As all colleagues around the table would know, as part of our due diligence—I say “our” as the chair—I am guided by our legislative clerk and our deputy legislative clerk to see whether or not the scope of the amendment is in order.

Mr. Barlow, you talked about the “impetus” of the bill. Again, I'm actually quite sympathetic to the argument you're making around trying to “improve” the situation, but I have had to rule on this bill. I have taken some guidance from the legislative clerk.

Ultimately, Bill C-355 provides for the ban of the exportation by air of live horses for the purpose of being slaughtered. The amendment proposes to allow for the exportation to happen under certain conditions, which is contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading at the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 770: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

I'm of the opinion that for the aforementioned reasons, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill and is therefore inadmissible. I can be challenged on my ruling.

Again, I want to make sure that the record shows, Mr. Barlow, that I'm actually quite sympathetic to the suggestion you're putting forward, but I am guided by what has to happen procedurally in this place. I have been advised by our legislative clerk that it is inadmissible.

There is some flexibility for a chair. On Bill C-234, for example, I did not take the advice, but I think this is too far outside the scope of the advice I have been given, so I have to rule that this amendment is inadmissible.

As I would say, colleagues, I am subject to be challenged, but that is the advice I have been given and that's the ruling I have made thus far.

Go ahead, Mr. MacGregor.

Carbon Pricing

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been through a lot in the past five years, and many are struggling with the cost of living. We have heard numerous calls to scale back the carbon pricing system in response, but carbon pricing is not the problem. It is designed to help families through the Canada carbon rebate, which will help lower- and middle-income households most of all. That is why a pause on carbon pricing simply will not help families keep life affordable.

As the Governor of the Bank of Canada explained, the price on carbon contributes only 0.15 percentage points to inflation per year, a tiny portion of the high inflation we have been experiencing. Economists estimate that carbon pricing increased the cost of food by 0.33%. Once again, that is a small portion of what we have all been dealing with in recent months.

The main reason for that is that farmers are already exempt from the carbon tax for most of their activities. Bill C‑234 is simply not going to change things for households that are dealing with higher grocery prices, and it is false to suggest that it would.

It stands to reason that carbon pricing is not causing inflation. Inflation is something that is happening all over the world, including in many countries that do not have a carbon tax.

The real causes are events like the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 crisis and Russia's war in Ukraine driving energy prices up. Canada's price on pollution is designed to protect Canadians from any price increases it does cause. All direct proceeds from pricing carbon pollution under the federal system are returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected.

More than 90% of fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to individuals and households through the Canada carbon rebate. They are distributed via cheque or direct bank deposit every three months, and eight out of 10 families in provinces where the federal system applies receive more money back than they pay.

We cannot deny the devastating effects of climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. We would just be wasting time in the global race to find carbon-neutral solutions. The effects of climate change cost Canadian households $720 a year, and this figure will rise to $2,000 a year by 2050. Climate change also costs lives and impacts the physical and mental health of millions.

We need to listen to youth, our communities and our businesses. Choosing the easy path now will force us all to take a harder path later, and that is not an option.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons passed Bill C-234. Normally, that is not a remarkable statement, but it bears repeating for comprehension. The House of Commons, made up of 338 elected members of Parliament to democratically legislate the laws of Canada, passed Bill C-234. That bill was a private member's bill to remove the carbon tax from farmers so that the thousands of dollars in unrebated carbon taxes that every farmer pays will no longer have to be built into the price of food.

During a crisis of food affordability and food inflation, this is a common-sense way to do something immediate and concrete to help farmers produce affordable food for Canadians. The elected members of Parliament passed this bill over the objection of the governing Liberals. It was sent to the Senate where the same legislative process takes place, but during this process and at the clear and obvious behest of the Prime Minister and his government, the Senate gutted the bill by removing heating fuels for barns from the bill. They wanted to kill the bill altogether, but the government's extraordinary lobbying efforts succeeded in gutting the bill by ensuring that the carbon tax still applies to heating buildings like barns. This adds an enormous cost to the production of food, particularly the cost of eggs, chicken, pork and dairy.

Axing the tax on food production would be a simple way to address inflation on food, which continues to rise even faster than the general rate of inflation, and along with the staggering cost of rent and mortgage payments, it puts the greatest pressure on the most vulnerable Canadians, people whose entire family budgets cannot cover the cost of food and shelter.

I asked the government, after a desperate weekend of panic-stricken phone calls, which resulted in the Senate gutting the bill, if the Prime Minister would listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families who want to heat their homes. I mentioned first nations in my question because first nations are challenging the federal government's authority to impose the carbon tax on them. I mentioned farmers, who are price takers and who only have so much room to pass on higher costs without simply having to shut down production, and consumers who have to pay more for food. The response was an insipid mix of unrelated nonsense talking points.

Since that time, the government House leader has pathetically and falsely tried to blame the Conservatives for the failure of Bill C-234 passing in the House again, ignoring the entire reason, or pretending not to know why, the bill is back here in this place. It is here because the government's senators are doing the bidding of the Prime Minister who appointed them and are gutting the bill.

The Conservative deputy whip offered a motion to pass the bill by unanimous consent in its original form, but the Liberals refused to do that, so I will ask them again: Will they respect the will of this elected House? Will they recognize the roles that the Prime Minister and his ministers played in begging and bullying senators into rejecting a bill passed by the elected members of this chamber? Will they realize, as an overwhelming number of Canadians, including most provincial and territorial premiers have, that the carbon tax is punishing people who just want to eat, to heat and to transport themselves? Do they not see that when a basic input like energy is made more expensive, the output is reduced, which leads to higher prices? If they will not axe the carbon tax altogether, will they at least agree to axe the tax on farmers so that they can bring down the price of groceries?

Carbon Tax

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost. On April 1, it raised the carbon tax by 23%. This hits farmers and our food industry particularly hard. Canadians understand that when farmers, truckers and processors pay thousands of dollars in carbon tax, this makes the food we buy more expensive. Canadians are paying way too much at the grocery store for their food.

Another two million Canadians are visiting food banks each month just to feed their families because they can no longer afford groceries. Conservatives are fighting against the NDP-Liberal government every day to lower the price of groceries and to bring tax relief for Canadians. That is why Conservatives brought in Bill C-234 to remove the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. However, the Prime Minister’s hand-picked senators have gutted this bill, and NDP and Liberal MPs have worked very hard to keep the carbon tax on food.

It is time to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Let us axe the tax and bring it home.

Carbon Pricing

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

Government Priorities

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, the NDP-Liberal government will table another inflammatory budget that will be inflationary, that will punish working Canadians by increasing taxes and that will drive the cost of living even higher.

Exemplary community leaders like Jackie Murray, who was a proud Canadian and who knew the importance of being a responsible steward of the tax dollar, would write me consistently to axe the carbon tax, restore Canadian principles and defend our nation's interests.

Today, the common-sense Conservatives have three ideas that we need to do. Instead of hiking the carbon tax again, they should axe the carbon tax on farmers and food, which can be done by passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Instead of announcing more failed programs, they should build homes, not bureaucracy, get the shovels in the ground and get structures in the air.

Canadians have had enough. The government must stop the hurt until the Conservatives can fix the Liberal-NDP's costly calamity.

Foreign Affairs

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to immediately adopt Bill C-234, as concurred in at third reading in the House.

Carbon Pricing

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to my colleague that he visit Beauce on Friday. Farmers will be protesting.

After eight years, this Liberal-Bloc Prime Minister is not worth the cost of the carbon tax. The next generation dreams of getting started in business, but it is suffocating under all the paperwork that keeps piling up, not to mention the skyrocketing interest rates and risk management programs that no longer meet today's challenges.

The Bloc-Liberal coalition is blocking the passage of Bill C‑234, proving that these people are out of touch.

I will repeat my earlier question: Will the Prime Minister commit to passing Bill C‑234 in its original, unamended form in tomorrow's budget?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, this Liberal-Bloc Prime Minister is not worth the cost of the carbon tax.

Quebec farmers are in revolt against the Prime Minister because they are facing mountains of paperwork, a blatant lack of financial support and the carbon tax, which is crushing the agricultural industry across Canada.

Axing this tax on farmers is the fastest way to make food more affordable and to keep our farmers in business. However, the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase the carbon tax.

Will the Prime Minister commit to passing Bill C-234 in its original, unamended form in tomorrow's budget?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have missed my earlier answer, but I could repeat it if she would like. The bill in question, Bill C-234, is a bill the Conservatives could call anytime and we could deal with and debate in the House.

While I am on my feet, once again I would like to add, and perhaps correct something I said a little earlier to the other hon. member: This member could help a lot of Albertans out if she would just get out of the way of the fall economic statement legislation, which doubles the top-up on the rural rebate, 20% instead of 10%, making it the—

Mr. Chris Warkentin: Let's do it right now. We are calling it right now.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no matter what the government does to try to distract, the facts remain the same. Canadians are struggling. They cannot make ends meet. Of course, it starts with groceries, fuel at the pumps and being able to heat their homes.

After eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister just is not worth the cost, certainly not the cost of the punitive carbon tax. Conservatives put forward a very common-sense bill, Bill C-234, which would axe the tax from farmers and save Canadians a whole lot of money. The Prime Minister and the environment minister put pressure on senators, bullying them into gutting the bill.

Will the Prime Minister agree today to allow the bill to go forward in its unamended, original form?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the Prime Minister hiked the carbon tax by 23%. Every single week, I hear from dozens of constituents in my area who tell me they are struggling to be able just to buy food, groceries and other necessities. Use of a food bank in my area has more than doubled in recent months. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, he is just not worth the cost; that is clear to Canadians.

Conservatives have put forward a common-sense solution called Bill C-234. The government decided to gut it by bullying senators. Will the Prime Minister choose to rescind, and allow the bill to go forward in order to save Canadians a whole lot of money by scrapping the tax on farmers?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the Prime Minister hiked the already crippling carbon tax by 23%. Jake from Vermeer's Dairy near Camrose calculated that by 2030 he will be paying nearly $1,500 a month in additional carbon tax for the daily milk pickup alone. That is higher costs that consumers are forced to pay because of those Liberal policies.

After eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

My question for the Liberals is this: Will they pass Bill C-234 in its unamended original form so that Canadians can afford to eat?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the hon. member that he should just advance a couple of rows up here. I could introduce him, if he would like to speak to the opposition House leader. Bill C-234 is completely in their hands. If they would like to bring it to the floor for a vote, we could deal with it.

While I am on my feet and we are talking about doubling, Bill C-59 is something he could also do something about. It would bring the carbon rebate to double what it is today. Let us pass that today, have a positive impact for the constituents he serves and bring a better carbon rebate to rural Canada.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was clear from the PBO that six out of 10 Canadian families are worse off. They are worse off, because of that carbon tax and so-called rebate. It is clear that the Liberals will not lift a finger to provide farmers and Canadians with relief from their cruel carbon tax.

If the Prime Minister will not commit to passing Bill C-234 or having a carbon tax election, what does he have to say to the families of Otonabee-South Monaghan, who have doubled their use of the food banks in the last six months?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Farmers have reached a breaking point. The carbon tax has driven costs sky-high. They are drowning in a sea of red tape, and worst of all they are constantly derided and demonized by the Liberal government.

Will the Prime Minister finally give farmers a break and axe the tax to make food cheaper for everyone by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

Carbon Tax

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are going hungry.

Feed Nova Scotia reports that food bank usage is up 26%, with increased visits as high as 50% in Cape Breton. In Sydney, food banks are experiencing record-breaking increases in the number of new clients, with new visits up 80%. The Souls Harbour Rescue Mission kitchen is up 280%.

Instead of providing relief to Canadians, the government has hiked its costly carbon tax on Nova Scotians by 23%. The Liberals do not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who trucks the food and the retailer who sells the food, we tax all those who buy the food. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

The Conservatives have a solution, and that is to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. To be clear, the Conservatives want the entire carbon tax axed, but in the meantime let us at least provide some relief to Canadians by immediately passing Bill C-234.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair, before we wrap up, I'd like to move a motion, notice of which has already been given.

Given that:

(a) the Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador premier has called on the federal government to spike its 23% carbon tax hike in a letter to the Prime Minister, saying, “I am now asking Ottawa to pause its planned increase to the carbon tax, set for April 1st, as the high cost of living is enough of a burden on families”; and

(b) according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost Newfoundland and Labrador families over $1,300 per year now that the carbon tax has quadrupled, while nearly one third of Newfoundland and Labrador currently lives in energy poverty;

the committee report to the House that it calls on the Liberal government to immediately withdraw the 23% carbon tax increase that it imposed on Canadians on April 1, 2024.

Mr. Chair, I think it's an important issue to bring forward at this time. I commend Mrs. Stubbs for putting this notice of motion on the books here last week.

Like many Canadian families, residents in Newfoundland and Labrador are struggling to make ends meet, as everything is more expensive. Indeed, instead of delivering relief, the Prime Minister hiked the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. Now, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has asked the Prime Minister to pause the carbon tax increase, because the cost of living challenges are already burdening these families.

Gas prices are high in Newfoundland, the highest in the country. Food bank usage visits have skyrocketed across the province, and I note a similar issue in Manitoba, my home province. People are having to choose between filling up their cars, heating their homes and feeding their families and putting food on the table.

Even to the recognition of some of the members across the way and their own counterparts, last year—I think it was in October—the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MP, Mr. McDonald, from Avalon, admitted that the carbon tax is hurting his constituents, saying that it is “putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis”. I know Mr. McDonald personally. I think that's a pretty strong statement for him to make, and I would certainly agree with it, because it's happening not just in Newfoundland but across Canada. Despite that reality, though, he turned around and voted to keep that tax on Newfoundlanders and save the Prime Minister as community is paying the price.

I think it's important, Mr. Chair, that increasing the carbon tax has real-world consequences on real people, so it should come as no surprise that 70% of Canadians and 70% of the provinces' premiers have opposed the April 1 carbon tax increase that the Prime Minister has forced, through his environment minister, on all the people of Canada.

Even with that 70% reality, the Prime Minister pressed on, and now he's refusing to meet the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who wrote to him asking to discuss alternatives to his punishing carbon tax. That's why the House passed a Conservative motion calling on the Prime Minister to convene a televised emergency carbon tax meeting with all of Canada's 14 first ministers within five weeks. I think that's the least we can do to try to come to some solutions to attack the affordability crisis that's hitting families across the country today, but particularly in Newfoundland.

It's the Prime Minister's responsibility to listen to Canada's premiers about the impact of his carbon tax and the way it is affecting Canadians. He must allow provinces and territories to opt out of the federal carbon tax and pursue other responsible ideas for lowering emissions without taxes.

Mr. Chair, Canadians need relief, not more taxes. That's why I'm encouraging the members of this committee to support this motion and support the struggling families by calling on the Liberal government to withdraw the 23% tax hike that took place on April 1, just 10 days ago.

Let's bring home lower prices for residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed all of Canada. I think it's imperative that we do so. We know that many of us are getting emails. I'm sure the Liberal members of the House are getting emails every day as well. The carbon tax is a continuing stress upon the food prices in Canada. We've seen the impacts of Bill C-234 and the cost increases on food by not taking the carbon tax off the heating of barns and drying grain. The amendment that came back from Parliament needs to be put back in place to make sure that all of those are implemented, not just half of them.

We have a situation where we need to be heartened by the calls we're getting from people across the country, particularly in Newfoundland, on the high cost of living. I can't stress enough that the Prime Minister's own watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has indicated that it's going to cost families in Newfoundland $1,300 a year now that the carbon tax has quadrupled.

I'm very pleased to be able to put this motion, brought by my colleague Mrs. Stubbs, on the floor for a vote, or for my colleagues to discuss, at least.

Carbon Pricing

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather impolite to interrupt the people answering questions, as the members across the way know.

Bill C-234, put very simply, can be brought to the floor of the House on the simple whim of the Leader of the Opposition. The member should actually talk to him.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234 was here, then it went to the Senate. Conservative senators threatened a bunch of other senators who wanted to debate the bill. The bill is now back in this House, and it is completely up to the leader—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet due to the Liberal-NDP's crippling carbon taxes. They are all economic pain and no environmental gain. Just last week, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23%, further driving up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating.

The least the Liberals could do is take the carbon tax off the farmers who feed us, which would in turn lower the cost of food.

Will the Prime Minister axe the tax on farmers and make food cheaper for Canadians by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, instead of opposing battery plants, instead of standing up against sustainable jobs, that member and her caucus should remember that the vast majority of the fuels farmers use are tax exempt under the pollution pricing strategy. Farmers in the country are supported big time by adjustment policies, because they know, more than anyone, that climate change is a reality.

With respect to Bill C-234, that member should walk down to the front bench and tell her opposition House leader that he should call Bill C-234 and we will resolve it.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, even the NDP-Liberal environment chair admitted that the carbon tax has no impact on climate change, yet just last week, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax by 23%, driving up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. If farmers cannot afford to grow food, the government has failed. Let me remind everyone that if there are no farms, there is no food.

Will the Prime Minister help bring the cost of food down for Canadians, axe the tax on farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but do not take my word for it.

Heather from Newbury writes, “People need the cost of living brought under control now.” Carol from Strathroy says, “One more tax will take us down. We're already struggling.” To the average Canadian, the cost of the carbon tax on gas, groceries, home heating, farmers and families is punishing, not progress.

Will the Prime Minister axe the tax on farmers and help make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

Carbon Tax

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government just slapped Canadians with a 23% carbon tax increase on April 1. It did this while food banks are servicing a record number of hungry Canadians and farmers are struggling to keep up with crippling taxes. The government needs to pass Bill C-234 in its original form to remove the carbon tax on farmers and help bring down the cost of food for all Canadians.

Conservatives have sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. Common-sense Conservatives will not agree to support the budget unless Liberals axe the tax, build homes and cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar of savings for every dollar of spending.

The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition is not worth the cost. This coalition continues to display contempt for farmers by radically increasing the carbon tax and voting to amend our common-sense Bill C-234.

From the outset, this government has shown Canadians that it simply does not see farming as a priority. In my opinion, it is simple: no farmers, no food.

Farmers are being ignored in favour of a higher and higher carbon tax on heating their buildings, drying their grain and feeding our cities. I am talking about government regulations and taxes. As the Journal de Montréal reported this morning, carbon pricing in Quebec is adding to the cost burden faced by farmers. Unfortunately, the carbon tax is not the only thing that is crushing our farmers. The government's failure to enhance support programs for farmers is also taking a toll.

The Conservatives will continue to fight and support farmers, starting with passing Bill C‑234 in its original form in order to lower the cost of food and help our farmers stay afloat.

[Todd Lewis]

Of course, as farmers, we think Bill C-234 should go through unamended, with what was originally put forward by the House of Commons. I think we'll just leave it at that.

Carbon Pricing

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just this morning, my office was in communication with a local food bank, which confirmed that food bank use continues to go up.

Barrhead and District Family and Community Support Services, in a town of fewer than 5,000 people, saw 184 new families using the food bank in 2023. This was a dramatic increase from 2022. It has seen seniors who are embarrassed to come and use a food bank for the first time. The Westlock & District Food Bank has already added 140 families just this year, for an increase of 30%. The Salvation Army food bank in Peace River has seen a 30% increase since 2021 and is adding an average of two families per week.

Most people who are starting to come to these food banks are young families. After paying for their utilities, gas and rent, they cannot afford to put food on the table. This is because, when we tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who delivers the food and tax the person who sells the food, Canadians cannot afford to buy food. Very soon, a farmer with a 5,000-acre farm in Canada will be paying $150,000 a year in carbon tax. The carbon tax is stopping Canadians from being able to afford to live.

Back in December, I asked the government House leader whether the Prime Minister would put aside his ideological position on the carbon tax and remove it for all family farms across the nation. Here we are, four months later, and the government continues to be relentless in its pursuit of making life more unaffordable for Canadians.

Instead of putting a spike in the hike on April 1, the Prime Minister has chosen to increase the carbon tax yet again by 23%. It is no surprise when we see large numbers of people protesting. Farmers and families are angry and frustrated with the government, and 70% of Canadians and 70% of premiers have called on the Prime Minister, but he has refused to listen. When asked why he will not meet with the premiers, he said that he had already met with them back in 2016, eight years ago. In very few of those provinces, if any, is the same person still premier.

Whether it is the trucker who opposes the Prime Minister's radical mandates or the farmer who opposes his radical carbon tax, the Prime Minister has shown Canadians his true colours. He cares more about advancing his radical ideology than he does for the Canadians he is supposed to represent. Common-sense Conservatives understand how hard it is for Canadians to survive in Canada, whether they are hard-working farmers, young families or seniors.

We have stood with the farmers by putting forward Bill C-234 to give farmers relief from the carbon tax, so they can help put affordable food on Canadian tables. We stand for the families who are trying to feed their children, fill their car with gas and pay their rent. We have taken every opportunity to get the government to axe the tax, voting non-confidence in it 135 times and voting against the Liberal budget. Provided that it continues to support a carbon tax, we will continue to vote non-confidence in the government. Conservatives will not stop fighting for Canadians.

Again, I want a clear answer for all Canadians: When will the government stand up, remove the carbon tax from farmers and rural families, and axe the tax for all Canadians so life can be affordable in Canada once again?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Sure.

Bill C-234 is the bill that will reduce carbon pricing for certain types of farm activities. There is already a reduction in carbon pricing for farms in certain capacities, but this is to touch on some of the other elements that the farm uses energy for that weren't part of the exemption on the carbon pricing in the first place, such as heating barns and other such types of activities.

We have had anecdotal information from some of our ag members that they've seen their carbon pricing go up quite dramatically, which is having a huge impact on things like how they operate their business and how they sell their goods. We are hoping that Bill C-234, in its original form, will be able to go through. We know there are amendments already being placed on it that are dampening down the original piece. We would love to see the original version pass through the House.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Pohlmann, I see on your website that you are encouraging the government to pass a private member's bill, Bill C-234, in an effort to provide further carbon tax relief for Canadians.

Could you speak a little bit, please, about your organization's encouragement of the passing of Bill C-234?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234 is a Conservative private member's bill that the party can elect to bring to the House for a vote at any time. I would invite the hon. member to talk to his House leadership, and we will get on with the vote for Bill C-234.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals deflect, deny and gaslight, common-sense Conservatives will remain laser-focused on the affordability crisis. Bill C-234 is back before the House and the Liberals have a chance to help Canadians by reducing food costs by reducing the burden on farmers, which would ultimately make everything more affordable. Will the Liberals finally give farmers and Canadians a break by reducing and eliminating the carbon tax on farmers?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we talk in the House about all the supports we are providing to farmers and the agricultural community in the context of our fight against climate change. However, I would also point out that Conservative senators threatened female senators on amendments on this bill. This is a Conservative private member's bill that they can prioritize at any moment and that they can bring to a vote in the House. It is up to them. Bill C-234's fate is decided on the Conservative side of the House.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, many Canadians can no longer afford to feed their families. Last year, two million Canadians visited food banks in a single month alone, but instead of bringing down the cost of food, the Prime Minister increased the carbon tax on groceries by 23% on April 1. Clearly, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Instead of making things worse, will the Prime Minister finally cut the cost of food by adopting Conservative Bill C-234 to take all carbon taxes off farmers in next week's budget?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Tina from Orangeville just sent me a photo from the Orangeville Food Bank. There is no juice. There is no cereal. There are almost no diapers. That is because the people who used to donate food are now lined up for food. This is actually Canada after eight years of the corrupt, incompetent NDP-Liberal government.

Will the Prime Minister finally show he has even a modicum of compassion for Canadians and pass Conservative Bill C-234 to take all carbon taxes off all farmers, so that Canadians can once again afford food?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the government in December about the carbon tax and Bill C-234. Notably, the question I asked got over 13 and a half million views on Instagram; clearly, many Canadians are very interested in the issue. It also might have had something to do with the hearty laughter from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was sitting behind me at the time.

The issue is with Bill C-234, which we continue to champion today in this House. Conservatives are fighting for farmers to be exempt from the carbon tax.

We believe in axing the tax completely. However, in this Parliament, in order to make some incremental progress, we have put forward a bill that has gained the support of a majority of the House of Commons, seeking to exempt farmers from the carbon tax.

This bill was on the verge of passing in the Senate when the government started to lean into their supposedly independent senators, making personal phone calls to try to pressure them to change their vote. The bill is now back in the House of Commons, and Conservatives are pushing to pass it in its original form, to exempt our hard-working farmers from the carbon tax.

Applying the carbon tax to farmers does not make any sense even if one believes in the carbon tax in general. The carbon tax is designed to be a Pigovian tax, that is, a tax on something that is believed to generate a negative externality in order to try to discourage that behaviour. That is the theory behind the carbon tax.

It seeks to make gasoline and airplane travel more expensive in the hopes that people will drive less, fly less, etc. That is the theory of the government's carbon tax. However, on what basis is it applied to our farmers?

Does the government hope that people will farm less if it makes farming more expensive? Does it think that farmers should do the essential work of farming less in response to the Pigovian tax that they are applying? It does not make any sense.

Farming is not an activity we want to discourage. Farming is an activity we should be encouraging. We should be making it easier for people to go into farming, to work in farming, to continue with this critical livelihood, feeding people across the country wherever they live.

Why is the government applying a punitive tax on farmers? What possible rational policy objective could taxing farmers in this way have? It just does not make any sense.

To be clear, Conservatives oppose the carbon tax in general. We will axe the tax after the carbon tax election. At a minimum, the Liberals should understand that, even in theory, the carbon tax makes no sense. Even on its own justification, the tax makes no sense when applied to farmers. That is why Conservatives have championed and will continue to champion the passage of Bill C-234, to push the government to pass the bill in its original form.

We have also called on the government to meet with the premiers; along with the Canadian public, they overwhelmingly oppose the carbon tax. Liberals are afraid to gather and meet with the premiers to have a carbon tax conference. I am sure that, if they did, they would clearly hear a call from the premiers to axe the carbon tax on farmers and on all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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?

Carbon Pricing

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we tax the farmer who grows the food and we tax the trucker who hauls the food, then we hurt the families who buy the food. Things have gotten so bad under the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition that military families stationed in Borden and Gagetown are having to use food banks, and troops trained right here in Ottawa are relying on food donations from college staff.

After eight long years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister lower the cost on Canadian farmers and make food more affordable for all Canadians by passing Bill C-234 in its original form immediately?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government and the Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax is not worth the cost. The Prime Minister does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food, we end up taxing the family who buys it.

People are struggling in New Brunswick; 40 to 50 military families need to visit the Gagetown food bank just to feed their kids. UNB had to create its own food bank to feed its students.

Will the Prime Minister lower costs on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that minister is so out of touch, because here are the facts. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we have a record-smashing two million Canadians using a food bank in a single month, with over a million more expected this year. Food banks, like the one in Cambridge, are now seeing dual-income families, full-time working Canadians and our seniors lining up at the food banks. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister finally show some compassion and make food cheaper for Canadians by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government and its carbon tax, Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables. When we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who ships the food, we punish all Canadians who buy the food. Food banks, like the Cambridge Food Bank, are now seeing record-breaking demand. The Prime Minister's 23% carbon tax hike is not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister lower the cost on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister tweets out sunny ways from his rooftop, food banks in Simcoe County are reporting a 100% increase in use. Last week at the Angus Food Bank, director Heather Morgan told me that active soldiers from Base Borden are regular visitors. Let that sink in.

Meanwhile, Liberals hike the carbon tax by 23% and continue to delay the common-sense bill, Bill C-234.

Will the Prime Minister pass Bill C-234 in its original form, axe the tax on farmers and make food more affordable for all Canadians?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are tapped out. April 1 saw Canadians hit with a 23% carbon tax increase by these Liberals. As a farmer, I know the first-hand true impact of a carbon tax bill on farm operations. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. It is time to axe the tax on farmers and food and pass Bill C-234.

Will the Prime Minister lower costs on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. The Prime Minister raised his carbon tax 23% last week, driving up the cost of gas and groceries. Fortunately, Conservative Bill C-234 would exempt farmers' grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so food remains affordable.

Will the Prime Minister lower costs on farmers and make food cheaper by passing Bill C-234 in its original form?

Carbon Tax

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to feed, heat and house themselves, the NDP-Liberal government went ahead with a 23% carbon tax hike on April 1. We already know that it is not worth the cost. After eight years, rent and mortgage payments have doubled, deficits are driving up inflation and food banks received two million visitors in a single month last year.

With budget day just around the corner, Conservatives are calling for a cap on government spending through a dollar-for-dollar approach and a plan to build homes, not bureaucracy. In addition, we are calling on the government to axe the tax on food and farmers by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. That would support farm families and ensure that all Canadians can afford to put food on the table.

It is clear that only common-sense Conservatives have a plan to make life more affordable and bring home lower prices for all Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

I would like to reserve the right to put some amendments into the preamble. My position and the position of the NDP is quite clear, and I want to make sure that it's on the record that we do support Bill C-234 in its original form. We will be voting to reject the Senate amendment, so I want to make sure, for everyone who's listening, that this is very clear.

I also want to put into the record that I think there's a real disservice in this whole debate, because while my Conservative colleagues focus all of their attention on what amounted to an increase of three cents per litre in my region, they were completely silent when the cost of fuel in my region jumped by 30¢ a litre from February to March.

I would like to reserve the right to make some reference to the ridiculous profiteering that is going on in the oil and gas sector. We can always see their publicly reported figures, but for us to completely ignore the role that corporate profits in oil and gas in particular are having on our farm sector is really missing the entire point.

I think my position on Bill C-234 is quite clear, but I would like to reserve the right to amend some of the preamble. I'll just leave it at that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to use my time to put forward a motion.

All of us on this committee have received a number of letters over the last week or so. They were from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture; the Agriculture Alliance; the Vegetable Growers of Canada; Mushrooms Canada; the Western Stock Growers' Association; the Grain Farmers of Ontario, which represents 28,000 farm families; the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the Wheat Growers Association. These letters are asking for a couple of specific things on the impact the carbon tax is having on Canadian agriculture with the hike of 23% on April 1.

That said, I'm going to ask the committee on this motion. It is:

Given that:

a) The committee received numerous letters from agricultural stakeholders regarding their opposition to the carbon tax hike on April 1, including from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities;

b) Seven Provincial Premiers and 70% of Canadians opposed the government's 23% increase in the carbon tax hike on April 1;

c) The Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have issued public letters calling on the government to provide a carbon tax carve-out for farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form;

d) The carbon tax currently costs greenhouse operators in Canada $22 million a year and will pay between $82 million and $100 million by 2030 when the carbon tax quadruples;

e) 44% of fresh fruit and vegetable growers are already selling at a loss and 77% can't offset production cost increase;

f) The carbon tax increase this year will cost mushroom farms $7.4 million, and by 2030 it'll be more than $16 million;

g) A sample of 50 farm operations across Canada paid a total of $329,644 in carbon taxes in one month last year, with the increase this year it'll cost those same farms $431,544 and nearly triple over the next seven years to $893,944;

h) The Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated the carbon tax will cost farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030;

i) The 2030 Food Price Report estimates the carbon tax will cost a typical 5,000-acre farm $153,000 by 2030; and

j) The Food Professor recommends pausing the carbon tax for the entire food supply chain,

I ask for unanimous consent for the committee to report the letters it received from agriculture stakeholders, the Ontario Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities regarding the 23% increase on the carbon tax on April 1, to the House for its consideration in debate on Bill C-234

Chair, these letters we have here represent tens of thousands of farmers who are asking for their voices to be heard.

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I begin my speech, I want to talk a bit about how Canadians cannot afford the higher taxes and inflation that the government has brought on, and they cannot afford the Prime Minister. That is why we have been calling for judicial use of taxpayer dollars. We have been calling for the government to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234. We have demanded that the government build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal funding. We have also asked the government to cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down the interest rates and inflation. Conservatives said we will not support the government in its budget unless it does these things, so we will vote non-confidence if the government does not axe the tax; build more homes, not bureaucracy; and cap the spending.

It is the spending that brings us here today. We have seen that the ArriveCAN app, an app that could have cost only $80,000 to produce, ended up costing over $60 million. We have seen some unsavoury contractors taking advantage of the government, but the government also failed to maintain records.

This is a classic case of a time when we see a critical situation. Oftentimes this happens, and it is always very suspicious. There is a crime scene, a camera is recording the crime scene, but during the two minutes the crime happened, the camera seems to be mysteriously turned off, and then the camera comes back on after that. This is again one of these cases where we can smell that something is wrong and see that something is wrong.

We have the scathing Auditor General's report, which says that a massive amount of money was spent, and she cannot find what the money was spent on. She anticipates that 67% of the subcontractors did no actual work, yet here we are with a scandal of grand proportion. It appears that the tape was not running, that the camera was turned off for that period of time. The Auditor General says it could be as little as $60 million, and it could be far more.

We are debating a privilege motion here today. A privilege motion has to do with the ability of members of Parliament to do their jobs. Members of Parliament have particular privileges that are not broadly used by citizens. Taking a seat in the House of Commons is a privilege that only members of Parliament have, but the government has particular privileges as well. The government gets to write the cheques for Canada. It holds the chequebook. That is not an opposition party job. That is a job of the government. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the government maintains control of the chequebook and maintains the scrutiny of where the cheques are going. That is a massive failure, and we are trying to get to the bottom of that.

If we listen to the Liberals, they would have us believe that it is these evil contractors, and I am not denying that, who have been taking advantage of the government, which, by all accounts, appears to be the case, but where were the checks and balances? Where was the trust and verify? Why did it not ask if we were getting good value for money? This has been a common problem with the Liberals for a long time, that whenever they are questioned about a government failure, they point out how much money they have spent on a particular issue, whether it is border security, policing or managing vehicle crimes. They talk about how much money they are spending on a particular program, when the problem only seems to be getting worse.

Contractors have figured out that limiting the money being spent has not been an active priority for the government. Maintaining some sort of fiscal restraint is not something the government has been known for, and contractors have been taking advantage of that, for sure.

Common-sense Conservatives, after eight years of the Prime Minister, are putting forward a plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, and that is really what this comes down to.

We have heard some incredible things that have come out of committee. First is the fact that the Auditor General said that it was incredibly hard to track down what this money was spent on, as the contracts that GS Strategies got were more and more vague as time went on. They were for longer and longer periods of time and for larger and larger amounts of money. However, there have been some other interesting things, such as resumés that had been submitted to get the contracts being forged, which appears to be just straight-up fraud. There was a requirement for experience and qualifications, and GC Strategies admitted that it doctored these resumés to make sure that they fit in order to get the contracts.

The other really interesting thing that happened, which we discovered last week at committee, was that KPMG was approached by the government to do an audit of the effectiveness of the app, but rather than the government contracting KPMG directly to do this audit, the government employee suggested to KPMG that it should approach GC Strategies to do this audit rather than just doing it directly, even though it was the government that approached KPMG. There does seem to be something very interesting going on between the bureaucracy and GC Strategies.

Again, going back to this video camera that, for some apparent reason, seems to have been shut off just when the crime seemed to be happening, interestingly, all of the emails associated with this discussion of the KPMG contract have disappeared. The government employee who had been communicating on this deleted all of his emails and is no longer affiliated with the department that he worked with. I am not sure, but I think he has been suspended from the public service, so we do not have the documents.

Members might say, “Well, that's the actions of one individual” or “Mr. Firth is not answering our questions, and that's the actions of a particular individual”, but I would say that this has been the MO of the government. I remember back in 2015 when the Liberals came into power with the grand slogan of being “open by default”. That is what it said, yet we have seen more redactions, and we have seen the government take the Speaker of the House of Commons to court to prevent documents from coming to this place. We have seen endless amounts of redactions. We have an ATIP process that is completely dysfunctional. We will get an ATIP back, and it will be entirely blacked out. We have also seen the Prime Minister call an election to prevent the Winnipeg lab documents from coming to this place. He first sued the Speaker to prevent it, and then called an election to prevent the truth coming to light on a number of things.

It is not a far leap that, when citizens see the government refusing to answer questions and redacting or not allowing documents to come forth, citizens who are then called before Parliament would not treat Parliament with the respect that is required or would not be as forthright with Parliament as they should be, which is why we are calling on Mr. Firth to come to the bar so he can be questioned on a number of these issues. However, we also want to point out that we wish the government would be more forthright with documentation as well so we can get to the bottom of a number of these scandals.

Carbon Pricing

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford to live because of the carbon tax. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, rent and mortgages have doubled. The Liberal-NDP government is just not worth the cost or the corruption.

Will the Prime Minister commit to immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form, cancel the carbon tax and once again make life affordable for Canadians?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the cost of living is out of control. Farmers are suffering and food has become unaffordable because of the carbon tax. Almost two million Canadians are going to the food bank every single month, yet on April 1, the Liberal-NDP government increased the carbon tax by 23%.

Will the Prime Minister stop punishing Canadians and farmers and pass Bill C-234 in its original form?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the woke Prime Minister hiked his carbon tax scam 23% despite a majority of Canadians wanting him to spike the hike. As we see record-smashing food bank usage across the country, farmers will pay another billion dollars into this scam, making groceries even more expensive. After eight years, the Liberal-NDP government is not worth the cost or corruption.

Will the Prime Minister finally axe the tax for farmers and food and pass Bill C-234 in its original form in next week's budget, or is his agenda to push even more families into food banks?

Witness Responses at Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today. Yesterday, common-sense Conservatives announced our demands for the upcoming federal budget.

We called on the government to axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. We called on the government to build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money. Finally, we called on the government to cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. We said the government must find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.

These were the three common-sense Conservative demands for the budget: axing the tax on farmers and food; building homes, not bureaucracies; and instituting a dollar-for-dollar rule. Of course, Conservatives in government would go further to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Under the NDP-Liberal government, we see how spending is completely out of control. Under the Prime Minister, Canada will spend $46.5 billion this year to service the debt. That is more than the federal health transfer. The government is spending more on servicing the debt than it does on the federal health transfer.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Perhaps I'll switch gears and speak specifically about Bill C-234.

You've previously reported that Bill C-234 would save farmers nearly $1 billion by 2030. A more recent costing note by your office estimates that the Senate amendments to the bill would cut carbon tax relief to farmers by $910 billion. Is that accurate?

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, the only party stalling Bill C-234 is their party. They keep putting up speakers.

Speaking of farmers, farmers need to rely on business risk management programs. We are the only party that has increased business risk management programs and their budgets by 25%, while the other side cut their budgets.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Election

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

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.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this.

Obviously, I'm ideologically opposed to what the Conservatives here are suggesting and implying. Unlike them, I'm looking at the facts and the evidence, which are very clear. The International Monetary Fund has said that carbon pricing is actually the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. The IMF has said that for many years. There are jurisdictions around the world that have followed suit, and Canada is one of them.

We also know that economists, like Trevor Tombe from the University of Calgary, have estimated that carbon pricing adds about 0.15% to general inflation. If you think about it, that would be about 15¢ on a $100 grocery bill. When traced through the supply chains, he estimates that it would probably have about 0.33% on the cost of food, so that's 33¢ on a $100 grocery bill.

We also know that the majority of emissions on farms are already exempt from the price on pollution. I know that Ben Lobb put forward Bill C-234, which was stuck in the Senate. I don't know what stage that is at right now, but I know that I disagreed with that strongly because I don't believe in eroding the price signal, and I believe that there are opportunities for farmers to continue to green their operations. That's not to imply, as some have said in the past, that I'm saying that they're not already making efforts to do so. I think farmers are very responsible actors and take care of the land, steward the land, but there are ways that farming can be done that are studied at the University of Guelph.

I'm sure the chair knows this very well, with the Guelph statement and all the work we did on the agriculture and agri-food committee leading up to the new sustainable agricultural partnership agreement, and the additional funding and resources that the government has put forward to ensure that farmers can adopt some of those best practices in sustainable agriculture. I'm very passionate about that.

I also want to mention one thing that bothers me about what the Conservatives keep claiming, which I think is just wrong; it's just false. The European Central Bank, not so long ago, suggested that climate change itself will have an effect on food prices of up to 3% per year—an impact on inflation and food prices that is about 30 times greater than the price on pollution, which is really interesting. The Conservatives keep trying to pit the price on pollution against the affordability challenges that Canadians are experiencing, which we all admit are real. They're not due to the price on pollution, mind you, as they keep claiming.

They never talk about the rebate. I'm surprised that they were courageous enough to bring it up for the first time in this committee, because they seem to deny that rebates exist in almost all of their interventions. Individuals who have done the actual research on this—including the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom we regularly cite—have said that eight out of 10 families get more back. We also know that it's the low end or middle-income families that tend to get more back. Trevor Tombe also estimated in a recent article that it was about $300, on average, that families net in their pockets in comparison to what they pay in carbon pricing. As a moral argument, I think you're going to lose this battle on every level.

Who should pay for the pollution that's going into our atmosphere? When I ask people at the doors in my riding, they all say the same thing: Industry should pay for the pollution that it creates. That's exactly what the price on pollution does. It ensures that industry, which is creating the pollution, is paying for it. Industry often hands that price down to the consumer, and so consumers are impacted by this, but that's why the rebate is in place.

It's also been estimated recently that one-third of the emissions reduction that Canada can project based on the current policies and regulations that have been put in place will come from the price on pollution. That's just out in The Globe and Mail. Rick Smith from the Canadian Climate Institute put that out. I think that's a significant result for a market-based mechanism.

It was originally proposed by Conservatives, who you would think would be supportive of this, considering they all got elected in the last election based on a platform that included a version of carbon pricing—even though, I would say, our version of it is much more robust and doesn't have some of the drawbacks that their design had in their last election platform.

When we think about this, we should consider that there is really significant scientific research on the fact that human beings are the cause of climate change. The emissions we put in the atmosphere are causing climate change, and the damage to our economy and the amount of money we are paying for that damage are just exponentially increasing.

The Canadian Climate Institute recently produced a report called “Damage Control”, and I've read it from cover to cover multiple times, because it provides a really significant set of data and modelling that's very sophisticated. It looks at the cost of climate change.

Again, the Conservatives are the first ones when there's a flood or a drought in the Prairies to whine and complain, wanting us to bail out everybody and wanting the federal government to step in and resource all of the farmers who experienced losses, which is our business risk management program. It is a really big program that's increasing all the time, and we're getting pressure to increase those programs. Well, what about preventing climate change from happening and dealing with the root causes of it? They don't acknowledge, ever, the cost of climate change on the economy.

Climate change is going to threaten the very prosperity of our economy and destabilize the world economy. It already is. This is a quote from the Canadian Climate Institute report: “Climate change is a macroeconomic risk that threatens to significantly undermine future prosperity”. I think that's a significant statement.

The modelling they have done suggests that, by 2025, which is next year, we'll experience losses of $25 billion, which is 50% of projected GDP growth in this country. Just think about that for a second. It's 50% of GDP growth. If we want to grow our economy, just think about how we'll be falling behind and how Canada's prosperity as an economy will be compromised by not addressing climate change if the Conservatives have their way.

By mid-century, by 2050, they say that it will be $78 billion to $101 billion. That is three to four times greater than what it will be in 2025, so, in 25 years, the multiplier effect of the damage to the economy from climate change will be three to four times greater than what it is essentially today. By the end of the century, they estimate that it will be $391 billion to $865 billion. That's getting close to a trillion dollars by the end of the century if we don't address climate change.

I don't know why, but the Conservatives just never seem to acknowledge that climate change is having more impact on household budgets and inflation and is compromising the economic prosperity of our economy. I can't understand it. I can only assume that it's because they're stuck in the past, and they just don't want to admit that climate change is real, which is very consistent with what we heard coming out of their convention before, when they had a resolution on the floor, and they couldn't get agreement on even acknowledging that climate change is real.

We had the chief science adviser here. I asked her, is there any doubt in your mind that climate change is real? She said absolutely not, that the scientific evidence is sound and clear. If you go and look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that panel has produced 4,000-page reports documenting, with the most significant amount of evidence and data, that climate change is real.

However, the Conservatives would scrap the price on pollution, which is literally the most effective, cost-neutral, revenue-neutral mechanism, with all the proceeds returned to Canadians. They would scrap the most effective market-based mechanism that they proposed to address climate change.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, and in particular for such an important conversation, because we are in a cost of living crisis and the Liberal-NDP government could not care less. I can guarantee that the most common thing every MP in the chamber hears when they are back in their riding is that the cost of living is out of control. From groceries to gas and home heating, and everything in between, it has all become unaffordable for everyone.

What is the solution in the minds of the costly coalition? It is to ram through a 23% carbon tax hike on April 1. How out of touch can someone be? Nobody I have talked to has said, "You know what might help? What if we sent more money to Ottawa?” Nobody believes they are better off under the carbon tax, and this is why we are witnessing a carbon tax revolt. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been crystal clear: Canadians are losing hundreds of dollars each year, which will turn into thousands of dollars if we do not stop the planned quadrupling of the carbon tax.

Across this country, thousands of ordinary people are going to rallies to axe the tax. Young families, seniors, veterans, small business owners and new Canadians are all showing up en masse to add their voices to the growing chorus of discontent. They cannot afford to live with a decent quality of life anymore, never mind actually get ahead, and their Liberal and NDP MPs have turned their back on them. People will no longer sit in silence. They are tired of being told to shut up and just take it. They refuse to be lectured to by the Prime Minister because they dare to oppose his carbon tax.

The good news is that they are not alone. Two-thirds of Canadians oppose the 23% carbon tax hike, and it is no wonder people are mad. The Prime Minister and his NDP coalition partners sneer at people who drive long distances to go to work or to pick up their groceries. They ignore the legitimate concerns of seniors who can no longer afford to heat their home on the coldest of nights, and from their ivory tower they disparage anyone who points out the obvious: the carbon tax plan is a tax plan, not an environment plan.

My Liberal colleagues who do not believe me can look at the Order Paper question where their Minister of Environment admitted they do not even measure the annual amount of emissions directly reduced by their carbon tax. Even he admits they do not know whether the carbon tax is reducing emissions, so why are we paying for it?

The ridiculousness does not end there. The same minister went to a conference of municipal leaders and proclaimed Canada does not need any more new roads or highways, and while it took a couple days to clean up the environment minister's mess, the damage was done. The people living in communities like Carman, Sanford, Brunkild and Sperling heard the message loud and clear that the Liberal government does not think that Highway 3 should be twinned, for example.

Municipal leaders immediately started calling me, furious with the new Liberal plan to stop building roads in this country. What should really worry the Liberals is that, given their track record, nobody was actually surprised by such an out-of-touch and ridiculous announcement. Let us never forget that the Prime Minister scoffs at farmers who use propane or natural gas to dry their grain or heat their livestock barns. In fact, he pulled out all the stops to gut Bill C-234, making the bill about $900 million worse in the eyes of farms.

What is sad is that I do not think the Prime Minister even loses a wink of sleep over how his carbon tax is punishing farm families like those that live in places like Altona, Rathwell, Roland, Elm Creek and Oakville. These farmers are paying thousands of dollars in carbon taxes to stop their grain from sprouting or spoiling in the bin. When grocery prices are at record highs, who thinks it is a bright idea to make it that much more expensive to grow and produce the food we all eat?

My constituents will also never forget when the Prime Minister gave a carbon tax carve-out to 3% of Canadian households and left the other 97% out in the cold. People living in places like Winkler, Morden, Portage and Plum Coulee did not get the carve-out on their home heating. They too were ignored.

It was not until the Atlantic Liberal caucus was on the brink of a full-out revolt that the Prime Minister thought he could placate it by giving a temporary reprieve on the carbon tax to those who use home heating oil. While he may have stopped the insurgency within his own Liberal caucus, he reminded Canadians how politically calculating and motivated he can be when pushed into a corner. Atlantic Canadians are not the fools he took them for. They saw right through his hope of buying their vote before hiking their taxes again after the next election.

We only have to look at the words of the Liberal Minister of Rural Economic Development to see why some people got a carve-out and others did not. It was because the good people living in communities like Morris, Rosenfeld, Starbuck and Mariapolis do not vote Liberal. The sad reality is that the Prime Minister cares only about the people who vote for him rather than about doing what is right for all Canadians.

Now, on the verge of April 1, seven out of 10 premiers have publicly called upon the Prime Minister to cancel his 23% carbon tax hike. I do not recall the last time that seven premiers were openly opposed to a federal government policy. In my province of Manitoba, the NDP premier is not really saying much about the carbon tax hike. He said he has had private conversations with the Prime Minister on the matter, but it is telling that an NDP premier will not publicly defend the carbon tax hike. Who knows? Maybe he will see the writing on the wall and talk to our constituents, and he might even join the coalition of the common sense.

Among the seven premiers who oppose the 23% carbon tax hike, one just happens to be the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That Liberal premier did something rather brave, which was to stand up to the Prime Minister. It was not easy for the premier to go against the grain of his own party, and for doing so, the Prime Minister accused him of being a short-sighted thinker, but unlike most of the Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador, this Liberal stood up for the people he represents.

Before the Liberal MP for Avalon was placed in the witness protection program, he agreed with our Conservative caucus on the carbon tax and went so far as to call for a leadership review of the Prime Minister. In response to his comments, I called for every Canadian to have a review of the Prime Minister's leadership. It is called an election. It is time. Obviously the Prime Minister wants the carbon tax election, so let us have it. It would seem wrong not to mention what the Liberal member for Avalon summed up when he said, “People are thinking maybe it’s time for a change. I tell everybody—every leader, every party has a best-before date. Our best-before date is here.” Conservatives could not agree more.

The reason people are opposing the carbon tax hike is that they have no more nickels and dimes to give. Close to 50% of families are $200 away from declaring insolvency. Look at the skyrocketing number of people visiting food banks to get a clear picture of what is going on in our country right now. Every day, I and, I assume, all of my colleagues get emails from constituents who are struggling to get by. Just last week I received a letter from a senior who cannot afford to put gas in her car just to get to her doctor's appointments. She cannot afford to buy fruits and vegetables, and due to high food prices, she now does the bulk of her grocery shopping at Dollarama.

In closing, I urge Liberal MPs to stand up for their constituents who cannot afford to pay their bills and put food on their family's table, to vote in favour of our Conservative motion to spike the hike, and to be honest with themselves and acknowledge the last thing people can afford right now is another tax hike. There is no shame in acknowledging that the carbon tax has been a failure, in terms of both of our cost of living and reducing emissions. In fact, I think people would prefer that politicians admit when they are wrong, pivot and do what is right for the people we are sent here to serve rather than continuing down the path of ideology, and that they try to be a bit more pragmatic.

I hope that the common sense of the common people might just break through to the NDP-Liberal government. I fear it will not, which is why we need the carbon tax election, because it is time to axe the tax on everything for everyone, and for good.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in that question, and I hope you will give me the proper time to respond.

I am going to ask something of the hon. member. He mentioned the leader of the official opposition in question period today asking questions of the Chair of the committee. This is the proper form to be able to answer those questions.

Let me say this: He talked about farmers in Kings—Hants. I need the member for Regina—Lewvan to walk into his caucus tomorrow and to ask the leader of the official opposition to let Bill C-234 come to a vote. We have an opportunity to help support farmers today. The Conservatives put up six speakers, and they are delaying the passage of a bill that could make a difference for farmers in my riding and indeed across the country. Why is it that they stand in the way of Canadian agriculture and put their partisan interests ahead of farmers in this country?

To answer his question, and to the members of the Nova Scotia assembly who have talked about the fact that they would like to see a pause, I will happily engage with every one of those members to talk about how we could work with Premier Tim Houston and with premiers across the country to be able to put forward not just a plan, but also a plan that meets the federal standard.

That is what the member missed in his question. Yes, Saskatchewan put forward a plan. In fact, it actually adopted a form of carbon pricing at the industrial level. Let us work together with the seven premiers to be able to establish a national cap and trade so that this terrible federal backstop that the Conservatives hate no longer has to be in place.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be in the House. I am glad to see that my colleagues are starting to appreciate my work and that my name and my title in Nova Scotia are becoming known.

I am living rent free in the member for Carleton's head right now. He has been calling me out a lot, and I hope he will come back into the chamber to ask me questions in a format that I am able to respond to today. I would invite my Conservative colleagues to see if he is in the lobby. I had better be careful, I do not want to say who is present in the House, but I hope the hon. member for Carleton can join the debate and ask me questions in proper form.

This is the first time I have been able to rise in a debate format since the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney passed away. We had the opportunity to visit with his family today and to pay tribute to a great man, a great individual whose contributions to the country all Canadians will recognize. I would be remiss if I did not start my remarks today by recognizing Mr. Mulroney and his contributions to Canada. He served as a member of Parliament in Nova Scotia. In my riding, there is a great reverence for the work he did as a prime minister, as a Progressive Conservative. I have talked about this in the House. He and Kim Campbell were the last of that generation of true Progressive Conservative leadership in the prime minister's office. He did a great service.

I have a quick story. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Mulroney at the Atlantic Economic Forum in Antigonish. He was so generous with my wife Kimberly. He thanked her for the work she does to allow me to be a member of Parliament. He said that Mila did the same when he was in office. There were obviously two vastly different standards, but I wanted to share that story.

Carbon pricing has consistently been something that the Conservative Party has raised every single opposition day. That is good because this is an important conversation about why the policy is in place and about how we can structure programs that make a difference to the environment but are also important for affordability. I would invite many of my opposition colleagues to reflect on what their own environmental plans are and to reflect on the fact that all of them who sit in this House ran on a platform in the last election, which included carbon pricing. I take note that is no longer the position of the Conservative Party, but I have no vision for what it stands for in relation to this really important fight that I think Canadians want parliamentarians and governments to take action on.

To provide context for Canadians, after listening to the leader of the official opposition, one would suggest that no other country or jurisdiction has any form of carbon pricing and that somehow this is some draconian measure the government has put in place that makes no sense. What would Conservatives say to the 77 other jurisdictions around the world that have a form of carbon pricing as part of their true environmental initiatives? In fact, carbon pricing is inherently a Conservative idea, the idea that we put into the market the ability for consumers and for innovation in the private sector to lead, not necessarily government. I really look forward to what the Conservative Party will present, if it does. I will be surprised if it does come, but it should come because Canadians deserve to have political parties in this place that take that issue seriously.

Today's opposition day motion talks about cutting the carbon tax altogether or pausing it, suggesting that it is a terrible scourge on the country. I do not take that view. I take the view that carbon pricing is a credible plan and a part of the discussion between affordability and environment. I think I bring some credibility to this debate because I have been critical of the government about the way in which the federal backstop worked.

As I listened to the member for Carleton ask his questions today, and the government took them because of the way the procedure works, I could not help but believe that I have done more than the member for Carleton has done in 20 years to move carbon pricing policy in this country. He talks a lot about it, but I was the one who helped lead the charge to make an adjustment for rural Canada, to have an exemption in place for home heating oil and to put in place a program that matters for affordability and for home heating.

I want to highlight, from where I sit in the chamber, that I see the Conservatives get up on heating oil, for example, and say that they want to axe the tax, which, of course, means axing the rebates that go back to Canadians. They want to axe the 17¢ a litre on home heating oil, and we know that home heating oil is the most expensive way in the country to heat homes. It has gone up by 70% over the last two years. In fact, people in the Maritimes who use heating oil to heat their homes are paying anywhere from four to five times that of those who have been able to make the transition to natural gas, including in places like Saskatchewan.

I see the member for Regina—Lewvan ready to jump in with a question, and I cannot wait for it. He needs to understand that the reason we exempted home heating oil was that we had already identified a million Canadian households that were extremely vulnerable all across this country, not just Atlantic Canada, but, of course, we were disproportionately impacted.

I am proud of the work we did to make adjustments, not just to give slogans but also to give solutions. The good people of Nova Scotia, and the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for Cumberland—Colchester and the member for West Nova, who is a good guy, would have had 17¢ a litre off their home heating bill, no doubt. Now, they are getting 17¢ a litre off their home heating bill for the next three years, and they are getting a long-term solution to save thousands of dollars a year in home heating. This is exactly an action that deals with affordability and the environment at the same time. I invite Conservatives to understand that those two things have to go together in today's context. They suggest they are mutually exclusive. I do not think that is the case. I think there is a way we can construct programs that make a difference across the way.

Again, we have driven up rural rebates. It makes a difference. That is something I fought for as a member of a rural caucus on this side of the House. We provided actual solutions and initiatives that would adjust the policy without ruining a price mechanism that matters on the environmental fight. Of course, the money does go back to households. We have highlighted that.

If Conservatives do not like the federal backstop, do they like any form of carbon pricing? I invite one of my colleagues to get up and say that today. I understand they do not like the federal backstop, but do they like cap-and-trade in Quebec? Do they like the B.C. plan? That is where this conversation should go. Do Conservatives believe in any form of carbon pricing?

I hope a members on the other side will get up and ask a question about the legislature in Nova Scotia today. I would invite the 55 members of the Nova Scotia assembly to encourage the premier of the province, Tim Houston, to work in concert with Atlantic premiers, perhaps Doug Ford, the first minister in Saskatchewan Scott Moe and in Alberta, Danielle Smith. We could have a cap-and-trade system in this country. Imagine that. It could meet the federal standard. It does not have to be the federal backstop. Let us remember why it is here; some provincial premiers decided they did not want any form of price signal that makes a difference. However, I will be inviting the premiers from Atlantic Canada and the MLAs. I am happy to engage on the topic. It matters. All this government ever wanted was a credible price to be able to fight climate change and to help reduce emissions.

I would invite the member for Regina—Lewvan to go into the offices of Federated Co-operatives in Saskatchewan and to talk to its executive team about how the carbon price is helping to drive hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in his province. The executives would tell him that is what is helping to make a difference and what is driving innovation: the carbon price. It actually helps to justify it. If not the carbon price, is the member for Regina—Lewvan just going to pour taxpayer's dollars into helping to drive that? Is that going to be the only play, or is he going to use other types of free market principles to drive the innovation that needs to happen?

When we talk about technology, not taxes, how do Conservatives intend to incentivize the technology? I have yet to hear exactly how they are going to do that. Are they going to rely on the benevolent corporate sector? Conservatives and the leader of the official opposition suggest that corporate lobbyists are useless and that the corporate sector is terrible in this country. How are they going to incentivize them to drive the change we need on climate change? I invite them to start answering those types of questions.

I take notice that Conservatives do not like the federal backstop. I take notice that this opposition day motion does not mention at all the fact that money is going back to households in Nova Scotia and indeed across the country. Let us have an informed debate.

Again, I invite the member, who will be recognized in about 30 seconds, to start his answer by saying that he either believes or does not believe in carbon pricing. If Conservatives do not believe in the federal backstop, which is very clear, that is fine, but do they believe in any form of carbon pricing? Canadians need to know that answer because, at the end of the day, there is a way to be able to do this without the federal backstop, but we need provincial premiers to play a part in the solution as well. That is what I think is important. That is what is missing from today's opposition day motion.

I look forward to the questions, and I see the members lining up.

With 10 seconds left, just quickly on Bill C-234, will the Tories bring it to a vote? My farmers need help. They are sitting on it. They put up six speakers. We need to be able to bring that to a vote.

Climate Change

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Tories stood up. They might not like the question, though.

The member for Carleton talks about farmers in Kings—Hants, but he actually stands in their way. He will not allow Bill C-234 to come to the House to be voted on, so I call on the member for Carleton to do that to support farmers.

However, my question is for the minister from Nova Scotia. Can he tell the House, and indeed Nova Scotians, of the work we have done to adjust the federal backstop to support rural Canadians, including the programs we have put in place on affordability around home heating and heat pumps, contrary to those guys across the way?

Carbon Tax

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, the Prime Minister is not worth his cost, crime or corruption after eight years.

With heartless indifference, the Liberals are turning a blind eye to the affordability challenges Canadians are facing, threatening a 23% carbon tax hike four weeks from now. Four weeks from now, hard-working Canadians' paycheques will buy even less food to feed their families, while a Conservative bill, Bill C-234, which would have saved our farmers $1 billion in carbon taxes and provided relief to families at the grocery store, is being ignored by the Liberal-NDP government.

The Climate Change Performance Index now ranks Canada 62nd out of 67 countries, further proof the carbon tax has done nothing to address climate change, because the carbon tax is not an environmental plan but a tax plan that is deepening the misery and despair of Canadians.

When common-sense Conservatives form government and serve the people of Canada, we will restore Canadians' confidence and axe the tax.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You mentioned Dr. Charlebois earlier.

According to Dr. Charlebois, increasing the carbon tax and keeping it in place will increase wholesale food prices by 34% and Canadians, by the Canadian food price index, will be seeing grocery prices go up $700 this year, so I would ask you to readjust.

Does amending Bill C-234 lower grocery prices?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I think you're exactly right.

Now, in your testimony, you outlined the costs and the risks of Bill C-234 if it does not pass. Those costs can go one of two ways: They can impact the bottom line of the producers or they can get passed along to the consumer, or it can be a combination thereof. Can you talk about the effects of both?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for all their testimony.

I'm going to start with the folks from my backyard: the greenhouse industry.

I'm going to start with a thank you. With the food price inflation we've experienced, your industry and members of your industry have been very generous in donating to local food banks with fresh produce, as well as donating to local food networks, so I'll start with a thank you. I hope that policies as we go forward don't increase the amount that's available to the food banks and that more can go into the stream.

I again want to begin with the carbon tax and with Bill C-234. In 2016, the greenhouse industry secured an 80% exemption from the carbon pricing. What was the logic behind that? Why did the government grant that exemption to the greenhouse industry?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I want to get to another question. I heard your opening comments about Bill C-234, and speaking for the NDP, I'll say we're supportive of the bill that was passed at third reading in the House of Commons.

I understand the costs that you associated with that, but we also had witnesses who explained that over the same time, they saw diesel costs go up 110% and that it's a time when we have seen record corporate profits in the oil and gas sector. We've seen record profits in the fertilizer sector as well. I feel that both primary producers and consumers were being hurt during a time when there was a lot of instability, but I also think that there were a lot of companies operating in the middle that took advantage of that instability.

I heard an interesting remark from Keith Currie, the president of the CFA. He made mention of the need for a critical input strategy. I know that this might be the first time you're encountering that term, but if as a committee we were to develop some kind of a recommendation for a critical input strategy, do you have any opening thoughts on some of the key things we could be focusing on with respect to that?

[George Gilvesy, Chair, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to present to you today on behalf of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers. I am here today with Mr. Richard Lee, our executive director.

OGVG represents over 170 greenhouse vegetable growers across the province, producing over 3,900 acres of tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers. The greenhouse vegetable sector is one of the fastest-growing segments of Canadian agriculture. Our members generate $1.4 billion in farm gate sales as of 2022, a contribution of over 14,000 jobs to the workforce and a consistent track record of growth. The sector is a valuable contributor to the Ontario and Canadian economy, and it is the future of farming in Canada that is capable of yielding over 20 times more than conventional field farming as we manage the evolution of climate change.

With over 81% of our product exported to the United States, we are an export-dependent sector providing fresh, nutritious produce to consumers across North America. Our dependency on export and trade was confirmed during the pandemic that defined the integration of the food system across North America. This dependency correlates to the need for alignment on policies that impact our ability to compete sustainably in the global marketplace while managing the crisis on food costs to the consumer.

Canada’s approach to climate change presents a major challenge to our growers. The escalating price on carbon only works where users can feasibly transition to alternative energy sources. These transitions and timelines face significant barriers with the lack of available technology and the limitations of public infrastructure, primarily in the electrical grid. Canada continues to penalize food producers, while the United States adopts incentivization to achieve its climate change goals through the Inflation Reduction Act and its various programs.

In 2024 our members will pay over $18 million in carbon tax, net of the 80% relief we currently receive. This is scheduled to be over $40 million by 2030 based on current production if the 80% relief is maintained. In summary, over a 10-year period, our members will have paid over $242 million in carbon tax.

Canada is not an island, and we have great concern that policies around carbon and plastics will influence the continued growth and investment in greenhouse production throughout Canada. Greenhouses will continue to be built to satisfy consumers' increasing needs for food security and fresh produce, but the question will be whether that investment takes place in a jurisdiction that penalizes food production or in one that provides incentives. In the interim, however, we would encourage the swift passage by the House of Commons of Bill C-234 in its original state.

For years, our members have been consciously looking at improving the packaging options for our products. We have embraced the use of packaging that is recyclable to protect the integrity of our produce, providing food safety and traceability while offering consumers new options on ready-to-eat healthy snack-size produce products.

We have serious concerns, again, about the imposition of plastics rules that ignore many of these positive attributes while also increasing food waste and the potential costs of produce by an estimated 34%—according to Deloitte—and while negatively impacting healthy eating habits. This plastics policy will create two different market requirements for the U.S. and for Canada, which may lead to products being unavailable to Canadian consumers if shippers no longer consider Canada to be a viable market for their products.

In the context of producing food, we would offer this: Does it make sense to institute policies and direct taxes that have the impact of increasing food costs? Everyone needs food, and we again would suggest that incentivizing change may provide a better approach and outcome.

We also have comments on a few other points.

OGVG strongly encourages the swift passage of Bill C-280, which is currently in front of the Senate. Financial security is a critical aspect to supporting farmers, and this bill supports a long-standing gap in the produce sector. In addition, it will provide a corrective action on a long-standing trade irritant with the United States.

OGVG advises that in the context of climate change, Canada should consider a North American perimeter strategy on pests and diseases.

Based on previous outdated pest assessments, the CFIA believes these organisms will not survive our cold winters, but the weather is changing, and so is the availability of hosts in the expansion of greenhouses and indoor agriculture. Our pest risk assessments should be re-evaluated.

As a final comment, Mr. Chair, greenhouse producers do not have access to production insurance, and our current safety nets are not representative of controlled environment agriculture. In addition, our experience with AgriRecovery has been dismal, in spite of multi-million-dollar losses and a great impact on our membership.

Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess I will just get straight to it. I move the motion that was submitted on Friday:

That, given that,

a) According to Statistics Canada: “In Saskatchewan, the collection of the carbon levy ceased in January 2024, contributing to the province's year-over-year price decline of natural gas (-26.6%).”; and

b) Saskatchewan's inflation rate dropped to 1.9%, a full percentage point below the national inflation rate,

The committee call on the Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax.

Given that this deals with a provincial matter, I think I would have support from Mr. Simard, in that provincial jurisdiction is a common theme for him.

I think it's imperative that we send the message to the House on behalf of this committee, especially since we heard testimony.... Well, we saw in the Order Paper question, and we've seen repeatedly, that the government doesn't actually track any emissions reductions from the carbon tax. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that it is not an emissions reduction scheme. It's just simply a tax and redistribution scheme.

Therefore, I think it would be good for this committee to really send a strong message that we support the resource sector and the development of the resource sector. Also, I think it would be great for the folks who pay their gas bills, their power utility bills, their fuel bills and their home heating bills to see that this committee takes the affordability crisis seriously.

It would also be for people who want to invest in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in Newfoundland in the offshore that removing this unnecessary tax that is.... It removes a competitive advantage that Canada has. I think it would be important for us to send that note.

Also, seeing that the House did pass Bill C-234 previously, I think it would be good to just be consistent with that theme, and I think that this motion would allow us to do that. I think the proof is in the pudding here when we look at what Statistics Canada has to say about the price decline on natural gas for ratepayers but also about what it did to inflation in Saskatchewan, which is now below the 2% target that the Bank of Canada set out.

Also, the CPI went down 0.1%, which is the first time it has actually trended downward since May 2020. I think that's a key factor, as well—seeing the impact it actually does have on consumers and seeing that the needle is moving in the right direction in Saskatchewan when it comes to affordability by simply axing the tax.

I think it would send a good message to people if the committee would just approve this quick, simple motion. We can send it to the House, and I think that would be a good, quick little report from this committee.

I don't think I have too much more to say. I think we have a good piece of legislation ahead of us. Obviously, we have some issues with Bill C-49 that we still wish the government would address. However, overall, it's important to my good colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, here, for his province to do some things that they want.

With that, I think I will wrap up my remarks.

Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that farmers are succeeding where the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition is failing. What is the farmers' reward for this? A 23% increase in the carbon tax on April 1.

Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax and reward farmers for those accomplishments. Do members know that wheat grown in Canada can travel around the world three and a half times before it has the same carbon footprint as wheat grown in Europe? Canadian farmers have accomplished this through innovation, not carbon taxes.

Will the Liberals finally admit they were wrong, pass Bill C-234 unamended and axe their plan to increase the carbon tax on April 1?

[Catherine Lefebvre]

We're much less affected by that in Quebec because we already have provincial framework legislation for carbon pricing.

So Bill C-234 will put us at a disadvantage if it's passed as proposed.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Thank you.

Now I'm going to turn to Bill C-234.

Once again this morning, I met some producers from your organization who asked us to restore Bill C-234 to its initial form. That, incidentally, was proposed in an amendment.

What's your view on the subject? What pressure could we exercise to put a stop to all the to-ing and fro-ing involved with this bill and to ensure it comes into force as soon as possible?

I imagine it'll have consequences for you as well.

Criminal Code

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, that was a passionate speech by the member. He spoke in particular about northern Canada, where maybe the resources are not the same as those Canadians enjoy in metro areas. He also brought up the Senate situation.

I think we are seeing in the House of Commons these days that we are having issues with the Senate, in particular with Bill C-234, which we have brought back several times here, and the MAID legislation. This is a concern. As the member said, they are not elected. They are appointed. It has caused some strain on families, not only with the MAID legislation but also for the agriculture sectors with Bill C-234.

I just wanted to point that out and have the member comment on the issues we are having with the Senate. It looks like we could have these issues for a number of years with the Senate, compared to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Kody Blois]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Lemaire, you know I'm supportive of BIll C-234. I supported it at the House level. You mentioned $22 million of carbon price-related costs. I believe four-fifths of on-farm costs are exempt, but for the one-fifth that's not, it's $22 million.

Can you quantify that in the size of the industry? Again, I'm sympathetic to this and I support it, but just for the committee's benefit, given $22 million in cost, how big is the greenhouse sector in the country in terms of—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Lemaire.

Mr. Spurr, you said you need help now to get through what could be another tough season. We're feeling the same in western Canada, with not much of a snowpack and with water always being an issue.

Bill C-234 would exempt the carbon tax from farms on natural gas and propane, specifically greenhouses, and for you in produce, exempt heating and drying of product in barns. It would immediately remove the carbon tax for you.

Would it be a benefit to you in your production, and to your colleagues in Nova Scotia, to remove that carbon tax from your bills?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thank you.

Obviously, we're also debating Bill C-234 in the House of Commons. There is a Senate amendment as part of that bill that removes the heating and cooling of barns from the exemption, as well as greenhouses.

What impact will that amendment on Bill C-234 have on the fruit and vegetable industry when you're talking about 44% of your members selling at a loss?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will do it right at the outset. I want to take this opportunity to wish a happy Valentine's Day to my wife, Ginette, and to my children, including my eldest, Geneviève, who is celebrating her birthday today.

It is always a pleasure to rise in this House. I want to thank the people of Beauce for giving me the privilege of representing them here. It has been over four years already.

Tonight's subject is very simple. As previous speakers so expertly explained, Bill C‑234, which was passed by a majority of members of this House, was sent to the Senate and returned to us with an amendment that effectively gutted it.

For farmers—I was a farmer for over 50 years, which dates me somewhat, but I wanted to mention it anyway—heating farm buildings is very important. Just last weekend, I was speaking with some old acquaintances in the pork industry about how barn heating is a major issue, especially in my region. We all know what happened last year in Beauce. In December 2023, the Olymel pork processing plant closed down, putting 992 people out of work. There are very serious consequences.

Independent pork and chicken farmers back home are strongly impacted by everything related to Bill C‑234 and the barn heating exemption. My Bloc Québécois colleagues will say that I am wrong, but I would suggest that they go talk to pork, chicken and egg farmers in their ridings and see for themselves that there is actually a tax charged on their bills. This tax is for heating their buildings with propane. Quebec does not produce any propane; it has to come from outside the province. This has consequences for people.

Under this Liberal government, production costs have skyrocketed because of the infamous carbon tax that we have been talking about for months. Members opposite do not seem to grasp the consequences that this can have for agriculture and particularly for farmers. Farmers are having a really hard time making ends meet. They are struggling with supply chains. Everything costs more. We can talk about input costs, including the tax on fertilizers that was introduced just over a year and a half ago and that affects every farmer. Their burden keeps growing all the time.

I find it hard to understand how people here in the House can fail to see that farmers feed us. They are not out to destroy the planet. I was a farmer by trade. I was a fourth-generation farmer. Right now, the fifth generation is running the family farm. When I think back on my grandfather and my great-grandfather, I am sure that they were not farming because they wanted to destroy the planet. They farmed to produce food and feed a growing population. We have fewer and fewer farmers. Maybe it is high time that this Parliament thought long and hard about its actions and provided a lot more support to our farmers.

Farmers have to cope with factors beyond their control. In this case, however, we do have some control over taxes. All we are asking for is an exemption from the carbon tax for the propane and natural gas used to heat buildings. We are talking about heating buildings, but we are also talking about greenhouses, which also use propane gas. We are talking about vegetables, pork and chicken, things we eat on a very regular basis. Just today, I was looking at the lunch menu. Chicken is on a lot of menus.

With that in mind, it is really important that we think about supporting our farmers. They feed the planet, and Canada first and foremost. As I have said many times in committee, agriculture is a very important economic driver, but unfortunately, it is underestimated and overlooked on a regular basis. We should make the most of the wealth that Canada can contribute through its agriculture and diversity. From Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario to the western provinces and British Columbia, every farm makes an important contribution to our food supply.

I am also saddened to see a significant increase in input costs, as I mentioned earlier. In my region, Beauce, food bank use has increased by over 30% in the last six months. Is this acceptable? Of course not. If we want to support our citizens, we have to provide them with affordable food. One of the quickest ways to make prices more affordable is to help producers, our farmers who produce this food. That is really important.

I would like to send a very clear message to all my colleagues in the House of Commons. Yes, the Senate sent us an amendment. What we are asking the House to do, given that Bill C-234 was previously passed, is to return to the full version, which includes heating for buildings, greenhouses and grain drying.

This is what I am asking of my colleagues, and I implore them to grant my request. I urged farmers from across Canada to contact their MPs to really make them aware of the importance of restoring this bill to its original form, with the provision removing the carbon tax from heating and grain drying.

This bill also included a review in eight years' time. The amendment reduces that to three years. At present, there is no alternative after the changes have been made. We will still have to debate it in the House three years from now. Let us at least restore this bill to its original form and suspend the tax on propane and natural gas for at least the next eight years.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support Canadian agriculture. We just celebrated agriculture day, which shows how important it is. We could take care of this very easily here in the House by voting for the amendment proposed by my colleagues so that we can pass Bill C‑234 in its original form as soon as possible, because we experience groundhog day on a regular basis. We send Bill C‑234 to the Senate, we think it will be passed, but it comes back to the House with more than half of its capacity cut out, and they think that is going to help our agriculture industry.

In closing, I urge my colleagues from all parties to think about agriculture and our farmers who work hard every day.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that we are here tonight debating what is effectively a gutted Bill C-234.

Just to remind everyone at home, this bill would have provided a billion dollars' worth of relief to farmers in this country by exempting them on the carbon tax. In fact, members may recall that this bill passed through the House with all of the opposition parties voting for it. There were five Liberal members who voted for it, but the rest of the Liberal caucus voted against it, and it is unbelievable that they would actually vote against carbon tax relief for Canadian farmers and farm families who produce and create so much food security in this country. I think it was frankly an embarrassment to see this go on during that time.

However, the worst part about it was that it went through the House, as I mentioned, and it passed, so it went to committee. The Liberal members of that committee tried to move amendments in committee that were rejected by the majority of the opposition parties, and the bill ended up at the Senate. The Senate then, as a result of coercion and what some would say were bullying tactics by the radical, extremist environment minister and the Prime Minister, who by media accounts really strong-armed so-called “independent” senators who had been appointed by the Prime Minister, reintroduced those amendments back into the bill, and this is what we are dealing with today.

A billion dollars' worth of relief has been lost for Canadian farmers. I know members have heard this many times, but when we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the transporter who transports the food, it is eventually the end consumer who ends up paying the cost, and that is what is happening in this case.

Let me tell members about Barrie—Innisfil. I am so fortunate to represent a riding that is a mix of urban and rural, and I would argue that that split is probably about 60-40, but we have farmers in Innisfil who are some of the best environmentally sustainable farmers, if not just across the country, then around the world.

Horodynsky Farms is the largest onion farmer in the country. Boris Horodynsky, who is of Ukrainian decent, uses the most influential technology we can find, drone technology, to make sure his land is sustainable. Kell Farms is one of the largest privately held farms in all of Ontario. We have Wardlaw's Poultry Farm, Barrie Hill Farms and Hewitt Creek Farm. We have some other producers who are greenhouse producers, such as Lakeview Gardens and Bradford Greenhouses. Every single one of those farms I represent in Barrie—Innisfil would be paying more because of what the Senate has done to this bill, complicit with the government.

It is a shame because one of the things we need to focus on, coming out of COVID, and it should be the number one priority in this country, in addition to energy security, is food security. We need to make sure that our producers are producing enough food so that we are not dependent on other aspects of the world, other despot nations or other big countries, bigger countries than Canada, for food.

This food security is being threatened. Those farms I described before, along with Eisses Poultry Farm, which is a chicken farm in my riding, are multi-generational farms, and the more these costs increase for these farms and farm families, the more at risk they are going to be in providing that food security for our nation.

The risk will come from industrialized farms, the big conglomerates. We have a couple of them here in Canada, but there are those farms globally. What happens when these farms no longer exist in this country? What happens when these farm families are put at risk as the result of an ideological attack by the government with its imposing and implementing the carbon tax? It puts all of our food security at risk. This is not to mention the fact that it increases costs, and I know many of the speakers before me have talked about that.

I will give an example. I was thinking about this as I was preparing for this discussion tonight. Earlier today, I had what every Canadian has had. Many members probably had it for lunch today. I had a clubhouse sandwich, and I looked at the ingredients of that clubhouse sandwich. I looked at the whole wheat bread, as I am trying to eat healthy, the tomatoes and the bacon, which came from pigs in those heated barns and is now going to cost more. I also looked at the lettuce, which is grown in those greenhouses and is now going to cost more as a result of paying to heat those greenhouses.

All of those costs are going to be added on. It will be an extra $910 million cost to the farmers as a result of the Senate amendments that have come back to this place. It is going to cost every Canadian family more, at a time when food insecurity is at its greatest. We are hearing that two million people are going to the food bank every month in this country because they cannot afford the cost of groceries, and seniors are walking into the Stroud I.G.A. or the Zehrs at Big Bay Point, looking at the food and at the price, and then putting the food back because they cannot afford it.

The government and its complicit senators are putting at risk that food security. They are putting at risk the ability of Canadians to be able to afford food.

As I said at the outset, this is not a controversial bill. In Atlantic Canada, we have seen a carve-out, because it was politically expedient for the Liberal government to carve out the carbon tax and allow an exemption because they were feeling the political heat of the cost of the carbon tax in Atlantic Canada.

What the member for Huron—Bruce did by proposing this bill was to provide that relief for those farmers who are producing our food and are producing food security. I do not think it is too much to ask. This is why we are here tonight, to talk to the government and the other opposition parties, and to tell them to support the bill in its original form, particularly the opposition parties, because they did, when it was brought to this place. When it went to committee, they voted against those amendments. That is all we are asking for, to be able to provide that relief to Canadian farmers and Canadian farm families.

The other aspect of this is really concerning. I have a restaurant in my riding and I recently spoke to the owner. I was sent their gas bill, and the federal carbon charge was noted on that gas bill. Without giving the name, they sell chickens, they sell a lot of chickens. The federal carbon charge on that bill was $1,413 for one month. Let us assume they work off 10% margins. They would have to sell another $14,000 worth of chicken, plus HST, as I am reminded by our agricultural critic, just to pay the carbon tax.

Now, as I mentioned before, we have Eisses Farm, chicken farms, a large chicken operation, in southwestern Ontario. Every single one of those producers will be paying the carbon tax as a result of the fact that this bill has been gutted in the Senate.

That is going to increase costs, not just for those restaurants, but for every single family in this country who is thinking about buying chicken, fruit, vegetables or anything grown or heated in this country. That is all the member for Huron—Bruce was trying to avoid in this bill. It was to give some relief to the farmers so that the consumers could get some relief at a time when we need relief.

This is not going to stop. This is a radical, ideologically left-leaning, activist government that believes that the carbon tax is the solution to fighting climate change. It is going to go up four times by the time it is done. People are going to be paying four times more. Producers are going to be paying four times more.

I stand here tonight, not just for those farms and farm families, but for every single person that I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, to fight to make life more affordable for them.

Before I stop, I do want to wish my wife, Liane a very happy Valentine's Day.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendments to Bill C-234 have drastically changed the contents of the original bill that this House passed with support from multiple parties. It would basically have reduced the tax bill for farmers by about a billion dollars, savings that would have been passed on to my constituents whose greatest relationship with farmers is when they go to the grocery store to buy Canadian produce, Canadian goods that they need to eat. Now these things will not be cheaper because the government seems intent on making sure amendments that the government engineered on the so-called independent Liberal senators are now being reflected in a bill that would remove exemptions for barns and greenhouses, and changes the original sunset clause.

That is pretty typical of the government's actions. It does by stealth what should be done in public, transparently. The government should own the changes it is making to the legislation, but it does not want to do that. I would be embarrassed as well if I were trying to take food out of the mouths of people all over the country. Food banks have reported record-high numbers of Canadians using them to feed their families. The bill before us was intended to lower the cost of groceries.

For all of those people in the riding of Calgary Shepard who are going to be watching this, I say that the bill would lower their bills. It would lower grocery bills. It would lower their Costco bill. People go to the East Hills Costco or the Heritage Costco. Many people in my riding go to the Okotoks Costco because it is actually closer than most of the other Costco stores and grocery stores in my area. However, the Liberals seem to be fully intent on making sure that the carbon tax has the maximum impact on the monthly budget of my constituents, for the worse, not for the better.

None of these farmers gets a rebate of any sort to offset some of the costs of their farm operations. That is the economic damage that the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated. Even with the rebates, everybody in Alberta is going to be worse off, or is worse off as of now, because of the carbon tax.

The bill would not address that, but it would at least relieve some of the pain that farmers are feeling. Some of them have a thousand dollars or tens of thousands of dollars extra per month in bills; it depends on the particular farm operation. What we know is that the vast majority of farmers are supplying goods, produce and food, that people in Canada are going to eat, and they are going to be more expensive unless the bill passes without the terrible Senate amendments.

We have heard other members say that the environment minister made phone calls to senators. The Prime Minister, according to media reports, was reaching out to so-called independent Liberal senators to get them to amend the bill and force it back to the House, delaying it and therefore delaying lower grocery prices in our stores.

After eight long years, people in my riding just cannot afford this anymore. They cannot afford the Prime Minister's carbon tax. The rebate is not helping in any way, shape or form. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as I said, that bills are up; they are higher, and it is doing damage to the economy.

The Liberals seem to think that he who cannot pay should learn to pray, to paraphrase a Yiddish proverb. That is essentially what they are saying to everybody in my riding and to every single farmer out there who is now going to be struggling to figure out how they can make their farm operation profitable for another year. How can they keep it running to be able to pass it on to their kids for the next generation? Is it even worth it? Countless members of the House have given examples of farmers who are set to give up. They just do not see how they can make their farm operation work with crushing bills that continue to get higher.

I hope everybody is learning how to pray, because that is essentially the message the Liberal government is sending to everyone. The Liberals just do not care. They are fine with putting a $1-billion bill on the backs of farmers, expecting them to pass it on to consumers. Consumers will then do the logical thing when they cannot afford food: They are going to buy less food, and then they are going to go to the food bank to make up the difference, because they have to eat. It is a necessity, so that is what is going to happen. They seem to be fine with that on that side of the House.

I thought there had been consensus that the original version of Bill C-234 was the right bill and that this House had told the Senate that we wanted it in a particular format. On spending and tax matters, it is not up to the Senate to tell us, the representatives of the people, elected every four to five years depending when the federal elections are, that people do not get the credit, tax relief or spending measures we wanted.

That is not the Senate's job. Its job, when it comes to bills such as this on the reduction of costs, on taxes and on tax credits, and especially getting rid of the carbon tax, should be to get out of the way. This House should vote down these Senate amendments. We should go back to the original version of Bill C-234, and the Senate should pass it expeditiously.

I have not had a single constituent tell me that they think it is a great idea to keep paying high grocery bills. Nobody has told me that Bill C-234 should have serious amendments to eliminate things such as barn heating and greenhouses. They would also question, and many residents in my riding have, such things as why people with home heating oil in eastern Canada get a discount, but people in my riding who heat with natural gas do not get one on their natural gas bills or their really high carbon tax bills.

They see the politicization of this and the temporary nature of the heating oil suspension on the carbon tax, which is now very similar to what is going to happen with these Senate amendments in Bill C-234. In three years, it would go back up. Even if this passes, what happens then? There could be a federal election by then. This is essentially the same game the government is playing, but it is using its so-called independent Liberal senators to get through this difficult period. We see it in the polls.

I see the polls too. I do not pay attention to them very closely; the only ones that matter are those on voting day. However, I know the Liberals are probably panicking. They are about 16 or 19 points behind, depending on the poll one looks at. Farmers and people in my riding, and there is a great Yiddish word for it, are farharghet. It is a way to say exhausted and worn out. They are worn out by this debate on the carbon tax. It is obviously causing damage throughout the economy, and it has raised the prices of basic goods and necessities. They are farharghet; they are tired of having this debate continue when we know that people want the tax to be axed. They want the carbon tax to go away in full.

The Liberals refuse to do that. I invite them to call a federal election. Let us have one right now. We will call it the “axe-the-tax election”, and Canadians can make up their minds. They can decide which side is correct. Do they want high grocery prices or not? In the meantime, we should get rid of these Senate amendments, send the bill back to the other place and have it pass the original bill. It is a tax-and-spend measure. Constitutionally, the Senate has no right to do this.

I have a lot of ranchers and farmers who actually choose to retire in my riding. It is an affordable place to live compared with some other places in Alberta and throughout Canada. A lot of the condos are actually filled with farmers who retired to be closer to their families. Their farm operations continue with their kids, but they have chosen to retire somewhere small. Their daughters and their sons continue the operations. They like to travel. They have earned it. After 30 or 40 years of farming or ranching, they have earned a bit of rest.

Everybody back home in my riding of Calgary Shepard, and throughout Calgary, should all start calling senators and members of Parliament. They do not have to call me; I am already convinced. I am good. I will vote the way my constituents want. However, they should be calling Liberal and NDP members of Parliament in Alberta, and they should let their views be known politely. They should tell their friends, co-workers and suppliers to call MPs and senators, telling them to pass this bill without the Senate amendments and return it to the original version.

Taxpayers, Canadian voters and farmers deserve a billion-dollar break on their bills, on their groceries, at the end of the month. Grocery prices will come down thanks to bills such as Bill C-234, and it has to happen. As I said, my constituents arefarharghet. It is an exhausting debate to keep having to convince Liberal MPs and the others in the coalition, the NDP, that this will lead to lower grocery prices; the carbon tax has been punishing them for years now.

I hope members on the other side will see the righteousness of the cause, pray on it and vote down these Senate amendments.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and defend and work hard for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot and, specifically, tonight, the hard-working farmers from east central Alberta and coast to coast.

I would be remiss if I did not say a very happy Valentine's Day to my sweetheart Danielle. I am not sure if she is watching, but I love her and I hope that she and those three boys are able to enjoy Valentine's Day back in Alberta.

We are talking about Bill C-234, a common-sense Conservative bill that would eliminate the carbon tax for many of the essential aspects of the work that our hard-working farmers and ranchers from coast to coast pay for and that ultimately drives up the price of their operations.

What is really unfortunate, in this entire process, is that this is where the Liberals lose the plot.

I am honoured to be the fifth generation on my family farm in Alberta's special areas. I know so many classmates and people I have gotten to know across the country since getting elected.

I want to reference, specifically, a young lady named Mady from Saskatchewan. I believe she is 12 years old. She told this story recently in an interview in New York. Her story is an incredible one. She was asked a true-or-false question during a test in school about whether farming was bad for the environment. She knew that the teacher expected the answer to be true. She marked that but put a frowning face beside the answer.

As Mady describes, and I believe she was eight years old at the time, it was this that inspired her and her parents. I have chatted with Mady and her mom. She has had the opportunity to speak to the ministers, the previous minister of agriculture and, I believe, the current Minister of Agriculture, and to advocate for farmers across the country and now even around the world. She knew that it was essential to get the message out about the value, the ability and the solutions that Canadian agriculture brings.

Where the Liberals lose the plot is summed up in a bumper sticker. I know that the Liberals hate when we use slogans, but this is not something that I created. This is something that I have seen on bumper stickers and the back windows of many trucks, minivans and tractors across my constituency. It is: “No farmers. No food. Know farmers. Know food.”

This is where the Liberals have lost the plot. They are blaming the very people and they are punishing the very people who are able to solve the problem that our country faces.

I received an email just the other day from a local food bank operator in Flagstaff County. Lynn told me I could share this story. She shared how tragic it was that there were a number of instances where, when individuals come into the food bank, they are lying about the number of people in their homes and where they live.

One would say, “That is not good.” It is never good to lie, right? We are taught that. One has to ask why they are lying. It is because they are hungry. These people, these families, are hungry. In some cases, they are so hungry that they have no choice but to go from food bank to food bank in order to be able to feed themselves.

Where the Liberals have lost the plot is that they blame farmers and believe that punishing them and all Canadians is the solution to somehow helping those individuals who are, in some cases, starving, as Lynn shared with me just the other day.

Instead, the solution is very simple, if one reduces costs for those who produce the food. Like I mentioned the other day, at every step of the food supply chain, one can reduce, ultimately, the price of food for Canadians. That is where we are. We have a simple, common-sense solution. We can get Bill C-234 across the finish line, as it was intended, and allow farmers to get to work, so they can reduce the price of food, and Canadians can afford to eat.

However, the problem is that we saw unprecedented political manipulation by the Prime Minister, the Liberals, and the criminal, socialist, activist of an excuse of an environment minister that we have. This was manipulation at an unprecedented scale, showcasing how the so-called independent Senate is anything but.

We saw the Liberals' carbon pricing scheme, which is now admittedly a failure. In fact, just today they announced they are rebranding it; it is so misunderstood. They do not even trace the emissions that it has reduced because they cannot see that it has even helped the environment in this country. Can members imagine an environmental platform that does not help the environment? What kind of absurdity is this?

We see that the Liberals saw that their carbon tax scheme was falling apart and that the scam was being seen for what it truly is: a scam. The Liberals put on the full-court press and pushed the Senate to pass a number of amendments that gutted the bill. It would have been common-sense relief to farmers. They could have worked at lowering the price of food for all Canadians, but instead, they played politics with the hungry stomachs of Canadians. That is the sad reality. As a result, we are seeing the consequences.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the coalition that is ruling this country would agree to pass Bill C-234, unamended, we could get to work and could see that amended.

For all the farmers and producers watching, the question is simple. They should reach out to their Liberal, NDP or Bloc member of Parliament. Tell them that it is time to do the common-sense thing and to pass Bill C-234, unamended, so that we can provide that much-needed relief for farmers so that they can do what is truly required to ultimately lower the price of food for Canadians.

We have heard from all parties, I believe, this week about Canada's Agriculture Day. It is interesting that there is only one party in this country that truly stands for our hard-working farmers and ranchers, and that is the Conservative Party. Here is the offer I would make, as a farmer and a parliamentarian, as somebody who cares deeply about the agricultural sector and about the hunger crisis that has been caused by the Liberals, the failed carbon tax, the inflation and all the dynamics leading to that; let us get to work to pass Bill C-234. We can show Canadians this thing called “leadership”.

My fear is that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the NDP who is just as weak and, it seems, just as corrupt because he is certainly propping up the corruption of the Liberals, and the members of the Bloc Québécois, seem clueless as to how they are impacted by this carbon tax, by the national mechanisms associated with it and by the national impact associated with it.

Let us pass Bill C-234 in its original form, and demonstrate to Canadians that common sense still exists in this country for the thousands of farmers I represent, who depend on common sense for their daily operations. I see a number of rural MPs. In fact, I think everybody who seems to be left in this debate represents at least part of a rural constituency.

Common sense rules on the farm. It rules in rural Canada, so let us see common sense rule in this place so that we can bring home lower food prices for Canadians. The question is simple: Will those other parties pass Bill C-234 to bring home lower prices and axe the tax?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's hard-working farmers produce safe and nutritious foods that we depend on to feed our communities. They are vital to our food security. Not only do our farmers feed Canadian families, but also they help feed the world. However, the carbon tax-obsessed Prime Minister and his Liberal government do not value the work our farmers do day in and day out. If the Prime Minister did value their work, the Liberal government would not be hell-bent on imposing a costly and punishing carbon tax on our farmers, threatening the viability of their farm businesses.

My Conservative colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, introduced what was a common-sense bill to remove the carbon tax from farm operations. The Parliamentary Budget Officer determined that the bill would save farmers $1 billion by 2030. That is $1 billion that the Liberals want to take from the bottom line of our farmers. Without the support of the Liberal government, Bill C-234 did pass through this chamber onto the Senate, but now we find ourselves, in the chamber, considering a gutted bill that would not provide the relief our farmers so desperately need.

It is absolutely shameful that the Prime Minister would use his appointed senators to delay and to gut Bill C-234. This carbon tax-obsessed Prime Minister and his environment minister browbeat senators to bend to their ideological will. That is not how good public policy is developed. The removal of barns and greenhouses from the carbon tax exemption, and the shortening of the sunset clause, stops well short of what this bill was trying to achieve.

To be clear, there was no outcry for any of these amendments from farmers or farm organizations representing them. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Farmers and farm groups from across the spectrum of commodities have been absolutely unified in their support for the quick passage of this bill in its original form, just as the premiers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario have also been doing. They all understand how punishing the Liberal carbon tax is on Canadians and on our Canadian farmers.

It is also worth noting that the Senate amendments are not even new proposals. The Senate amendments mirror proposals that were already put forward in the House of Commons agriculture and agri-food committee by Liberal members of Parliament. These amendments were rightly rejected. To reintroduce these rejected ideas through an unelected Senate undermines the will of the elected members in the House. The bill, in its original form, recognized the valuable contributions that farmers across Canada are already making to protect the environment.

Canada's farmers are deeply committed to being good stewards of the land. It has always been a cornerstone of farming practices, not only because their livelihoods depend on this, but also because it is in their DNA to care for the work they do. Canada's farmers are world leaders in sustainability and innovation. They are always looking to improve their productivity and to do more with less. Through technology and innovation, our farmers have already reduced their environmental impact, improved their efficiency, and are conserving water and soil.

There is so much to celebrate in Canadian agriculture. I would even argue the Canadian government should be championing our farmers. Instead, the Liberal government is punishing them. It is punishing Canadian farmers with its costly carbon tax that does nothing to protect the environment.

Saskatchewan grain farmers have calculated that grain farmers in Saskatchewan can expect to lose 8% of their total net income to the carbon tax. That is around $8,000 to $10,000 on a 5,000-acre farm.

The carbon tax bills of our farmers are also not small amounts, and they are certainly not offset by a rebate. They are paying thousands and tens of thousands of dollars to operate. Of course, we cannot forget the Liberal government is not satisfied with the current rate of the carbon tax; it wants to quadruple it, and that includes for our farmers and for all Canadians.

The government's activist-driven agenda ignores all the evidence that the carbon tax is fuelling the affordability crisis in our country and that it is hurting those who can afford it the least the most, all while doing absolutely nothing to bring emissions down.

The April 1 carbon tax hike will squeeze Canadians even tighter, and it will be an even bigger hit to the bottom line for our farmers. When the operating costs of farm businesses outpace their profits, we absolutely cannot expect that our farm businesses will stay operational. That is a threat to food security in Canada, and frankly, no government should take that lightly.

The fact is that millions of Canadians are already going hungry in our country because they cannot afford the basics of groceries. That is shameful in a country like ours, with an abundance of natural resources, but that is the legacy of the Liberal government and its carbon tax.

While farmers do absorb a lot of costs, and we have heard this before in the House, the reality is that when one taxes the farmer who grows the food, one taxes the trucker who ships the food and one taxes the grocer who sells that food, it is only common sense that Canadians who buy that food are stuck with higher bills at the checkout.

It is disgusting that the Liberal government wants to increase the cost of groceries during an affordability crisis. When two million Canadians visited a food bank in a single month, just last year, the Liberal government's solution is to increase the cost of food. Its NDP coalition partners are fully in support of the April 1 tax hike, a carbon tax that disproportionately impacts our farmers and rural Canadians.

Without the passage of Bill C-234 in its original form, it is a carbon tax that will make it impossible for our farmers to adopt innovative practices when they become available.

At the end of the day, if the Liberal government wants to tax our farm businesses to death, there are no funds left for them to invest in new innovative and sustainable practices. The reality is that their farm operations still require the use of natural gas and propane. It does not make sense to punish them for their reliance on those energy sources when there is no practical or appropriate alternative.

Yesterday marked Canada's Agriculture Day. It was an opportunity to celebrate Canadian agriculture and to show our appreciate for our hard-working farmers and producers. Our farmers need more than platitudes and empty words from the Minister of Agriculture and the Liberal government. They need a government that recognizes and values the contributions our farmers make to our Canadian food security, to our global food security, to our economy and to the environment.

Bill C-234 is an opportunity for every member of the House to put their appreciation for Canadian farmers and farm families into practice. This bill, as amended by the Senate, would undermine the entire purpose, and we must reject the harmful Senate amendments put forward by the so-called “independent” senators and stand up for Canadian farmers and farm families.

I want to urge every farmer watching today to contact Liberal MPs and Bloc MPs, and tell them to reject this carbon tax assault on their farm families, farm businesses and farm operations.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we are again at the eleventh hour. The government has waited on something that it has to put in place; otherwise, on March 17, people whose only condition is a mental illness will be able to apply for medical assistance in dying.

The Liberals are not virgins in the parliamentary process. They understand very well that, typically, for a bill to go through three readings in the House and through committee meetings, and then go to the red chamber, where a similar number of readings and committee meetings take place, takes about 18 months. If there is goodwill among all parties and we agree, it may be six months. It is ludicrous to me that less than two months before the deadline, the government put forward this legislation. It is really putting a gun to the head of opposition members, because if we decide not to pass the bill, on March 17 people who suffer only from a mental illness will be able to receive medical assistance in dying.

I have a lot of compassion for people suffering from mental illness. In many cases, they have suicidal thoughts and are not full of hope for the future, so it is easy for them to say in despair that there is no way out. However, a lot of people get better and go on to live full lives. They are not in a place where they can really take that decision.

It is not the first time the government has waited until the last minute. I remember when the medical assistance in dying legislation in Bill C-14 was introduced, there was a lot of pressure for us to get along and pass the bill. I would have more confidence if it were not for the fact that the government continually brings forward legislation that is unconstitutional. Then it goes through the courts to the Supreme Court and, like Bill C-69, is declared unconstitutional. The bill for the welfare of indigenous children was also declared unconstitutional. It is our job to give due process to bills and to make sure they are a good idea, rather than just rubber-stamping them and passing them along.

I do not want to have the consequence that people who are mentally ill would receive MAID if we do not pass this legislation in time, but we have no guarantee that the Senate is not going to delay the bill. There was a question for the member who gave the last speech about how the Senate may choose to block the bill. That would delay it even further and we would not make the timeline. It is not a sure thing that the bill is going to get across the line.

We have to look back to the Carter decision. We spent a lot of time talking about what the response would be, and it was the court's order that the criteria be an irremediable condition with imminent death. That is the path we started on. I was very concerned at the time because every recommendation from the special committee that studied this said that without good-quality palliative care, one really does not have a choice.

At that point in time, I found out that only 30% of Canadians had access to palliative care. That is what prompted me to bring forward my private member's bill to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians. That bill unanimously passed in the House. Since then, we have doubled access, from 30% to almost 60%, which is a great thing, but there is more to go. If people do not have good-quality palliative care, they really do not have a real choice.

The government needs to refocus itself. I saw in the report that after five years of progress on palliative care, there are still identified gaps. The government needs to pursue that with passion and aggressiveness because that is the answer. If people have good-quality palliative care, they do not choose medical assistance in dying, and that applies everywhere. I met today with some of the representatives from palliative care, and they informed me that when people go to hospice, nine out of 10 of them are asking for medical assistance in dying, but very few of them actually take advantage of it once they experience palliative care.

Why are nine out of 10 of them asking for medical assistance in dying? It is because the doctors are recommending it, and I do not have any confidence that the safeguards that were supposed to be in place are actually being adhered to. A doctor from the Liberal Party who spoke before me cited five examples that he is aware of where clearly people did not meet the conditions but were given medical assistance in dying.

Canada is on a very slippery slope. If we look at the history of countries that have implemented medical assistance in dying, the Netherlands was sort of at the forefront, and it took a while for it to experience a rise in the percentage of people who were dying from medical assistance in dying. However, last year in Canada, 4% of people who died did so by medical assistance in dying. We set a world record. We are top of the charts on killing people with medical assistance in dying.

I think this is absolutely the wrong direction, so to broaden medical assistance in dying to include people who are mentally ill is absolutely ill-informed, at the very least. I would say, without being insensitive, that people who are mentally ill are actually able to kill themselves. Sadly, in their despair, many of them are taking their lives every day. They do not need the government to enable them.

The Conservatives warned the government, when this ill-advised amendment came from the Senate, that this would happen. Instead of realizing the mistake and backing off, the Liberal government is kicking the can down the road for another three years, where the next government will deal with it, instead of recognizing that this is not a good idea.

Doctors are saying that 50% of the time they cannot even identify whether somebody's condition, when they suffer from mental illness, is irremediable. If that is the case, then half of the time, they are going to kill someone who might have gotten better. This is a totally bad idea. The government should stand up, say it realizes the mistake it has made and that it should have introduced legislation to eliminate that mistake. However, that is not where we are today. Today, here we are: If we do not make a decision and pass the bill in a hurry, people with mental illness are going to start dying from MAID on March 17.

I would say that there is a lot scope creep that has been suggested. Where do we stop? There has been a suggestion that if we approve those with mental illness, maybe minors should be added, or maybe the option of advance directive should be added. It looks like the solution to all of these things is death. We hear that homeless people are requesting medical assistance in dying. We hear that veterans are being advised to take medical assistance in dying. This is just scope creep and broadening who is dying in this way, without having proper controls in place. I do not think that is acceptable.

One of the things that has been totally ignored is the conscience rights of doctors. The federal government will always say it did not preclude that in its bill, but the fact is that provinces are forcing medical doctors and nurses to participate, even if it is against their religion and their conscience rights, and the federal government has done nothing to correct that situation. That is a problem.

The other thing I would say is that in the creep that is happening, they have created an express lane for the disabled. It is disgusting to the disabled community and disgusting to me that they would say that if someone is disabled, they should go to the front of the line. For the vulnerable, the mentally ill and the disabled, we need to protect those people; we need to stand up for their rights and know that we can give them hope.

I do not agree with the way this was brought forward. I think the government should have appealed the Truchon decision. When Quebec decided this needed to happen, the government should have said no, that it had thought about it, studied it and spent a long time on it. It should have said it was going to appeal that decision, because what it brought in at the beginning was at least better than the scope creep we are seeing now.

I have talked about the many examples of things that are not good with the legislation. Obviously, I do not want to see anymore people die. I will definitely work with the government to see the legislation pass as speedily as possible, and I encourage it to use the same leverage it used on Bill C-234 to help its Liberal-appointed senators do what it wants. I hope it does the same on this bill and that it receives speedy passage, and that we do not have people with mental illness being killed by the government.

Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is a number that most Canadians care about: two million Canadians are going to a food bank every single month. However, today is Canada's Agriculture Day, and how do the Liberals celebrate? By increasing the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, but it gets worse. We now know that the amendments to Bill C-234, pushed through by Liberal-appointed senators, would increase costs on farmers by $200 million. This Conservative common-sense bill in its original form would save farmers a billion dollars by 2030.

For Canada's Agriculture Day, will the Prime Minister celebrate with me and axe this tax on farmers to make food more affordable?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Prime Minister's priority is higher taxes and not food affordability. He can find $60 million for his ArriveCAN app, but he needs to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers and food. We are hearing the plea from Canadian families who want to axe the tax to make food affordable. I was in Sudbury this week meeting with organizers of food banks that are at a breaking point as demand has doubled and is rising. There is a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, which would give a carbon tax carve-out for farmers and lower the price of food. This Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will he cancel his plans to increase the carbon tax on April 1 so Canadians can feed themselves?

Carbon Tax

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had it with the NDP-Liberal government that continues to bankrupt this country with each passing day. After eight years of irresponsible leadership, the Prime Minister, who wasted over $60 billion on his arrive scam app, is now asking Canadians for even more of their hard-earned money through the carbon tax, which is set to increase a whopping 23% this coming April.

This quadrupling of the carbon tax will increase prices on everything from food to fuel to home heating, and Canadians are tired of being left out in the cold. Due to the current cost of living crisis, many Canadians have been left wondering how they are going to put food on the table, especially given that the average family of four will pay $700 more for groceries in 2024 than they did last year. It is simple: when we tax the farmer who grows the food and we tax the trucker who ships the food, we are taxing the Canadian who buys the food.

The Liberals need to pass Bill C-234 in its original form, and support the farmers and families who deserve better than a Prime Minister who is simply not worth the cost.

Carbon Pricing

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost of groceries. A University of Saskatchewan study said that Canadian farmers have at least 60% fewer emissions than the average of the world. I attended an irrigation conference this week with hundreds of farmers, such as Rob, who told me it costs him tens of thousands of dollars in the carbon tax to operate his irrigation. There is no rebate, and they all want it gone.

When will the NDP-Liberals give farmers and families a break, pass Bill C-234 and axe the tax?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals love to try to distract their way out of this, but this is not Monopoly. There are no more “get out of jail free” cards for the environment minister. The price of food is at record levels, and the NDP government just does not care.

Just this week, Sylvain Charlebois, Canada's leading food expert, called on the Liberals to suspend the carbon tax on the entire food industry. Instead, the cover-up coalition plans to increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1.

Bill C-234 would provide relief for farmers and Canadian consumers, yet the radical environment minister told senators to gut it.

My question is simple: Which senators did he call and how did they vote on Bill C-234?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are determined to increase the price of food, with the environment minister making it his personal mission to kill Bill C-234. He admitted to lobbying six senators to gut the bill, and he promised to reveal those names. After 49 days, he gave the names of three, not six, senators. While I know the Liberals are not good at math, it is clear he provided misleading information, so this week I invited the Minister of Environment to our committee to explain himself, but the NDP-Liberal coalition shut it down because it does not want the truth.

Let me ask it here: Why is the environment minister going to such great lengths to hide the names of the senators he personally lobbied to gut Bill C-234?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest petition in Canadian history proves that person wrong. Ray Orb of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities has indicated that our farmers can expect to lose 8% of their total net income if the carbon tax is quadrupled this spring. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost to our growers, our truckers and everyone who is struggling to put healthy food on the table of their family.

Will the Prime Minister choose a death knell, alienating Canadians even further, or will he grab a lifeline and support Bill C-234?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is rich coming from the government that relentlessly lobbied senators to block Bill C-234. Bill C-234 would remove the carbon taxes from the farmers who grow our food. We know inflation is hitting Canadians hard; whether it is housing, the cost of fuel or food, everything is getting more expensive under the NDP-Liberal government. After eight years, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

The only way Canadians will get the tax relief they deserve is by electing a common-sense Conservative government.

When will the Liberals call the election so we can axe the tax?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, farmers across the country are struggling under the punishing carbon tax.

Melissa, a farmer in my area, paid over $6,000 in carbon taxes just to dry her grain last year, and now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple the tax in just a few years. He is not worth the cost.

When will the Liberal government get out of the way and pass Bill C-234 in its original form, get off farmers' backs and make our food affordable again?

Carbon Tax

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians face a cost of living crisis, made worse by the April 1 carbon tax hike.

Liberal-appointed senators gutted Bill C-234, stopping carbon tax carve-outs for farmers.

Canadians face higher prices, because when one taxes the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, Canadians pay more for the food.

The Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax from 14¢ to 61¢ a litre is outrageous. By increasing this tax, the Liberals are contributing to the hardship of over two million Canadians relying on food banks. By pressuring senators to oppose carbon tax carve-outs, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Conservatives demand that Bill C-234 be passed in its original form, to help farmers and families. Our common-sense plan is to axe the tax.

Carbon Pricing

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost of groceries.

Dawn, an independent, multi-generational greenhouse operator, was forced to sell because of the cost of the carbon tax coupled with rising interest rates. After she told the Minister of Agriculture her story directly and asked him to pass Bill C-234 unamended to reduce costs for farmers, he ignored her.

What does the minister have to say to Dawn and the many like her facing challenges: losing their businesses, their livelihoods and their family legacies because of the Liberal government's policies?

Carbon Tax

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. The Liberals have known for a while now that their carbon tax is a scam, but they refuse to give it up. Their latest idea is to rename it, telling Canadians that it is a good thing that they raise the tax again on April 1.

The Liberals keep ignoring what Canadians have been telling them for years, and they are still offside with their coalition partners in the NDP, who voted with Conservatives to at least give our farmers some relief from the carbon tax cash grab. Instead of reducing costs for the farmers and for the people buying their food by passing Bill C-234, the government would rather work to prevent this tax relief from happening.

There is no reason to think the Liberals are interested in fixing what they have broken. If they get their way, their carbon tax will be higher and higher year after year, even though the minister admitted he is not measuring whether it is reducing emissions. Conservatives stand ready to stop this nonsense. Canadians can count on us to axe the tax and to bring the much needed relief they deserve.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I really appreciate this prairie battle back and forth between colleagues, I also enjoy the opportunity to rise and speak to this very important issue as we go through the agriculture committee's 10th report.

I know everyone will be delighted to hear that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, so members will get to hear more of what he has to say. I hope all members stick around to hear his insights on this topic.

When speaking of food inflation, this is an issue that people face right across the country. The cost of food is up; it is actually at 40-year highs and up 10% year over year. This has been a very sharp, dramatic increase in recent years. People are really noticing it at the grocery store. People are struggling to afford healthy meals for their families.

Moreover, as we look to the future, Canada's Food Price Report is predicting a 5% to 7% increase on the cost of food even further. We are already at 40-year highs. We have already seen a 10% increase year over year, and now the report predicts another 5% to 7% increase in the cost of food. The most substantial of these increases will be for some very regular items, like vegetables, dairy and meat products, that Canadians look to as staples of their diets.

To put this in perspective, an average family of four would spend $16,288 per year on food in Canada. I know that is a sticker shock to a lot of people, but that is the reality people are facing. Unfortunately, we have noticed food bank usage is up.

In my riding, and I have spoken about this on the floor previously, I had a recent interaction with folks in Ignace who run the food bank there. It is a small community in my riding. It is shocking to them how many people are turning to the food bank, people who they never thought would have to turn to a food bank. One thing that was mentioned to me was the most heartbreaking moment in the day is when someone goes to the food bank and realizes there is actually nothing left. The food bank is literally running out of food in Ignace because of how expensive groceries have become for people.

That is not rural community but a small urban community that is isolated in northern Ontario. It is something that we are really unaccustomed to in the region. Of course, it is not just the costs; people are cutting back on their diets. We have heard stories of mothers watering down their kids' milk and cutting back on healthy food just to try to make ends meet. All around, it is a real affordability crisis when we talk about food inflation.

With this report, the committee has brought forward some suggestions. I would like to add a few more and to talk about some of the very real issues we are facing as a country. Food inflation is going up, and that is a direct result of a lot of the Liberal government's actions. An inflationary deficit is one of them. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all previous prime ministers before him combined. There is currently no plan to balance the budget.

What does that mean? It drives up their debt, which drives up inflation, and Canadians pay more on everything at the pump and at the grocery store. That is something we see as a major issue. The federal debt is actually projected to reach $1.2 trillion. That would represent nearly $81,000 per Canadian household. Each household would have to pay $81,000 in order to pay off that debt.

It is clear that we must balance the budget, but the government must bring back some fiscal prudence to ensure that we can balance the budget, lower the deficit and end the inflationary deficit driving up the cost of living for Canadians.

That is one suggestion I would like to put forward and something that our Conservative Party and our leader, the member for Carleton, have been advocating for a number of years now. It is a great suggestion.

Another one that I am sure, Madam Speaker, you will be well aware of, is that we are calling on the government to pass Bill C-234, which would exempt farmers from the carbon tax.

Northwestern Ontario is not the largest agricultural region in the country by any means, but there are a number of local farmers and producers in the area, specifically in Dryden and the Oxdrift area where the Cloverbelt Country producers provide locally grown vegetables and beef products. This is an important issue locally in northwestern Ontario and, really, right across the country as, of course, it is not just the farmers who have to pay it, but everyone who has to pay this tax as it gets passed on to the price of food.

In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has estimated that farmers paid almost $14,000 in carbon tax in the first year it was imposed. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that an increase in carbon taxes to $170 a tonne, which the government would sure like to do, would cumulatively cost farmers over $1 billion by 2030. That is a staggering number. Farmers are already struggling and the price of food is already getting out of control. I could not imagine how farmers would be able to operate and how people would be able to afford food with further increases.

To make it worse, the government actually introduced a second carbon tax, the clean fuel regulations, that would cost the average household an extra $573 per year. That is without any rebate. Now, we often hear the government touting its carbon tax rebate but this portion of it, the second carbon tax, comes with absolutely no rebate whatsoever.

Conservatives on the agricultural committee have brought forward some suggestions. I am not a member of that committee, but we have some great members who are representing us well in that regard. The Conservatives on that committee are suggesting that the government remove the carbon tax that is applied to all of the food inputs, not including farm fuels. That is what we want to achieve through Bill C-234. We are also calling on the government to complete a comprehensive study on the economic impact of the carbon tax and clean fuel regulations and how both of those affect the cost of food production, the price of food and the entire food supply chain as a whole.

Above all, we must pass Bill C-234 in its original form. This is a very important bill brought forward by our colleague and something that is going to make a world of difference, not just for farmers, but everyone who has to buy food, which is everyone in Canada, of course. It is such an essential item. With the cost of living spiralling out of control, the very least we can do is to axe this carbon tax on farmers and families. We obviously, as the Conservative Party, are going to axe the tax completely and get rid of it for good but, in the meantime, we are hoping that the governing NDP-Liberal coalition can meet us halfway, realize that people are struggling and work to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, with whom I sit on the agriculture committee. Obviously, in this report, there was an examination of some of the input costs that have caused food prices to rise.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. On our opposition day motion to report Bill C-234 back to the Senate unamended, will he be voting with us as Conservatives to make sure that farmers get help in decreasing the inputs when it comes to Bill C-234?

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the debate thus far. To begin, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding when we are talking about affordability and carbon pricing. I am really wondering what the members opposite are concerned about when talking about affordability.

There was a study that came out of the University of Calgary from an economist. It talked about what would happen if we cancelled the carbon price tomorrow and the rebate that goes along with it. It is not just the carbon price. There is also a rebate cheque that gets sent to people where there is a federal backstop. The economist from the University of Calgary found that, if that were cancelled tomorrow, the people who would benefit the most would be the people who earn over $250,000.

I can only guess, from the fervour that I hear from the other side of the House, that the people they are concerned about, who they really want to make sure have no affordability issues, are the people who earn over $250,000. This study from this economist found that those are the people who would benefit the most from this big push we are hearing of every day to end carbon pricing and the rebates that get sent to people who are paying the carbon price in federal backstop provinces. I would like to have some clarity on that point because it seems perplexing to me.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-234. It is about farming. Farmers feed us. They are such an important part of our community and our country. Agriculture is a cornerstone of rural communities right across our country. When we are talking about this, I think we need to start with that point and recognize the importance of farmers in our country.

When we are talking about this bill, we are actually talking about protecting farming and agriculture right across our country. We are seeing natural disasters, like the atmospheric rivers and the droughts. There is a drought right now that we are hearing about in Alberta, and people are talking about having to reduce their water use. We are talking about wildfires. We saw the atmospheric river that happened in the interior of B.C. That impacted farms. Those were farms that got washed out.

When we are talking about fighting climate change and about taking action on this really important issue, it is not something that is nice to have, but it is essential. We need to do it for our own survival, and we need to do it to support farmers. They are the ones who are bearing the brunt every day, and they are seeing the impacts of natural disasters caused by climate change.

That is why we need to continue to take action. It is also why it is very shortsighted. It is not going to help affordability. It is not going to help our farmers to not take action on climate change. I believe it is really important, when we are looking at this bill and when we are talking about these issues, that we take into account those parts. The last thing I will say on affordability when talking about farming is that, when our farms are impacted by natural disasters, the price of food goes up. That is what we saw. In fact, we saw that with the price of iceberg lettuce when it shot up when natural disasters were happening in California. We see it time and time again.

One of the things we can do best, as a country, if we want to make sure we are protecting farms, our sources of food, while dealing with affordability issues, is to continue to fight climate change and protect our communities from natural disasters.

Let me talk about Bill C-234. The first part of the bill would be redundant because the agricultural sector already receives significant relief compared to other sectors of the economy under the carbon pollution pricing system. In fact, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act already provides upfront relief from the fuel charge to farmers for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. It also relieves 80% of the fuel charge from natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.

There are now refundable tax credits in place, which return a portion of the fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in the backstop provinces covered by the federal fuel charge. I do not think, in this conversation that we are having, we talk enough about those parts. People would think they do not exist. Let us just remind Canadians that, when we are talking about this bill, there is already relief built into the system to support farming and agriculture.

On the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned to farmers is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas for heating and drying activities. This aims to ensure that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers in the provinces that are backstop provinces.

When I talk about backstop provinces, what provinces am I talking about? The provinces are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Farmers in those provinces are the ones I have been talking about.

Quebec is not covered by the federal backstop. Quebec had a price on carbon pollution before the federal one, so it was actually ahead. The farmers in Quebec, for example, do not pay the federal fuel charge, so they also do not receive the farmers tax credit.

The refundable tax credit for farmers does not undermine the effectiveness of pollution pricing because it does not return fuel charged proceeds according to a farm's actual natural gas or propane use. What it does is put a price on pollution and then it returns a portion of the proceeds to farmers to help farmers transition to ways to lower carbon emissions in farming.

By providing support to farmers, we are also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions. In contrast, Bill C-234 would completely remove the price signal needed for carbon pricing to work by directly relieving the fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities in addition to the existing relief for gasoline and diesel that already exists.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to stand in this place and to address a very important issue. That issue comes down to affordability. It comes down to the well-being of Canadians from coast to coast, to those who live in rural areas, in urban areas, in my province of Alberta and in Atlantic Canada.

The debate tonight has to do with being able to buy the very basics of life, including fuel for a person's vehicle so that they can drive to work or take their kids to sport practice. It is a conversation about being able to put food on the table, whether that is fruits, vegetables, grain or dairy. Whatever a family chooses to consume, they should be able to afford those choices.

Furthermore, Bill C-234 is about being able to heat one's home. I do not know about others, but where I live in Alberta, we can get temperatures down to -53°C with the wind chill. I cannot imagine trying to heat my home with a heat pump, as the Liberals would like to suggest is possible, nor can I imagine relying on wind or solar as my sole source of electricity, because we had a proof point, just a few weeks ago, that it just does not work.

Instead, what people rely on to heat their homes in my part of the country is largely natural gas. The Liberal government has attached something called a carbon tax to those very necessities of life, whether it is the food we eat, the fuel that we put in our vehicles or the energy that heats our homes. The carbon tax is punitive in nature, and it is driving up the cost that Canadians have to pay just to survive.

Bill C-234, which we are discussing here today, has to do with taking the carbon tax off the fuel that farmers use for the very necessities of the jobs they do. Imagine putting all of one's time and energy and all of one's labour into producing food for the nation of Canada and for the entire world. Imagine doing that, and then imagine having a government in power that, rather than expressing gratitude toward them, actually punishes them. That is exactly what the Liberals have done for the last eight years.

The carbon tax is extremely punitive in nature. It goes after those individuals working hard to produce food. It does that by applying this tax to the very necessities of production. Whether it is using natural gas to heat a barn in order to keep chickens alive or dairy cattle alive, or whether it is using propane to be able to dry grain, let us say, those are things farmers do on a day to day basis. Those things are necessary to produce food for Canadians and for the world. Those things are required to keep us, as humanity, alive and to drive our economy forward. Rather than celebrating the incredible contribution that farmers are making, the Liberal government has chosen to go after them and to be extremely punitive.

On this side of the House, members got together and came up with an idea. That idea is brilliant. It is supported by producers all across the country. That idea is to remove the carbon tax from fuel, from natural gas and from propane so that farmers can produce food at less expense.

Here is what happens when farmers are empowered to produce food with little expense attached to it. Those savings get passed on to Canadians. Then, when Canadians go to grocery stores and buy food for their families, they are able to pay a little less. However, when the government attaches that tax, it actually drives up the cost of food, so Canadians then have to spend more.

What will happen when Canadians have to spend more? Headlines across this country will show us exactly what will happen. Families are struggling. Millions are lining up at food banks every single month across this country. In my riding, in Lethbridge, Alberta, the food bank use has doubled under the Liberal government. It has doubled.

It is not just folks who maybe do not have homes or who live in low-income housing. It is folks who have full-time jobs and live in middle-class neighbourhoods. It is seniors who rely on fixed incomes, who have worked incredibly hard for 65, 75, maybe 80 years of their lives. It is the students studying at Lethbridge College or the University of Lethbridge who are investing in their education and, because of the government, cannot afford to make ends meet, so they have to go to the food bank. It is the veterans who fought for this country, the country that we love. It is the men and women who sacrificed a great deal, and are now not supported by the government, who are lining up at the food bank.

That is a problem that was created under the watch of the Liberal government, but it did not have to be that way. The government has created policy after policy that has punished Canadians and held them back from achieving greatness, from being able to bring in income and stretch it to cover their costs of life. It is the government that has prevented people from being able to do that.

On this side of the House, there is a concerted effort to give Canadians control of their lives back. There is a concerted effort to make sure they can afford the very necessities they require. Of course, top of mind is to axe the tax, and that is exactly what Bill C-234 would do. Bill C-234 is all about getting rid of this punitive tax, taking it off of farmers and allowing all Canadians to benefit because, when farmers benefit, so do the people who go to the grocery store to buy food. That is what this bill is about.

Here is what the government did. This bill was discussed in this place and then went to the Senate, which started out with some good common-sense thinking. At first, it seemed that the majority in the Senate was going to support this bill because it just makes sense, but then the Liberal government, in particular, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment, caught wind of this. What did they do? They got on the phone, asked for meetings and applied pressure. They applied pressure to the senators, who are supposedly independent, and eventually those senators caved. The bill ended up being gutted to the point of being meaningless, and that is what we are now debating in this place.

Canadians deserve better. For starters, they deserve better behaviour from the government, and second, they deserve better policy. They deserve policy that would allow them to work hard for a paycheque, bring that money home and be able to cover the cost of things they need to purchase, whether it is groceries, fuel for their vehicles or their heating bills. Canadians need to be empowered to cover those expenses, and a big part of that is axing the tax.

In my riding, a producer was willing to share his natural gas bill with me. He has a few different parts to his farming operation, but just for one of them, the beef operation, he spends $62,000 a year on the carbon tax. He was willing to share some his bills with me, which I reviewed, and month after month the carbon tax is more than the amount he spent on the actual natural gas used. That is crazy. It is ludicrous that a farmer would have to spend more on the tax than the product itself.

What also needs to be driven home is that we have to remember that all Canadians, including farmers, are not just paying the carbon tax, but the tax on top of it. They are paying a government tax and a provincial tax on top of the carbon tax. It is the greatest scheme for the government to make money, but it is on the backs of Canadians, and the government should be ashamed of itself.

Conservatives are going to work hard. We are going to fight for Canadians. We are going to make sure their paycheques stay powerful. We are going to axe the tax.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would note that Canada's emissions have dropped by a bigger percentage than those of any other G7 country since 2019.

It is true that one amendment would remove the relief associated with heating or cooling a building or similar structure used for raising or housing livestock or growing crops, but the relief for grain drying would remain, as would amendments to expand qualifying farm fuels to include natural gas and propane. The government does not believe that making it free to pollute is the right way to proceed.

We are taking action where it makes a real, positive difference in supporting farmers to make cleaner choices. As part of our strengthened climate plan and the 2030 emissions reduction plan, the Government of Canada has committed over $1.5 billion to accelerate the agricultural sector's progress on reducing emissions, while remaining a global leader in sustainable agriculture. This includes almost $500 million for the agricultural clean technology program to create an enabling environment for the development and adoption of clean technology that will help drive the changes required to achieve a low-carbon economy and promote sustainable growth in Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector. This program is helping Canadians in the agricultural sector to innovate and to adopt clean technologies.

Farmers are taking action. They have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques that can help reduce emissions and save them both time and money. I have seen it in my riding with local companies; Terramera, for example, has been partnering with Microsoft to share information on precision agriculture at landscape scale. I have seen the sustainable farming practices being implemented locally that are making a big difference on climate change and on water use. The government is continuing to take action to support them.

Budget 2022, for example, provided $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program, cost-shared with provinces and territories, to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and to address other environmental co-benefits. It also provided $100 million to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero emission agriculture, and it provided $469 million to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.

Budget 2022 also renewed the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture, including federal-only programs and programs developed in partnership with provincial and territorial governments. Each year, these programs provide about $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. The Canadian agricultural partnership also includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2.3 billion of support, on average, per year. These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

Our pollution pricing system is simply about recognizing that pollution has a cost, and about encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. The federal government does not keep any direct proceeds from pollution pricing under this system. Canada's approach to pollution pricing is not only one of the best ways to fight climate change; it also puts more money back into the pockets of Canadians. The direct proceeds from the federal pollution price are returned in the jurisdiction from which they were collected, to help with cost of living challenges while keeping the incentive to pollute less.

As 2024 kicks off, the Government of Canada reiterates its commitment to pollution pricing and its crucial role in meeting targets to cut emissions to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Estimates show that pollution pricing will contribute about a third of the total reductions in emissions that will occur between now and 2030. Putting a price on pollution and returning the bulk of the proceeds through rebates provides support not just for farmers but also for consumers and businesses, while also maintaining an incentive to reduce emissions.

Canada has been a world leader in fighting climate change through pollution pricing, and we should not do anything that would undermine this achievement, as Bill C-234 would for the reasons I have set out today. I am thankful for the opportunity to make the government's position on this piece of legislation clear.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to resume debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-234, pursuant to the proposed amendments to the bill from the Senate.

Canada has the best farmers and food processors in the world. We are a global leader in agricultural production, and the sector is of great importance to our economy, to trade and to jobs. I know that in my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we have some of the best small-scale farms in the country. The government understands that farmers are essential to our communities and to Canada's economy, and that is why it agrees with the intent of Bill C-234.

Supporting our farmers is, of course, of great importance. However, the bill is not appropriately structured to achieve this objective. It is important to deliver support for farmers that is effective in helping them ramp up production without undermining important goals like addressing climate change, which itself poses a severe threat to agricultural production.

Putting a price on pollution is a cornerstone of Canada's climate plan. It is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to more intense wildfires, droughts and floods, while putting money back in people's pockets and driving investment in cleaner alternatives. In B.C., of course, there has been a price on pollution for more than 15 years; it remains in place today. It is instead of the federal system, which applies only in provinces that do not bring in their own carbon pricing system.

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change, facing ever-increasing risks of natural disasters to their operations. Pollution pricing was designed to take into account the unique needs of farmers. Of course I have seen it first hand with a number of the farms in my riding, where historic droughts and water restrictions actually brought in a state of emergency that restricted access to water for some of these farms. I have also seen in recent years the crushing impact of the heat dome fuelled by climate change.

That is why, for all provinces where the federal carbon price is in effect, Canada's agriculture is already receiving significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors. Through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, the federal system exempts gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, as well as biological emissions, such that roughly 97% of on-farm emissions are not subject to a price on pollution.

Greenhouse operators also received upfront relief of 80% on the fuel charge on propane and marketable natural gas. Additionally, farmers in provinces where the federal system is in place can receive a refundable tax credit, which, overall, returns the estimated total fuel charge proceeds in these provinces related to farm use of natural gas and propane for heating and drying activities, to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming.

This year, farmers in rural areas will benefit from the doubling of the rural top-up for pollution price rebates, which will give households an extra 20% of the value of the rebates in backstop jurisdictions. Putting a price on pollution and returning the proceeds to farmers helps them transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers while also maintaining a price signal to reduce emissions. These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

Unfortunately, even as amended by the Senate, which did make some steps in the right direction, the bill does not reflect Canada's commitment to climate change or incentivize farmers to switch to less carbon-intensive solutions. It also risks weakening Canada's efforts to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. It is true that one amendment would remove—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight and pursue the discussion of a very complex piece of legislation. It did not start out being complex, when our colleague initially put it forward as Bill C-234, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. Of course, this is the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act as it relates to on-farm use of fossil fuels. It has now been amended in the Senate to exempt one of the larger uses of fossil fuels on farms. Of course, farm communities are not pleased; however, I wanted to step back.

This piece that would now be exempted under the Senate amendments is the on-farm use of propane fuel for grain drying. In other words, activities that take place in buildings are now no longer exempt from the fossil fuel exemption that came through in the first version of Bill C-234. As the Green Party members and I voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration, I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity, if I may, to explain why we voted that way and what I think we should do for a fundamental reconsideration of the way we price carbon on farms so that it has some intellectual and scientific coherence.

Let me first start with why we voted for Bill C-234 in its first iteration. I recall really clearly when carbon pricing came forward, which we favour, to be very clear. We think we have to monetize carbon. If we treat pollution as something free, nobody will pay attention to what it really costs society, what it really costs humanity to treat the atmosphere as if it were a large, free garbage dump for our pollution. That is clearly not acceptable. We moved forward, accepting that there would be, unfortunately, a patchwork, because some provinces had already moved forward.

British Columbia brought in Canada's first carbon tax, a well-constructed and logical revenue-neutral approach to carbon pricing. There have been changes, and some provinces brought in their own versions. What the current Liberal government brought forward was essentially a backstop; for those provinces that did not have their own systems, the federal government brought in a carbon price that would apply everywhere to try to equalize the pricing among all the different provinces and have a system that remained revenue-neutral.

British Columbia brought in the revenue-neutral carbon tax under the government of previous premier Gordon Campbell, who pretty much represented the right wing of B.C. politics. Nevertheless, it was a really well-designed carbon price. The revenue-neutral part of it was that, as British Columbians, we got tax cuts that were how we received what citizens now actually receive as a rebate check in those backstop provinces. This became a bit more complicated than it perhaps needed to be.

When the Liberals brought this in, they said they were not going to apply it on farms; farmers would not have to pay the carbon tax. At least, that was how it was communicated. When farmers realized that they were not paying a carbon tax on the diesel they put in their tractors or the farm equipment they use, but they were paying a big one on grain drying, they became quite concerned. That is the source of Bill C-234. We felt, in principle, that once the farming community has been told that carbon tax will not apply to them, one should stick to that.

It also happened that, because of the climate crisis, the need for grain drying increased. This is one of those things that may sound counterintuitive, of course, but we had what farmers in the Prairies referred to as “the harvest from hell” that winter. I am going to back up and say that I know it is not the first time we have ever had the need for grain drying. We have had wet harvests before. It was not a novelty, but it was particularly bad. They were still trying to get crops out of the fields when there was snow on them. Grain drying became much more intense, and the use of propane for grain drying actually increased. That is when farmers said, “Well, wait a minute. We were supposed to be exempt from carbon pricing.”

Before diving into what has happened to Bill C-234 since then, I want to step back and ask this: If we wanted to monetize carbon and, preferably, keep farmers who are essentially land stewards on board with the need to respond to the climate crisis, how would we do that? I would say that the reason farmers should be particularly on board with measures to reduce greenhouse gases and avoid an ever-worsening climate crisis is that, if there is one economic sector that is a big loser and at risk in a world of climate crisis, it is agriculture. In the Prairies now, there is a multi-year drought. Some of my friends who are farmers on the Prairies say not to call it a drought. They say to call it “aridification”, because it is just going to keep getting drier as a result of climate trends and global warming.

With respect to the impact on the cost of food, we talk about inflation in grocery prices, and a good chunk of that is the impact on certain agricultural products because of extreme climate events. Whether droughts or floods, extreme weather events wipe out certain kinds of food. The price of vanilla went sky-high because of the impact of storms hitting Madagascar, as but one example. Of course, grains all around the world started costing a lot more because of a combination of Putin declaring war on Ukraine and crop failures caused by extreme climatic events.

As someone who wants to see us all pull together, it was distressing that one component of Canadian society would be alienated from efforts to act on climate by what felt like and, I have to say, looked like a betrayal on a promise. This component is severely impacted by the climate crisis and, therefore, should be onside with doing something to keep it from becoming ever worse; at the same time, it is a part of our society that plays a big role in how carbon is sequestered. If the Liberals say they are not going to apply carbon taxes on farms, then farmers are surprised to be paying a walloping carbon tax, how did that happen? I am sorry to say this to my Liberal friends, but it is because the Liberals do not really understand a lot about farming; when they made the promise, they did not realize that fossil fuels used on farms were largely used in buildings to dry grain.

It is fine to exempt tractors and on-farm equipment, but here we come to the crux of what I wish we had done, which we could perhaps still do: We can enlist farmers as the creative land stewards they are, as farmers sequester carbon through their practices and on-farm activities, such as zero-tillage agriculture, getting rid of summer fallow, and making sure they are doing more perennial and fewer annual crops. Farmers are massively effective at sequestering carbon in soil, and guess what? We talk about planting forests as a way of sequestering carbon and carbon sinks in forests. Those things are real; that is true.

However, right now, and largely because of climate change, our grasslands are better at sequestering carbon than our forests are. Why? The soils hold an enormous quantity of carbon. Climate conditions causing forest fires wipe out the carbon we were sequestering in forests, releasing it by the millions of tonnes into the atmosphere. It is not just in the summer; every province in this country started having wildfires that were out of control in the spring, in May of last year, and all the way through late fall and some into the winter. When forests burn, we lose all the carbon.

Here is something interesting, and scientists are looking at this a lot: When grasslands burn, we do not lose all the carbon. Most of that carbon is stored well below the soil, in the root systems that do not burn. Therefore, if we are offsetting for greenhouse gas, I generally think we are better not to plant a tree but to plant a billionaire; I usually say that in jest, just to make sure everybody understands that. We are better off protecting the grasslands.

Where ecosystems exist with grasslands, it is better to sustain them and keep them robust, which means this: What if, instead of just having carbon pricing on the fuel they burn, we pay farmers for every tonne of carbon they sequester? What if we had an actual balance sheet on carbon pricing, thanking and rewarding farmers who have taken on board protecting ecological services, such as wetlands, protecting biodiversity and making sure they are restoring the health of soil, improving the profitability and the health of the food, and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere?

I say thanks to farmers.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start by moving the motion that I put on notice on Friday to immediately invite Minister Guilbeault to this committee to determine if there was a breach of our parliamentary privilege. Before my Liberal colleagues bemoan the fact that Conservatives raise issues they don't like, let me state that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Minister of Environment either misled this committee or is hiding the names of senators whom he personally lobbied to gut Bill C-234.

Regardless of your partisan stripe, it is incumbent on us as MPs to safeguard our privileges, which have been fought for and must be defended as part of our Westminster tradition. It is essential that we have proper functioning of this institution and that we be given timely access to and accurate information from ministers when requested by a committee.

As an aside, Bill C-234 is a critical piece of legislation that any member of Parliament who has farmers in their riding, such as the rural MP for Milton, should be supportive of, just as members from across party lines were, because it is an important piece of legislation not just for farmers but for all Canadians, to help alleviate the continually rising price of food.

The legislation would exempt grain farmers from paying the carbon tax on propane and natural gas to dry their grain, and livestock farmers from the same carbon tax to heat or cool their livestock barns. It would amount to $1 billion by 2030. That would mean immediate savings for Canadian producers and for buying food, as well as a meaningful impact for our farmers, who would be able to reinvest that money back into their operation to provide environmental outcomes for Canadians.

This legislation is supported by all national agriculture groups, and it made its way through Parliament, through the House of Commons, in a rather judicious manner for a private member's bill, with the support of members from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, some Liberals and even the Green Party. They recognized that it is a good piece of legislation to fix a flaw in the fact that farmers simply cannot transition to a different fuel source when it comes to those specific activities. It is simply punishing farmers for something they have no choice but to do, and it is encouraging higher prices at the grocery store for Canadians.

Following the rather swift passage through the House of Commons, when it got to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, there was clearly some political gamesmanship that began being played. There were a number of amendments intended to gut the bill there and to delay the bill. Thankfully, they were voted down by the larger chamber of sober second thought, the Senate, later on. However, over time, for unknown reasons, that vote count chipped away as senators procedurally brought forward the exact amendments over and over again to try to disrupt and destroy this legislation, which would save farmers $1 billion.

Those incremental vote losses ultimately led to changes, and they sent it back to the House of Commons. That has led to no-man's land, meaning that this legislation, without government support, may never get passed, because there is simply no precedent for it.

It has been an extreme frustration to Canadian farmers. It became political when this government decided that certain Canadians deserved a break on the carbon tax on their home heating oil at the same time as farmers were being denied what was a clear, good policy to prevent $1 billion leaving their pockets.

Specifically to the motion I'm moving now, when Minister Guilbeault appeared before this committee on December 14, he was asC-234ked by my Conservative colleague Dan Mazier if he had spoken to any senators about Bill . In response, the minister said, “I had conversations with five or six senators, yes.”

The reason we knew to ask this was that he had publicly declared previously that he had spoken to senators about this. In a CTV article from November 14, 2023, he was quoted as saying that he had had discussions with “half a dozen” senators in the past couple of weeks to express the federal government's opposition to the legislation.

A CBC article from November 28 of that year said, “The minister said he had spoken with about six senators to explain the government's position, but did not tell them how to vote.”

On three separate occasions, he has said “five or six senators”, including when he spoke before this very committee in this very room. It took 49 days from that appearance of the minister, who had promised to get back to my colleague with the names of the senators he had called up about Bill C-234, to our receiving them.

It took 49 days. It seems like an awfully long time to remember somewhere between, apparently, three and six names.

The thing is, you'd expect him to have come forward with those five or six names of the people he'd said previously in the media and to our committee he had spoken with. However, for some reason, there were only three names on that list. It seems awfully odd that he guessed up and then came back and realized, “Oh, I only talked to half of those senators.” Something seems amiss. From this, we can only conclude that he either provided false testimony when he appeared as a witness before this committee, or he provided false information when providing the names of the senators who lobbied to gut Bill C-234.

In either event, the minister misled this committee, and I believe we must invite him to appear immediately before the committee for one hour to sort out the discrepancy of the information that he provided and decide if it must be reported back to the House. Without the minister's appearance to answer questions, it is impossible for the committee to determine whether he showed contempt before this committee. On the face of it, it clearly appears that he did, which should trouble every member here, regardless of their political stripe.

Successive Speakers have clearly set out three conditions that must be demonstrated in order to arrive at a finding of contempt through misleading statements or information. First, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that it was incorrect when made. Third, and finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

On the first point, it was clearly a misleading statement or a misleading written response. It was one of those two. There's no denying that. On the second point, if the minister intentionally misled the committee, he would have known that his statement was incorrect when he made it on December 14. At no time did he try to reconcile his written response with the testimony he provided to this committee. On the third point, we do not know if he intended to mislead the committee, so we must investigate. Only Minister Guilbeault, not his legion across the way, can provide any clarity on this issue.

We know he has faced considerable pressure to gut Bill C-234. He even put his own reputation on the line by stating, “As long as I’m the environment minister, there will be no more exemptions to carbon pricing”. This was, of course, in the aftermath of a decision to lift the carbon tax on home heating oil for 3% of Canadians.

He had the motive to do everything in his power to stop our Conservative-led bill, which was supported across partisan lines in the duly elected House of Commons, to exempt farmers from the carbon tax. There is no question, to me, that Minister Guilbeault has misled this committee. The question is whether he intended to do so.

While I know certain members across the way enjoy running, I implore them not to run away from this matter, because if they do, it will speak volumes to how deep the rot has gotten in this government.

It is time for an investigation, Mr. Chair. I encourage all of my colleagues of all political stripes to support the motion to bring the minister to clarify whether or not he misled this committee.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Dr. Lee. I hear you not supporting the amendments on Bill C-234 and the shrinking sunset time.

I'll shift gears a bit. There are those who are calling for more competition in the grocery retail sector. In fact, the Minister of Innovation is working the phones, supposedly, to make that happen. We've talked about the profits at the retail sector, and hear on average 3.7%, but that would only reduce a basket of groceries if they were zero, from $25 to $24. I'm wondering how a zero profit, if that was our goal, would attract or expand more foreign or smaller grocery retailers here in Canada.

With regard to the grocery code of conduct, would it not make more sense to have a market-based level playing field that is industry-led and uniform across Canada in existence? Would that not attract...? I'll cite the example of Australia, which has a voluntary code. It has attracted another retailer since the existence of the code. The U.K. has also attracted another retailer since a mandatory code was put into the U.K.

I'll start with you, Mr. McCann. Could you comment on those dynamics in other jurisdictions and how the code could potentially help bring more competitors into Canada?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

That's a great segue to my question for Mr. Janzen.

Concerning Bill C-234, I—along with the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois—was happy to support that bill at third reading. In my interpretation of that bill, as Mr. McCann mentioned, it's in line and in the spirit of the original Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, in that there are already exemptions for farm fuels, farm machinery and farming activity. I see the provisions in Bill C-234 as being in the spirit of the original law. The Liberals, in 2018, recognized that there was a special place for agricultural activity. I think that Bill C-234 keeps in line with that. I was happy to support it at third reading, and I think I'm going to keep my vote consistent with the vote at third reading.

Mr. Janzen, just on the subject of fuel price volatility, it can have a significant impact. We did, as the House of Commons, program in a sunset clause. With respect to the greenhouse sector, are there some promising opportunities in the next decade whereby operators of greenhouses are able to switch to a more stable fuel source or mechanism to heat their greenhouses? Can we talk about some of the light that exists at the end of the tunnel so you're not subjected to that volatility?

[Marcus Janzen, Vice-President, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Marcus Janzen and I have the privilege of serving as the vice-president of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada. I also, during the day, have a pepper greenhouse just outside of Vancouver, British Columbia, in Abbotsford.

I'm here before you to discuss the pressing issue of stabilizing food prices in Canada, a concern that deeply affects Canadian fruit and vegetable growers, as well as all Canadian citizens. FVGC represents approximately 14,000 farms, producing 120 types of crops, and we contribute about $6.8 billion to the Canadian economy.

A 2022 survey conducted by our organization revealed that close to 44% of our growers are operating at a loss presently, and three-quarters have difficulty offsetting production cost increases that would include the carbon tax, the P2 plastics program, tariffs on fertilizer and aggressive targets for reducing fertilizer emissions. Those challenges, including Bill C-234, risk the sector's affordability and sustainability going forward.

Bill C-234 is at a critical place. By eliminating heating and cooling exemptions to greenhouses and barns, this jeopardizes our competitiveness, as we heard from the previous witnesses, particularly relative to the U.S.

We propose a series of actions that would include the following: reject the proposed amendments to Bill C-234; remove the P2 plastics program in order to further evaluate, particularly when it comes to PLUs, the unintended impacts on costs and therefore food prices; and eliminate the fertilizer tariffs in order to not disproportionately negatively effect domestic producers. We need, again, the idea of having a more cohesive regulatory conversation with government before policies are in place. We would look for the quick passage of Bill C-280, which is essentially the PACA-like trust to be reinstated.

Lastly, we would support an increased resolve to bring the grocery code of conduct into reality.

That concludes my remarks.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Charlebois, much has been made at this committee about carbon pricing. With respect to Mr. Currie's intervention on Bill C‑234, I think the provisions of that bill are in line with the exemptions that are already in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. You can already see exemptions for farming machinery, farm fuels and farming activity.

You were talking about volatility. The price is set per litre, but of course, we've seen extreme volatility in the price of diesel fuel. I think that, in British Columbia in 2022, some regions were seeing a price of around $2.30 per litre. Now we're at a stage where I think it's around an average of $1.70 per litre, so there's extreme volatility in the price of diesel. That's very important because it's a transport fuel.

I worry, though, that the state of our discourse is doing a disservice to the overall problem, where there's just too much of a focus on carbon pricing. We know that oil and gas companies have certainly seen their bank accounts do very well in recent years, and there's incredible volatility on a fuel source. Is there anything more that you can add on that area of price volatility?

Is the question of the price of fuels something that we need to pay a bit more attention to in a holistic way?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks for that.

I wanted to shift to Mr. Currie. You mentioned that number. Some of your members are saying how important Bill C-234 is, that 40% of their energy bills are from carbon taxes. We've certainly had bills from across Canada showing that, in some cases, the carbon tax is actually more than the natural gas they're paying for. By increasing the carbon tax again on April 1, and quadrupling this tax over the next few years, what impact is this having on the financial health of farming in Canada?

Why is Bill C-234 so important?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Charlebois, I just want you to clarify one of your comments. On Bill C-234, you said that farmers weren't happy about that, but I think you meant the amendments that were added to Bill C-234.

Do you mind just clarifying that really quickly for the committee?

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

In my personal opinion, I think we need to be in lockstep with our trading partners. We could actually really hurt.... I think we are hurting farmers. I think Bill C-234 was not welcome news for the farming community. Mr. Currie would speak to that for sure.

We need to think about processing. A lot of processors are suffering. The RCC mentioned that costs are going up in retail and distribution, which is absolutely true. Now we're seeing more investment in the middle mile. Metro and Loblaw are all investing in the middle mile, which is great, but it's happening really quickly.

[Keith Currie, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be back in front of the committee today. I'm seeing some very familiar faces.

For those of you who do not know me, as the chair mentioned in his opening remarks, I am Keith Currie and I am the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. We represent 190,000 farmers and farm families from coast to coast to coast here in Canada. I'm also joined online by my executive director at CFA, Scott Ross, who will answer all the hard questions for you today.

We've all experienced, in recent years, food inflation outpacing an already high inflationary pressure on the cost of living. While the rate of food inflation has declined over the past year, it's understandably a topic that is of great concern to all Canadians.

As part of my remarks here today, I want to cover off what I believe are some misperceptions when it comes to this topic.

The first one is this: As the price of food increases, so do farmers' profits. In fact, it costs a lot more to produce the food we eat today than it did before the pandemic. For example, look at the change in price for many of our farm inputs out there. Whether we're talking about machinery, fuel, fertilizer, livestock or livestock feed, the prices farmers pay have increased nearly 40% between 2019 and today. While farm incomes have also increased during this period according to the most recent Statistics Canada numbers, growth in expenses outpaces the rise in farm cash receipts. While we are starting to see a softening of the commodity prices in the market, the price of farm inputs is still staying at a high level.

Misperception number two is that farm gate prices drive retail prices. A recent study conducted by the Agriculture Producers Association of Saskatchewan revealed that underlying commodity does not account for the entire price increase of the final food product. More often than not, it plays a minor role, with the farm share of retail prices for the products sampled averaging less than a quarter of the value of the final product.

While I would stress that the evidence is quite clear that farm gate prices play a minor role in retail price increases, there are some immediate steps that can be taken to reduce the rising costs involved in Canadian food production.

First, we need time-limited and targeted exemptions for on-farm use of natural gas and propane, which we were trying to accomplish through Bill C-234. These exemptions must be available not just for grain drying but also for the heating and cooling of barns, greenhouses and other production facilities. Based on our survey of the impact of Canada's carbon tax on livestock, crop and greenhouse farms across Canada, we were seeing the carbon tax account for up to 40% of total energy bills in some sectors.

Second, we've put forward a number of recommendations in our budget submission of 2024—this year—that would help drive down the cost of production and improve supply chain dynamics in the agriculture sector. For example, we're calling on the government to consult on and develop a critical farm input strategy, similar to the critical minerals strategy, in order to ensure Canadian producers have a long-term, stable supply of critical farm inputs to produce high-quality agriculture and agri-food products.

Finally, we need to move forward with the implementation of an industry-led grocery sector code of conduct. The objective of the code of conduct is to enable a thriving industry that promotes trust, fair dealing and collaboration throughout the value chain, increases commercial certainty and develops an effective and equitable dispute resolution process. While not targeting food inflation, it will help improve supply chain dynamics. Industry has committed considerable time and resources to the development of an industry-led code that works for all parties. We have greatly appreciated the attention and support of FPT governments throughout the development of the code and hope to see that support continue in getting this over the line.

I'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Of note, this Friday—February 9—is “Food Freedom Day”. That is the day when the average Canadian has made enough income to pay for their groceries for the entire year.

Thank you.

Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that the first thing we will cut is the Liberal-NDP carbon tax, and we will make life more affordable for Canadians.

Canadians are paying more for food than they ever have before, with two million people relying on a food bank every month. The Prime Minister's solution is to make food even more expensive. On April 1, Liberals plan to increase the carbon tax by 23%, which is part of their plan to quadruple it.

Conservatives have a common-sense bill, Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax for farmers, making food more affordable for Canadians.

Why will the Prime Minister not cancel his plan to increase the carbon tax on April 1 to ensure that Canadians can feed their family?

Carbon Tax

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234 is asking for a carbon tax carve-out for farmers. The PBO has stated that this bill will save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030. By fighting to keep the carbon tax on farmers, Liberals are voting to keep grocery prices high. Everyone knows that when we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who ships the food, we tax the buyer who buys the food.

The Liberal government is sending two million people per month to food banks. The number of people eating at food banks in Toronto today would fill the Rogers Centre seven times. Seniors are the fastest-growing users of food banks. The Liberal environment minister admitted at committee that he called six senators and pressured them to cut the bill.

The Liberals want to continue with their plan to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers, from 14¢ to 61¢ a litre. Our Conservative amendment will reject the Senate changes and restore this bill to its original plan.

The Conservatives will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Carbon Pricing

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, with an answer like that, I am not surprised Canadians cannot afford food, in a country where two million citizens are relying on food banks monthly. It is baffling to see the NDP-Liberal coalition push to quadruple the carbon tax. When we tax the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who delivers the food, Canadians are stuck with higher food prices.

Bill C-234 in its original form promises immediate relief. Will the Liberals discard the Senate's alterations, lift this tax burden and help Canadians afford their groceries?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-234 is back in the House after Liberal-appointed senators stalled and gutted this crucial legislation. This bill is vital for exempting farmers from the carbon tax and would ease the high cost of Canadian food. However, as the carbon tax is set to quadruple, farmers will pay $1 billion by 2030 and will push food prices even higher.

Will the Liberals scrap the Senate amendments, remove the carbon tax from agriculture and make food more affordable for everyone?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish we could spread answers like that on farmers' fields so that at least they could benefit from some of that fertilizer.

This NDP-Liberal government is costing Canadians through high food prices, once again showing how out of touch it is. Not only did the radical environment minister admit to pressuring senators to gut Bill C-234, but farmers are getting another carbon tax on April 1. After eight years, the Prime Minister has proven that he is most certainly not worth the cost.

Will the Liberals reject the Senate's amendments and completely remove the carbon tax from farmers to lower food prices for Canadians?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, farmers and consumers know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Increasing the carbon tax only increases the cost of goods in stores. For those farmers who cannot pass on the exorbitant carbon tax, it destroys their bottom line.

Will the Liberals reject the Senate's amendments and restore Bill C-234 to its original state, removing the carbon tax on farmers and lowering the price of food for Canadians?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today and partake in this important discussion. It is a tough act to follow; my colleague from Renfrew did a great job.

It is an honour to take part in this very important and timely debate on behalf of the great people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

I have received countless communications from residents in my community who are concerned about the inflationary pressures they are facing due to the government's reckless policies.

Under the Liberal government, there have been a record two million food bank visits in a single month, housing costs have doubled, mortgage payments are 150% higher than in 2015, violent crime is up 39%, tent cities exist in almost every major city, and over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke.

Just when it feels like it has all become too much, on top of the 30-year inflation highs that Canadians are facing just to live, the Prime Minister will increase the cost of the carbon tax on April 1 to reach $75 a metric ton. The impact will continue to increase, as the per tonne rate will rise to $170 by 2030. This will send families in my community further into economic despair.

Despite being given every opportunity to make life more affordable for Canadians by removing the tax on their gas, home heating and groceries, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc all vote time and time again to raise taxes on the backs of hard-working Canadians who are struggling to feed their families.

At the centre of this crisis are our hard-working Canadian farmers who work day in, day out to grow and raise the food we eat and who are disproportionately impacted by the carbon tax.

The Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-234, has returned to the House and, if passed in its original form, would bring down both the cost of groceries and the tax burden on hard-working farmers by giving farmers a carbon tax carve-out for grain drying, barn heating and other operations.

This bill would make the cost of food more affordable for everyone by saving farmers almost $1 billion between now and 2030, according to the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, while Bill C-234 passed in the House, the Prime Minister's Senate appointees gutted our common-sense bill under pressure from the environment minister, who threatened to quit if the bill was passed.

The Liberal, NDP and Bloc members who represent farmers, rural Canadians and any Canadian who is struggling to afford their grocery bill have this opportunity to reject the gutting of this legislation and bring home lower food prices for all Canadians. I sincerely hope they do the right thing.

Farmers in my riding are counting on legislation like Bill C-234, and I wish to highlight a few of their stories. I have here with me, which I will use as reference, a bill from Enbridge Gas for a chicken farmer in my area. This is a large poultry operation. The bill in my hand shows a carbon tax of $2,700 on the cost of fuel used to dry their grains. The overall bill was just over $9,000, so one-third of that, not including the HST put on the bill, is the carbon tax. Shockingly, the carbon tax is actually more than the value of the gas before delivery and global adjustment.

Moving on to the poultry side of the operation, this farm pays a comparable tax on the cost to heat its barns. Every 24 weeks it places over 3,000 day-old breeder chicks in the barns. These barns need to be heated to 32°C, as the chicks are so small they cannot heat themselves. This temperature is slowly reduced as the chicks grow stronger. The cost to heat the barns during this placement is approximately $7,000, with approximately a third of that cost being the carbon tax.

It appears some of my colleagues from places like Toronto and Vancouver are not aware of how essential it is for farmers to dry their grain and heat their barns. It is a necessity, not a luxury, and there is no alternative. The burden this misguided tax places on farmers has a direct impact on the cost of food for Canadians.

Farmers in my riding know better than anyone that when we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who transports the food, we tax the Canadians who buy the food, making everything more expensive. This is especially true for families in my community who are struggling to put food on their tables.

Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, over 800,000 people in Ontario alone accessed a food bank. In total, there were 5.9 million visits to a food bank in this time period.

The Barrie Food Bank, which is located in my riding, is currently seeing an incredibly high demand for services. In October, the Barrie Food Bank assisted nearly 7,000 clients, including 731 first-time visitors, which amounts to a 94% increase from last year alone.

Sharon Palmer, the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank, told CTV News that “We are seeing more employed people than ever before, more large families, seniors, and more people on government support programs”.

The crisis is getting worse. Projections show that, in 2024, there will be a 2.5% to 4.5% increase in food prices, with meat, vegetables and bakery items rising from 5% to 7%. Due to these rapidly rising prices, the “Canada Food Price Report 2024” says the following:

It is important to note that Canadians are spending less on food...despite inflation. Food retail sales data indicates a decline from a monthly spend of $261.24 per capita in August 2022 to a monthly spend of $252.89 per capita in August 2023, indicating that Canadians are reducing their expenditures on groceries, either by reducing the quantity...of food they ...[buy] or by substituting less expensive alternatives.

That means Canadians are skipping meals. They are buying lower-quality food. This is unacceptable in a G7 country, and the costly carbon tax is only making these inflationary pressures worse for Canadians who are struggling.

For reference, I have another bill from Enbridge. It is from a senior in my area. Diane is in her 80s and lives off a pension. She intentionally reduces the heat in her apartment, keeping it low. Nonetheless, her bill is over $22 for the gas alone, and the carbon tax is $21. She is paying almost as much in carbon tax, not including the HST, as she is for the gas itself, just to heat her apartment. This is unacceptable. We know Diane is struggling, but we are here to try to help her by reducing the tax. The total cost of her bill for a month was $108.

Seniors, especially those like Diane on fixed incomes, cannot afford yet another carbon tax increase. They are choosing between putting food on the table and heating their homes, and the Liberal government simply does not care.

The Prime Minister and his environment minister have touted this costly tax program as being a great deal for Canadians. When it was first announced, they made it sound too good to be true. First, it would fight climate change and second, it would not cost Canadians a cent because the government would rebate whatever they spent.

We know now that is not the case. In fact, the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed what many common-sense Canadians already knew; they pay more in carbon tax than they get in rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that the carbon tax cost the average family between $402 and $847 in 2023, and that is before the increase, even after the rebates. By 2030, the Prime Minister's two carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline, according to the same source.

Let me be very clear. The carbon tax is not a climate plan. It is a tax plan that places an undue burden on families, small businesses and farmers. Meanwhile, the Liberal government has failed to meet a single solitary emissions target after eight years in power. In fact, Canada's environment commissioner has made it clear, once again, that Canada will not meet its climate targets, despite the Liberals' punitive taxes on Canadians.

The government is not bothering to set implementation deadlines for 49% of its measures. It has also admitted that only 43% of their so-called “climate measures”, many of which are actually just taxation measures, will have any direct impact on emissions. The government's plan did not even bother to include a target or expected emission reductions for 95% of its measures.

Conservatives have a real plan to bring home lower prices for Canadians. We would cap costs and stop wasteful government spending to bring down inflation and interest rates.

A Conservative government would introduce a dollar-for-dollar law so that every dollar of new spending would be matched with a dollar of savings. Instead of creating more cash, we would create more of what cash buys. That means growing more food, building more homes and creating more energy right here at home through technology, not taxes. We will cancel the Prime Minister's tripling of the carbon tax that punishes hard-working Canadians just for buying food, filling up their cars and heating their homes. These things are not luxuries. They are necessities.

Canadians should not be forced to choose between putting food on the table and heating their homes. The only way to reverse the damage the Liberal government has caused is by reversing the course and doing the opposite. Canadians want change. They want lower taxes, more homes, a balanced budget, safe streets and, most of all, they want a change in government.

The common-sense Conservative promise is simple: We will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We will restore hope to our country and put Canadians back in control of their lives.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C‑234. I also agree on the importance of acknowledging our farmers' relentless work in support of sustainable agriculture and having a certain tool to achieve it.

That is exactly why I spoke about offset credits and their recognition by the Government of Canada in relation to the clean fuel regulations and the clean electricity regulations.

Some companies could pay our farmers for their hard work. Of course, in addition to the government, big companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi should be making the same kinds of contributions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Chair, as you know, on December 14, 2023, the Minister of Environment, here in committee, promised to provide us with all the details of the expenses related to his trip to Dubai, as well as a summary of the meetings, and to give us the list of the senators he had called regarding Bill C‑234.

Do you have any news from the minister?

Liberal Party of Canada

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government remains in denial that its punitive carbon tax causes inflation. Who says the carbon tax is inflationary? It is the Parliamentary Budget Officer; the Governor of the Bank of Canada; every farmer, manufacturer, producer, distributor and retailer in Canada; and Canadians who buy food. Maybe Canadians are just experiencing this differently. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, food inflation is out of control. When we tax the farmer, food gets more expensive, yet the costly coalition keeps its head in the sand. Inflation will get worse when the Prime Minister increases the carbon tax on April Fool's.

In contrast, common-sense Conservatives brought forward a solution to address high food costs with Bill C-234, exempting farmers from the carbon tax, but Liberal-appointed senators were whipped to gut the bill.

A Conservative government would axe the tax, fix the budget, build homes and stop the crime.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now every generation is giving up the dream, the dream of owning a home, the dream of warm holidays, the dream of a secure retirement, the dream of not living paycheque to paycheque and the dream of being able to afford heat and groceries for their family.

The actions of the Liberal-NDP coalition with this carbon tax has caused significant harm to Canadian farmers and consumers alike. The government has been making every effort to prevent farmers from receiving a carbon tax exemption for drying grain, barn heating and other farm operations, as well as hard-working Canadians from heating their homes. A carbon tax on all forms of home heating has already been voted down by the Liberal-Bloc coalition, and the Liberals and NDP still plan to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers. This increase of 23% will only lead to a further increase in the cost of food for Canadians.

It is clear that taxing the farmers who grow the food, as well as the truckers who transport it, will inevitably lead to higher prices for consumers. The Liberal-NDP coalition's actions have completely left Canadians out in the cold. It is critical that steps are taken to support our farmers and ensure affordable food and heat for all Canadians.

I am not sure if the government fully understands the financial pinch that the majority of our country is in right now. Any of my constituents who can fly around on a private jet know what it costs when they see the bill. When was the last time our Prime Minister saw, read or paid a bill for private flights? I believe he is too far removed to keep this country going and feel the financial pressure that even a small percentage increase in grocery prices can bear.

Furthermore, Liberal-appointed senators voted significantly to change Bill C-234, which aims to provide relief to farmers from this carbon tax. This will only make the situation worse for farmers who are already struggling to keep up with the rising costs of production. These appointed senators gutted the bill before sending it back to the House of Commons, which means that it will have to go through further amendments before it can be passed into law. More red tape, more stopgaps, while the government fails to come up with solutions that do not just benefit themselves. We need to take action and ensure we can provide much-needed support to our farmers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has released a report estimating that Bill C-234 will save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030. This would result in a reduction of food costs for Canadian families, many of whom are currently struggling to afford groceries. The report highlights the importance of passing this bill to support the agricultural industry and improve the financial well-being of Canadians. It is concerning to me, and should be a concern to everyone, that with this report, the Liberals are still against it. I would question the motive behind not wanting to reduce financial stress on Canadian citizens.

It is time to stand up for our hard-working farmers and families. I have heard from many of my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia about the effect of the carbon tax on their everyday life. We are experiencing a 52% increase in monthly visits to the food banks and have also had reports of previous donors now becoming clients. This level of increase is something I never imagined we would be experiencing in Canada.

Theresa in Wasa has recently moved into her car due to the continuous prices increases. Alex in Cranbrook has three jobs to make ends meet for him and his wife. Richard in Creston was charged $39.25 for his natural gas with a $57.00 carbon tax fee, and then that tax was taxed.

Why is the Liberal-NDP government implementing a tax and also taxing that tax? It looks like another way for it to line its pockets with our constituents' money so that it can continue to overspend with its off-balance budget. The government's goal seems to be testing how hard it can push Canadians to their financial breaking point. I can tell this House that we are already there. Families are feeling the financial strain and it is spilling into all areas of their lives.

Julie, a senior, called me and said that she had a piece of toast and half an apple for breakfast. Why only half an apple? She said she saves the other half for lunch. She could not remember the last time she had eaten meat. It is critical that the government fully understands the appalling financial state it has put this country in. Our seniors have worked their younger adult lives to contribute to society and better this country, and their reward? Taxes upon taxes, and deciding which half of an apple to eat for their meal. The government's legacy is going to be its citizens choosing between heat or food to make ends meet.

ATCO Wood Products, a third-generation sawmill in my riding, produces wood veneer, wood chips, biomass, wood gardening supplies, posts and landscape ties. It has reported it paid $400,000 in 2023 for carbon tax. In 2030, it will be $1.2 million.

The family-owned and run business gives back and provides excellent resources to our community and the country. It is successful in sustainable forest management on both Crown and private lands by thorough planning and responsible practices. It is hard to fathom that the tax that was meant to be an incentive to cut emissions has now become a noose for businesses providing essential products to our citizens.

What is really interesting is the tax on the carbon tax. This year that is $500 million, rising to $1 billion in 2030, and a total tax grab of $6.23 billion over the next eight years.

It is concerning to see the failure of the NDP-Liberal government in promoting Canadian LNG to the European Union. Instead, the EU had to fund Russia's war machine, which is not a sustainable solution. As a country with the most ethical leader in production energy, it is disappointing to see no action being taken. That is a missed opportunity for Canada to promote its clean energy resources on the global stage. We urge the government to take immediate action in promoting Canadian LNG to the European Union.

I am deeply concerned about the rising unaffordability in Canada, which is causing many Canadians to lose their homes and contributing to homelessness. This crisis is having a devastating impact on individuals, families and communities across this country.

Further to that, the homelessness crisis is directly contributing to the ever-expanding opioid crisis, as many individuals who are homeless are turning to drugs to cope. Due the increase of opioid users, business owners are reporting damages to their stores and property, resulting in them no longer contributing to the community in the ways they need to. We need to stop the crime. This trickle effect directly takes away from the community, since business owners are now putting money back into repairs and not into the community.

As I have mentioned, our food banks are seeing the results of this effect. This is a complex issue that requires attention from all levels of government, and the Liberal government needs to take immediate action to address the root causes of this unaffordability: overtaxing.

Conservatives believe that it is critical to support our farmers and our families by ensuring that they are not burdened with additional taxes. Adding a frivolous tax to make up for the government's budgetary mismanagement is downright shameful and it needs to stop. We need to fix the budget.

We will continue to fight for the elimination of the tax on everything, for everyone, for good. We believe Canadians should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money and not be burdened by unnecessary taxes.

We believe the red tape on the housing industry, preventing homes from being built, needs to stop. We need to fix homes.

We believe that the dream of owning a home, going on a warm holiday, having a secure retirement and not living paycheque to paycheque should not be a dream at all, it should be a reality. Overtaxing is taking away from our Canadian citizens. Our hard-working constituents should not be weighed down by the necessity of having multiple jobs or choosing heat or food.

We need to axe the tax.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, which is such a pleasure. British Columbia will always have a dear spot in my heart because I lived there myself.

On behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame who have entrusted me to come here and bring their thoughts to this place, I stand today to beg the Liberal-NDP coalition to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1.

After eight long years of the Liberal government, people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired. They say it is has gone past its expiry date. People are hurting; they have had enough, yet the Prime Minister jets off to the Caribbean and has an $89,000 vacation passed on to him for free by one of his rich friends. However, that is not the sad part. While he is taxing Canadians with the carbon tax to slow us down on our burning of fossil fuels, in one week he puts 100 tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, while the average Canadian puts out just 15 tonnes of emissions per year.

People are hurting. The inflationary carbon tax hits the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food, the grocers who sell the food and the consumers who simply drive to the grocery store to buy the food. This is why the Conservative Party put forward Bill C-234, which would take the tax off farmers who grow the food.

We have heard some rhetoric from the NDP-Liberal coalition. My hon. colleague for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, with his famous words last year, said he was sick and tired of people's talking about a cold winter and what they are doing. Then there is my colleague, the member for Avalon, who sometimes does not know whether he is coming or going when it comes to the carbon tax. We will see, I guess, where he stands on Monday. We hope that he does not just turn into a quicker flipper-flopper-upper and that he hangs in there and supports his constituents. I know where I stand; I stand with the people.

Last week, the CBC interviewed me and wanted some comments about the statement from my colleague, the member for Avalon, about the desire for a leadership review. I told them that I understood the member's frustration after seeing his leader being involved in the Aga Khan scandal, SNC Lavalin and the WE scandal. After all, his leader is the son of the guy who brought home the Constitution. It is unbelievable to see the Prime Minister continuously working against the Constitution, which his dad was so proud of. For example, there was the unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act, the single-use plastics ban, the oil and gas emissions cap, the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the environmental impact assessment bill. Now we are being face with Bill C-49 in committee, which references, 73 times, the unconstitutional Bill C-69.

The Liberals want to stop the production of oil off Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact in all of Canada. They want to tax us and surrender the production of our clean, environmentally soundly produced oil with good labour standards and turn that production over to dictators with bad human rights records who produce dirty oil, under no environmental regulations for the most part.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do something about cutting world emissions, it would be turning its attention to coal. In 2023, coal usage in the world set a record. Next year, it is going to go to new record heights.

Meanwhile, Canadians are being punished with a carbon tax. Coal produces 40% of the world's emissions. Natural gas produces half of the emissions coal does. The Chancellor of Germany came last year, begging us to supply Germany with liquefied natural gas to get it off dictator Putin's natural gas and to support the people of Ukraine. The Prime Minister said there was no business case for producing liquefied natural gas on Canada's east coast. Newfoundland and Labrador is the closest point to Europe in North America. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas sitting there, being reinjected, which we could bring ashore—

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think if people have any conversation with these dairy farmers, they will say, without a doubt, that this carbon tax is crippling them. That is across the board. Bill C-234 is about that. That is what I would push back on. I would—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we are in a cost of living crisis. Inflation, tax hikes and rising prices are emptying people's pockets. Seniors' pensions are quickly losing their purchasing power. People are drowning in debt and barely staying afloat. What has the Prime Minister done? He has thrown them an anvil with this heartless plan to hike the carbon tax once again on April 1.

I should mention that I will be sharing my time with the great member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

Families and seniors are struggling to put food on the table. Everybody who goes to a grocery store knows exactly what I am talking about, and there is simply no end in sight. The latest food price report is deeply troubling. It shows that food costs will continue to climb, with the prices of meat and vegetables being the highest.

We only have to look at the skyrocketing numbers of people visiting food banks to get a clear picture of what is happening in our great country. Almost two million people are now using a food bank at least once a month. This is not just a statistic. We are talking about our fellow Canadians, many of whom have full-time jobs, who still cannot afford groceries. The problem is that their paycheques can no longer pay the bills and feed their families. It pains me to know that parents are cutting back on healthy foods for their kids because they simply cannot afford it.

My amazing wife Cailey and I were blessed with a beautiful baby girl just a few weeks ago, and it has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be responsible for and to care for others. My heart goes out to the families who are feeling the weight of the unpaid bills and their maxed-out credit cards. I know that moms and dads are having to make incredibly difficult decisions about how to feed their kids and how to give them the best lives possible. That should not include watering down baby formula just to be able to afford it. Even if they do that, many can still barely pay to heat their home or keep a roof over their head.

The cost to rent a place in Canada has hit another record high, going up another 8.6% in the last 12 months alone. For those looking to purchase a home, under the Prime Minister, we have now become a country where millions, particularly young people, will forever be shut out of the housing market. This is so disappointing to millions of Canadians. In the province of Manitoba, the average price of a home shot up 6.7% in the last three months alone. To make matters worse, the number of homes on the market plummeted 71% in the last couple of months, and the total properties sold is down 35%.

The one thing about the Liberal government that boggles my mind is that it always blames its communications for why people do not like its policies. In interview after interview, Liberal MPs say that, if they just found better words to explain their carbon tax, they could convince families living off their lines of credit that they are actually better off. If they could just hire a new wordsmith in the Prime Minister's Office, preferably one who does not use incredibly crude language on Twitter, they would figure out a better way to gaslight Canadians. At this rate, it will not be too long until there is a ministry of truth, where war is peace, ignorance is strength and the carbon tax is good for people's wallets.

When the carbon tax is applied to almost every aspect of our economy, it does not matter how many millions of tax dollars are spent on fancy commercials promoting it, people will still not buy it. Of course, the latest plan is to rebrand the Liberals' climate change incentive payments. This rebranding exercise explains a lot about how the government thinks and responds to issues. It is not about getting results or solving problems. Liberals think their words and wonderful symbolism will somehow fix people's problems.

The Liberal insiders and their consultant buddies are not going to like this, but I can save the government some time, effort and money that will be spent on rebranding the carbon tax. It will not work, so do not do it. Stop it. It is time to axe the tax.

It is a tax plan. It drives up the price of everything. It contributes to inflation, and it is making life harder for families to make ends meet. It does not matter what we call it. People cannot afford it. Families cannot pay their rent or mortgages using Liberal talking points. Houses do not get built at the photo ops of announcements, and press conferences threatening tax hikes on our grocery stores has not reduced food prices one bit.

I get that governing is difficult, and when one is out of ideas and out of touch, it gets a lot harder, so maybe it is time for that carbon tax election the Prime Minister clearly wants so badly. Everyone knows the hardships being caused by the ever-increasing carbon tax. Even the Prime Minister acknowledged that fact when, under heavy political pressure from his Atlantic Canadian members of Parliament, he gave one group of Canadians a carbon tax exemption. To quell his internal caucus revolt, he gave 3% of Canadians a temporary carbon tax exemption on their heating bills, lasting just past the next election to hopefully get their votes, but he left 97% of Canadians out in the cold.

The one lesson we did learn from the Prime Minister is that he has no shame in giving special treatment to one group of Canadians he thinks might vote for him. Here is my advice to the Prime Minister: Give all Canadians the same deal. Stop dividing Canadians. Stop pitting one region against one another and stop picking winners and losers. Heating one's home in this country is not a luxury. It is a necessity.

Not only should the Prime Minister exempt all home heating for all Canadians, but he should immediately cancel the upcoming tax hike on April 1.

I represent a rural riding made up of small towns and small cities, and the reality is that people must drive long distances to get where they are going. It seems like every hockey game or baseball game we play is about an hour away, each way. This is part of our way of life and our quality of life, and it is how we live our lives.

Some folks commute to the next town over for work. They could be commuting 50, 60, 80 or 100 kilometres each way to work to pay to put food on the table and a roof over the head for their families.

Portage—Lisgar is not unique in this sense, and many of my colleagues on this side of the House represent rural constituencies. What we all have in common is that there are no LRTs. There are no subways and no busses to take us from one town to the next. There are no bike lanes on our highways, and even if there were, it would not be very pleasant riding for six months on snow-packed roads with cold, wintery weather.

While the Minister of Finance can proudly claim she does need to own a car in her constituency, in my riding, we do not have a limo service that can shuttle us around from town to town.

A good example of how widely out of touch the Liberal government has become is how it has mishandled Bill C-234. Almost every single Liberal MP, including the Minister of Agriculture, voted against this common-sense legislation. The bill would have finally exempted farmers from the carbon tax on drying their grain or heating and cooling their livestock barns.

As someone who grew up on a farm, has worked for farmers and now represents the voices of farmers, I find it a bit rich when I hear Liberal and NDP MPs who have never stepped onto farm have the audacity to tell farmers they should just be quiet, shut up and take the carbon tax. It is offensive to farmers, and I am not surprised at how angry they are with this tax, but now they are going to have to brace for the upcoming increase on April 1, too.

Where does that leave the rest of my constituents, who live and work and play on the land? As it stands, the carbon tax is about $65 a tonne, and for every litre of gas they put in their car or truck, they are paying 14¢ a litre more. If someone is one of the countless people who drives a pickup truck and has a 90-litre gas tank, that is close to $12.60 every time one fills it up. The average rural person who is driving a pickup truck is paying at least $360 a year more in carbon taxes. That does not include the carbon tax on their home heating or that is baked into the cost of everything they buy in their day-to-day lives. Imagine when that $65 a tonne will go up to $170 a tonne in just six years.

In closing, I would urge Liberal MPs across the way to stand up for their constituents who cannot afford to pay their bills and put food on their tables. I urge them to vote in favour of the Conservative motion to scrap the carbon tax by April 1 to stop the unnecessary suffering people in this country are facing right now. I urge them to be honest with themselves and acknowledge the last thing people can afford right now is another tax.

It is time to axe the tax. It is time to build the homes. It is time to fix the budget, and it is time to stop the crime. To my colleagues across the way, they should give their constituents hope that their MP will stop making their lives more unaffordable because it is never too late to do the right thing.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that when I visited Timmins last year, and when our Conservative leader has visited Timmins time and time again, the constituents said they never see or hear from their NDP MP. They say just how out of touch the NDP has become. It has sold out working families, particularly in northern Ontario, in Timmins—James Bay, and continues to prop up the Liberal government.

It was just in the news last week, in The Daily Press, up in Timmins. The airport manager of the Victor M. Power Airport said he has a serious concern about the rising cost of living in this country. I am going to quote him. He said:

We’re burning hundreds and hundreds of litres of fuel and that price is going to go up a huge amount. That cost gets passed onto the traveling public right out of Timmins. So my budget is going to go through the roof in the next couple of years.

My focus is running the business of the airport. I need to do something to make sure...people can afford to fly, and not have [to pay] $800 seats to [go to] Toronto.

That is because carbon taxes are driving up the cost of living in northern Ontario. It gets cold in northern Ontario. To heat their homes, people need to have heat. They should not be penalized for doing that.

They have to drive. If they are going from Timmins to Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay, Kapuskasing, Hearst or any point in between, there is no subway. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance just hops on the subway. I have been up there a few times in northern Ontario. I found a Subway restaurant, but I have not found the subway that she suggests people in northern Ontario can just use.

The motion we have is clear. Our position, as Canadian Conservatives, is clear as well. We will axe the tax entirely, on everything, for good. The Prime Minister is playing games with Bill C-234 and giving an exemption or carve-out to farmers to save $1 billion. They will not go for that. They are playing games in the Senate and now here in the House. They now have the opportunity to go on the record. They do not have to increase the carbon tax again on April 1.

It is time to cancel the increase and give Canadians some much-needed relief after eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP partners.

Carbon Pricing

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what to say. This is insane. I asked a very simple question about the carbon tax and Bill C-234, and I heard about the Competition Act, which has nothing to do with the carbon tax. I do not know how that is.

I asked about how pricing on pollution is making life more affordable. Bill C-234 is going to cost Canadian farmers $1 billion. How is that making it more affordable? Why did the member choose not to answer the question?

Why did she read for the Prime Minister's Office? Why did the Prime Minister and the minister not come down and answer these questions?

Canadian farmers and Canadians want to know why this carbon tax is costing them so much. It is dragging our whole country down, and the member, I am sorry to say, chose to blow off Canadians and just ignore the whole process.

Therefore, I would ask—

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, on December 14, 2023, the environment minister admitted at committee to having called at least five senators about Bill C-234, a Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax for Canadian farmers. The minister promised to hand over a list of senators he called. It has been 48 days, yet the minister has not provided the list.

My question is very straightforward: Whom did the minister call, and how did they vote?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a neighbour of mine, and we both represent parts of the great city of Vaughan.

The member says he supports making life more affordable for the citizens of Vaughan and those across Canada. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that Bill C-234 would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, reducing the cost of food for Canadian families currently struggling to afford groceries.

I am wondering if the member can explain to the residents of Vaughan who are currently struggling to afford groceries why he will not support Bill C-234.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Chair, I have a point of order.

Minister Guilbeault promised we'd get the names of the senators he was talking to about Bill C-234. I don't know if you've heard back from him or not. We've issued a letter.

Carbon Pricing

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' schemes, scams and spin jobs do not help the millions of desperate hungry Canadians struggling just to get by every single month.

This is the fact: when one taxes the farmer who produces the food, the trucker who ships the food and the cost of heating and cooling and storing the food, Canadians cannot afford the food.

These out-of-touch carbon tax crusaders do not care. They are going to quadruple it on April 1. Conservatives would axe the tax for all for good.

Why will these Liberals not just pass Bill C-234, reject the Senate amendments, axe the tax on farmers and bring down food prices today?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that Deputy Prime Minister is so out of touch. This is the truth: After eight years, Canadians cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves. Last year, two million Canadians needed help from food banks every month. That is a shocking 78% increase from just two years before, and food banks say that 2024 will be even worse.

The Conservative common-sense bill, Bill C-234, would take the tax off farmers to lower food prices right now, but the Liberals forced senators to gut it. Why will the Liberals not axe the tax on farmers to bring down food prices for Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that I pay for my own vacations and those of my family. Canadians who pay for their own vacations are also paying too much for food. We have a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, that would take the carbon tax off the farmers who feed us and the consumers who desperately need to put nutrition on their tables.

Will the Prime Minister stop blocking the bill and pass this law so that Canadians can afford food?

Carbon Tax

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across this country are paying a high price for the NDP-Liberal government's tax-and-spend agenda.

After eight years with the carbon tax-obsessed Prime Minister, Canadian families are struggling to put food on the table, put gas in their tanks and keep a warm roof overhead, yet the Prime Minister only wants to punish them more. His April 1 carbon tax is only going to make things worse for the two million Canadians who are already lined up at food banks.

Bill C-234 is a common-sense piece of legislation that would remove the carbon tax on farm operations to help lower our grocery prices. However, the Prime Minister is hell-bent on quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers and on Canadians.

It is clearer than ever that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be here today and to be able to speak to the amendment to this bill, an amendment I was very proud to second from our leader of the Conservative Party.

In fact, the Conservative leader, the hon. member for Carleton and Canada's next prime minister, delivered a really clear message to Canadians on Sunday: Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime.

I hear from Canadians regularly, from right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, who are struggling. What they are seeing are higher grocery prices, higher home heating costs, higher electricity costs, higher gasoline costs and higher mortgage and rental costs, and they are seeing their limited paycheques being spread thinner and thinner.

Unlike the Liberal government, the hard-working people I talk to know that there are consequences, real consequences, for spending beyond their means. They understand that budgets do not balance themselves, and they, in turn, are making sacrifices to accommodate these inflated prices. They are angry when they see the Liberal government out jet-setting and this out-of-touch Prime Minister continuing with out-of-control spending.

The fall economic statement announced $20 billion in inflationary spending, further driving up interest rates, which further makes life harder. A record two million people visited a food bank in a single month. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the Prime Minister took office eight years ago. Violent crime is up 39%. Tent cities exist in almost every major city and in small towns across the country. Over 50% of Canadians are less than $200 away from going broke. Canadians who are renewing their mortgages will see an increase from 2% to 6% or even higher. The IMF has warned that Canada is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis, and business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year.

These results of the costly new spending spree can be summed up simply: Prices are up, rents are up, debt is up, taxes are up, and Canadians I talk to every single day have told me that they want the Prime Minister's time to be up. They want to see an election today. They want to make a decision on the leadership of our country, because they know that their finances cannot afford another year of this Prime Minister.

In 2024, for the very first time, we are going to be spending more money on payments to service our debt than we will on health care, more money to finance the reckless spending than on health care. More than $50 billion is going to be spent just on the interest payments to service the debt.

I think that this is shameful, and the Canadians I talk to totally agree. They are not running up their credit cards unless they have no other option, yet the government has options. It is just choosing not to take them.

The reckless spending risks a mortgage meltdown on the $900 billion of mortgages that will renew over the next three years. Personally, I am concerned about the countless people I have heard from who are currently under water on their homes. Their homes are worth less than what they owe to the bank. This is because of the government's relentless attack on Canadian energy, which has had a real impact on the home prices in many communities right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

Our eco-activist environment minister has made no secret of the fact that he not only dislikes Canada's energy industry, having a socialist idea of government transitioning it to something else, but also seems to have a problem with the very concept that we have an energy industry here in Alberta. Quite frankly, there is a serious problem with having a Soviet-style transition away from Canada's energy industry.

I am proud to come from northeastern Alberta and to have grown up in Fort McMurray, seeing the major innovation that has taken place in our energy industry over decades. During this most recent Arctic vortex, just a couple of weeks ago, many energy workers were working outside. They were bundling up. They were going to work when the rest of us were very grateful just to get to stay inside. These brought temperatures across the Prairies of -50° and even lower in some areas, with the wind chill. In those temperatures, frostbite can set in in a matter of minutes, yet these energy workers bundled up so we could stay warm. That is, for the families who could afford to keep the heat on.

The Liberal government has consistently doubled down on charging the carbon tax on home heating in the Prairies, which continues to rachet up the cost of our home heating. We do not have a choice in the Prairies during an Arctic vortex or throughout the winter as to whether we can or cannot heat our homes. If a home is not heated in -50°C, the pipes will freeze. There will be additional costs, and people will die. That is the reality. Frostbite will set in in minutes, yet this government has decided to have a carve-out for Atlantic Canadians, allowing them to have a pause on the carbon tax because of plummeting polls. However, in the Prairies, where we were facing -50°C weather this winter, in those areas we continue to have to pay the carbon tax. Not only do we have to pay this punishing carbon tax, but it is set to continue to increase on April 1. That is no joke.

With plummeting polls, the Liberals are making it so that a Canadian is not a Canadian is not a Canadian. The Canadians I have had the opportunity to chat with thought that this unfair, callous and crass decision of carving out the carbon tax away from Atlantic Canadians was wrong.

Canadians are out of money, and this government is completely out of touch. Conservatives have been and will continue to stand up, clearly asking this costly coalition of the Liberal-NDP government to remove the carbon tax on everything for everyone. The government rejects this, but we continue fighting, so, in the interests of Canadians we have asked for a variety of carve-outs: eliminating the carbon tax for farmers, eliminating the carbon tax on first nations, eliminating the carbon tax on home heating and many others. However, make no mistake, a Conservative government will axe the carbon tax on everything for everyone. This is common sense. Canadians need relief, not higher taxes.

After eight years, the Liberal Prime Minister does not understand that if we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who transports the food and the store that sells the food, we ultimately tax the family buying it. I have talked to moms who are having to make hard choices as to whether they put extra water in their babies' formula just so they can afford to feed their families. I talk to families who are struggling as to whether they are going to continue bundling extra sweaters onto their children, because they cannot afford to turn the temperature in their home up an extra degree or two to keep them nice and toasty.

This is why the Conservative Party introduced a very common-sense bill, Bill C-234, to axe the tax on farmers. It would have made the cost of food more affordable for everyone by saving farmers $978 million between now and 2030. It passed through the House of Commons, yet the unelected Senate gutted our common-sense bill under pressure from the PMO and the eco-activist environment minister. In fact, the same environment minister threatened to quit if there was another carve-out. The same environment minister even admitted during an environment committee meeting that he had called up to six senators to pressure them into voting to keep the tax on farmers. That is shameful. Now, all Canadians will have to pay a higher price at the grocery store.

Common sense means getting rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of living for all Canadians. It means capping reckless spending and getting rid of waste to balance the budget and lower inflation and interest rates. Common sense means cutting tax to make hard work pay off again. This NDP-Liberal government needs to rein in spending and balance the budget so that inflation and interest rates can come down and Canadians can keep more of the money they work so hard for. They need relief.

It is clear that after eight years of waste and incompetence, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. Canada's Conservatives have provided a clear, common-sense plan to reverse course and undo the damage the Liberals have done. Only common-sense Conservatives can be trusted to axe the tax, balance the budget, bring down inflation and interest rates, and build homes, not bureaucracy, to bring lower prices to Canadians. I'll say it again: Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from across the floor who represents LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and all the best to his family.

Further, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

It is an honour to speak to Bill C-59, the government's fall economic update, 2023.

In my time as a member of Parliament, I have focused on priorities that matter to the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Sadly, those priorities are not in the government's update.

People in Saskatchewan will be disappointed but not surprised that Saskatchewan is not even mentioned in the finance minister's fiscal update, outside of a few tables in the annex, but this is something we should all expect in Saskatchewan and in the west in general. We have never been a priority for the government.

Agriculture is one of the industries, if not the largest, in my riding. Again, it is a topic that is ignored altogether in this update. Farmers are struggling. Conservatives have put forward Bill C-234 that would axe the punitive carbon tax on fuel used on farms. I have heard from farmers in my riding who are paying thousands of dollars a month on that tax. Instead of supporting this common-sense idea, the government is quadrupling that tax in April, which puts the burden of a punitive policy directly on the shoulders of the people who feed our country.

If the minister cared about lowering grocery prices for Canadians, that would be a tremendous first step. The adage, if one does not want to be questioned about what one is doing, one should look busy by walking around with a clipboard, looking important and pretending to do something, is being replaced by the minister having weekly photo ops to pretend to Canadians that he is doing something. That does not impress or fool the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, where we have seen a rise in food bank usage by a whopping 39%.

If agriculture is not the largest employer in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, then mining and its related industries are a close second. Potash has become one of Saskatchewan's prime exports. I am privileged to represent a riding that has several of the largest potash mines in the world, if not in Canada. As we all know, Canada is the world's largest producer of potash, an important fertilizer that is in huge demand globally. At a time when other large producers, mainly Russia and Belarus, are waging an illegal war in Ukraine, Canadian potash is even more important. While it is already a massive Canadian success story, it is sadly another key industry ignored by the government's fiscal update.

During this period of global instability, the world is looking to Canada for help. Time and time again, we are turning our backs on good trading opportunities with other nations in need, whether it is LNG or potash. During unstable global times, Canada has always been a nation the world can rely on to come to those in need. Time and time again, we have, as a nation, called upon our Canadian Armed Forces to answer the call. It is important work and a priority to support our armed forces and veterans.

As I hope everyone here knows, 15 Wing Moose Jaw is home to Canada's iconic Snowbirds, so the air force is an issue close to my heart. As we look around the world and see conflicts erupting everywhere, we should be investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, we are hearing top commanders say that they cannot meet basic requirements. Recently, the Department of National Defence's own report stated that the military's operational readiness is strained. It said that the military is not ready to conduct concurrent operations and is not meeting the requirements of Canada's defence policy from 2017.

I quote:

Readiness of [Canadian Armed Forces] force elements have continued to decrease over the course of the last year aggravated by decreasing number of personnel and issues with equipment and vehicles.

Adding to this, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, has said that “the RCN faces some very serious challenges right now that could mean we fail to meet our force posture and readiness commitments in 2024 and beyond”. He added that the Harry DeWolf class, the navy’s new offshore patrol vessels, can currently only be deployed “one at a time” due to personnel shortages. Clearly, the Canadian Armed Forces is in a crisis and needs urgent investment, not vague commitments that government budgets will not affect the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have had the pleasure to serve on the veterans affairs committee since I was elected in 2021. I found it to be a tremendous committee that does some very important work that is, sadly, generally ignored by the current government. The fiscal update's sole mention of Canada's brave veterans is the statement that their benefits are indexed to inflation. Veterans on a fixed income are dependent on those benefits and, as we know, with all government payments, they are slow to reflect the inflation we are seeing now. Even if they do, the cost of many of life's necessities, namely groceries and housing, is easily outpacing the official inflation rate.

We are seeing more and more veterans turn to charities and not-for-profits to help feed themselves. It is heartwarming to see these organizations do this important work. Many are created by veterans for veterans; however, they should not be needed. Canadian heroes should never have to go to a charity to feed or house themselves because Veterans Affairs is not providing them with sufficient benefits.

The government's fall economic update falls short of the mark, and it has a negative trickle-down effect on other levels of government. There is only one taxpayer. School boards are realizing the effects of inflation. I recently received a text that the local school board is over-budget by $1 million because of the current government's inflationary spending and punitive carbon tax, which directly impact its operational and capital budgets. Next year, this school board will be another half a million dollars short, totalling $1 million in funds that local taxpayers will have to pay or find cost savings and measures.

Municipalities and police services are also being impacted. In Saskatchewan, the impact of inflation and the carbon tax is directly affecting its budgets, which are now increasing in double digits in communities in my riding, in my province and in this country.

The impacts will be negative. School budgets will be cut. Ten-dollar day care cannot help. Water, roads and other important infrastructure required to keep communities thriving will be cut, and that single taxpayer will receive less service for more dollars, which is a familiar theme with the current government. The future of our country is bleak if we continue to be held hostage by a coalition NDP-Liberal government. That is right. We are being held hostage by the government.

However, I have faith in the people of Canada to elect a Conservative government that is listening to our people. My faith in the next generation is being restored. I met Ashton, an 18-year-old university student studying accounting, and he is working at a local grocery store. His parents have traditionally been Liberal supporters, which is a rare thing in Saskatchewan. Ashton shared with me that he has overheard customers in the grocery store where he works say that this will be the first time they will need to visit the food bank in order to feed their families.

Ashton told me these stories are breaking his heart. He is a critical thinker and has made the choice to not vote Liberal in his first election and to break the family tradition. He sees that the current Liberal government is doing nothing concrete to help families struggling to feed themselves. Ashton knows that a Conservative government would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us hope, for everyone's sake, including Ashton's, that it comes sooner rather than later.

Public Accounts

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

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.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I am very honoured to rise today in the House to represent the people of my riding, Beauce, and also, more importantly, on the issue of Canada's food security and sovereignty.

After studying the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, all of my thoughts on the matter have unfortunately been confirmed.

I will take a brief moment to read the conclusion of the report:

...there was no national emergency preparedness and response plan for Canada's food system and food security, despite the government having identified food as a critical infrastructure sector long before the COVID-19 pandemic began. And although AAFC had two emergency plans in place, it acknowledged that they were insufficient to deal with a crisis of this magnitude.

When I read the recommendations in this report, I see that these are watered down recommendations to mask the current government's failures. In every recommendation, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts asks the departments concerned for status reports. However, in my opinion, it does not really go far enough.

As Conservatives, we have been defending farmers and families from the beginning. We understand that food security starts on the farm and that our government needs to be there to support those who put food on our tables.

Under this Liberal government, the price of food has skyrocketed because of the carbon tax. Farmers are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Canadians, too, are finding it harder and harder to put food on the table, as we have seen from the record use of food banks in our communities.

We have also seen a decline in our relationships with many countries, since the government has failed many times in the negotiation of trade agreements. Some countries do not even want to reopen negotiations with us because of the government's incompetence. That is why it is so important to have a national food system that works and that we can depend on today and in the future.

It is very simple. With grocery prices the highest they have ever been in our country, it is up to this government to find a way to reduce the cost of food. The easiest place to start is on the farm.

A great way to start would be to pass the original Bill C‑234 as soon as possible so as to exempt farmers from the carbon tax on propane and natural gas used to heat livestock buildings and dry grain.

I am appalled that the Prime Minister and his senators gutted this important bill in the Senate. The bill had the unanimous support of all parties in the House but one, the Liberal Party of Canada.

This legislation also had the backing of every ag sector stakeholder I talked to across the country. These farmers need relief from this crippling tax that is destroying their businesses and driving food prices sky-high. I talked to lots of farmers in my riding, and every one of them endorsed this bill. Winter is here, and they are very worried about how they are going to heat their henhouses and hog barns all winter long.

As the official opposition agriculture critic and as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I have personally attended every meeting since I was elected. We hear the same stories year after year.

Over the holidays, I volunteered at Moisson Beauce, a food bank in my riding. While preparing Christmas hampers for struggling families, about 2,500 in a single day, I learned that Moisson Beauce is now experiencing record usage and no longer receives enough donations to meet demand. That is not the Canada I remember. We are at a point where it is cheaper to import food than to produce it locally.

One comment I hear all too often from the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois is that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. That is absolutely false.

The carbon tax applies in Quebec directly and indirectly. I can show countless receipts from farmers for propane, for example, that include the federal price on pollution.

As I was saying, the carbon tax is also paid indirectly when we import goods from other provinces. Quebec is not self-sufficient; we import a lot of products from provinces that pay the entire carbon tax and that tax is passed on to us, the consumers, either through inflated prices or the cost of transportation.

Agriculture Carbon Alliance wrote to every federal member to express their full support for this bill. The alliance is 17 national agricultural groups representing more than 190,000 farms in Canada.

Canadian farmers are stewards of the land. They are very concerned about their animals and the environment. They work so hard to feed our families and support our economy. The lack of support from the Liberal government is incredible.

I must mention the rural members of the Liberal caucus. I cannot believe that only three Liberals voted in favour of this legislation. I suppose that only three of them want to keep their seat in the next election. The polls speak for themselves.

Who could forget what the Minister of Rural Economic Development said? She said that, if Canadians want relief, they should elect more Liberal members. If those rural Liberal members think they will ever get the farm vote back, they are sorely mistaken.

Another looming problem that will impact Canada's food security and food sovereignty is the Liberal plan to outlaw single-use plastics, a plan that the courts recently struck down but that the government plans to appeal at taxpayers' expense.

A study by the Canadian Produce Marketing Association makes it clear that if this ban goes through, fruit and vegetable prices will rise by up to 34%. The report also indicates that the availability of Canadian products could be reduced by half. We will also see a 50% increase in food waste.

Conservatives will always stand up for farmers and, most importantly, for common sense. Canadians are suffering. Many of them are on the verge of bankruptcy. How can the government turn its back on them when all they want is to feed their families affordably?

If the government does not take action, our farm families will keep disappearing, our country will become even more dependent on food imports, and our food system will be even more vulnerable. Right now, a vegetable grown in Mexico costs less at the grocery store than one grown locally. Does that make sense? It is contrary to their entire climate change ideology.

Canadians can count on the Conservatives to change that situation, which makes no sense. Canadians do not need departmental progress reports. They need real action to avert a disaster in our national food system.

With out-of-control inflation and interest rates that are still very high, Canadians will continue to experience financial difficulties. This report sheds light on the situation and shows that it is extremely important that we learn from the pandemic and take the appropriate action.

The Prime Minister has increased the size of the public service by 40% since he has been in office, so how is it that these departments cannot manage to do their work properly? That is incompetence.

At the end of her speech, my colleague from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex will move a motion to get our national food system back on track in order to guarantee our food security and food sovereignty in the future.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will take this issue seriously and that we can come together to do the right thing for all Canadians by voting in favour of this motion.

Finance

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, we will cut the number of Liberal seats in the House and replace them with a common-sense Conservative government.

Let me give the fast and furious finance minister some free non-consultant advice. Why do the Liberals not cut woke policies and axe the carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating, and pass Bill C-234 for our farmers? Why do they not cut the $20 billion the Prime Minister gives to Liberal consultants to cover up the incompetency by his own cabinet?

After eight years, we all know the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. When will the Liberals fix the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates?

Carbon Pricing

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is uncommon to see a government ignore the fact that two million Canadians are going to a food bank every single month, yet the Liberal-NDP carbon tax coalition wants to quadruple the carbon tax, making farming unsustainable. When we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who hauls the food, we are increasing taxes on Canadians who buy the food. Again, millions of Canadians are going to a food bank every month, but Bill C-234 in its original form would provide relief now.

Will the Liberals reject the Senate amendments, take the tax off and ensure that Canadians can afford to put food on their tables?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister has an opportunity to help families struggling with high food costs. Bill C-234 is back in the House after Liberal-appointed senators delayed and gutted the bill. This is a common-sense Conservative bill that would give a carbon tax carve-out to farmers and ensure that Canadians have access to affordable, Canadian-grown food.

When the Prime Minister quadruples his carbon tax, farmers will pay $1 billion a year, driving up food costs even higher. Will the Liberals reject the Senate amendments, take the carbon tax off farming and lower food prices for Canadians?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must still have sand in his ears from his Jamaican vacation. That must be why he cannot hear the outcry from Canadians suffering from his carbon tax. While he was lining up at the all-inclusive, Canadians were lining up at food banks, and grocery prices jumped again, 38% higher than baseline inflation.

Now, a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, would help bring prices down by taking the tax off farm production. The only problem is this: Liberal senators gutted the bill.

Will the government reject the Senate amendments so the tax can come off and food prices can come down?

The Economy

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the holidays, I heard how after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to pay their bills and keep roofs over their heads. They know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Our leader, my Conservative colleagues and I are back to show Canadians they have a simple choice in the next election. On the one hand they can have a costly coalition of the NDP and Liberals that takes their money, taxes their food, punishes their work, doubles their housing costs and unleashes crime and chaos in their communities or they can choose the common-sense Conservatives and our common-sense plan.

We are back to address the priorities facing Canadians, starting with a focus on passing Bill C-234 to take the carbon tax off farmers and to bring food prices down.

Our priorities are clear: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us bring it home.

Carbon Tax

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, life in Canada has become unaffordable. It is unthinkable to continue the inflationary carbon tax scheme while millions of Canadians are relying on food banks and are forced to choose between heating and eating.

The government surely understands there is no way to produce food without using energy to dry grain, to heat barns and to bring food to our grocery stores. The Prime Minister wants to quadruple the carbon tax from 14¢ per litre to 61¢ per litre. Farmers in my communities are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax every month. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. The carbon tax carve-out is necessary for farmers to help fight food inflation. In response to the government's relentless pressure, the so-called independent senators gutted Bill C-234.

I call on the House to stop with the desperate tricks that are preventing farmers from getting the needed carve-out, drop the Senate amendments and send Bill C-234 back to the Senate in its original form.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

This is my first time rising in the House in 2024, and I want to wish everyone a happy new year.

It is 2024, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. That is the reality. That was the reality in 2023 and 2022, but the cost keeps going up every year.

That is why the Conservative Party has a very focused common-sense plan. We have four priorities that we want to work on in Parliament, and they are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop crime.

After eight years in office, this Prime Minister has managed to drive up the cost of living at the fastest pace in 40 years by doubling the national debt and printing $600 billion. He has increased inflation and interest rates at the expense of the working class and our seniors, and he did so with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with the exorbitant spending increases and the cost of government, which are creating a burden for Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of all of this government spending in the fall of 2023. It supported the tax increases on gas, which punish Quebec farmers and workers.

The common-sense Conservative Party is the only one offering an alternative to this destructive and costly policy implemented on the backs of Quebeckers.

First, we will eliminate the second carbon tax, which does indeed apply to Quebec.

Second, we will control spending by eliminating waste. We are going to get rid of the $35-billion infrastructure bank, which has not delivered a single project for Canadians. We will get rid of the ArriveCAN app and the so-called green fund which, according to the officials involved, is now a scandal on par with the sponsorship scandal. We will cut spending on consultants, who now cost every Canadian family $1,400. In eight years, this Prime Minister has doubled the amount spent on outside consultants. These are extraordinary costs that do not produce results for Canadians. It is work that could have been done by the government, by public servants, whose numbers have ballooned by 50%.

We are going to introduce a common-sense law, a dollar-for-dollar law. Every time ministers in my government increase spending by one dollar, they are going to have to find one dollar in savings to offset that spending. Instead of increasing the national debt, inflation and taxes, we are going to cap spending. Once the government is forced to reduce the cost that falls on the backs of our people, it will enable workers, businesses and our economy to grow.

Let us talk about our workers. There is a war on work right now. Workers are being punished with sky-high tax rates that claw back more and more of every dollar they earn. A common-sense Conservative government will lower taxes and reward work here in Canada, for our workers, small businesses and all Canadians, so that we can be a country that rewards work.

We will protect the paycheques of ordinary Canadians and ensure that they can earn bigger paycheques by doing away with unconstitutional laws that prevent natural resource projects from going ahead. We will allow Quebeckers to build dams and develop mines and other projects that generate wealth for our country, instead of sending money to China or other countries that are dictatorships. We will keep that money for ourselves, so that Canadians can have bigger paycheques. We are also going to build houses.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of housing has doubled, rent has doubled, the money needed for a mortgage on an average house has doubled, and the down payment needed to buy that same house has also doubled. In Montreal, it has tripled.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Montreal has increased from $760, when I was the housing minister eight years ago, to $2,200 now. Red tape has blocked the construction of 25,000 housing units over the past six years. Thousands of construction projects across the country are in limbo because of red tape. In Vancouver, whose former NDP mayor is incredibly incompetent, it is even worse. He added additional costs of $1.3 million to each housing development built. These increases are tied directly to the red tape and taxes charged by the governments.

In Quebec City, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Trudel with my Quebec lieutenant. He told me that $500 of the monthly rent for these apartments goes toward taxes and red tape, the costs charged by the government. For apartments that rent for $1,000, half of that amount covers only the taxes and the bureaucracy. That cost is too high. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will encourage municipalities to speed up construction instead of obstructing it.

The federal government pays out $5 billion to municipalities through the sales tax program. Quebec receives about $1 billion. There are already a lot of conditions attached to that money, a lot of federal conditions. However, those conditions do not include accelerating construction. That is why we are going to work with the Quebec government on a new infrastructure agreement that incentivizes construction. We will tie the amount of money that each municipality receives to the number of houses and apartments completed in the previous year. That would mean that municipalities like Victoriaville, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières would receive substantial bonuses, because there has been a huge boom in construction there. Last year, for example, construction increased by 30% in those municipalities. That should be rewarded. Real estate companies are paid according to the number of homes they sell. Construction companies are paid according to the number of houses they build. We should pay local bureaucracies on the basis of the number of homes they allow to be built. This would encourage the acceleration of construction.

We should also insist that every transit station be located near apartment buildings. Transit stations should be surrounded by large apartment towers. Across Canada, in Vancouver, Montreal and elsewhere, we see beautiful transit stations, yet there is almost no housing around them. It is ridiculous.

The federal government provides funding, but often a third or a half of the amount needed. We should insist that this money not be invested if there are no apartment buildings where our seniors and young people can live next to a public transit station. That is how we are going to speed up home construction. We are going to insist that CMHC provide funding for apartment buildings within two months, not two years. Executives should be fired unless they meet that deadline. Finally, these homes should be located in safe communities.

After eight years under the leadership of this Prime Minister, crime has increased by nearly 40%. He has increased crime by allowing the same small groups of repeat offenders to keep committing the same crimes over and over, and by letting them out on bail the very same day they are arrested.

A Conservative government will replace bail with jail. We will target real criminals who use guns and seal our borders instead of targeting hunters and sport shooters. We will treat and rehabilitate people with drug addictions instead of decriminalizing crack, cocaine and other drugs, as the Prime Minister has already done in partnership with the NDP in British Columbia.

What I have been describing here is common sense. This is the kind of common sense used by ordinary Canadians. For decades, there was a common-sense Liberal-Conservative consensus that led to our extraordinary success. A Conservative government will rebuild that consensus to give Canadians back the country they love and deserve. That is our goal. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and, finally, stop the crime. It is common sense, and that is what we are going to do.

Madam Speaker, I wish you a happy new year. It is 2024 and the Prime Minister is still not worth the cost. He is not worth the crime. He is not worth giving up the country that we know and love. After eight years, everything costs more, crime is running rampant, housing costs have doubled, the country is more divided than ever before, and the Prime Minister seeks to distract and attack anyone who disagrees with him in order to make people forget how miserable he has made life in this country after nearly a decade in power.

Our common-sense counterpoint is very focused. In this session of Parliament, we will fight to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is how we are going to turn around the mess the Prime Minister has created in eight years.

Let us quickly touch upon that mess. After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. This is after he promised that those housing costs would go down. In fact, they rose 40% faster than incomes, the worst gap in the G7 by far and the second worst among all 40 OECD nations. It is twice as bad as the OECD average, with roughly a quarter of OECD countries actually seeing housing affordability improve over the last eight years. Here in Canada, under the Prime Minister, we have seen it worsen at the fastest rate in the entire G7.

The Prime Minister has created a situation where only 26% of Canadians are able to afford a single-family home. It now takes 25 years to save up for a down payment on the average home for the average Toronto family, when 25 years used to be the time it took to pay off a mortgage. After eight years of the Prime Minister, it is now more affordable to buy a 20-bedroom castle in Scotland than a two-bedroom condo in Kitchener.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, a criminal defence lawyer reported on Twitter that numerous clients have asked if she can help extend their prison sentences so they do not have to live in this housing market and find a place to rent. In other words, the Prime Minister's housing market is worse than prison by the judgment of several people who actually live in prison.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, we have 16 seniors crammed into a four-bedroom home in Oshawa according to its food bank, which told me it had to house middle-class seniors together. They are all losing their homes because of the incredible rent increase the Prime Minister's policies have caused.

We have homelessness skyrocketing across the country. Every town and centre now has homeless encampments. Halifax has 30 homeless encampments for one medium-sized city. After eight years of the Prime Minister, who would have imagined that we would have 30 homeless encampments in one city, but that is the misery that he has created through his policies that are not worth the cost of housing.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister makes the problem worse. He gives tax dollars to incompetent mayors and bureaucracies to block homebuilding. The worst incompetence, of course, has been by the former mayor and the present mayor of Toronto, and the former mayor of Vancouver blocking construction in those cities and making it uninhabitable for many of the people who should be able to afford a home. We now have the second-slowest building permits of any country in the OECD. That is why we have the fewest homes in the G7, even with the most land by far to build on.

We were told that the media darling Minister of Housing, who was brought in in the fall, was going to fix all of this. He was going to hold photo ops right across the country, and all of a sudden there would be more building. What happened was that housing construction actually went down. There was a 7% reduction in housing last year under the leadership of the current housing minister.

Is it any surprise, when the guy who destroyed our immigration system was put in charge of housing, that we got a destructive result? It is not me accusing him of ruining the immigration system. It is his own Liberal successor. The current Liberal Minister of Immigration says that the system is out of control. In his own words, he claims that his predecessor was giving study visas for students to come and study at what he calls “puppy mills”. Those are his terms. I would never have used that term. It is insulting. They are actually human beings, not dogs. That is the language we get from the current immigration minister to describe the chaos that his own predecessor caused in the international student program and the temporary foreign worker program, not to mention countless other programs that have now been overwhelmed by fraudsters, shady consultants and bureaucratic incompetence. Now they take the guy who ruined all of that and say that this is the guy they are bringing in to resolve the housing crisis.

It is no wonder it gets worse and worse by the day. The Liberals' only defence is that they are spending lots of money. Failing is bad and failing expensively is even worse. That is what the Prime Minister has done after eight years. It is not only in housing. It is in generalized inflation. After eight years, inflation hit 40-year highs. After eight years, the Prime Minister has increased the cost of food so quickly that there are now two million Canadians, a record-smashing number, who are required to go to food banks in a single month. We have students forced to live in homeless shelters in order to afford food. We have seniors who say they have to live in tents in order to be able to shop and feed themselves, because food prices have risen so high.

In Toronto, one in 10 Torontonians are now going to a food bank, enough to fill the Rogers Centre seven times. If the monthly users of the food bank in Toronto alone were to go to the Rogers Centre, the place would have to be filled seven separate times, just to accommodate them all. Who would have thought we would have this many hungry people in Canada's biggest city, a city that has elected no one but Liberals since 2015? This is the result from that.

In that same city, crime and chaos rage out of control. In the adjoining suburbs, we now have stories of extortion, where small businesses receive letters saying that if they do not fork over big dollars to international crime syndicates, they will be shot at, their houses will be burned, their families will be targeted, and the government does nothing to protect them. Who would have thought that Canada would be so vulnerable to this kind of criminality and chaos that these foreign criminal syndicates would think Canada so weak and so easy to target that they could go after innocent small business leaders and their families in order to shake them down for money? Yet that is what has happened.

These same business owners go to bed at night with one eye open, because they know their car could be stolen as they sleep. I told some stories yesterday to the caucus, incredible stories of people in Brampton whose cars just vanished in the middle of the night. The cars go over to Montreal where they are put on a ship and sent off to the Middle East, Africa or Europe where they are resold at a profit. They are not even inspected as they go onto the ships in these containers.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spends billions of dollars trying to buy back the legitimate property of licensed law-abiding firearms owners. He believes that the problem is the hunter from Nunavut or the professional sport shooter from Nanaimo, when in fact the real problem is the criminals.

Common-sense Conservatives are going to put an end to this madness. We are going to bring home the country we know and love. Let us go through the common-sense plan.

We are going to bring home lower prices by axing the carbon tax. It starts with passing Bill C-234 to axe the tax on farmers and food so farmers can make the food and Canadians can afford to eat it. Let us pass the bill unamended today and let Canadians eat affordable food. It is very easy. The House of Commons passed it once before. The Senate, under duress and pressure from the current Prime Minister, then sent it back with unnecessary amendments. Now the other opposition parties are flip-flopping and wavering. They agree in principle with the Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax, but say they might consider giving farmers a break on it. Now they are not so sure. They are siding with the costly Prime Minister again on keeping the tax on our farmers. Every time our people go to the grocery store and see those rising prices they will know that the NDP has betrayed working-class people in favour of greedy government with higher taxes on farmers and the single moms who are struggling to feed their families.

We are going to axe the tax on home heat not just for some or for a short time, but for everybody, everywhere, always. Common-sense Conservatives call on the Prime Minister to be consistent and not just temporarily pause the tax in regions where his polls are plummeting and his caucus is revolting, but rather let us axe the tax for every Canadian household to heat their homes in this devastatingly cold winter. It is incredible how cold it was in Edmonton, -50°C, and the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre voted to tax the heat of Edmontonians. Not only that, the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre wants to quadruple the carbon tax on the home heat of Edmontonians, so over the next several years, as the winter cold comes in and people crank up their heat, their bills will rise increasingly faster. In some places now the carbon tax is more expensive than the actual gas that people are buying. We are going to be sharing the bills that some of my caucus members have so that everybody knows how badly the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition are ripping off Canadians for the crime of heating themselves in -50°C weather. We are the only party that will axe the tax for them and for everyone, everywhere, always.

Our common-sense plan to bring home lower prices includes capping the spending that has driven inflation, the $600-billion increase in spending and debt, which means printing money. Printing money bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. In fact, government spending is up 75% since the Prime Minister took office. He has nearly doubled the cost of the government at a time when the economy has barely grown at all. In fact, it is shrinking while the government is expanding, which means it is gobbling up an increasing share of a shrinking pie and there is less left for everyone else. Right now the government is rich and the people are poor, because the Prime Minister cannot stop spending, and his greedy NDP coalition counterparts push him to spend even more of other people's money. Our common-sense plan would cap spending and cut waste. We would get rid of the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank, the $54-million ArriveCAN app and the billion-dollar so-called green fund, which is really a slush fund.

We would cut back on the money wasted on consultant insiders, who now consume 21 billion tax dollars a year, an amount that is equal to $1,400 for every family in Canada. We would cut back on this waste to balance the budget, and bring down inflation and interest rates, so that Canadians can eat, heat and house themselves.

We are going to unleash the growth of our economy. Instead of creating more cash, we would create more of what cash buys. We have the most powerful resources, perhaps the greatest supply of natural resources per capita of any country on earth, and we are very good at harvesting those resources to the benefit of our people and our environment at the same time.

The Prime Minister, with the help of the NDP, has been driving the production to other countries, where they pollute more, burn more coal and add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The Prime Minister would drive the production away from Canadians, who use among the cleanest electricity grids on Planet Earth, instead of bringing it home to this country. Our common-sense plan would repeal Bill C-69 and replace it with a new law that would not only protect the environment and consult first nations but also get projects built so that we can bring home paycheques for our people and take the money away from the dirty dictators of the world.

I was able to recently announce our new candidate in the Skeena—Bulkley Valley riding, the great Ellis Ross, former chief of the Haisla Nation. He is responsible for bringing Canada the biggest-ever investment in its history, which is the LNG Canada project. It is a project that was approved by the former Harper government, and the only reason it was able to go ahead under this government is that it gave the project an exemption from the carbon tax. Had the tax applied, the project never would have occurred. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource law, been in place, the project never would have happened.

By the government's own admission, this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world by millions of tonnes because it will displace dirty, coal-fired electricity in Asia by sending clean, green Canadian natural gas, liquefied using hydroelectricity and our natural cold weather, and sent abroad on our shortest shipping distance, which means burning less fossil fuels to get it to market. This will displace more emission-intensive forms of energy in countries where they need to cut back. That is a solution to fight climate change and protect our environment, and thank God we had the visionary leadership of the great Ellis Ross to make that project happen, along with that of Stephen Harper.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has blocked every other LNG project from coming to fruition. There were 18 of these projects on the table when he took office, not one of them is completed. Only the aforementioned—

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we have to rise to speak to Bill C-234 once again.

Before I get into the meat of the speech that I want to bring up today, I do want to give some thanks. I want to thank the member for Huron—Bruce for bringing this private member's bill forward, as well as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who brought this bill forward in the previous Parliament, which shows how much work we have put into this legislation.

I would also like to thank those senators in the red chamber who made the right decision, one based on facts, not fiction. I know there was a lot of intimidation and bullying going on in the Senate as the Prime Minister and the environment minister were personally phoning senators to support the amendments to this very important bill. However, about 40 senators stayed strong; they represented their regions and represented the facts of the discussion and debate. I think that what this all comes down to today is to try to get the amendments removed and get the bill back into its original form and back to the Senate. This is a discussion about fact and fiction.

My comments today are going to be for my colleagues in the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party who have strongly and staunchly supported this legislation all the way through. They have done so because they understand the importance of agriculture. They understand the importance of the economic viability of Canadian farm families and the critical role they play in feeding not only the world but also Canadians, ensuring that we have affordable, nutritious food grown right here in Canada to support Canadian families and Canadian consumers.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government is making decisions based on ideology and fiction. The environment minister was very clear that if there were another carve-out of the carbon tax, he would resign as environment minister. Therefore, we now know that the whole fallacy of the carbon tax being an untouchable part of the Liberal climate change policy is not true. The Liberals have already done a carbon tax carve-out for home heating oil that was focused basically on Atlantic Canada, but when it comes to a piece of legislation that is supported by every opposition party in the House, and even by a handful of Liberals, they are not willing to listen. It is about picking and choosing winners and losers when it comes to who gets a break from the carbon tax and who has to pay it.

Here is a fact: Passing Bill C-234 and offering an exemption to the carbon tax for propane and natural gas would save farmers close to a billion dollars by 2030. That is a billion dollars that farmers now have to pay the Liberal government, when they are already paying record-breaking input costs on feed, fuel, fertilizer and many other inputs. We found out early last week not only that the billion dollars is being taken out of the pockets of farmers by the Liberal government but also that the GST is being charged on top of the carbon tax.

We have all known that, so we have been putting private members' bills forward. My Conservative colleague has put forward a private member's bill to remove the GST from the carbon tax. However, we now know the numbers, and they are staggering. The GST on the carbon tax alone cost Canadians almost $500 million last year. By 2030, it will be a billion dollars. Cumulatively, over the past several years and by 2030, Canadians will have paid $6 billion for GST just on the carbon tax, not on every other good and service they use. It is no wonder that Canadians cannot afford to put food on the table, put fuel in their car and pay their mortgage. Certainly, it is no wonder that farmers are struggling every single day. They are looking to these types of pieces of legislation that would offer them some financial relief.

The next fiction of the Liberals is that there are commercially available alternatives to propane and natural gas on farms, especially when it comes to heating and cooling barns. We know that is not true. Electric heat pumps are not going to heat a 100,000-square-foot chicken barn that is built with state-of-the-art technology. The Liberals should be applauding Canadian farmers for what they are already doing.

Here is another fact: The average global emissions that come from agriculture are about 26%. In Canada, the emissions that come from agriculture are 8%. This is a stat that we should be applauding every single day. It shows what our farmers are doing to ensure that they are the strongest environmental stewards of their land, soil and water. However, instead of being a champion for Canadian agriculture and applauding what farmers are doing, the Liberals are punishing them with the carbon tax and defending it every step of the way.

There are no other commercially viable options. There is no way to change behaviour for farmers who need natural gas and propane to heat their barns and to grow their food in greenhouses.

During the recess, we had three or four days in southern Alberta when it was -37°C. I guarantee everyone that a heat pump was not operating and not sufficient to ensure the health and safety of cattle, pork and poultry in those operations. However, at -37°C, those farm families are still out there making sure that we have quality, affordable food to eat every single day.

Here is another fact: The amendments we are discussing today, which were passed by the Senate, were already proposed by the Liberals in the House of Commons at the agriculture committee. Those amendments were voted down by the elected members of that committee. We have gone through this discussion but, again, fiction.

This is not about viable options for the Liberals. This is about trying to kill a bill that would provide a carbon tax carve-out for farmers.

Another fact is that, in his food report study, Professor Sylvain Charlebois at Dalhousie University reported that policies such as the carbon tax on farmers are going to increase the wholesale cost of food by 34%. Again, these are costs that are being put onto the backs of farmers, but, down the road, they will impact Canadian consumers who are struggling to put food on the table every single day.

We have two million Canadians accessing the food bank in a single month. It is unbelievable that this is happening in a country like Canada.

This is a discussion about fact and fiction, and I want to thank the members of the opposition parties who have stood by facts. They have stood by Canadian agriculture and the importance of growing affordable, nutritious food here in Canada. I hope they will continue to stand with us on Bill C-234 while the Liberals focus on fiction.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although it is already January 29, I do not think it is too late to extend my best wishes to everyone. I hope we can engage in constructive politics. That is exactly what we are going to try to do this morning.

Listening to the speeches, I feel as though this is being treated like an either-or issue. One side is saying “axe the tax” while the other side is saying that we need to send some sort of message and that they will be there to help. The Bloc Québécois falls somewhere in between. We are reasonable people. We believe in sending a message and offering incentives for the climate transition, but we also believe in a climate transition that is fair and equitable for everyone. That is what I am going to talk about this morning: the agricultural exemption.

The agricultural exemption is an expression I am using more and more often in an attempt to get it to stick in people's minds, so that everyone understands that farmers—the people who feed us, who work extremely hard and whom we thank—deserve respect and support. There are different ways of offering support. Bill C-234 granted an exemption to a specific sector, and that is why we were in favour of it. There needs to be more support for sectors where there are fewer or no exemptions.

I paid close attention when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government was speaking. He said his government is there for farmers and is supporting them, but that is not what I am seeing on a daily basis. If the Senate amendments are adopted, I want the government to make a formal commitment to supporting the climate transition in meaningful ways, especially in sectors where there is no alternative, such as grain drying. Farmers are being asked to use less pesticide and herbicide, to protect shorelines and wetlands, to maintain grasslands, to recultivate maginal land. We have to support them as they do that and give them the help they need. We have to be smart about this. That is the point of my speech this morning. If there is no exemption, there has to be compensation. There has to be support, intensive research and development and investment programs to help these sectors. That is key.

We have been talking about Bill C‑234, known in the previous Parliament as Bill C‑206, for the past four years. In the beginning, the bill was about grain drying. As the study progressed, the heating and cooling of certain buildings was added. Then an election was called. After that, Bill C‑234 was introduced, and it specifically addressed grain drying and the heating and cooling of certain buildings. We studied the bill. Now the Senate has sent it back to us with an amendment that cuts out buildings and shortens the bill's lifespan. It is certainly not the same bill that we passed. Obviously, we have some reservations. However, it is back in alignment with the original bill and puts the focus where it is needed the most.

I have to say that I am concerned about the Conservatives' tactics this morning. I am not entirely comfortable with all the parliamentary procedures, but when I see the opposition responding to the Senate before the government does, I have to wonder whether the procedures were followed. Could this not have been discussed earlier?

I thought the Conservatives' goal was to set targets and come up with slogans. When I talk about the Conservatives' goal, I do not include my colleague from Huron—Bruce in that. I know he cares about farmers and is doing this for the right reasons. I am talking about the strategy in general. Do the Conservatives want to turn this fight into a slogan, so they can go back to the kind of aggressive partisan politics we saw when this bill was being studied in the Senate? I would remind my colleagues that when we were debating a motion here dealing with this, bullying was a very serious problem.

That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted us to engage in constructive politics. I invite everyone to proceed in an intelligent way, to present intelligent arguments and content, and to engage with people from other political parties to reach a consensus in order to move things forward. We should not just be trying to score political points ahead of the next election.

What we should be doing right now is having a look at the work done by the Senate. We should be analyzing and improving it. How can we improve it? We have two options. We could reject the amendments and refer the bill back to the Senate. That would probably lead to a ping-pong match, forcing us to redo the work and set new deadlines. Bill C‑234 stayed in the Senate for a long time. Will it come back to the House? How long will it take? We have no control over the date of the election.

We have no control over whether the bill will be sent back. When will it come back? Is the second option not better? It is worth taking time to consider this bill. We could make tangible progress now and establish the principle of the agricultural exemption. The purpose of Bill C‑234, beyond the grain drying exemption, is to establish the agricultural exemption, the fact that there are some sensitive sectors that need to be supported or exempted. If the bill is adopted as amended, that is the message it will send. That will be a win for grain farmers with respect to grain drying. This was very well explained by my colleague from Huron—Bruce just now.

They have no alternatives, nor do they control sales prices. When costs go up, their profit margins go down. That is just not right. We cannot do that to the people who feed us.

At the same time, with the amendments that the Senate is proposing, we would continue sending a message about the environment. We cannot forget that side of things either. We need to continue doing that. Pollution must have a price, but sectors like agriculture must not be the ones who have to pay that price. They need to be supported in all of this. When it comes to buildings, perhaps the alternatives are not so far out of reach. Of course, for many farmers, many of those solutions have not actually been implemented, but they are more within reach than in the case of drying.

I would like to ask the government the following question: Is it committed to quickly implementing a bold and substantial program? I am talking to the parliamentary secretary, but this question is also for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We need to give farmers access to the technology that we are asking them to have but that they are unable to get. That is the key.

We must not forget that the the carbon tax is a federal tax. It was created for the provinces that were doing nothing for the environment. We need to think about that too. If we were to do away with the carbon tax, as the Conservatives are proposing, what message would that send to the other governments? Would we be sending them the message that they too can do away with the carbon tax?

For the benefit of my Conservative friends, I would point out once again that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The fact that the Bloc Québécois has supported Bill C‑234 from the beginning is a major gesture of goodwill toward the farming community, because the measure puts Quebec farmers, who are not currently entitled to the exemption, at a disadvantage. It sends a message to all governments that an agricultural exemption is inescapable. That is why we supported the bill. That is why Quebec farmers encouraged us to do so, to show their solidarity with westerners. That is why we did it, at their urging.

At the same time, we are putting our people at a disadvantage by voting for Bill C‑234. I would like to drive that point home for everyone. We are putting our people at a disadvantage. The proposal we are debating this morning may strike the right balance. Could the Senate's amendment be the ideal way to achieve the mission we were given, the mission to establish an agricultural exemption? Would it not create an exemption without placing Quebec producers at an undue disadvantage? I am asking the question.

We are well aware that some farmers will be disappointed if the Senate's amendments are adopted. However, there are other ways to get things done. We can take the grain drying exemption now and prevent the bill from getting bogged down again thanks to the kind of intimidation, threats and other things that have absolutely no place in a democracy. We can put the matter to rest, move on and keep working on the buildings issue in a different way. I will not turn my back on farmers. We will not turn our backs on them. We need proper dialogue, research and development.

Bill C‑234 must succeed. It would never have seen the light of day without the initial and ongoing support of the Bloc Québécois, which also agreed to officially recognize the agricultural exemption principle. I thank my colleagues for that. My question is this: Do we want to send the bill to the Senate and keep bickering over it, with media clips and slogans, or are we willing to grasp the tangible gains within our reach? The answer should be obvious.

We always try to do politics with the future in mind, not the next election. We intend to stick with this approach.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again and talk to Bill C-234.

Groundhog Day is just a few days away and it feels like Groundhog Day again on this bill, Bill C-234.

It was basically two years ago, almost to the day, that I presented this important bill to the agricultural community and the backstop provinces to help provide some relief in the form of carbon tax exemption for on-farm use when farmers were heating their livestock barns and drying their crops. It has really added up in the last two years, and it will continue to cost them.

Before I get into it, I want to highlight a couple of facts about the state of the country and where we are today. There are four key priorities on which this party, our leader and members of Parliament will focus, which is axing the tax for our agricultural community as well as for all Canadians. They are really suffering under high inflation, high bills and high costs, whether they are seniors at home, or families or whether people are on their own. Inflation is out of control. By axing the tax, it will give Canadians a chance.

The other thing is that we have a massive housing deficit. We need to build more homes. We need to encourage cities and municipalities to get out of the way and allow this to take place.

We also have to get control of our federal budget and federal finances. The debt and deficit are way out of control. The debt has doubled in eight years under the reckless spending of the Liberal government. We need to get this under control, not just for the sake of the overall finances and the well-being of our country, but for the trickle-down effects it has on Canadians in every corner of the country. High spending by government leads to inflation.

The last thing is that our city and country roads and streets need do be safe. I cannot believe how much has changed in eight years in regard to crime and the safety of our streets. We have to act now. Canadians are counting on us. It does not matter if people live in the downtown of a city, in a suburb of a city or down a country road where I live, everywhere is being impacted. It is the catch and release, catch and release and a person is out the door.

On Bill C-234, I would like to highlight one thing, maybe a bit of a brag. I was at a Grain Farmers of Ontario meeting for the Huron county chapter during the recess of Parliament. I have some nice numbers to report.

The average corn yield for corn in Huron county, and let us call it Huron—Bruce, is 200 bushels to an acre. Soybeans are over 55 bushels to the acre. These are all above the provincial averages. Soft red winter wheat is 101, soft white winter wheat is 99 and hard red winter wheat is 97. Those are great yields for Huron—Bruce. We are very proud of that. It is a testament to the dedication of farmers up and down every country road.

I attended a co-op annual general meeting, of which I am a member. What really struck me during his comments, and he does not owe me anything, as I am just there as a member and not as an elected member of Parliament, was that he was talking about the best way we could help farmers. He is looking at it himself.

He said that the best way we could help farmers was to actually cut that carbon tax. He said that farmers saw it every month on their bills and that it was incredible how much that was adding up. He said that the best way to provide them with relief was to cut it 10¢ a litre.

On another side note, they also sell fuel. They sell gasoline and diesel as well. As a side note, 17¢ a litre, on average, is the carbon tax on gasoline for people who drive to work and back, or to take their kids to hockey or baseball or to take their parents to doctors' appointments, maybe in the city.

Bill C-234 is for farmers. At the end of the day, if it accomplishes one thing, it is to cut the carbon tax on farming. It is an inflationary tax, it is relentless, it is indexed and it will continue to rise. At the end of the day, if the members of Parliament in the House could cut this tax, it would provide relief to farmers. At the very end of the economic chain, it would provide relief to Canadians, who go to the grocery store every week to provide for themselves. That is a fact. If we can do one thing in the House to start off the session, it would be to do that.

Farmers work hard. They use technology. I heard something from a couple of Liberal-appointed senators and it was disappointing to hear what they had to say. I am not putting words in their mouths. We can go back and look at the comments they made in committee. We can go back and look at the comments they made in their speeches. They said that farmers were laggards when it came to technology. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

Farmers across the country are some of the most progressive business people we will find. Whether in their barns, their greenhouses, their tractors or even their financial accounting software, they are very progressive. They take on technology whenever they can and they make it more efficient, so they have more crops to feed more people and to feed the world, which is really what they are doing.

I would like to set the record straight there. Farmers are very advanced in their implementation of technology. If we look at the last 10 or 15 years, even 20 years, it is night and day. Wherever there is an opportunity, farmers are doing it. They are doing it for yield and they are also doing it for the betterment of their land.

If we look at agriculture in the last number of years, we can see the inflation with which farmers are dealing, such as increased costs in machinery. Increased costs in all inputs. Fertilizer, pesticide sprays and seed inputs are all increasing. Rent, land, and the cost of building sheds and grain storage units have all gone up.

Agriculture is not a high-margin business. We have talked about this before in the House of Commons. Farmers are price-takers; they are not price-makers. They take what they can get on the open market and what the basis is in Chicago. That is the reality of agriculture.

Any time the government can help them, for example, by cutting the carbon tax, it is a huge relief. As I have mentioned in the House many times, one example is a hog farmer down the road from where I grew up. A year ago, his bill just for the natural gas he used on his farm was $4,300. The carbon tax on that bill was $3,300. If we think about that, how does that make sense? How does it make sense for farmers, who have invested hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of dollars on their farm to make the highest-quality food and have the highest-quality crops out there, to get bills like that? It is not feasible.

As I have said, it will continue to increase every year until 2030-31, and it will put a lot of farmers out of business. At that point in time, we will have to be concerned about food sovereignty not only in our country, but we will also have to be concerned about the amount of food we export around the world to feed other nations. It really is a precarious time.

Let us think about it. Many people have said it in the House, as has the the leader of our party, that it is cheaper to put a load of food or produce on a transport truck in Mexico and ship it through many states to bring it to Canada. It is cheaper to truck food from Mexico than it is to grow it on a farm here and sell it at a farmer's market or into the open market.

How does that make sense for Canadians? How does that make sense for Canadian farmers? How does that make sense for the environment? It just does not make sense at all.

Speaking of the environment, the Liberal government has asked farmers to pay a steep price with this carbon tax it has hammered them with, but when has it ever recognized the environmental good they do? There is a rebate, $1.70-something per $1,000 of allowable expenses, so if a farmer has $1 million of allowable expenses on their farm, they will get $1,700 back in rebates. That is a slap in the face.

Farmers who have woodlots on the farms they have maintained in Ontario, where the emerald ash borer is, have harvested the trees and made use of them, but they have lost that. They have ethical woodlot practices.

In the fall, a lot of farmers nowadays are planting fall cover crops. They do that on their own, because it is good for the soil and for their land, and it increases the humus matter in the soil. That is a fact.

With respect to crop rotation, I will speak specifically about the province of Ontario. The crops I mentioned in the beginning are used for crop rotation. It is good for the soil. It helps minimize the pests in the environment that impact the crops, which is good. Environmental farm plans and nutrient-management plans are all things that farmers do to be good neighbours and good stewards of the land.

Of course, with technology, no-till drilling goes back a long way. Quite a few years ago now, in the eighties, I can remember as a kid going out to Don Lobb's farm, and the University of Guelph at Ridgetown was out there doing plot experiments to perfect that. There were a number of farmers in Huron County and other counties that started this in the region. It has grown and is continuing to grow. Now we see how they even rip small sections of land where the seeds are going in to preserve the soil and the humus and not disturb it, because they know the value of that.

I will go on to one more highlight. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done at least two studies on this bill, Bill C-234. According to his last report, by 2030-31, the Liberal government will have taken nearly $1 billion out of farmers' pockets because of the carbon tax. Think about that. Farming is a high-capital, low-margin business that provides food for Canadians to eat. It has very low margins, and the Liberal government is taking $1 billion out of the back pockets of farmers. That is really unconscionable to me.

The last thing I will highlight is the piece of the bill that has been sent back from the Senate. I understand the independence of the Senate. The bill is now back in the hands of the House of Commons, where members of Parliament are going to decide how it is going to go. What I would ask of members of Parliament in the other political parties is this. Let us not drag it out. Let us not delay the bill longer than it has already been delayed. It is already two years old. We can have some debate. We can hear what the other parties are thinking: if they have changed their minds, if they like it better, and so on. Over the last two years a lot has changed in the economy, such as interest rates and inflation, and these are things that are impacting farmers everywhere they go.

Therefore, I would ask the Liberal Party specifically to allow some of its members to have a say, but to be reasonable. Let us not kick this too far down the road. Let us have good discussions, a good debate and exchange of information, and a timely vote on this to send it back to the Senate and let the senators deal with it again. I think that is the reasonable and logical way to do it because, at the end of the day, members are not helping me, but helping the farmers at home. When we can directly help farmers and indirectly help consumers, that is great.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I will take some questions.

Finance

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have been trying to get Bill C-234 passed, but in the absence of any agreement, we would like to request a recorded vote.

Speaker of the House of Commons

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the comments the member just made, the Liberals have made all sorts of claims about who wants to work and who does not want to work, so we put those claims to the test today. I repeatedly sought unanimous consent of the House to meet next week to continue the important work that needs to be done on Bill C-234.

On Bill C-234, a majority of the House voted for the bill. A majority of the Senate was for it until the Prime Minister and the environment minister started personally calling so-called independent senators. If the member wants to get work done, is he prepared to work after hours today? Is he prepared to work next week to complete the consideration of Bill C-234?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the pattern we are seeing, as the member opposite mentioned. Not accepting the results of the procedures of the House seems to be a pattern the opposition is following. I wanted to refer back to what happened with Bill C-234 with the bullying of senators and the attempt to push something through, which had already followed proper procedure.

Here again we see the procedures of our House, which have always been used and have resulted in the will of this place, and the Conservatives once again are getting up and trying to override that. Can the member please give me his opinion on why this is happening and how it is relevant?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me briefly regarding Bill C-234, I hope that you will find unanimous consent for this: That at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment—

Indigenous Affairs

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday at committee, the environment minister admitted to bullying six senators, trying to gut Bill C-234. Can people imagine that?

Carbon Pricing

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, where is the support from the Liberals for our common-sense bill, Bill C-234, which they rejected? It is a common-sense solution to tackling food inflation.

Why did the Prime Minister reject supporting Canadian farmers and the citizens who rely on them for a good, safe, affordable food supply?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, Canadians do not have confidence in the government, and I am proud to say that our party voted non-confidence in the government 135 times.

It gets worse. Instead of supporting Bill C-234 to reduce the cost of food by removing the carbon tax on farmers, the NDP-Liberal government is going to quadruple the carbon tax. This will balloon Anthony's carbon tax bill from $55,000 to $220,000 every year. This is guaranteed to increase the price of dairy for Canadian consumers.

What does the Prime Minister want Anthony to do, raise prices or cut production and force Canadians to import dairy from polluting foreign farms?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, while Canadians go cold and hungry this Christmas, this Prime Minister is counting down the hours to another taxpayer-funded beach vacation. He and his MPs are taking a six-week holiday for voting time and time again to quadruple the carbon tax and defeat Bill C-234, as they pressured senators to gut the bill that this House already passed.

If they will not axe the tax today, why will they not come to work on Monday and finally take the tax off farmers, so that Canadians can eat this Christmas?

Carbon Tax

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, do members know what the Prime Minister and the grinch have in common? They are both trying to steal Christmas.

After eight years of inflationary spending, the price of everything necessary for a happy holiday has gone up. For those who are not now looking to a food bank for their Christmas dinner, a recent report from Dalhousie University shows that the cost of the average Christmas dinner is up significantly.

As we approach Christmas, the Liberals' gift to all of us is making our food more expensive. They harassed senators into gutting Conservative Bill C-234, which would have reduced the price of groceries by giving farmers a carbon tax carve-out. In fact, they plan to quadruple that carbon tax. Jack, a grain farmer from southern Manitoba, paid $6,000 in carbon taxes on his most recent bill, which will soon increase to $24,000 in a single month.

When will the Prime Minister axe the tax, help our farmers and allow Canadians to have a merry Christmas?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, Saskatchewan has always been the breadbasket of the world, but after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is getting more difficult for Saskatchewan farmers to provide the food the world needs to eat.

Every year, the carbon tax on farmers goes up, and every year those additional costs get passed on to consumers. Sooner or later, farmers are going to have to decide if they will continue to pass on those rising costs to consumers or cut back production and let the world become dependent on food from foreign countries, which is often produced with a much higher carbon footprint.

Fortunately, Conservatives have the solution. Conservative Bill C-234 would remove the carbon tax on fuels used for grain drying, allowing those savings to be passed on to consumers. Will the Prime Minister pass Bill C-234 or show once again that he is just not worth the cost?

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Conservatives believe the House should sit on Monday, December 18 to pass Bill C-234, which would take the carbon tax off farmers and lower food prices for Canadians. I wonder whether you would find there is unanimous consent to do that.

Carbon Pricing

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to make sure that everybody is on the same page because the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned that it was not the right topic. The topic that is before the House is regarding Bill C-234. The question that was asked was:

We know why the Prime Minister is blocking the carbon tax carve-out for Canadian farmers. It is because his environment minister has threatened to quit if Bill C-234 passes.

The environment minister does not care about Canadian farmers. He is jetting off to Dubai for two weeks.

The hon. member's question was relevant to the question that he had brought forward. I just want to make sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary is aware of that. I am not sure if the hon. parliamentary secretary received a different question.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge rightly identified that it was the Liberal-appointed chair of the billion-dollar green slush fund who not only moved the motion, but also voted for the motion to give herself hundreds of thousands of dollars. She put it into a company and then withdrew a salary for $120,000 from that company, at a time when Canadians are struggling to feed themselves. That is what the minister is defending. That is what the parliamentary secretary is defending. It is indefensible, and we need common-sense solutions such as Conservative Bill C-234.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was the same theatre that we saw from the minister when talking about his refusal to take action on the billion-dollar green slush fund. There was an awful lot of motion. He was quite blustery, but he wanted us to confuse that for action.

He is not taking any action there, and he is not taking any action on food price affordability. When standing committees particularly make recommendations, those should be the first thing that the minister looks at, instead of having a big show trial where he brings in grocery CEOs to look him in the eye and talk sternly to them. We have presented concrete ways that they can bring down food price inflation and one of those ways would be to pass the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, they cannot even help but heckle the Speaker when that member is so desperate to try to defend the indefensible, and that is the Liberal corruption that is costing Canadians and is forcing them to skip meals.

The Liberals' inflationary spending is not for legacy projects. It is not to build bridges or build homes. It is to line the pockets of insiders. While we have tent cities that did not exist eight years ago and while we have food bank use in numbers that did not exist eight years ago, we have corruption the likes of which has never existed in this country, except for under the current NDP-Liberal government.

It is clear that after eight years of this Prime Minister he is not worth that cost. He is not worth the cost of record food bank usage. He is not worth the cost of record food price inflation. He is not worth the cost of scandals. It is hard not to be disappointed in the government when every day there is a new scandal. These Liberals just cannot help but jump up to defend the indefensible.

We saw it today, in fact, when the industry minister stood up and was very animated in defence of all of the conduct at the billion-dollar green slush fund. These are Liberal appointees who are under investigation. I understand that there might be an initial instinct, but many months have passed. The Liberals have seen the evidence. The Auditor General has now launched an investigation. That is the stage that we are at.

We are at the stage where we have many millions of dollars go missing and instead of saying they are going to get Canadians their money back and they are going to make sure that everyone who had anything to do with it is held fully accountable and that of course they are going to clean house and everyone is fired, they have fired not a single person. They have not sought to recover a single dollar. I have to say that my first call would be to the RCMP because with Canadians who are starving and struggling and freezing in the dark, that is the kind of reaction that we should have to misappropriation and embezzlement; not looking to jump up and, as I said, defend corrupt practices.

That is why we have put forward common-sense solutions, like Bill C-234. It is horrible to have seen the pressure that the PMO and his radical environment minister used, to have senators amend that bill before sending it back here. It is brutal. It could have provided real relief to Canadians. It could have had a real effect on food price inflation and could have contributed to food security for Canadians. While the Liberals may have given up on doing the right thing, we are always going to stand up for Canadians and we are going to bring home lower prices and food that people can afford.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

It is a very challenging time for Canadians. We have food price inflation that we have never seen before in this country. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. A third of all food bank users are children. We have seen reports from experts that the inflationary policies of the NDP-Liberal government are contributing to food price inflation.

As we move into the holiday season, Canadians are getting ready for Christmas and are struggling. Rents are up. Mortgage payments are up. The interest payments that people are paying on everything they borrowed, whether it is through a line of credit, a credit card or their vehicle loans, are up. They are looking for a little relief.

When we talk about food in particular, the food that we get does not come from the grocery store. That is not its point of origin. Food comes from the farmers who grow it. One way that we could address food insecurity and food price inflation is by reducing some of the pressure on our farmers and producers.

Conservatives put forward common-sense Bill C-234. It would remove the carbon tax for our farmers on their grain drying and on the heating and cooling of their buildings. When we have farmers paying an average of $150,000 for their carbon tax bill, which is set to quadruple with the Liberals, it is incredibly concerning what the downstream effect of that is going to be for Canadians when they go to the grocery store. Our farmers have two options. They can either cut production to cut their carbon tax bill or pass the increased costs on to consumers, who are already feeling the effects of food price inflation. This is after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government and the unsustainable path it has put us on.

What we hear from Liberal members is that the alternative, Canada's Conservatives, would cut. What we will cut is Liberal corruption. What we will cut is Liberal taxes. I could list a few of the areas very quickly where the Liberals have found no dollar that they are not willing to take from Canadians' pockets in the form of taxes. Instead of helping Canadians out, the Liberals help out friends and insiders.

We had the infamous $54-million arrive scam. This is not a project that Conservatives support, and we would cut that kind of spending. There is the billions of dollars that Liberals have given to their friends in high-priced consulting fees. In true Liberal fashion, when they were called out on their high-priced consultants, no one ever having spent more on consulting than the Liberals, they hired a consultant to tell them how to spend less on consultants. That cost taxpayers three-quarters of a million dollars. We would cut that.

We can look at the $1-billion green slush fund, which is mired in scandal. We had a whistle-blower at committee just this week talking about $150 million. The Liberals allowed that money to line the pockets of well-connected insiders. We have two Liberal appointees now under investigation by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for voting to give themselves $600,000 between the two of them. We would cut that kind of spending. Of course, we would root out that kind of corrupt behaviour.

Another director on that board has also been identified as having furthered their own interests—

Prohibition of the Export of Horses by Air for Slaughter Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I begin this debate a little heavy-hearted, because this is an issue that is near and dear to me and I just want to reiterate what I just heard.

I just heard the member of Parliament for Calgary Skyview advocate against jobs in his own riding in the Calgary airport, jobs of shipping horses. This is from a bill from the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Apparently this is the pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga. It is not affordability. It is not any other issue, like day care, crime or violence in our communities and streets or people using food banks; the most pressing issue in Kitchener—Conestoga apparently is what some Métis people in Alberta are doing, and a few farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec are doing, when it comes to horses.

It is a niche market, as I will freely admit, and my constituents admit that, but it is an important issue. I am referring, obviously, to this notion of somehow singling out horses for export from our agricultural community. In essence, the government and its acolytes in the Senate have launched a two-pronged attack. The first bill here is Bill C-355, which we are debating today, and the second is Bill S-270. Both of these bills would prohibit the export of live horses from Canada for the purpose of slaughter. The primary difference is that Bill C-355 would only restrict that export by air, while the Senate bill would do so more generally and broadly.

Since this issue is not often discussed in the public domain, other than in misinformation campaigns, I would like to begin my speech today with a few statistics and some key information about this valuable industry.

There were only 347 exporting breeders in Canada, and they exported a total of 2,600 animals for slaughter in the last year, 2022. For the education of my colleague for Calgary Skyview who just spoke and said that we used to export 7,000, that was because we used to have PMU barns and we used to produce a lot more horses because of that pregnant mare urine, which is a biotic used for the creation of birth control. As that was phased out in favour of therapeutics, the number of horses has gone down.

However, we still need a market for these animals, but that member would not know that. I do not think there are a whole lot of horse breeders or horse raisers in Calgary Skyview, which is fine. I always find a lot of humour in listening to my Liberal colleagues from urban areas talk about how much they clearly do not know about agriculture. That number is complemented by another 10,840 live horses that are also exported, but not for the purpose of slaughter. Basically, a five-to-one ratio of horses that are actually exported are not for slaughter, but who is going to know what the motives are of the buyer of that particular horse when it is purchased in Canada and shipped on an airplane?

While the distribution of this industry, as I said, is spread across the country, the greatest number of these animals comes from my province of Alberta, as well as Ontario and Manitoba. It should be noted that 25% of these horses come from indigenous herds. I remember when this government used to say that there is no relationship more important to it than the relationship with first nations people; a quarter of this industry is actually providing income and stability to the economic viability of first nations, primarily the Métis in Alberta.

Canada consumes 1,000 to 1,200 tonnes of horsemeat every year. This is mainly in la belle province of Quebec. As well, over a billion people—16%, so almost two in 10 people on this planet—consume horsemeat, so almost 20% of human beings on the planet consume horses. That is an astounding number, but apparently it is not good enough for those who do not know the industry, do not know anything about agriculture and never represented anybody in agriculture, and they are just going to shut down this industry.

It is also very healthy meat, with 20% more protein than beef, 25% less fat, 20% less sodium and double the iron of a beef sirloin, so I do not know why my colleagues across the way are protesting so much.

Now that we have a picture of what this industry looks like in this country, I would like to stay with what the Liberals propose to do with Bill C-355, and it is nothing short of shameful. The bill would require an unreasonable regulatory process to be undertaken prior to any flight being allowed to depart with a horse on board. This includes a signed declaration, to be approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, that the horses are not being exported for slaughter.

Can members imagine? The pilots have about five minutes when the plane pushes back from the gate when the pilots have the authority to get their documentation, get everything signed, push back and take off.

Now, we would have to have an approved letter from the Minister of Agriculture just before push-back. I am sure that would be an interesting bureaucratic hoop to jump through. This declaration must then be in the hands of the pilots of that aircraft and the chief customs officer of the airport. If it is contravened, the consequences of this act would be devastating. On the higher end, fines of up to a quarter of a million dollars, imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or both may result.

One gets less for violating a gun prohibition order in this country. This is the way the folks across the aisle think about these particular issues. There is nothing more damaging to Canada, apparently, than a farmer.

This is not speculation. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, for Canada has expressed concerns. It represents 95% of the unionized pilot workforce employed at 21 airlines.

The result of this bill would be to essentially restrict the air transportation of all horses in and out of Canada for all purposes. Not only would this bill impose an unfair burden of proof on the pilots and exporters, who cannot always be assured of what the end use is of the horse that is on board, but it would also dissuade them from even taking any live horses as cargo because of the overly punitive fines.

As previously mentioned, Canada exports 10,840 live horses for purposes other than slaughter. This bill would inadvertently hurt those producers as well, as it would make it harder for them to find air shippers that are willing to take their cargo.

For example, this may cause delays for those who need to fly horses engaged in Olympic or other equestrian competitions, as well as horses that are simply sold for their genetics and used in breeding programs elsewhere in the world.

These delays could jeopardize their opportunity to compete and represent their country internationally. We would lose things such as the Spruce Meadows and show jumping. We would have all kinds of problems, even applying for an Olympic bid in this country, because somebody would bring their horse here and would like to take it home with them. “Not a chance in Canada,” say the Liberals.

I must say that this bill is not just about the export of horses. It is part of a larger issue, which is the general assault on the Canadian farmer, who is already burdened by costly carbon taxes and excessive regulations.

We saw this disregard for farmers again recently, when the Liberal-controlled independent senators blocked Bill C-234's passage through the Senate. Finally, when they did pass it, they amended it to gut the bill of its impact. Instead of healing the urban-rural divide, the government is still stoking division.

This debate is personal for me. The horse export industry is prominent in my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe. A testament to this importance can be found in some of the feedback I have received from constituents and stakeholders. As one can imagine, in mixed and rural ridings such as mine, the impact of such legislation can be of outsized importance. This includes a member of an Alberta Métis group.

As part of a larger statement to us, they have stated, “There has been no consultation with indigenous producers and people on the plan to ban the export of live horses. The Canadian government has a history of stepping on indigenous farmers.”

There is a duty to consult in the Constitution, and they have not done that with this bill. I would also like to point out that the rationale for banning the bill, based on the so-called premise of animal welfare, is all based on misinformation and untruths.

This is especially the case when it comes to claims of mistreatment and abuse of these animals during their transportation. I can tell members that I grew up on a farm. On the farm, our animals are the most important thing we have. They are part of our business. We have to treat them well and with respect, because our business and livelihood both depend on the health and viability of these animals.

Since 2013, over 41,000 horses have been exported. The mortality rate at all stages of transport, not just on the airplane, is 0.012%. Basically, this is statistically insignificant. I want to highlight that no deaths as a result of the transportation of these animals have occurred since 2014.

We have veterinary oversight. We have very stringent transportation rules for animals. This is a clear campaign by misinformed individuals who simply want to make an emotional argument to try to shut down an industry that they disagree with ideologically.

This is absolutely frustrating, not only for my constituents but also for all farmers. It is a slippery slope. I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote against this bill.

Carbon Tax

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, the Prime Minister wants to punish farmers for being incredible optimists and doing the fantastic work they do every day on our behalf. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, farm input costs are ballooning out of control. Bill C-234, a common-sense Conservative bill, would reduce the cost of food for Canadians by removing the carbon tax on farmers. I spoke to farmers in my backyard, who said that any of those major inputs have just been skyrocketing in price, with almost double the fuel bills, as well as fertilizer that has doubled, if not tripled, in price.

On annual expenses of $2 million, almost 20% or $400,000 is due to the punishing carbon tax. That will mean $1.6 million when the Prime Minister quadruples the tax. The other concern is that the tax is so hidden that this estimate is probably low.

Does the Prime Minister think that farmers need to raise prices on Canadians, or should Alex cut back production so that Canadians are forced to import food from polluting foreign farms?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, farmers work tirelessly to feed Canada and the world with some of the highest quality produce available, yet the NDP-Liberal government continues to punish them at every turn.

Instead of giving them a much-needed break on the carbon tax through common-sense measures like Bill C-234, the Prime Minister is quadrupling the carbon tax, hurting the livelihoods of the very farmers who are putting food on the tables of Canadians. One farmer in the regional municipality of Estevan is paying over $150,000 in carbon taxes a year. Once quadrupled, this will go up to over $600,000 annually for his 15,000-acre farm. How does the Prime Minister expect him to cover this cost: by raising prices on Canadians, cutting back his acreage or bringing in more costly food from polluting foreign farms?

Conservatives know that if we tax the farmer who grows the food and tax the trucker who ships the food, Canadians have to pay more to buy the food. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

Carbon Pricing

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are arguably worse off than they have ever been before. In fact, the government would rather penalize a single mother for commuting to work to earn for her family than face the fact that its carbon tax is not working, not for the environment and certainly not for Canadians.

The consequence of the Liberals failing to work with the facts is that the cost of everything is skyrocketing: the cost of gas, home heating and groceries. Everything is going through the roof. Farmers are being punished just for growing crops and feeding Canadians. Meanwhile, indigenous folks are taking the government to court, suing them because the carbon tax is incredibly punitive and discriminatory in nature.

Our ask is simple. It is that we pass Bill C-234, unamended. This would serve Canadian families best. It would be for the sake of families, for the sake of first nations and for the sake of farmers. At the end of the day, we are asking that Bill C-234 be passed and that we axe the tax to get Canadians back on track.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for staying a little longer, Minister. I appreciate your acknowledgement of calling senators regarding Bill C-234.

I'm just curious. Given that you were so adamant about not giving another carve-out to Canadian farmers and therefore having lower food prices, and given the first nations of Ontario and the Chiefs of Ontario and their stated opinions....

I know I'll get ahead of you. You're going to hide behind the Bank of Canada, so you're either going to say you believe the Chiefs of Ontario, who are suing your government, when they say life has become unaffordable because of the carbon tax, or you're going to say you don't believe them, but will you possibly think of giving another carve-out to first nations communities that are taking on the undue burdens of your carbon tax?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Did you call any senators to discuss Bill C-234?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair. I certainly look forward to hearing what Dr. Lewis has to say about this. I know she has a great familiarity with this subject matter.

Chair, perhaps I could continue, because I do want to ensure that this is added to the record. I just mentioned how telcos will not be compensated, and I believe I provided a brief interjection about some of the commentary that has been provided at other committees in relation to compensation for financial losses.

Certainly, in the highly regulated telecom environment that Canada finds itself in, that would be a massive conversation that we could have at some point, but that would be venturing into the territory of not being relevant, so I wouldn't want to go there.

I will, however, continue with this summary, which talks about how:

The Amendments introduce new enforcement powers for the Minister of Industry to monitor the Telcos' compliance with the orders or future regulations, including investigatory powers and issuing AMPs of up to $25,000...per day for individuals (such as directors and officers)....

Chair, that summary relates to a significant ability and discretion, and this summarizes from a legal perspective some of the commentary that was in the brief Mr. Strahl provided. I want to ensure this is part of the record, because they're endeavouring not to take a specific position but rather to ensure theirs is non-partisan. As hard as that is for certain members of the committee to believe, if they have seen my debates in the House, it's important and valuable that such a perspective be included.

It then goes on to say, in regard to information sharing and secrecy:

The CCSPA and the Amendments require Designated Operators, Telcos, and any other person to share confidential information with the Appropriate Regulators, and Governor-in-Council and Minister, respectively, in furtherance of the objectives of the Bill. This confidential information may be shared with multiple federal government organizations, provincial and foreign counterparts, as well as international organizations, to pursue the objectives of the CCSPA and the Amendments. While these information exchanges will be governed by agreements and memorandums of understanding between the parties, the Minister may disclose the information if [it] is necessary in the Minister's opinion to secure the telecom system.

Given the national security purpose underlying this Bill, the secrecy of the orders is paramount. The orders from the Governor-in-Council and Minister may be subject to non-disclosure requirements. Moreover, for the sake of secrecy and expediency, the orders and directions of the Governor-in-Council and Minister do not follow the complete process outlined in the Statutory Instruments Act, and thus, are not registered, published, or debated in an open manner.

Certainly when it comes to that relationship, it's important to acknowledge—I know we've had a number of discussions, including on one of the clauses we passed here when I think there was a desire for further debate, but it ended up being moved forward—that a tremendous amount of latitude is being given to executive government when it comes to some of the powers that are associated with Bill C-26 as it relates to Bill C-33, and one has to be aware of the granting of power to executive government. That is certainly something that Parliament is able to do under our Westminster system.

However, it's important to keep in mind the larger tension that needs to exist to ensure that we do not forget at the very foundation—and this is incredibly relevant, not only to this but to everything we do here—that the government is only a function of Parliament.

I know that's something that can be a bit lost in the midst of conversation. I know that this very statement has even been deemed controversial at different points in time. Earlier this week we celebrated the Statute of Westminster, the point at which we brought home the Constitution, and I would note that it was an incredibly significant moment in Canadian history. That is relevant to the conversation here today, because it's Parliament that enacts laws that give the government its authority.

I would just note how we have seen various instances throughout our recent history—in particular the last eight years—where there has been more latitude given than I would suggest is appropriate. There are times when we could ensure that Parliament is able to better fulfill its job by a government that respects the fact that whether it's committees, or whether it's the role that the House of Commons and the Senate play in terms of our bicameral Parliament in ensuring that it is the ultimate arbiter of the land....

In fact, our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually ensure that that is, in fact, the case with the notwithstanding clause, which I know the Liberals have.... In fact, I believe it was Paul Martin in a previous election—I was getting back to that. I couldn't even vote at the time, if members around the committee table can believe that. It was Paul Martin who, during a press conference, announced that he was looking at getting rid of that. I'm not sure that he understood the consequences, both in terms of the constitutionality or the amending ability of Parliament to be able to do that.

However, when it comes to the relationship to the issue before us, we have these wide-sweeping powers being given to executive government. If there is not the appropriate accountability, as the American Bar Association, in this article, is highlighting, it would be the.... We need to have clear direction to every element of what government is, to ensure that there is that check on executive government.

I do find it interesting. I'll get right back into the ABA. This article has a number of recommendations. I would just note that there are two quite distinguished lawyers who put together this article, which gives this overview of Bill C-26, and how it applies in the context of where Bill C-33 is.

Specifically, Chair, one can never assume that one will be in power forever, whether that's the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. If we have the honour—and I certainly hope we do—we look forward to those days when we'll have the opportunity to govern on behalf of Canadians.

However, I find one always needs to look in the mirror. In fact, I've asked in the House quite a number of times about what the government would think, if they were in the opposition benches, about something that they were doing. It would not necessarily be the policy, because policy is one thing. You can disagree with policy. However, you need to be very mindful about how you approach the ability for a parliament to function in a manner that respects the very basis of what our democratic system is meant to be.

Chair, when it comes to the wide-ranging powers that are given to executive government, we do have to be very mindful that there's certainly a role that executive government needs to play in the administration of infrastructure, the administration of security and intelligence, and all of the aspects of what we're talking about here. However, when it comes down to it, Parliament is supreme in our country. We cannot forget that.

To ensure that I don't venture off into an area that would be deemed not relevant, I certainly won't spend time talking about a few examples of that, but there are some very pressing issues—one of which would be the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Parliament spoke on that, yet we have an executive government that refuses to acknowledge.... I use that as an emphasis, not to get into the details of that issue, although it's certainly one that dominates a lot of our time in light of the atrocities that took place against Israel, and how Iran, and the IRGC specifically, funded and supports Hamas as a terrorist entity.... The fact that there's that disconnect is the point I'm making here. That speaks very closely to why we need to be very circumspect in the way we approach the role of executive government. There's that understanding. It has to come back to respecting Parliament.

If I had had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-234, I certainly would have, at length, talked about how that bill saw a great deal of support, including Liberal support by a few brave Liberals who were willing to support that bill.

Unfortunately, it was not able to get the support that it, I believe, should have received from the other place. Again, I wouldn't want to go into the area of not being relevant. When it comes to recommendations, I would—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's interesting that the member says to keep it serious. I would suggest that when he shut down my earlier conversation about Bill C-234 and the impact that has on my constituents, that was of the utmost seriousness. That member refused to allow that discussion to take place, about the impact that has on my constituents. He should look in the mirror if he thinks it is simply a joke that there are farmers going bankrupt in my constituency and across Canada because of the imposition of that party's carbon tax upon Canadians.

When it comes to the issue at hand and specifically how Bill C-26 has a clear relevance in relation to the—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the remarks that my colleague Mr. Strahl made, especially in light of the interconnectedness of Bill C-33 and Bill C-26 and how, in light of those connections, it becomes incredibly relevant.

To address a few of Mr. Badawey's previous points, I find it perplexing myself how the Liberals seem to have this tendency to find concern with anyone who is unable to buy what they're selling hook, line and sinker.

Certainly when I hear from constituents, which I do on a very regular basis, they encourage me to do everything I can to ensure I am being their voice in the nation's capital. When it comes to some of the legislation that may not always garner the headlines it deserves—and certainly Mr. Strahl mentioned it in the brief he presented before this committee—I think it is important for Canadians to know how, with the discussions we have, whether before the transport committee or the various other duties that all of us undertake on a regular basis in the nation's capital, there are important connections that do in fact take place.

Just to note, if you would permit me, Mr. Chair, I endeavoured to have a discussion—and I even had an object lesson—on 2019 rural Alberta special areas wheat. I looked forward to discussing that in the context of Bill C-234. Now, I wouldn't want to be off topic from the conversation around the bill we have before us today, but certainly I would express my disappointment that we didn't have the opportunity to discuss that common-sense Conservative bill that would have brought needed relief to families and support to our great farmers from coast to coast.

I want to ensure that I stick to the conversation we have before us when it comes to the way that the bill this committee is studying and the impact that some of the.... As Mr. Strahl stated, when you have a bill that references a previously passed bill, one of the concerns that were highlighted—and certainly it's not limited to this one—is that when briefs are submitted, sometimes they don't get the due opportunity to be engaged in. The fact that Bill C-26 is currently being studied at committee, I think, speaks to this interconnectedness. I know that Conservatives have endeavoured to—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I had six hours of subject matter on Bill C-234.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, climate change is causing wildfires, natural disasters and other extreme weather events to become more frequent and more severe. The effects are widespread and devastating for communities across Canada. Of course, that has a price that our farmers will have to endure.

The impact of climate change on farming is terrible. We simply cannot afford not to fight the climate crisis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees that the impact on a hundred dollars of groceries is significantly higher considering the impacts of climate change.

The reality is simple. Bill C-234 would delay much-needed programs while farmers should start transitioning toward greener technologies. I have seen first-hand the damage that is caused, with the loss of infrastructure and housing, specifically in indigenous communities, which are at the front lines of this. We cannot go backward. We have to keep moving forward.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

As we know, Bill C-234 would remove farmers' obligation to pay a price for the greenhouse gas emissions they generate when they use propane and natural gas for farming activities, including to dry grain.

The government, of course, appreciates that farming is critical to our country. Of course, we must safeguard our ability to feed our citizens and many more around the world. However, Canada already has a host of programs to support and assist farmers. For example, we have supply management systems for milk, eggs, chicken and maple products. We have insurance programs for crops, and we have trade protections. In addition, we have financing programs for farms and farm equipment, and we have laws to prevent the seizure of farming assets.

The reality is that we are facing a climate crisis and we need to act now to mitigate a more serious situation.

Unfortunately, climate change already threatens farming operations, biodiversity and the health and well-being of so many individuals in Canada and around the world. As we all know, Canada can suffer deeply from the catastrophic consequences of the climate crisis. Just in the last few months, we have had to deal with historic wildfires, floods and storms. Canada simply cannot afford to not take decisive actions to fight climate change. In 2018, damages to Canadian farms resulting from severe weather reached $2 billion, the fourth-highest cost on record. For Alberta crop farmers, we must not forget about 2019, the “harvest from hell”. The Western Producer noted then that the estimated total value of unharvested crops in Alberta, due to the severe weather events, was $778 million. Clearly, not acting on climate change now would not help our farmers at all.

Experts tell us that the best way to tackle the climate crisis is through carbon pricing. That is what we are doing here in Canada.

Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions is a logical way to induce behavioural changes that will lead to widespread reductions in emissions. When it comes to farming, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act contains specific provisions to support Canadian farmers. In fact, most fuel used on farms is already relieved from the fuel charge, which would otherwise apply.

Furthermore, recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, the government already implemented a refundable tax credit for farmers in provinces that are subject to the fuel charge, starting for the 2021-22 fuel charge year. The three-year-long exemption proposed in Bill C-234, as amended by the Senate, would eliminate an incentive to promptly adopt clean technologies that would undoubtedly emerge during that period.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in my first adjournment debate in the House.

I am speaking tonight to follow up on a question I asked the Prime Minister about Bill C-234 and, more importantly, the embarrassing way it was handled in the Senate. For some unknown reason, it was the Minister of Transport who rose to answer me and, frankly, I was not pleased with the response.

Bill C-234 is a common-sense Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax on propane and natural gas used for drying grain and heating buildings, to give farmers a chance to survive this government's crippling carbon tax and take the first step toward reducing the cost of food in our country.

In his response, the Minister of Transport said that I was misleading Canadians. He used the same tired arguments he always does, such as the idea that the carbon tax does not apply in or affect Quebec.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of anyone with an iota of common sense, the carbon tax obviously affects Quebec, directly and indirectly. Quebeckers will certainly be affected at the pump when the second carbon tax adds 17¢ per litre to the cost of gasoline.

When Quebec farmers import their propane from Ontario or other parts of the country, the carbon tax applies to them. I have invoices from pork and chicken producers in my riding to prove it, but the government refuses to look at them.

In other cases, the carbon tax applies indirectly, for example, when Quebeckers import any other domestic goods shipped by truck across the country into our province. The higher prices are getting passed on to us because, contrary to what the Bloc-Liberal coalition believes, Quebec is not self-sufficient.

Bill C‑234 is extremely important. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have heard testimony from countless farmers from every part of the country. Every one of them agrees that this bill should be passed as soon as possible.

The Prime Minister decided to pressure the Liberal senators he himself appointed to gut Bill C‑234 at the Senate and then send it back to the House. They managed to remove the clause on barn heating and reduce the sunset clause from eight years to three years at the Senate. Bill C‑234 will be sent back to the House with these amendments. It will no longer have an impact on the price of food, which was the original purpose of the bill.

As we have heard many times, there is currently no other viable alternative for drying grain or heating buildings. That is why the Conservatives agreed to the eight-year sunset clause in the initial bill.

The questions I have for the government are the following. Does the government think that the carbon tax affects Quebec, either directly or indirectly? When the Senate's new amendments are debated here in the House, will the government do the right thing and delete these two amendments that have completely gutted Bill C‑234, so that it can be adopted as it was the last time, by the vast majority—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate the clarification.

As I was sharing, the story that Dawn told me was very clear about how, over the last number of years, she ran a successful small business. A lot of the work she did was in a greenhouse and in a 10- or 15-acre garden. I asked her if I could share this story, and she encouraged me to do so.

Over the last number of years, in the midst of resiliency planning for her farm operation, she found herself in a situation where there were some unexpected things that happened in her personal life. As a result, there were some unexpected costs that called into question some of that long-term planning that so many farmers work diligently to undertake, and just a few small life things.... What ended up happening was that she was able to make it work, and she worked very diligently to try to continue the farm that she was so proud to have been carrying on in the name of her mother.

However, what she found, over the last number of years, was that it came to the point where there were two factors that made it untenable for her to continue her operation. She outlined to me how, despite her efforts and the work that she put in, the extra hours, to endeavour to make the math work on being able to continue her family farm operation, she just couldn't, in fact, do it.

She described two specific factors that added to the costs of her monthly operations. There were two line items that had grown almost exponentially. The first was interest rates. Because of some of the personal circumstances she had found herself in, she ended up having to take on some additional liabilities in terms of debt. Over the time since she did that, the rising interest rates made it so that the cost of borrowing increased dramatically. Although I could certainly talk at length about that situation and the reasons for that, I want to ensure that we're relevant to the discussion at hand.

The second item she shared with me was how the carbon tax had increased the cost of her farm operation to the tune of thousands of dollars a month. In the summer, she could make it work. She was able to ensure that she kept things at a minimum, and whatnot. Chair, I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but what has generally been the case in our country is that it gets cold in the winter. In order to have high-quality food grow in a cold climate, which we face here in our country, you need to have greenhouses, and greenhouses have to be heated. The natural gas costs associated with Dawn being able to heat her greenhouses became untenable, to the tune of thousands of extra dollars a month.

Despite her best efforts, and despite the fact that she had done everything that she could to make her operation work, because of the carbon tax and higher interest rates, we saw the demise of this operation that she was so very proud of.

I want to talk about the Minister of Agriculture's involvement in this, because it is very key, but before I jump into that, I would like to emphasize something that I found really moving as I was hearing this story. As I chatted with Dawn on the phone, I could hear the emotion in her voice, and how much she cared about the work that she had done for years, providing high-quality food. For those around the table who might not be aware, direct sale often means that she would attend farmers' markets, so people got used to seeing Dawn at farmers' markets in the Didsbury area, the community that her greenhouse was located near.

What ended up happening was that, although she was incredibly proud of the greenhouse that was named after her mother, instead of putting her own farm's logo on her trailer and vehicle, Dawn put a statement on her vehicle and on the trailer she pulled. It said, “No farmers, no food”. That speaks to how seriously Dawn takes feeding the world and, in her case, the folks in central Alberta.

I talked about the number of farmers in Canada, and I'll get into more specifics around the Alberta circumstances. Of course, there is a lot I can say about Battle River—Crowfoot and the good people I represent in east-central Alberta.

What I would like to emphasize here is that part of this story has a real tragic twist.

The Minister of Agriculture has been asked a whole host of questions about Bill C-234 and its impact on agriculture and agricultural production, and about the needed carve-out. Certainly, Conservatives—and most parliamentarians, actually, including a number of Liberals at different points in time—support this important exemption from the carbon tax to ensure Canadians have affordable food. I have heard the Minister of Agriculture, as I'm sure we all have, stand up and say that he talks to farmers all the time and hasn't heard concerns related to Bill C-234, which, Mr. Chair, I've known to not be an accurate statement the whole way along.

Here's what I find truly tragic. Only a few days before I spoke with Dawn, she was on a Zoom call with the Minister of Agriculture. She shared her concerns directly. She outlined the impact of the carbon tax. As opposed to being empathetic and understanding.... At that point in time, Dawn shared with the Minister of Agriculture how she was speaking not only for herself but also on behalf of so many others she cares for deeply: those who provide the high-quality food we need as Canadians, the food that our people from coast to coast to coast need. There was a lack of empathy. There was an unwillingness to understand, to the point where she got frustrated with the Minister of Agriculture. At the point where it was acknowledged that there was a problem, he offered to reach out to help her situation. It was in that moment that Dawn said, “No, I don't want help just in my situation. We have to help all farmers. We have to help all Canadians.”

Mr. Chair, the reason why I share Dawn's story about the one farm that no longer exists because of the carbon tax is that it speaks to how, as Canadians, we have the opportunity to be leaders, whether it's for the other 189,873 farms that are left, for approximately 41,500 farms in the case of Alberta, or for approximately 4,715 farms in the case of Battle River—Crowfoot. My family and I, for five generations now, are proud to be a part of that farming legacy.

We talk about how frustrating it was that the senators were delaying. What ended up being the case was gutting the passage of Bill C-234 and taking out some of the most valuable aspects of that. They made the amendments. This motion is so very relevant, because, as the bill goes back to the House, there will likely be changes and it will go back to the Senate.

Mr. Chair, we need this carve-out. We have the potential as a country to feed our people with high-quality, affordable food, yet we have politics that seem to get in the way.

I want to get into some of the details, in a moment, of what exactly the situation is on farms. However, Mr. Chair, I think it's important to mention something. This is not the first conversation around carbon tax carve-outs we've had, even this fall.

Coming into the fall sitting of Parliament, we were only a few weeks into it when we saw the Prime Minister doing what seemed to be a hastily arranged press conference up on the third floor of this very building, where he announced that a few Canadians—just a few—would receive a break from the carbon tax. He proposed that there would be an exemption granted to Canadians who heat with home heating oil. Home heating oil is the reality, especially in certain parts of the country more than others. I know that in Alberta, where we have an abundance of clean, green Canadian natural gas, we don't have as much heating oil, although there is some. However, what we saw the Prime Minister undertake was to give a carve-out to a small group of Canadians who were impacted by the carbon tax. It worked out to be about 3% of households in this country that got that carve-out.

Now, when one looks at the cruel, crass politics of the situation, one sees that the Prime Minister's poll numbers were in an absolute nosedive, specifically in Atlantic Canada, where so many of the Liberal MPs were, in some cases—and I have no doubt because they said very publicly that this was the case—facing immense political pressure. As the Prime Minister's poll numbers were falling through the floor, action had to be taken. We heard some just astounding statements. For example, Minister Hutchings said, if you don't vote Liberal, don't expect an exemption. My goodness, how absolutely embarrassing that you would only serve people who vote for you. Certainly, I would hope that members around this table wouldn't, if somebody came up to their office door, turn that person away because that person didn't cast a ballot or didn't put the X beside the right person. It's an absolute embarrassment.

We heard the Minister of Northern Affairs say in this conversation that he had never heard that this was a concern. Minister Boissonnault, the only minister from Alberta—and one of only two Liberal MPs from Alberta—said that he simply wasn't concerned about the costs that were associated with the carbon tax. We saw that as the government was desperate because of the costs being imposed because of the carbon tax, it created this carve-out for 3% of the population. The other 97%, Mr. Chair, were not so lucky.

As we came into the fall session, there was this understanding that the Prime Minister was willing to engage in carve-outs because it was a de facto admission that his carbon tax was costing Canadians. When it came to home heating oil, it was costing Canadians significantly to be able to heat their homes.

What's interesting is that, in the conversation surrounding the carve-out, we had a political firestorm that ensued. In fact, we had economists from across the country saying publicly that it's obvious that this is an admission that the carbon tax and pricing is not working, an admission that it costs Canadians more than it's worth. In fact, there was one headline that even suggested, “The carbon tax is dead”. It's just a matter of time now.

What is interesting is that, in the follow-up to that initial carve-out, we saw the environment minister, convicted climate activist Steven Guilbeault—and I say “convicted” because he was convicted of a crime while he was a climate activist in a previous career—make the statement that if there were any more carve-outs, he could expect to resign. Although some of us certainly wouldn't be disappointed if that was the case, I found it very interesting how, all of sudden, we saw a doubling down on a whole host of things, specifically the carbon tax. Now that there was a 3% carve-out, the Prime Minister was unwilling to go any further and was unwilling to see that there would be a willingness for some common sense when many Canadians are...at this point in time when what we have is an affordability crisis. I hear about it all the time. We had so many examples of where there was just a tone deafness, an unwillingness for there to even be a conversation that maybe the carbon tax was, in fact, simply not worth the cost.

When it comes to the conversation around home heating, of course that is a key part of this larger conversation, but then we had Bill C-234. This bill would provide practical relief for farmers. I mentioned that I will get into the on-farm dynamics of this, because there's a lot of misinformation or what I would suspect is simply a misunderstanding, and I'll use some examples from question period and what the Prime Minister referenced here today. We saw how the environment minister was so quick to demand that the Prime Minister and the rest of the Liberal Party follow his lead by not allowing any further what have come to be known as carve-outs.

Conservatives believe fully that we need to axe the carbon tax, and we are calling for that to be the case. Pierre Poilievre, as leader of Canada's Conservatives, has made it very clear that we look forward to being able to fight a carbon tax election, when Canadians will be able to make that choice.

However, when it comes to practical relief that could be provided now, my colleague Ben Lobb—a member of Parliament who's been around here for a little while, not too long, but a little while—put forward Bill C-234. It was not the first time that this had been introduced. In fact, when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election in 2021, when he had promised he wouldn't, we were still in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that basically ended up returning Parliament almost exactly to the way it was prior to that point in time—

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that my colleagues have allowed me to discuss the study from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, entitled “Grocery Affordability: Examining Rising Food Costs In Canada”.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who has done a great deal of work on this subject specifically and certainly on the importance of the grocery code of conduct, for example, to try to address food affordability issues for Canadian consumers.

I feel it is important to discuss this study here today because of some information that has come out most recently regarding food inflation and food costs for Canadians. When we completed this study in June this past spring, there was some pretty difficult information for Canadian consumers to hear on the increasing costs and increasing questions and concerns around affordability for Canadians and their inability to feed their families. However, that has become even more acute with the information that has come out recently regarding Canada's food price report, which came out last week. It revealed that, in 2024, Canadian families will pay $700 more for groceries than they did the previous year. Even the work we did on this initial study last spring is now almost out of date and obsolete, as food prices have continued to rise. We see now that food inflation will go up again next year between 5% and 7% depending on the commodity we are purchasing.

As part of this study, we were waiting for an additional report from Dalhousie University and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois. The executive summary on the results of his study says that he and Dalhousie University have forecast that inflationary pressures and uncompetitive policies, like the carbon tax, on growing, processing and transporting food will increase the cost of wholesale food by 34% on average for all food categories by 2025.Thirty-four per cent is the increase in food costs that Canadian consumers are going to be facing over the next two years. This comes at a time when we have about two million Canadians relying on a food bank every single month, and when one in five Canadians is skipping meals because they cannot afford to put food on the table.

However, I think the stats we heard in this study are even more concerning. As part of this study, we had testimony from Daily Bread Food Bank and Second Harvest. Their testimony was that, due to the dire situation, according to their figures, “food banks and other food-related programs across Canada served [5.1 million] people per month last year”. I know we are talking about two million Canadians relying on a food bank every single month, but when we include other food insecurity programs, like Second Harvest, that number goes to more than five million Canadians who are using a food security program or charity like a food bank every single month. Now, as a result of the additional information we have been provided, we are going to see higher food prices, up to maybe 34%.

Again, from testimony from the Daily Bread Food Bank and Second Harvest, they are expecting the number of people using food banks and other food-related charities to climb to 8.2 million Canadians, which is roughly a 60% increase. Can members imagine that, because of inflationary policies and policies like the carbon tax, in Canada, where we have the ability to not only feed our own residents but help feed the world, we could have more than eight million Canadians relying on a regular basis on food banks and food charities to be able to feed their families? I find it to be unfathomable that in Canada we would be seeing those types of numbers. I hope everybody in the House will see those numbers as absolutely shocking.

The Conservatives put forward a number of recommendations last June that we asked the government to follow-up on to try to address some of these concerning trends we are seeing. I would like to mention a couple of the recommendations we put forward that I thought were quite specific and would go a great way in addressing this crisis we are facing.

Recommendation 1 said, “That the Government of Canada remove the carbon tax that is applied to all food inputs and production including all farm fuels and other...aspects of the food supply system.” Recommendation 2 was that the Government of Canada complete an economic assessment on the impact of the carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, carbon tax 2, and how this increase will affect the cost of food production, the price of food and the entire food supply chain. Recommendation 3 said, “That the Government of Canada immediately reverse its policy on front-of-package labelling.”

There is only one thing we missed, which I think we would have added as a fourth recommendation had we known about it at the time. We now know the Liberal government is putting a ban on plastic food packaging, particularly for fresh fruit and vegetables, which will add an additional $8 billion to food costs. I want to really stress this point to everyone in the House and anyone who may be watching. This plastics ban is not the single-use plastics ban that the government has now been forced to reverse as a result of the decision at the court because it is unconstitutional. This is another ban on plastics.

I want Canadians to picture this. As a result of this plastics ban on fresh fruit and vegetables, Canadians will be unable to purchase products they rely on, essential products they purchase every day, such as prepackaged salads, cucumbers and bananas. Many of these products are transported to Canada from outside of our country. We do not grow bananas in our climate. We have not quite gotten there with greenhouses. Because of these plastic packaging rules, companies outside of Canada will not upend their systems to meet an incomprehensible rule that they do not want to meet and cannot meet. Canadians will be going to the grocery stores and seeing empty grocery store shelves because we will no longer be able to import these products.

The secondary concern, as a result of front-of-pack labelling and this plastics ban adding another $14 billion in costs on the food industry, is that Canadians are going to see skyrocketing food prices. We see the stats from Dr. Sylvain Charlebois on the carbon tax and other policies driving up food costs by 34%, and now we will add on other layers of bureaucracy. It is nonsensical and not based on science. The fresh produce industry cannot meet this deadline being imposed on it.

At the same time, the Liberal loyalists in the Senate did everything they could to kill Bill C-234, which would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030 on the carbon tax. We heard the Prime Minister in question period today basically questioning the carbon tax bills that farmers are sending us every single day. He said he does not think they are being forthright on what their carbon tax numbers are; he thinks they are too high. He should go out to every farm in Canada that is spending tens of thousands of dollars a month on carbon taxes to heat and cool barns, dry grains and operate family farms. These are the real-life consequences of the government's policies on carbon taxes and the impact they are having on everyday Canadians' ability to feed their families.

I thought it was very important that we have an opportunity to address the study we tabled last June and try to update some of the numbers in the study that have now become obsolete as a result of the new data that has become available. Food prices are not only going up 5% to 7%. As a result of the data and the studies that have been done and as a result of the Liberals' carbon tax and other punitive policies, such as front-of-pack labelling and the ban on P2 plastics, Canadians are going to find it much more difficult to feed themselves, and millions more Canadians are going to be relying on food banks and charities.

After eight years, the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C‑234, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

Copies of the amendments are available at the table.

Appointment of Clerk

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I am sure if you seek it, you will find that Bill C-234 would lower the cost—

Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot even afford to feed themselves a couple of bags of McDonald's after eight years of the Prime Minister taxing their food.

Speaking of food, do members know the only problem with his school food framework? It does not fund any food. It funds politicians to talk with bureaucrats who talk with lobbyists about establishing a conversation towards consulting. It funds bureaucracy and not families.

Speaking of one way he can make food more affordable for everyone, including our kids, will he pass Bill C-234, the common-sense Conservative bill to take the tax off?

Carbon Tax

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are financially spent. Instead of common-sense tax cuts to help struggling families, in his fall economic statement, the Prime Minister doubled down on his massive increase to the carbon tax, which is driving up the cost of groceries, heating and gas.

When the wallets of Canadian families were raided bare by this government's carbon tax, it was the Conservatives who heard the calls for help. It was the Conservatives who introduced Bill C-234 to deliver carbon relief on farmers and the people they feed.

The legislation was duly passed in the House with the support of every party except the government. Then, right before Christmas, the Prime Minister called in favours from his functionaries in the other place and lobbied his Liberal-appointed and anointed senators to cut the legislation.

Now that it is back in the House, our Prime Minister needs to put his zeal for carbon tax aside; listen to Canadians who feel troubled, broken and betrayed this Christmas season; rein in his ideologues in cabinet; and pass Bill C-234.

Carbon Pricing

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in the House to follow up on a question that I asked the Prime Minister, which fell under the agriculture file.

In my response today, I need to tell the story of a woman named Dawn who, up until recently, ran a multi-generational greenhouse called “Shirley's Greenhouse”, named after her mom. I chatted with Dawn the other day and she shared something very tragic. Due to Liberal policies, specifically the carbon tax, as well as the fact that she ran into some challenges in her life as a single mom, all of a sudden the planned resilience in her agricultural operation had evaporated following increased costs associated with the carbon tax and interest rates, both of which are a direct impact from the actions of this Liberal government. Dawn shared her tragic story with me about how, after trying to make things work as a greenhouse operator and a multi-acre vegetable crop grower, she simply could not make a go of it. She has been forced to sell, and just recently, that was finalized.

Dawn asked me to make sure that I keep fighting for farmers. She proudly told me that she did not put her logo on her trailer that she took around to farmers' markets, because she did not just promote herself. The sticker she put on her trailer and her vehicles said, “No Farmers No Food”. I could hear the emotion in Dawn's voice as she explained how the carbon tax and bad Liberal policies directly attacked her and her ability to make her operation successful, even though it was a multi-generational operation.

However, what is truly tragic is that she had another conversation with another politician. That politician was the Minister of Agriculture. In a video Zoom call, he had met with a number of farmers from across the prairies, and Dawn shared her concerns directly with him about how the carbon tax was impacting Canadians.

Now, I can get passionate in debate in this place, and there is a reason for that. Canadians like Dawn tell their stories. She described how, just days before my conversation with her this weekend, she had told her concerns to the Minister of Agriculture directly, and they fell on deaf ears.

Farmers deserve better, and what is truly tragic is that, as the Liberals are attacking farmers by their refusal to support common-sense Conservative Bill C-234, their attacks on fertilizer mandates and a whole host of other things, now the debates and discussions are ongoing about how they are going to regulate cow farts. I wish I was making this up.

As the Liberals attack agriculture, the reality is that it is Canadians who pay more. As farmers are forced to cut back, close their operations and reduce their ability to produce the world-class food that we need, it is Canadians who are forced to pay the price, and we see the direct impact of that in the cost of food.

My question is simple: Why will these Liberals not listen to farmers like Dawn—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is out of touch, and it is Canadians who are paying the price. That is exactly what we are seeing with the carbon tax. It has a negative effect on everyone in different ways.

I would like to focus on the farmers who grow the food. They are seeing some of the worst impacts of the carbon tax. As time goes on, farmers and ranchers face higher input costs, including on the fuel they need to use. They are getting crushed by rising fuel costs and are caught in the unfair position of absorbing costs at each and every stage of production.

That is why Conservatives brought forward a common-sense solution that we thought would receive the support of all parties. Bill C-234 would provide an exemption from the carbon tax on all on farm fuels. Everyone supported the idea and voted with us, except for the majority of the Liberal caucus, of course. Most of them voted against it, but fortunately for Canadian farmers, Bill C-234 passed in the House of Commons anyway. That was back in the spring. Eventually, the bill reached third reading in the Senate.

However, it seems that the Liberals cannot accept that their coalition partner, the NDP, supported our bill. At the last opportunity, some senators appointed by the Prime Minister have been trying to shut it down. There have been delays in passing it, and more recently, amendments have basically gutted Bill C-234. This is right in line with the Liberal approach to this bill. If they cannot stop it from passing, they want to at least make sure it will provide the least amount of benefit possible to the farmers who grow our food. We know that the activist environment minister does not want any more carve-outs to his carbon tax, no matter how much it hurts Canadians.

I originally called on the Prime Minister to tell his appointed senators to stop the blocking of Bill C-234. It seemed likely that the environment minister or the Minister of Agriculture might respond in question period, but instead, it was the Minister of Innovation, who I know is a very influential member in his caucus and cabinet. There are rumours that he might want to be the next leader soon. I hope that he will use his influence to exempt farm fuels from the carbon tax or, better yet, axe the tax altogether. I would even suggest that, if he includes that in his leadership race bid when the time comes, he might be the one to come out on top.

The situation with Bill C-234 has changed in some ways, but there is still a chance to pass it as the House of Commons intended. That needs to happen so that we can provide relief to our farmers and make a difference for Canadian families. It is not too late to fix the problem, if the Liberals really want to do that, but that is the question: What do they really want to do?

Week after week, I have been bringing up different examples of how much the carbon tax is crushing farmers and ranchers, but the Liberals are not going to support giving them some relief if they do not want it to happen. Is that part of the plan? Are they trying to make farming unaffordable, especially for the up-and-coming new generation of farmers? l hear about this regularly in my office, when I host town halls or when I am out buying groceries. It is amazing how many people talk to me about the situation with their families, with their sons or daughters wanting to take over the farm and what that is going to look like, or what the costs of that are going to be, especially after eight years of the Liberal government. The fact is that everything is costing more and more.

Is there a future for young producers? That is at the heart of this. That is at the heart of why Conservatives want to pass Bill C-234. It is to get a carve-out for all on farm fuels, for both the farmers of the present and the farmers of the future. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could confirm his support to repeal the carbon tax for all on farm fuels, as Bill C-234 was originally written and intended to do.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is merry Christmas and I guess the member opposite does not realize what country she is in, but the merry Christmas gift from this Prime Minister to farmers is what? It is a billion-dollar carbon tax bill in their stocking, quadrupling that carbon tax under the tree; and the gift from the Prime Minister's Liberal loyalists in the Senate is to cancel Bill C-234, preventing a carbon-tax carve-out for farmers.

When we have two million Canadians lined up at food banks every month and those numbers only getting worse when they increase taxes on farmers, why was the Prime Minister cancelling Christmas instead of cancelling the quadrupling of his carbon tax on farmers, families and first nations?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be forced to eat stone soup this winter after the Prime Minister gave us the worst food price inflation in 40 years, and we have two million Canadians, a record-smashing number, lined up at food banks. I know the Prime Minister is desperate to avoid defending his own track record, or worse yet, his quadrupling of the carbon tax.

There is a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, in the Senate up for the vote today. Will the Prime Minister stop blocking the bill and axe the tax so our farmers can feed families?

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me.

After eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, inflation has reached its highest level in 40 years. I can say that I would not want to be in the shoes of the Liberal government right now.

Salaries of middle-class Canadians no longer cover even housing, which has doubled, and groceries, which are predicted to rise even more this year. Increasing numbers of people rely on food banks, and children have almost nothing in their school lunch boxes, which is a crying shame.

The effects of drug legislation are being felt. The increase in addiction rates is harming families and our sense of security. This is where we have landed, thanks to the wildly reckless spending of this Prime Minister and his spendthrift government, which attempts to buy votes with wishful thinking. He wants people to forget the disaster he has caused to those who can no longer make ends meet.

Let us not mince words. We will all pay for this Liberal government's disastrous policies over the next 25 or 30 years. Let us be frank in the House. We now find ourselves with a failed Prime Minister, a failed government, public spending in the red, and a society that is being unwittingly bankrupted, and no longer knows how it is going to pay its grocery bills.

I would like to be reassuring, but how can we continue to have faith given the scale of the challenges before us each day and the financial threat that looms over so many households? As the Prime Minister says, we will continue doing this, that or the other. Well, empty words no longer work.

This is truly scandalous, without a doubt. In eight years of governing, only the Liberals could think of this and pull off such a thing. Since 2006, I have proudly represented the people of Lévis—Lotbinière. The previous Conservative government was responsible and had a vision for our young people, our future and our economy.

The sad reality is that this bill resolves absolutely nothing while increasing public spending and taxes. Years ago the Liberal government should have put in place new housing measures and certain measures to reduce the cost of groceries. Homelessness is now a reality for hard-working people who, not so long ago, could afford housing. Faced with $20 billion in new costly spending, we were quickly walked through this mini-budget in the fall. Prices are going up, rents are going up, the debt is going up, and taxes are going up. What about the price of groceries? That is going up too. More than $20 billion in new inflationary spending will keep inflation and interest rates at a higher level than Canadians can afford to pay.

The end of the year is approaching, and the honeymoon with this Liberal government is definitely over. I wonder what the Prime Minister will be thinking on his next trip while he is lying on the beach in the sun. We hope that this time the trip will be at his own expense. What will he think of the sad reality of people who have trouble affording a turkey for Christmas, putting presents under the tree, if there is one, heating their homes, or putting gas in their vehicles? Many Canadians and Quebeckers will find that 2024 is going to be as harsh as this winter, especially since the government is proposing to raise taxes on the backs of the middle class. Ironically, there is a lot to be stressed about: Next year this Prime Minister will spend more money on servicing the debt than on paying for Canadians' health care.

As for balancing the budget, maybe that will happen in 30 years, because it has become a mirage. Members may recall that the Liberal government told Canadians they would balance the budget by 2028. Since the Minister of Finance announced that pious wish, she has announced $100 billion in new expenses. Even though we need millions of new housing units by 2030, the government, which has been scrimping on important issues since it came to power, announced this fall it would spend $15 billion on a fund that will support the construction of barely 1,500 housing units a year. I would like to remind the government that 2030 is only six years away. That is not very long, except for the people who have to sleep outside or those who have been paying double for housing since the Liberal ice age.

Now more than ever, it is clear that this bill does nothing to help ordinary Canadians. Even worse, Canadians are becoming even poorer.

We have seen what this Liberal government has gotten wrong. Here are a few facts to help convince my colleagues. There were a record two million visits to the food bank in a single month. The cost of housing has doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher now than when this government came to power. Violent crime has increased by 39%. There are tent cities in almost every major city in Canada, and a lot of the people who live there are people we know. More than half of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Canadians who renew their mortgage at the current rate will see an increase of 2% to 6% or more. The IMF says that Canada is the G7 country most likely to experience a mortgage default crisis. Worse yet, the business bankruptcy rate increased by 37% this year.

While Canadians are up to their necks in debt and there is no foreseeable miracle forthcoming from the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition, we are trying to find a way back to a common-sense solution, a way of really being heard to mitigate the daily suffering of people across the country. I said I have been a legislator since 2006. I can say that I am not the only one to long for a government that knows how to count and invest every one of Canadian taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. A lot of people were deceived by the siren song of the Liberals’ promises, and we are all paying the price now. This also proves that voting for the Bloc is costly.

They can say anything they want across the aisle and talk about the horrors of going backwards, but this country needs a Conservative government to put it back on track. We need to understand that our country was doing well, very well, actually, before this Liberal government came to power. Let us remember the interest and inflation rates before this Prime Minister. They were low. Taxes dropped faster than at any other time in our country’s history. We had a balanced budget. Crime was down 25%. Our borders were secure. Housing cost half of what it does today. Net wages increased by 10% after inflation and income tax. What are we seeing now? It is a disaster. Many Canadians will have to wait up to 25 years to save enough money to buy their first house and, for many of them, home ownership is an impossible dream.

The legacy the Liberals are leaving us is a world upside down. Come the next election, voters will have two options. The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition that will take taxpayers' money, raise taxes, and enable more crime. The second option is a common-sense Conservative government that will enable people to earn a bigger paycheque to buy groceries, gas and a home in a safe community. The choice is obvious. Let us just hope that our country can hold on until then.

With last fall's mini-budget, we are going to pay more taxes, because the government raised the carbon tax across the country. It is going to quadruple. That does not make any sense, and it is truly outrageous. Bill C-234 would give Canadian taxpayers a little breathing room by eliminating the carbon tax for Canadian farmers. That would bring down food prices in Canada. When the government taxes the farmers who grow food and the truckers who transport it, Canadians have to pay more to put food on the table. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change promised to resign if this bill were passed. He is not thinking about those who are struggling to make ends meet at the end of every week.

Will the Prime Minister choose to save his environment minister or to feed Canadians by lowering the cost of food through Bill C-234, which must be passed but is stuck in the Senate because of the Prime Minister's machinations? The choice is easy and obvious. Let us help our farmers and all Canadians.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

We know that the PBO has confirmed that Bill C-234 would have saved farmers a billion dollars between now and 2030. To be clear, it's $1 billion that your Liberal government is intent on collecting on the backs of our farmers.

Why did your government direct Liberal-appointed senators to delay and gut this bill, which would have thrown a lifeline to our farmers?

Business of Supply

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

He concluded by making some rather serious comments about Bill C-234. I would like to hear his thoughts on the following. First, he spoke about the fact that there was obstruction in the Senate.

Second, my colleague and I are both members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I would like to know what he thinks about the amendment that the Senate made to the bill, because that amendment completely thwarts the bill's purpose.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I hope that you are doing well. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, British Columbia.

I rise today to speak to a motion moved by the opposition. I like having the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the members of the opposition about their thoughts, their policies and their feelings.

First, I feel the need to explain the motion we are discussing. It is the reality. The House is calling on the government to repeal the carbon tax on farmers, first nations and families. I will speak to those three points.

I will bring a level of moderation to this conversation. I have heard a whole bunch of stuff here today, and I will give my perspective on the motion and on the question, writ large, about where Canada goes in the days ahead in relation to environmental progress and how we get there.

I come into this conversation as someone who believes in the principle of carbon pricing. There is merit to it. Inherently, it is a mechanism that actually allows the private sector to make those decisions. My hon. colleagues across the way in opposition often talk about big government or the idea that they do not like big government, but it seems that, if they do have a climate plan, it would be predicated on big government programs as opposed to letting the private sector decide how to innovate and how to drive emissions down. Of course, that is what we are focused on: driving GHG emissions down. We know the science is clear and that work has to be done. Canada is in a global effort on that front.

However, I want to address each of the elements of the motion because the motion, to the Conservatives' credit, is somewhat reasonably put forward in that it is straightforward in what it is asking for. It does not have too much inflammatory language, but it also does not talk about the other types of arguments or the other elements that are at play.

For example, let me start with families. We have heard in the House, and we have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that under the federal backstop, eight out of 10 Canadian families are receiving more money back than what they pay in. The House has heard a number of times this week of a column that was talking about Trevor Tombe, a Calgary economist, who talked about this relating not only to direct but also to indirect costs.

That is largely void from the conversation I am hearing from the official opposition about the fact that there even are rebates. I heard a couple of people in the House say that they are taking the money and they do not know what they are doing with it. With all due respect, that is a bit disingenuous. We know exactly what the money is doing. It is revenue neutral to the government and it is being put back. I take no issue if the Conservative Party does not believe in the way that is happening and would like to see adjustments and changes. Very often, we hear the Conservatives just lambasting the idea of any form of carbon pricing, and that is important for us to weigh in on.

There are business operators making decisions all across the world right now, including here in Canada, who are relying on the idea that there will be a form of carbon pricing, and they are building their industrial strategies in that way. We have not heard from the Conservatives as to whether they support any form of carbon pricing, nor have we heard what their plan is.

Do I think that every member on the opposition bench is a climate denier? No, I do not, but I do worry that the party is not genuine in its interest of tackling the questions of affordability and environment at the same time and the progress we need to make in this country.

With respect to families, when the Conservatives are saying they want to cut the federal backstop, they are saying they want to cut money that goes back to lower- and middle-income families at a higher rate than what people pay out, both directly and indirectly. The Conservatives should start becoming clear about what exactly they are saying. They want to take money away from lower- and middle-income Canadians, full stop.

The Conservatives often talked about the indirect costs of the carbon price. Yes, there are some indirect costs, and we have to weigh those versus the price signal, which will drive innovation and the economy in this country, the clean tech economy that is there.

I have talked about families, so in my time remaining, let me talk about first nations and farmers. There is a mechanism right now under the federal backstop that returns money back to first nations. The Conservatives will quote a judicial decision that some first nations in Ontario have brought forward. They are trying to push for changes and adjustments.

We can have that conversation. I have talked to members on our side in the indigenous caucus, and they support a carbon price. They know environmental progress is important. Again, we do not hear the Conservatives stepping up to offer tangible solutions about how they would adjust or change the policies. They are just saying they would scrap everything to do with it without providing any guidance to Canadians about what their actual climate plan is.

We have seen the government make adjustments. There are existing reasonable exemptions within the carbon pricing plan across the country. I was pleased to see, just over a month ago, the government make changes that will really matter to rural Canadians across the country. We increased the rural rebate to 20%. This is something that was driven by members in this caucus, who did not come in with the opening premise of saying that we should kill carbon pricing all together, but of letting us adjust it to make sure Canadians in every corner of this country can feel like they are part of the solution on climate.

We never heard a single word from the Conservative benches about what that means for their constituents. I again take notice that maybe they do not support this, but what do they support? If they want to be the government in waiting, they better start actually talking about what it is they do support and what they stand for, which I have not heard much of lately other than, as the member for Kingston and the Islands has mentioned, 19 straight opposition day motions that are largely on this topic alone. I do not know what else they have in the tool kit. I guess we will see, but this seems to be a favourite one.

On farmers, what the opposition day motion does not mention is that there are existing exemptions for on farm fuels for gasoline and diesel already. They referenced often Bill C-234. This is a bill I supported at second reading and at third reading, and we saw it off to the Senate. I do believe the work the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did at the House level to examine the question and to have a sunset clause that would reasonably allow some period of time, particularly on the question of grain and vegetable drying, is a reasonable one. It is an extension of the existing exemption that actually makes sense.

Some in the House would not agree with me on that principle, and that is fine. We have heard consistently question after question in the House somehow lambasting the government for blocking this in the Senate. Senators would know the government position on it. The government position was to support farmers in different ways, to be able to put different mechanisms back and still keep the price signal.

What is not being talked about, or not very often, is that the Senate record shows at least five of the 15 Conservative senators were not in the chamber on the day that amendment was put forward. It was ultimately voted on by 40 to 39. The leader of the official opposition stood in the House for weeks talking about this bill. I am sure the Conservative fundraising emails will not mention that a third of his Senate caucus did not even bother to show up on the day, on their own legislation. That matters.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's very reasonable question.

While I might respond that, a lot of times, I see the Bloc making issues that deal strictly with Quebec as opposed to all of Canada, his comment about Bill C-234 is very appropriate. I recognize that Bloc members voted for the bill when it was here in the House, where the people we represent are the common people of this country. Everybody voted for that. We supported it, and it was passed unanimously here in the House of Commons. It was then sent to the Senate, where it is being stalled and delayed. Therefore, I appreciate the member's comment and the support that the Bloc gave to Bill C-234. I look forward to the changes being made to Bill C-234 such that it is passed and helps our farmers.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the basic problem we face, a problem that has been going on for months, is that some political parties are unreasonable and put different misleading labels on all the others.

Here is a prime example of this situation. Today's opposition day was triggered by Bill C‑234, which is currently in the Senate, and by the amendment that was passed in the Senate. Last week, we voted against a motion because some senators had been bullied, which is unacceptable in a G7 country. As a matter of principle, the Bloc Québécois opposed a motion, even though it was in favour of Bill C‑234. I rarely hear the Conservatives talk about that. All that I hear them say is that the Bloc-Liberal coalition is imposing a carbon tax. I wish we could be a little more conscientious and stick to the facts.

I would like to ask my colleague the following. Does he acknowledge that some politicians here are trying to act reasonably for the common good and make compromises? That is what the Bloc Québécois did with Bill C‑234, which does not apply to Quebec. I would remind everyone that this bill does not apply to Quebec.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if she can inform the House as to the business for the rest of this week and into next week.

I note that today is the final supply day, which means that we will be dealing with the supply bills this evening. Members may know by now that Conservatives have put on a number of opposed items in an effort to highlight the pain the Liberal carbon tax is imposing on Canadians, who are struggling with food prices at grocery stores.

I would like to take this opportunity to let the government House leader know that we can wrap all that up very quickly if she will do everything she can to ensure that the Senate repeals its amendment gutting Bill C-234, which would have the effect of taking the carbon tax off farmers to bring grocery prices down. If she would commit to doing that, we could deal with the supply bill this evening in an orderly and timely manner.

If not, in order to ensure Canadians understand the devastating impact the carbon tax will have on them, we will be voting around the clock until the government gets it through its mind that the carbon tax is causing all this misery for Canadians.

Carbon Pricing

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is no plan.

A desperate, panicking Prime Minister spent last weekend calling senators, pleading with them to kill Bill C-234, which would lower grocery prices for Canadians. On Tuesday, those supposedly independent senators voted to gut Bill C-234, betraying farmers and keeping food prices high.

After eight years of rising prices and lower paycheques, Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Christmas is coming and Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. Since 2016, there has been an 82% increase in the number of workers in Ontario who are using food banks.

Bill C-234 would have taken the carbon tax off farmers, but the desperate Prime Minister spent the weekend calling senators pleading them to kill the bill. He is just not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians and take carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians cannot afford to eat because of the Prime Minister's carbon tax. A new report shows that a family of four will pay $700 more next year on groceries. The Prime Minister had a chance to lower grocery bills by removing the carbon tax on farmers, but once again, he proved he is not worth the cost. The Prime Minister spent the weekend working to gut Bill C-234 to keep the carbon tax on.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one caucus in Parliament that is losing its mind, and it is the Conservatives, because the Conservative senators did not show up to vote on Bill C-234 in the other place.

We are happy to be here as long as it takes, because we will always stand up for Canadians and we will always stand against bullies.

Carbon Tax

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and speak about some very pressing matters. Times are hard for Canadians. A new food report out today shows that Canadians will be paying an extra $700 next year to feed their families.

The Senate amendment to Bill C-234, which would have provided farm families with a much-needed break from the carbon tax, now has its passage in limbo after the Prime Minister lobbied his appointed senators in order to protect his minister.

The Prime Minister could not care less about how his policies have created two classes of Canadians, those who pay the carbon tax and those who do not. First nations are taking the government to court, arguing that the carbon pricing regime of the Prime Minister unjustly and disproportionately impacts their communities and that they will be worse off. It is time to take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, it is time for common-sense Conservative government. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the number of Canadians who use food banks has reached a record high, but the Bloc-Liberal coalition is doing nothing to lower the price of food. We introduced Bill C‑234, a common-sense bill to reduce production costs directly at the farm. The Prime Minister ordered his Liberal senators to vote against the bill in the Senate.

This morning, an annual report confirms that, in 2024, the average family will pay $700 more for groceries. Canadians are lowering their grocery bill and reducing the quantity and quality of the food they buy by replacing it with less nutritious alternatives. Children and seniors, who are the most vulnerable, deserve to eat healthy and nutritious food, but the government is keeping its carbon tax, which is making Canadians poorer.

After eight years, the price of food is not the only increase Canadians are dealing with. The cost of housing is skyrocketing. Conservatives will continue to fight against the Bloc-Liberal coalition to lower prices for all Canadians so that they can enjoy the holidays, unlike the coalition, that wants to ruin Christmas for everyone.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax on Farmers, First Nations and Families

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to our opposition day motion. I want to start off with some basic facts, so I will read into the record this very important piece of information. This is the type of stuff we are actually discussing today:

Between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, over 800,000 people in Ontario alone accessed a food bank. In total, there were 5.9 million visits to a food bank in this time period. Feed Ontario reported that “if the 800,822 people who visited Ontario’s food banks between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, became their own municipality, it would be the third largest city in the province ahead of Mississauga.”

This tells us we have a problem, yet we are back to this debate. As the member from the NDP stated, Conservatives are bringing up this motion for the 11th time. We are trying to bring some common sense and understand why over 800,000 people in Ontario alone are using a food bank.

Just this week, at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, we heard it is forecasted that a food bank in Kelowna, B.C., is expecting its growth to be 100% in the next year. In addition, “More than one in six visitors say they are employed, which is an 82 percent increase over 2016-17 and a 37 percent increase over the previous year.” Now it is forecasted that, for 2024, there will be a hundred per cent increase in the use of food banks.

Why is this happening? It is very simple. It is because the cost of living is skyrocketing. Canadian mortgages have doubled, the costs of rents are increasing faster than the increase in wages and affordability is just absolutely out of control. We are in a broken economy right now.

We can try to paint a flowery picture, as we have heard from many parties here, and specifically the government's side. We can paint a pretty picture of all they have done. They can talk all they want about the Canada child tax benefit, refunds from the carbon tax and $10-a-day child care, but none of these policies are working to date.

This is why I am bringing this forward. We can talk about the Canada child tax benefit that was reformed in 2016, but we have to take into consideration what people received back in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Yes, I recognize there was an escalator to that, but the cost of living has continued to increase. Therefore, at the end of the day, Canadians are actually finding that they have less money in their pockets because of the cost of living. The more one spends, the more taxes the government is bringing in. This is the bottom line, and that is why it is so important that we axe the tax for farmers, families and first nations. It is desperately needed.

I am from the incredible riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, where some of our key industry is farming and agribusiness. I will share a bit of information I received yesterday. When one starts receiving such things, one wonders if anybody from the government benches is doing any reading. Specifically, this comes from Dowler-Karn. I would really like to thank Dowler-Karn and the great people there who are servicing our farmers daily to try to make sure we get crops off and that grains are being dried and everything.

Dowler-Karn has seven locations from Windsor to Kitchener and services industry, agricultural producers, trucking companies and some residential home heating. It does not service gas stations or the mandatory residential home heating. I contacted Dowler-Karn in respect to its carbon tax expenses and was shocked to learn about the revenue that is leaving Elgin—Middlesex—London.

In a 12-month period, from November 30, $27.2 million in carbon tax was sent from Elgin—Middlesex—London to the federal government from Dowler-Karn alone, which is only one of the riding's providers. By April 1, 2024, rates will be going up 23%, so the carbon tax for 2024 is estimated by Dowler-Karn at $34 million.

Where does one think the $34 million comes from? It is added as one of the input costs to farmers. It is that simple. It is part of the business costs, so at the end of the day, when input costs go up, we are going to see the cost of food going up. It is really difficult for me to talk about food if we are not going to actually recognize that carbon tax plays a huge role in the production of food. It makes me very concerned that we are ignoring this.

Currently, the monthly average for Dowler-Karn is $2 million to $2.5 million in carbon tax. Recently, the Canadian Propane Association released a study that, on average, Canadian households are spending $300 to $350 monthly on home heating alone. Currently, the rate of carbon tax on diesel fuel is 17.4¢ per litre, with an estimate to 45.4¢ per litre by 2023. This is affecting all transportation of goods in Canada by truck or rail.

I also want to read into the record an email that we received. We are talking about families. We are talking about how people are being impacted. We recognize that there is absolutely an urban and rural divide on this, but people in the cities may pay less when it comes to the carbon tax because maybe their driving distance is shorter, or their homes may be different, like they might not being living in century-old farm homes. Barry Brigham of London wrote:

With several years of country wide tax contribution income now in place and recognizing rebates extended back to taxpayers, my personal question...[to you] Has there ever been a public release of an accountability statement to the current summary of the carbon tax ledger dollar amount to share with taxpayers. Information such as the current balance along with income generated from interest and details as to the disbursement of this carbon tax income ledger detailing the direction of funds for environmental improvement areas would be of great value and interest to review for a majority of Canadians.

Why do I bring this up? It is because when we talk about all of this money that is coming from the carbon tax, this psychological program that they are playing with Canadians, we are seeing that Canadians are paying a lot of money and they are absolutely desperate. They are asking where the government is taking the money it is receiving from the carbon tax, and are asking where it is investing it to ensure that we actually have climate solutions. That is what we see. The government continues to put its money into the general coffers so it has more revenue. This is a tax plan. It is all about bringing more money in, but we are not seeing the investments in technologies that we need to see.

On Bill C-234, let us turn to something that is really disgusting. I have an email here from some farmers in my riding. Currently, one livestock farmer has already spent approximately $38,000 in carbon tax alone to heat his barns, and will be spending approximately $12,000 in carbon tax to dry his grain.

Another large farming corporation that does some incredible work in the grain and oilseeds industry has already paid $80,000 in carbon tax. Where do people think this money comes from? It will come from the consumer at the end of the day because the input costs continue to go up.

I know I do not have a lot of time left. We have talked about the families, we have talked about the farmers and now we need to talk about our first nations. I think one of the greatest challenges I have seen here is the fact that the first nations have been left out of this. We saw Atlantic Canada get a break on the carbon tax. Why? It was not working and it was making people poor.

We are hearing the same things from our indigenous leaders. I want to read from a CBC article by Olivia Stefanovich. It states, “Ontario First Nations leaders are asking the Federal Court to exempt their communities from the federal carbon tax, a policy”—

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Our Conservative motion to axe the carbon tax, as we have heard so much from the Liberal government about today, is an opportunity for all members of Parliament, even those in the Liberal backbenches, including the my colleague from Winnipeg North, to stand up for their constituents. I know it will take courage, but I urge every one of them to do the right thing.

Like all MPs in this House, I am getting emails and calls from moms and dads across Canada who are struggling to pay their bills and put food on their tables. I am hearing from seniors who worked decades to save for retirement, only to see inflation eradicate their income and financial security.

As someone who represents a large rural constituency, I know how the carbon tax disproportionately impacts the people who call Westman home. If we can pass this motion, it will send a strong signal to the Prime Minister that his government needs to get serious about the cost of living crisis in Canada. If the Liberals have not yet figured it out, the Conservative team will never back down from its mission to axe the carbon tax once and for all, no matter how long it takes. We will stand up for the families, seniors, farmers and indigenous Canadians who are being crushed by the drastic cost of living.

Nothing was more insulting to the millions of Canadians trying to heat their homes this winter than when the Prime Minister decided to temporarily pause his carbon tax on only 3% of households. It is no wonder that provincial governments are up in arms. Even the NDP government in Manitoba is explicitly asking the Prime Minister to exempt home heating from his carbon tax. As for the top-up for rural Canadians, it is not even enough money to pay for the gas to take their kids to hockey practice on the weekend.

Our common-sense Conservative motion today is simple. It is not a gimmick and there are no temporary measures. It is time to axe the inflationary carbon tax for good and bring home lower prices.

Every single member of Parliament knows constituents are hurting. It does not matter if people live in rural Newfoundland or North Bay, Ontario, inflation and rising Liberal taxes are taking their toll. People are struggling to stay afloat, and the carbon tax is a giant anvil dragging them down.

We found out this week, as an example, that more than 50,000 Manitobans are now regularly using a food bank, the highest number ever recorded in the province, and while we can get bogged down in statistics, we must never forget that we are talking about people. These are seniors, students, children and indigenous Canadians who cannot afford to go the grocery store. When people do have money in their pockets, they are decreasing the quantity and sometimes the quality of the food they are buying.

This is not normal and it weighs heavily on the minds of moms and dads trying to pack their kids’ school lunch boxes. It weighs heavily on the senior whose fixed income is not keeping up with the rate of inflation. It weighs heavily on the young person who is trying desperately to pay for their education or save for a home but can barely afford their daily necessities.

I know first-hand the challenges food banks are having. I have visited the Samaritan House in Brandon and it is struggling to keep up with demand. I cannot say enough about the good work that Barbara McNish and all the volunteers do for those in need, but we as policy-makers cannot just turn a blind eye to these startling numbers.

As another example, I know the food bank in Killarney, Manitoba, is facing challenges. It recently contacted my office, as it now needs to hire a manager to run the operation as the demand on volunteers is too great. Under the Liberal government, small rural communities need to hire a manager to run a food bank. In all my years of living in Westman, I never thought in a million years that a very progressive community like Killarney would ever need to hire staff to run its food bank. It is a testament to the struggles that many are facing and it is undeniably heartbreaking.

If this is not a warning sign of how bad things have gotten out there, I do not know what is. What will it take to finally wake the Prime Minister up and get him to change direction? The rising costs of food cannot be divorced from the Liberal government's tax-and-spend policies. The carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything. It is contributing to the costs of growing our food.

Let this sink in for a moment. While the cost of groceries has never been higher, Liberals have shown no compassion for those who cannot afford to put food on the table. The carbon tax is being applied all along the entire food supply system. It gets passed down until every Canadian gets stuck with the bill. It is no wonder the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that families are seeing a net loss under this measure.

Families and seniors are getting crushed, and it is time for action. They are tired of Liberal gaslighting about how much better off they are under the carbon tax rebate scheme. The good people of Westman are not falling for the Liberals' talking points; at the end of the day, they do not have more money in their wallets.

Just this morning, Canada's Food Price Report stated that the average family of four is expected to spend $16,297.20 on food in 2024. As we have heard my colleagues say in this House before, that is seven hundred and some dollars more than what they had to spend last year.

I want to finish my talk today by just saying that this is an outlandish tax that the government is trying to place on everyone in Canada and their cost of living today. The government could have passed Bill C-234, which was a bill to take the carbon tax off heating barns and greenhouses in Canada and drying grain. The cost of food is directly proportional to the cost of the inputs that it takes to grow these products. We are talking about greenhouse produce that is extremely healthy and is exported all over the world, particularly to our neighbours in the United States to the south of us.

Maybe some of my colleagues are not aware of what really happens when farmers are drying grain. It is not just a luxury; it is an absolute necessity, because farmers need to be able to store that crop when they take it off. If they do not, that grain could spoil, costing the producers millions of dollars across the country. It could be billions. This is something that is very much a necessity.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Mazier.

Mr. Chair, with the time we have left, I would like to quickly move the motion that I tabled last week, and then we can return to the witnesses.

The motion reads as follows:

Given that:

(a) the Chiefs of Ontario have filed a judicial review in Federal Court on the Liberal government’s carbon tax

(b) the Chiefs of Ontario have noted that Indigenous communities would face greater challenges in switching to lower emitting technologies;

(c) Grand Chief Abram Benedict of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne stated:

“The government has boasted that Canadians will pay a carbon tax, but through the rebates, through the subsidies they will actually receive more than what they have paid. That doesn't ring true in First Nations communities”;

(d) Canada's Environment Commissioner and Parliamentary Budget Officer acknowledge that the carbon tax disproportionately punishes Canadians who live in rural, remote, and northern regions;

(e) and the Liberal government failed to provide a temporary carbon tax exemption on home heating for 97% of Canadians;

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a) the Committee invite Grand Chief Abram Benedict and the Chiefs of Ontario to testify for no less than 2 hours by December 12, 2023, on their judicial review filing on the federal carbon tax.

Mr. Chair, we have all heard from our constituents about the effects of the carbon tax on the rising cost of living. We've recently seen the federal government announce a pause on the carbon tax for home heating oil. We may be seeing an exemption from the carbon tax for certain farming activities, assuming that Bill C-234 gets passed into law. Now we are looking at a judicial review from the Chiefs of Ontario.

I think it would be reasonable to invite the chiefs to the committee and hear the details and the particulars of what exactly they are proposing in terms of a carbon tax exemption and how that could be implemented in a way that respects indigenous rights.

Mr. Chair, I think I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the Bloc, a party only from Quebec that has never formed government and will never form government, seems to take issue with the fact that Conservatives are calling for very clear and simple answers for why senators, including Senator Petitclerc from Quebec, voted to shut down debate and voted to gut a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234.

I would ask the same question of Senator Paula Simons from Alberta. She voted to gut and attack it as the deputy chair of the ag committee. She is the deputy chair of the ag committee in the Senate and she voted to punish farmers.

I encourage Canadians to reach out, respectfully of course, and share their opinions with these lawmakers in our country. It is essential that they hear from affected Canadians, whether it is a person who is being forced because of the Liberal Prime Minister's policies to visit a food bank or—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not even have to show the House what I am talking about, because the Conservatives are doing it for me. They use this same tactic day after day at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Earlier, I heard a Conservative say that he was just having a nice, quiet discussion with one of his colleagues. If members want to know what Conservatives think is a quiet discussion, they should have a look at the video of our meeting yesterday at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. They will see what my Conservative colleagues consider a nice, quiet discussion.

As I was saying before I was interrupted, the member for Brantford—Brant behaved in a highly questionable way. He tried to intimidate the Bloc Québécois whip and the members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to prevent them from speaking to a bill. As I was saying earlier, we have been dealing with this type of behaviour in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for more than a month now. We are never sure whose turn it is to speak, which is frankly ridiculous. When I put all that together, I see what I call the “Carleton method”. It is the approach used by the leader of the official opposition, and it is based on two major but very simple strategies: on the one hand, we have intimidation and, on the other, disinformation.

As I said in my introduction, we are now at a turning point. In the face of climate change, the actions that we should take immediately will have an irreversible impact on future generations. When political parties use intimidation and disinformation in this kind of context, the only outcome is disaster.

What I am trying to do this morning is to appeal to the sense of responsibility of each and every parliamentarian. Every parliamentarian should perhaps look beyond the end of their nose and beyond the next election. They should think about their children and future generations. Unfortunately, more and more members have become extremely short-sighted, behaving like lobbyists for the oil and gas sector and refusing to listen to science, which is clearly showing us that climate change will have harmful effects on us. There are members who behave that way, who do not have the will or the integrity to tackle the problem before us head on, and who prefer to use intimidation and disinformation.

I can think of a number of examples. One of the focuses of today's debate is Bill C‑234. We saw an intimidation campaign by Conservative senators against two of their colleagues, Bernadette Clement and Chantal Petitclerc. Worse yet, I can say that I saw on the Conservatives' monitor in the lobby a photo of the two senators as if on wanted posters. We sometimes see wanted posters for criminals. The goal was of course to post these images on social media to instigate an intimidation campaign against the senators in question. We all know how social media works.

As I was saying earlier, that is the member for Carleton's method. Not so long ago, we were alerted to what the member for Carleton was capable of. The people who warned us about how the member for Carleton operates were also members from Quebec, in particular the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. He indicated a number of times that he had never seen a more hateful campaign than the one he was the victim of in his own riding. People took it upon themselves to incite the public to call him and intimidate him. As we know, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska is a former Conservative member.

The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier also warned us. I will quote him, and it is a quote that applies perfectly to what I witnessed yesterday in committee. Here is what he said about the last Conservative leadership race: “I have never seen such an aggressive race or such vicious personal attacks”.

Well, to borrow the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier's own words, I have never seen such aggressive and vicious discussions and such savage personal attacks as I witnessed yesterday in committee.

This method in no way helps solve the problem before us, namely the climate crisis.

The Conservatives often use empty slogans like “Axe the tax”. I see it everywhere. Upon closer inspection, however, through all the rhetoric, what the Conservatives really mean is “Axe the facts”. What they are trying to do is gloss over all the scientific data that show that we need to adopt robust measures to fight climate change to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I have never seen a Conservative proposal to introduce carbon pricing. I have never seen the Conservative Party recognize that carbon pricing is necessary if we want to transition to a low-carbon economy. The only one who ever defended that was the former leader of the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, a few members, probably from his own party, managed to get their way.

There is something else I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention. I said earlier that, in my opinion, responsible elected members use reason rather than force. That is a guiding principle of democracy, which the Conservatives do not appear to respect, preferring intimidation and disinformation.

There is another principle that is quite important. I believe that we were elected to defend our constituents' interests. That is critical. Every one of us must defend our constituents' interests in this House. Here is where my bewilderment stems from. I have a colleague in this House who comes from my region. My colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is a Conservative member from the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean region. He rose in the House to ask the government to expedite the legislative process in the Senate regarding Bill C-234, which is about reducing the tax on the fuels used for grain drying. It is linked to the carbon tax. Once again, as all members from my party keep saying, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.

Yet, the president of the federation Les Producteurs de lait du Québec is in the riding of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He has been working tirelessly for three years with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to have a bill passed that would stop any further breaches in supply management. This bill was passed here, in the House. It is now before the Senate. I do not want to impute motives to anyone, but we are told that Conservative senators are delaying the passage of the bill. I cannot believe that a member from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area who counts the president of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec among his constituents would rise in the House to defend a bill that will have no effect on his fellow citizens or on Quebec politics, but remains silent what it comes to supply management. That is a fundamental violation. Today I challenge the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord to stand up in the House and ask a question or make a statement in support of the supply management bill. That is another issue.

We heard the leader of the official opposition tell us at length that in the next election campaign, the “ballot box issue” will be carbon pricing, that is the carbon tax. We will say it again: That tax does not apply in Quebec. Clean fuel pricing already exists in Quebec; it was implemented by the Quebec government itself. I cannot understand how Conservative MPs from Quebec can support such far-fetched initiatives. These initiatives will have no impact in Quebec.

Today, I have a request for my colleagues from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, also a Quebecker, and Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have always held the latter in high esteem. He had a career in the media and was also, at one time, a distinguished politician. I ask them to become responsible again, to set aside the Carleton method that is becoming increasingly common and to take an interest in Quebec.

The people of Quebec will repay them in kind. Federal MPs from Quebec have to advance the interests of Quebec society here in the House. My sense is that, somewhere along the way, my Conservative colleagues from Quebec clearly lost their political bearings.

I will close by saying that the motion before us today is very similar to many of the motions we have seen in recent months. To me, this proves that the Conservative members from Quebec have no influence over their leader right now. The Conservative Party's messaging is solely focused on fossil fuels and defending the oil and gas sector.

In my opinion, the Conservative members from Quebec have very little influence. Nevertheless, I encourage them to grow a spine and stand up for the interests of Quebeckers, as my leader often says.

Carbon Pricing

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, farmers wanted a break on the carbon tax. Unfortunately, the Senate voted in favour of an amendment that guts Bill C-234 of all substance.

Food prices and prices overall are going to stay high even though Canadians are struggling. We certainly cannot count on the Bloc-Liberal coalition to help them.

Will the Prime Minister finally abandon his plan to increase the carbon tax on farmers and families? They cannot take it anymore.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if one ate today, they can thank a farmer. If one could not afford to eat today, they can thank these Liberals.

Our farmers spend their days working hard to ensure that Canadians have enough food. The NDP-Liberal government spends its days developing new ways to tax Canadians and drive up costs.

The Conservatives proposed Bill C-234 to take the carbon tax off farmers, but this piece of work Prime Minister has pressured his appointed senators to block the bill. After eight years, will the Prime Minister finally get his hands out of the pockets of farmers, families and first nations and axe the carbon tax?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a desperate, panicked Prime Minister spent this past weekend calling senators and pleading with them to kill Bill C-234. Yesterday, his NDP-Liberal government got its wish when the senators betrayed farmers, gutting this important bill and keeping the carbon tax. This keeps food prices high and farmers struggling.

Farmers across Canada buy the goods they need retail and sell what they produce wholesale. After eight long years, farmers know that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. If he will not help our farmers, when will he get out of the way so a Conservative government can?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr Speaker, Liberal-appointed senators voted yesterday to keep the carbon tax pain on Canadian families and once again betray farmers by gutting Bill C-234. With food bank usage at a record high, the Prime Minister should have the courage to explain why he instructed senators to keep food prices high for struggling Canadians. After eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families who are struggling to get by?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians know the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He spent the weekend making desperate and panic-stricken phone calls to senators, pleading with them kill Bill C-234, and yesterday that is exactly what they did when they voted to gut the bill and keep food prices high for struggling Canadians.

When will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families who just want to heat their homes?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this desperate, panicked Prime Minister spent all weekend calling senators, begging them to kill Bill C-234. Not surprisingly, last night, the Senate voted in favour of an amendment that will gut Bill C‑234. This will keep food prices high at a time when Canadians are struggling.

Will this Prime Minister scrap his plans to radically increase the carbon tax on farmers and families?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today, Canadians across the country are feeling betrayed by the Prime Minister's senators, who voted to gut Conservative Bill C-234, a bill that would have provided carbon tax relief for Canadian farmers and for Canadian families who are just trying to put food on the table.

After eight years, will the Prime Minister end his carbon tax obsession and provide relief for Canadians so they can stop turning to food banks?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that farmers are asking the minister to axe the carbon tax.

The Prime Minister promised that the Senate would be independent, but the actions this past week prove that that is a complete farce. We know he bullied his senators. The Prime Minister himself was on the phone over the weekend telling them they had to gut Bill C-234.

The Prime Minister lied and his minions continue to lie about—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Liberal-appointed senators voted to gut common-sense Conservative Bill C-234, an action that betrays farmers.

For the last decade, the Prime Minister has repeatedly made the claim that the Senate and those he appoints to it are independent, yet this weekend proved otherwise. He and his socialist environment minister were busy employing a campaign of bullying and pressure to force his senators to kill this needed carbon tax carve-out. The carbon tax is punishing the farmers who produce the food and the folks who need it.

Will the Prime Minister finally just listen to Canadians and axe his carbon tax?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the minister too, but she is going to have to explain to me why, whenever there is a tax hike, it always means taking even more money out of the pockets of Canadian families. That is exactly what the government is doing.

We had the solution with Bill C-234. It would give farmers a break, it would mean less tax to pay, it would stop food prices from continuing to rise under this Liberal government. Sadly, the Liberals decided to once again use their senator friends, whom they themselves appointed, to attack the wallets of Canadian taxpayers.

When will this government understand that it is costly to vote Liberal?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, everything costs more and, unfortunately, it is not over yet.

As we know, the House passed Bill C-234 and even the Greens voted for this bill, which will give farmers a tax break. Then, on the weekend, the Prime Minister panicked. He picked up the phone and called the senators he appointed to make sure that Bill C-234 did not get passed. Unfortunately, it worked, and that is the problem.

Why is the Prime Minister always so quick to take even more money out of the pockets of Canadian families?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, it was the Prime Minister who was bullying the senators, calling them up and telling them to kill Bill C-234, a common-sense bill to help farmers and families. The Senate listened to him; it gutted the bill. However, people are suffering. People are hungry.

The food bank use in my riding is up over 100%, so will the Prime Minister finally listen to Canadians and take the carbon tax off farmers, first nations and families?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a desperate and panicking Prime Minister spent the weekend calling Liberal senators, pleading with them to keep the carbon tax on farmers. The Conservatives' common-sense plan would take the tax off the people who grow the food, ship the food, and, as a result, off Canadians who buy the food. Yesterday, he got his Christmas wish. Liberal senators gutted Bill C-234, a move that will keep food prices high while Canadians visit food banks in record numbers.

Will the Prime Minister finally listen to the outcry? Will he listen to anyone but his globe-trotting activist environment minister and take the tax off so people can put food on their tables this Christmas?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, after all of the intimidation and threats from the Conservatives towards parliamentarians concerning Bill C-234, it turns out that the only farming the Conservative Party cares about is rage farming, because all of this was just an attempt to fundraise off the backs of farmers.

Time and time again, the Conservative leader has shown that he wants to take Canadians back to the Stone Age instead of helping them get ahead. On this side of the House, the Liberal government will always be there to support farmers.

Carbon Tax

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Liberal-appointed senators gutted Bill C-234, which will cost our farmers nearly $1 billion in carbon tax by 2030.

Farmer Gord in Oxford paid $50,000 for the carbon tax just to run his farm. Thanks to the Liberals, it is now cheaper to buy Mexican asparagus shipped from 3,800 kilometres away than it is to buy asparagus grown in Oxford.

After eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables. We are facing a cost of living crisis like never seen before, with tent cities popping up across our communities and homelessness increasing. More and more hard-working Canadians are now relying on food banks, but instead of axing the carbon tax to lower food prices, this panicking Prime Minister spent the weekend begging his senators to kill this bill.

The Liberal government has ruined Christmas for our families and our farmers, but Conservatives will stand up, fight back against this radical Liberal agenda and axe the tax and make sure we have provided relief to our farmers, families and first nations.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, now that the environment minister’s job is on the line, Liberals are increasingly more desperate to kill the carbon tax carve-out in Bill C-234.

Just in time for Christmas, this panicked Prime Minister ordered his hand-picked senators to exclude barn heating from any carbon tax relief in the bill. It is ideology above all else for the Liberal government. It would rather see millions of Canadians go hungry than provide farmers with carbon tax relief.

Bill told me that he paid $14,000 in carbon taxes this fall, and that in this environment of rising costs and declining revenues, it is a huge hit to his farm. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He is taxing farmers who grow our food, the truckers who ship the food and the stores that sell the food to everyday Canadians who are struggling to buy food.

Liberals and their coalition allies are punishing Canadians by making everything more expensive. Enough is enough. Conservatives will grind their high-tax agenda to a halt until the Prime Minister removes the carbon tax on farmers, families and first nations.

Carbon Pricing

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I previously asked a question about Bill C-234 and the exemption to the carbon tax that it would provide. My question has changed a bit because, earlier tonight, the Senate passed an amendment to exclude barns and buildings on farms from the carbon tax exemption. I will read the part of Bill C-234 that the Senate is now going to scrub from the act, which is in paragraph 3(3.1)(f), “property that is used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure”.

The environment minister went to the Senate and basically exerted his influence on the senators to get them to strip this bill bare; that way, it would provide a limited exemption for farmers. Farmers grow the food and have done way more to protect and steward the environment than the government will ever have a hope of being able to accomplish. That is what the government has decided to do. It was aided by the deputy leader of the progressive Senate group, the hon. Pierre Dalphond, who was the mover of the amendment that has stripped that part of the bill to exempt buildings and barns from the carbon tax. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Let us go back to when the carbon tax was first put in place and do the calculations on it. There are many farmers, ranchers and cattle feeders who use over 100,000 litres of on-farm fuels in a given year. Given the rate of the carbon tax right now on those on-farm fuels, that would be about $25,000 a year. The Liberals will say that there is a huge exemption for farmers and ask what everyone is complaining about. There is an exemption that applies in some cases, but not in every case, and certainly not for farmers and ranchers who are trying to keep their barns warm in the winter. As we know, winter is already here; it will be -30°C very soon. In the summers, it gets up to +30°C. With the wide variance in temperatures all across Canada, various temperature controls are needed in barns and shops for farmers to do their jobs.

If we think about the Prairies, with the snowstorms and blizzards that they regularly get, especially in calving season in February and March, farmers quite often have to bring their cattle into the barn. That way, they can calve without the threat of the animals being buried in snowbanks or freezing to death, never mind the threat of predators going after them and using the weather conditions to their advantage. A very important part of agriculture is farmers having these barns and buildings, yet the Senate has decided to gut this important key in the bill. It did so under the pressure that was put on it by the Liberal government, which is absolutely shameful.

When we look at the approach the government is taking, it is almost as though it were trying to reduce agriculture's impact and footprint in such a way that it will chase people out of the industry, much like what is happening in the European Union and other parts of the world. They have literally forced farmers and ranchers to reduce their herd sizes and the amount of crop they are able to grow.

What the government is doing is ridiculous. It is being aided and abetted by certain members of the Senate, and it is absolutely disgusting.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, farmers know they are the leaders when it comes to environmental stewardship.

Just imagine we are young producers. We have grown up on the family farm and our goal is to take over after our parents retire. We start looking over the bills and costs associated with farming and one of the highest line items is the carbon tax imposed by the Prime Minister. Rather than hiring a helping hand or upgrading our machinery, we are paying an increasing carbon tax.

Therefore, why will the Prime Minister not let his senators pass Bill C-234 and axe the tax for on-farm fuels?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to my colleague.

Madam Chair, I'm going to move the motion that I put on notice earlier—on Friday, I believe. It is as follows:

Given that:

(a) the Senate is expected to vote on Bill C-234 to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating;

(b) Canadian farmers have called upon the Senate to pass this important legislation;

(c) Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion and help lower food prices for Canadians; and given

(d) the special importance of agricultural exports to Canada's international trade profile and reliability as a trading partner with our key allies;

The committee call upon senators who are delaying the passage of the legislation to stop playing political games with the livelihoods of Canadian farmers, recognize the decision of the elected House of Commons, and pass Bill C-234 into law without further delay.

Madam Chair, I'd like to now speak to that motion as well.

Madam Chair, the Senate has had this bill since March 30, 2023, so that would, by my estimation, mean that we're now into almost nine months of this bill being in the Senate after having been passed.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know where to start. There have been quite a lot of thoughts shared with respect to this motion.

First, I want to ensure that it's on the record that it is our view that the Senate is independent. They have a democratic right and a professional obligation to ensure that all legislation passed by the House of Commons gets a sober second look and full consideration.

My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, the Honourable Michael Chong, who is a good friend of mine, has said that this is a tax bill and ought not to have been considered by the Senate in this regard, but the Supreme Court did actually indicate that carbon pricing does not qualify as a tax, so unfortunately, he's wrong.

Not only is he wrong, but the insistence that the Senate do our bidding is also wrong. My colleague said that he's unfamiliar with the way that the Senate does their business. That's fine. It's not up to us. We don't need to become familiar with how the Senate does their business. It is their business and not ours. On this side, and on every other side in the House, we're not going to be telling the Senate how to do their work.

By the way, the only senators who sit in a political caucus are the Conservative ones, and they still do. We don't have senators at Wednesday morning caucus. You do. The Conservatives do, so you ought to have a conversation with those senators. We don't have senators sitting in our caucus, but the Conservatives do.

On the Conservatives, I need to remind them that they ran on a carbon tax scheme with Erin O'Toole in the last federal election in 2021 that would have imposed the same price on pollution that we have now. If they're so against it after two years, hypothetically, if they had won the last federal election, would they have had the same revelation two years after that? They committed to a carbon price similar to ours that would have been imposed on farmers in the same way that ours was, to slowly nudge along innovations with respect to things like grain drying.

Irrespective of the fact that the vast majority, 97%, of farm fuels are exempt from carbon pricing, there remain a few as per Bill C-234 that are not exempt from carbon pricing, and they include some of the fuels used for grain drying. However, our governments also invested almost $1 billion in farmers to make grain drying more efficient and reduce its emissions.

I like baking sourdough—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think that, as members of Parliament, we are all aware of the fact that the food banks in our ridings are currently overwhelmed. But when we talk about food, we're also talking about agriculture. That's why our party introduced Bill C‑234, which proposes to give our farmers a break on the carbon tax. We were very pleased to see that the elected representatives of Canadians, that is to say the members of the House of Commons, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C‑234. We were very happy to see that the NDP was with us, and even happier to see that the Bloc Québécois was too.

The bill is currently being studied by the Senate, as provided for in our constitution and political system. However, we're finding that some senators are talking a lot and extending the time for debate on this issue. And yet, as we speak, food banks are overflowing with requests and lacking in donations. We have to understand that we need our agriculture if we're going to feed people, and that people need to be fed, especially in the current situation where, as we know, everyone is struggling with the cost of inflation.

Last week, we asked, through a motion and a debate in the House of Commons, that the Senate pass this bill quickly so that we could move forward. Unfortunately, like you, we saw that the members of the Bloc Québécois decided to vote against this request. That's their choice and it's up to them, but it's still curious that Bloc Québécois members agreed on Bill C‑234, but that they also agreed that senators are taking all the time necessary and stretching the time for debate in order not to pass this bill. We can't, on the one hand, democratically accept a bill and, on the other, let senators take all the time they need to delay the passage of a bill duly passed by the elected representatives of the people. That's why this motion seeks to get to the bottom of Bill C‑234.

I would also like to remind you that we were expecting the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to appear before the committee two weeks ago. Unfortunately, during the week he was scheduled to appear before our committee, he preferred to take part in almost every oral question period in the House. He even spent an hour in the Senate to answer questions from senators. It's an excellent idea to answer questions from senators, except that he should have first appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to answer our questions, as we had requested. It seems that he didn't have time to appear before our committee, but that he had time to attend all oral question periods, make an announcement and hold a press conference, and even go to the Senate. That's a shame.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Yes, it's on the carbon tax and Bill C-234.

It's become very clear that Minister Guilbeault has no shame in punishing Canadian farmers. In fact, he refuses to show up at this committee to defend his failed policies. It's been over 250 days since the minister showed up at the environment committee to answer questions. He continues to hide from Canadians because he knows that his policies are an utter disaster.

The solution is to help Canadian farmers. It's called Bill C-234. Bill C-234 will create a carbon tax carve-out for Canadian farmers. We should be working to pass this bill so Canadian farmers can feed the people.

Thank you.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, farmers have been very clear in their support for Bill C-234 and their opposition—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do hope we can get the minister after such a long time. In my time here in this chamber, I still haven't had the opportunity to question him and I look forward to that.

I appreciate the opportunity today to raise one of the motions we have had on notice. I had the full intention of doing so during committee business prior to our spending an hour to find out, as we knew and indicated early on, how the vote was going to go on what is a laudable motion regarding boots on the ground. I will note that one of the first actions this Liberal government undertook was to cancel the recreational fisheries partnership program, which worked on ecosystem and habitat restoration with this exact sort of mentality of boots on the ground.

I hope folks are watching as we spend an hour on grammatical amendments to a motion that ultimately, with the removal of “report this to the House”, amounts to nothing. It amounts to our urging the department to do something and their sending a letter back to the ether. We know that's not how policy is made. We should recognize that the government will set its own priorities and, in this case, our urging to set a monetary amount aside simply is not how I expect the government to move forward.

However, with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the motion that I have on notice. I move:

Given that:

(a) the Senate is expected to vote on Bill C-234 to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating:

(b) Canadian farmers have called upon the Senate to pass this important legislation;

(c) Bill C-234 would save farmers one billion dollars, and help lower food prices for Canadians;

the committee call upon senators who are delaying the passage of the legislation to stop playing political games with the livelihoods of Canadian farmers, recognize the decision of the elected House of Commons, and pass Bill C-234 into law without further delay.

Mr. Chair, the reason I wanted to do this during committee business, as requested by our colleagues to not disrupt witness testimony, is again the timeliness of this motion as it relates to an upcoming vote in the Senate. We are all, of course, aware that the governing Liberals, bizarrely with the help of the Bloc Québécois, decided to defeat a motion that was before the House of Commons that would urge the Senate to follow the will of the elected chamber. However, it seems the desire to radically increase taxes is stronger out of the Bloc Québécois of late.

This is now before the Senate once again. Following that vote last week, there was yet another amendment to Bill C-234 put forward at the Senate at third reading. While you might think it is a new amendment meant to aid the bill in some way and to try to improve the legislation, the reality is that it is an amendment that wasn't just voted down at committee; it was voted down by the entirety of the chamber already. This is not about trying to improve the legislation. This is about Liberal-appointed senators trying to delay and, from their perspective, hopefully kill Bill C-234 because of the money it's going to leave in the pockets of our hard-working Canadian farmers and the fact that it's going to cause political headaches.

I don't understand Senate procedural aspects. I have no idea how the retabling of an amendment that was already voted down in the House of Commons is permissible; however, I will leave that to the senators to decide.

Farmers have been clear, as evidenced by the thousands of phone calls, emails and letters they have been sending to senators over the past number of weeks.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this goes to show the view these parties in this House opposite the Conservatives hold about our oil and gas sector, our ag sector and every natural resource sector in this country, and it is so disheartening.

Centrally controlled leftist government economies have been tried around the world already, and it turns out they do not work. Canada must not follow the path of these countries of failed economies, like Cuba and Venezuela.

I recall a couple of weeks ago the member across the way for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill lamenting at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development how farmers protesting the Liberal political interference in the Senate over Bill C-234 was leading us toward being a “tinpot dictatorship.”

With Bill C-50 and its intent to destroy Canadian jobs with this egregious programming motion, I guess the definition of a tinpot dictatorship is in the eye of the beholder.

Since the Liberals are trying to curb criticism on this bill, let us dive into what Bill C-50 would actually do. I have many criticisms of it, as do my constituents. At its core, this piece of legislation would do three things to enable the NDP-Liberal coalition’s so-called just transition.

First, it would establish the sustainable jobs partnership council to advise the government on how to implement its vision, with its members appointed by the minister. This is a great way to get policy cover: appoint a bunch of one's friends who already hate Canada’s natural resource sector and agriculture sector to this council to help implement one's shared objective, without regard for the impact on the people I represent and hundreds of members of Parliament represent.

Even worse is that while the unjust transition intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, the council would not include provinces, nor would it even be required to consult with them. We should not be surprised, after Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, was slapped down by the Supreme Court for its intrusion on provinces. The Liberals' war on plastic straws was slapped down by the Federal Court, and the clean electricity regulations are certainly going to be slapped down very soon.

These Liberals have absolutely no regard for provincial jurisdiction and have learned nothing from these past failures. The only thing the Prime Minister has learned is a cavalier approach, like his father took, that Ottawa knows best.

Second, the legislation would require the minister to table a sustainable jobs action plan to Parliament every five years. In other words, the Liberals want to hire more bureaucrats to take time developing a plan to report on the jobs they are able to successfully destroy in this country.

The Liberal-NDP coalition will destroy jobs in Canada, because it does not like those types of jobs. It will do it with callous disregard for the rural communities those jobs support and still will not even hit its environmental targets, because of course it thinks the best way to reduce emissions is by reducing the size of our economy. While it has been doing its very best, those pesky, innovative Canadians just keep trying to grow things, to mine things, to manufacture things and to build things in this country.

Finally, the bill would create a sustainable jobs secretariat that would “support the implementation of the act”. In different terms, the Liberals are going to further add to the already bloated public service, costing taxpayers more. This is how Liberals actually think we should grow our economy. With every job numbers update that comes out, they always boast of any new jobs being created, but they never highlight where those jobs are being created. They are always a majority of public sector jobs.

These are part-time jobs for people picking up jobs to try to pay for the costly carbon tax-driven increase of their cost of living in this country. This is at a time when the federal government is paying more interest on our federal debt than it pays for health care in this country. Canadians can thank the Liberals and their friends in the speNDP for this abject failure of fiscal policy. This is what the Liberal-NDP government is trying to do. It is always trying to find ways to grow the size of government and is never trying to find ways to have Canadians gain meaningful work to feed, heat and house themselves.

While I have touched on some of the specifics of Bill C-50, let us talk more about this so-called just transition and what it would cost Canadians. This started back in 2019 with a platform commitment from the Liberals. At its heart, this just transition is planning on devastating our energy industry.

We can all recall when the Prime Minister said, “We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.” This is how the Liberals plan to do it. This is part of the many pieces of legislation where they plan to phase out our entire energy sector.

I recognize the Liberals have already gone to work on reducing the size of our economy with their reckless inflationary spending. In fact, Statistics Canada just reported that our economy shrank by 1.1% while the economy of the United States grew by 5.2%. As our great Conservative leader put it, its economy is roaring while ours is snoring.

However, the Liberal plan would take it to a whole new level. According to an internal briefing, the plan would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians working in agriculture, construction, energy, manufacturing and transportation.

These economic losses would not be felt equally, since the plan is, of course, always meant to be divisive and designed to disproportionately harm natural resource-based regions, which is on brand with the Liberal strategy. What kind of politician sees these numbers and says it is a good idea to get that many Canadians fired? The Liberals must know best. They think since they are in Ottawa, they should dictate how the economy goes. It is appalling to think that any politician standing in this chamber thinks this is a reasonable approach to governing a country. At the end of the day, we should just call the Liberal-NDP coalition the anti-everything coalition.

The funnier thing is this piece of legislation is likely to prevent a transition to the clean-tech sector, because 75% of all private sector investment in clean tech comes from the sector the Liberals are trying to destroy: our energy sector. Without this investment, more handouts would be necessary to develop a clean-tech sector.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will not be sharing my time, and I am happy about that. Next, I want to give an overview of the situation.

How did we get here? How did we get into this situation today, where it has become impossible for the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to study Bill C-50?

First of all, I would say that it is not unrelated to what we saw last week with Bill C‑234. Last week, with Bill C‑234, we talked at length in the House about what I like to call the “Carleton method”, the method employed by the new leader of the official opposition. It is based primarily on intimidation and misinformation.

Last week, I said that the first people to warn us about the Carleton method were actually the Conservative MPs from Quebec. They did not support the member for Carleton in the leadership race because they knew full well that he often used questionable methods. I will simply give the example of what one of the former Conservative Party members went through. This method, which relies on intimidation and misinformation, has become a common practice at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

On October 30, we began discussing a motion that would have allowed us to study Bill C‑50. As ridiculous as it may seem, what the Standing Committee on Natural Resources spent the next month doing was trying to determine who had the floor. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan joined the committee meeting. As we know, a committee has a certain number of members, including one member from the Bloc Québécois who has the right to vote. There are four Conservative members who have the right to vote and speak at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. However, the Conservatives decided that five or six of them would attend and that they would all ask to speak.

Not knowing what to do, the chair said that we would have to determine who the voting members are in order to know who has the right to speak. The Conservatives then objected, stating that the chair would be violating their parliamentary rights and privileges if he did not allow to them to speak. My colleagues may or may not believe it, but we spent a month listening to points of order about whose turn it was to speak. Is that serious? I highly doubt it. It is not childishness, it is not filibustering. I do not know what to call this waste of time, but I would say that it is nonsense. Nonsense, pure and simple.

First we spent a month trying to figure out whose turn it was to talk. Then we spent time on some things that, in my opinion, were even less edifying. The member for Red Deer—Mountain View told us that oil could be used to create peace in the world. His goal is to bring peace to the world through Canadian oil. According to my colleague on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, if Canadian oil were used more, then there would be no more war in Ukraine. Perhaps peace in the Middle East could be achieved with the help of Canadian oil.

That is not all. I was introduced to an entirely new concept. I used to teach political science, but my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View talked to me about eco-colonialism. Apparently, we are engaging in eco-colonialism if we do not allow indigenous peoples to freely develop oil. When it comes to colonialism, I am familiar with Edward Said's Orientalism. Like everyone, I am familiar with Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, but I have never heard of eco-colonialism. I spent almost 15 years talking about political science in universities, but this was a whole new concept for me. I was informed that we could bring peace to the world with oil and that eco-colonialism is something that is done to indigenous communities. There is not much difference between saying this and saying that we are using certain indigenous communities to advance the interests of big oil.

I learned something else rather interesting from the member for Provencher. The member for Provencher came and told the committee that he was a big fan of muscle cars. He recalled the late 1970s and early 1980s when people were free to drive big, fast gas guzzlers.

In a fit of nostalgia, he lamented that this was what we were losing. The member for Provencher also recalled that he used to be able to drink his milkshake with a plastic straw. The member for Provencher hates drinking his milkshake with a paper straw because it leaves a bitter taste in his mouth. I found that out at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why could we not return to this wonderful world where we could have world peace and everyone could be happy thanks to gasoline, muscle cars and plastic straws?

That is what I learned from my Conservative colleagues while we should have been considering Bill C‑50. This has been going on for over a month. That is why I say that some kind of rot seems to be taking hold of my Conservative Party colleagues. This rot is a kind of populism that might seem practically irrelevant, looking on from the outside, but that appears to be spreading within our committees, based on what I have seen in the past month. Since October 30, members have been telling us that we must not study Bill C‑50 for a variety of flimsy reasons.

After that, we were supposed to consider subamendments. The main subamendments that I saw proposed at committee applied to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I do like that member, although I would not say that I am his biggest fan. Still, I have nothing against him. I could not understand why the Conservatives insisted that the purpose of the subamendment was to hear from the people of Timmins—James Bay. They did this for my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and for my colleague from Sudbury.

Why did they want to hear from the people of Timmins—James Bay and Sudbury specifically? Once again, it was a flimsy pretext for getting my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to vote against the amendment so that they could then tell his constituents that their MP was not interested in hearing from them, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-50. Once again, as I was saying earlier, this is intimidation and disinformation. It has been going on for over a month at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

This is symptomatic of something I have been seeing since 2019, something I would call the Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil and gas industry. The Conservative members are as passionate about the oil industry as the Bloc Québécois members are about defending Quebec, Quebec's language and Quebec's culture.

I gave the example of my arrival in the House of Commons in 2019. I could hear people shouting “build the pipeline”. That is really something. Even though we are proud of Hydro-Québec, I have never heard a Bloc member shout “build the hydro towers". We have not gotten to that point. I have never heard that. The climax was when a motion was moved here saying that oil is irreplaceable. According to the Conservative members, oil is irreplaceable, the same way water or air or our relationship with our family is irreplaceable. To some Conservative members, oil is irreplaceable.

We are faced with a startling fact: The Leader of the Opposition wants to stay in the 20th century. He does not want to put an end to our dependence on oil. The oil and gas industry is his stock-in-trade. Unfortunately, I often get the impression that my Conservative Party colleagues are acting more like lobbyists for one economic sector than like representatives of their ridings.

Why do I say that? It is rather simple. Last week, some members from Quebec forgot all about the interests of Quebec farmers. They rose to ask why the Senate was not examining Bill C-234 and why we were seeing partisanship from some senators. I would remind the House that Bill C‑234 seeks to temporarily include the propane used to run grain dryers in the exemption for qualifying farming fuel. The much-talked-about carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, but there are members from Quebec who are asking questions in the House about why the senators are not passing that bill and who are talking about how terrible it is that they are not doing so. Meanwhile, the supply management bill is also languishing in the Senate. Who is holding that up? Let me give the answer. The Conservative senators are the ones who do not want to move forward on the supply management bill.

Imagine an MP from Quebec who has the president of the dairy farmers' association in their riding. Imagine that MP standing up in the House, saying that this is disgusting and asking why Canadian farmers are still paying for propane. However, this MP does not even mention supply management. Whose interests are they defending when they do things like that? Are they standing up for the interests of their constituents in the House of Commons, or are they standing up for the interests of the Conservative Party in their riding? I will let those members answer for themselves.

Personally, I think this clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to the oil and gas sector. We have seen this over and over during the past month with Bill C‑50. I would say the Liberal Party is much the same. Why do I say that? When we pore over Bill C‑50 together later on, it will become clear that the Liberal Party also spared no effort trying to take a bill that was supposed to be about a just transition and make it acceptable to the main players in the oil and gas sector.

Just to come back to that and sum up what I just said, Bill C‑50 was initially supposed to focus on a concept accepted by all western nations, that of the just transition. It was supposed to be about that. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources did a study on the just transition. However, toward the end of that study, the conversation somehow stopped being about the just transition and started being about sustainable jobs. Why did that happen?

I wondered about that. Many unions came to see me to talk about the just transition. During the study, “just transition” was used in the wording. However, toward the end, that term stopped being used. Why? It is because people in the Liberal party were approached by certain people, people who may be close to the Premier of Alberta, and they told the Liberals that they do not like talking about transitions and that the Liberals should instead change directions and find another strategy. On the one hand, there is that. Some people told me, but I do not want to belabour the point because they may have had malicious intentions, that a play on words could be made between the Prime Minister's name and “just transition”, just as a rather spurious play on words was made between the Prime Minister's name and the issue of inflation. If they did that, if they changed the intent of a bill just because of a play on words, I would say that they are spineless.

Basically, they changed directions to please the Premier of Alberta and to appease the backbone of Canada's industrial sector, namely the oil and gas sector. Earlier, I asked my colleague from Lakeland if she believed in climate change, if she believed that the oil and gas industry was one of the main contributors to climate change, and if she believed that we should get out of the oil and gas industry. The reason I was asking my colleague these questions is that, in actual fact, Bill C‑50 is trying to reflect on the necessary transition. We will have to get out of oil and gas. Whether we like it or not, we will have to do it. The other advanced western nations are putting a lot of public funds into doing that. That is what the U.S. is doing. It is spending a huge amount of public funds to get out of oil and gas. However, Canada is trapped in this particular context where the economy largely relies on the oil and gas sector, and there is no political will to change that.

Earlier, I summarized the Conservatives' speeches. The Conservatives' political thinking over the past six months could be summed up in just two words: “carbon tax”. They want to eliminate the carbon tax. They blame the carbon tax for everything. I will say it again because I have to say it every time: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The leader of the Conservative Party has said that the carbon tax will be the ballot box question. That means that in the next election, the ballot box question will be over something that does not apply in Quebec. That is rather surprising. Still, the Conservatives are all over it. The Conservative Party has been obsessed with the carbon tax for the past year. This demonstrates one simple fact: They do not believe in climate change. It seems to me that the last person in the Conservative Party who believed in climate change was Erin O'Toole.

I love this great quote from Erin O'Toole: “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.”

Carbon Pricing

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can this government listen to common sense? It has been in power for eight years. Can the Liberals get out of their bubble and worry about real people?

Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. Here is another example: Aided and abetted by the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals are blocking Bill C‑234, which would give breathing room to our farmers and our Canadians families.

Will the Prime Minister finally drop his plan to drastically increase the carbon tax on the backs of farmers and Canadian families?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable how out of touch that ag minister is. Jake from Vermeer's Dairy near Camrose saw a bill of $1,700 in carbon tax charges alone last month. It is going to be more as winter settles in on the Canadian Prairies. It is clear that these Liberals do not have an environmental plan but, rather, a tax plan that punishes those who are best equipped to lower the price of food in this country.

My question is simple. Will those Liberals tell their Liberal-appointed senators to pass common-sense Conservative Bill C-234 to axe the tax so farmers can feed our people?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, we have reached the point where Canadian children are asking for food for Christmas, not a Tonka truck. That is what is happening in Canada after eight years of this Liberal government.

One cannot talk about food without talking about farming. As everyone knows, Bill C-234 is currently being blocked by senators appointed by this Prime Minister. Now the Bloc Québécois, which voted in favour of the bill, is happy to see the senators delaying its passage in the Senate. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is very costly.

Will the Prime Minister finally scrap his plan to radically increase the Liberal carbon tax on farmers and families?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, young Quebeckers between the ages of 18 and 45 are losing hope about their future. A poll cited in the Journal de Montréal found that they had not experienced inflation before the Liberals. Quebeckers aged 18 to 45 have been thrown into the deep end. In fact, 75% of them have postponed or cancelled major life events, such as building a house or having a child.

Instead of taking action now, the Liberals and Bloc Québécois voted against our motion to reduce the taxes that are increasing prices across the board.

Will the Prime Minister tell the senators he appointed to stop delaying the passage of Bill C-234 so we can reduce the cost of groceries for all Canadians?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the agriculture minister. Our plan is definitely not to bankrupt farmers and continue to make food unaffordable. Canadian farmers are struggling under punishing input costs such as the carbon tax. In fact, often the carbon tax costs them more than the natural gas they use. Bill C-234, a common-sense Conservative bill, is the solution, but the Prime Minister is blocking his senators from passing this bill in the Senate.

Will the Prime Minister follow his 2001 campaign promise to pass it forward, and let this bill pass the Senate to finally take the carbon tax off farmers, families and first nations?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, would save farmers close to a billion dollars, but the Prime Minister, who is demanding his senators block this bill, is not worth the cost. The Kielstra farm in Okotoks paid $180,000 in carbon taxes this year. When the Prime Minister quadruples that tax, it will be $480,000, just in carbon taxes. There is no way, when two million Canadians are relying on food banks, that we can afford to not have affordable, nutritious Canadian-grown food.

Will the Prime Minister finally remove the carbon tax from families, farmers and first nations?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it plans on quadrupling its carbon tax scam to crush families, farmers and first nations further. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He refuses to tell the senators to stand down and pass the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, which would take the tax off our farmers. Even first nations communities, more than 100, are fed up and taking the government to court over the carbon tax, saying it is disproportionate and an unfair burden to them.

When will the Prime Minister finally take the carbon tax off families, farmers and first nations?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague, Mrs. Gray, for putting forward this motion.

For those who haven't been following this, the motion is as follows:

That, given that:

(a) the carbon tax threatens the income security of farmers, farm workers, and employment in the agricultural sector;

(b) the Senate is expected to vote on Bill C-234 to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating;

(c) Canadian farmers have called upon the Senate to pass this important legislation;

(d) Bill C-234 would save farmers one billion dollars—

That's according to the PBO as well, Mr. Chair.

—and help lower food prices for Canadians;

the committee call upon Senators who are delaying the passage of the legislation to stop playing political games with the livelihoods of Canadian farmers, recognize the decision of the elected House of Commons, and pass Bill C-234 into law without further delay.

This is important in this HUMA committee, because, in the House of Commons, there were 176 votes in favour—“yea” votes—that passed Bill C-234, and there were 146 “nay” votes. You were in those 176 votes, Mr. Chair. You voted in favour of that bill. Thank you very much for that. I know that you believe in standing up for farmers and helping to make life more affordable.

Then it went to the Senate. This is a tax bill. We're merely just waiting for the passage of this. I'll note for those watching that the whole point of this motion is that, if we can't get this bill passed and it's in the hands of the Senate, we have a major problem. It ties into many things that we study in this committee.

The summary of Bill C-234 says, “This enactment amends the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to expand the definition of eligible farming machinery and extend the exemption for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane.”

With regard to the motion, the member for Foothills, our colleague, has shared this numerous times in the House. He's also the critic for agriculture.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Ms. Chabot, can you hear me? Okay. Thank you.

To go back to what I was saying, Mr. Chair, with Bill C-234, I believe and I think many around this table believe that it will lower food prices—grocery prices—in this country, which would make life more affordable for Canadians. Like I said, when the farmer who grows the food is taxed and the shipper who trucks the food is taxed and you tax the stores that sell the food, who pays for that? Canadians do.

I think that it is fully imperative that our committee, especially with the purview our committee deals with, which has been set on income security.... We have a lot of those programs that come through this committee. We look at the six ministers who have mandates through this committee touching on families, seniors, Canadians with disabilities and, of course, workers as well.

I think it is imperative that we ask those senators to come to committee and let them know how we feel about this: that it is something that shouldn't be used to play political games and that it should be passed in a very timely manner. Also, the Senate should recognize the will of the House. Members of Parliament are elected to this place. Senators are appointed. I think, especially when we're talking about a tax bill, that the upper chamber should listen to the lower chamber, because we are elected people representing those who have elected us to be here.

With that, I do want to say that there has been a precedent also in this committee for us to write to have groups, CEOs or other people to—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Back to the motion, we know—and I believe we just talked about this in the House as well last week—that the Senate is expected to vote on Bill C-234, which was to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating. As I stated previously, many of the farmers I represent are also employed in other areas in order to supplement their agricultural income, and many of them have families. We know we're farm families. We know that the House talked about this last week, and that this would be a big deal—to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating.

I've heard from many constituents and Canadians across the country on how much the carbon tax is costing them. Some of our farmers have outrageous bills. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars are just going to the carbon tax, which has not reduced carbon emissions in the atmosphere and hasn't done anything for the environment. However, it has hurt the pockets of Canadians.

I received a note from a Canadian. The carbon tax on his SaskEnergy bill, which is just the heating, is $38 a month plus the GST that is then collected on top of that. That equals $456 a year for just the carbon tax, not including the gas used, the delivery charges or the GST that the government wants to charge on top of the tax. Canadians are paying tax on a tax, and our farmers are definitely not exempt from that.

We know that farmers...but also members of the House of Commons, even some of us who sit around this table, have voted for Bill C-234 to go to the Senate. That's why it is in the Senate at this point in time. We know too that the Liberal Prime Minister has appointed “independent” senators, which we know are not independent. Many of them had Liberal Party memberships before their appointment to the upper chamber. We are hearing rumours that Liberal ministers are individually calling those appointed senators by phone to tell them not to vote for this, to hold this up and to prevent this from going further, because the Prime Minister had decided to carve out special carbon tax exemptions on home heating for those who live in certain parts of the country, mainly Atlantic Canada. They see that, if this does pass, there will be more holes and flaws in the carbon tax ideology, which I would agree with.

We know that Bill C-234 would save farmers billions of dollars. Coming from a rural part of Canada, I know how much our farmers are donating to the food banks, for example. When the government decides to take more out of their pockets, they have less time and less expendable income that they can then sow into their communities to help fellow community members.

I also know—we all know, actually—that removing the carbon tax will lower food prices for Canadians, as I said.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's great. Thank you very much.

I want to say thank you again for the good work that you're doing. I did have the opportunity to actually attend one of your events to see first-hand the connection between the different generations and how happy everyone was to be there, so I want to thank you for the good work that you're doing.

It is important to hear testimony here at this committee, and we've had the witnesses make statements. This committee does have other work that it does as well, so, Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion.

I move:

That, given that:

(a) the carbon tax threatens the income security of farmers, farm workers, and employment in the agricultural sector;

(b) the Senate is expected to vote on Bill C-234 to remove the carbon tax from grain drying and barn heating;

(c) Canadian farmers have called upon the Senate to pass this important legislation;

(d) Bill C-234 would save farmers one billion dollars, and help lower food prices for Canadians;

the committee call upon Senators who are delaying the passage of the legislation to stop playing political games with the livelihoods of Canadian farmers, recognize the decision of the elected House of Commons, and pass Bill C-234 into law without further delay.

Part of the mandate of this committee covers income security programs.

That is the entirety of the motion. It has been circulated to the committee members.

Public Accounts

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Bill C-11, which was passed in the Senate. I think there is a big difference when we are talking about a bill that seeks to determine what people have the right to access online, the freedom of speech that they should have and what the government can control on YouTube, Facebook and the Internet in general.

With regard to the cost of food, we know that more than two million people have visited food banks over the past few months. With Bill C-234, we see an opportunity to tell the Senate, as we have before, that we, in the House of Commons, are the ones who have the right to impose taxes and create tax credits. That is $1 million for our farmers. It is an opportunity to ensure that people can put food on the table this Christmas.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hear a member heckling again. It is the same voice I hear all the time, from the member for Timmins—James Bay. He spends more time heckling and talking about Toronto subways than he does about the people from Timmins—James Bay. I want to wish him good luck in a future life when he perhaps will try to go and get a pundit job with maybe the CBC; sorry, not the CBC because we are going to defund that once we earn the right to govern. Maybe he will have a good time at his condo in Toronto and will have a long time in retirement there when he keeps fighting for those subway systems that his constituents do not use. His constituents are also paying. They are seeing the sticker shock in their grocery stores, like my constituents are.

Farmers are paying a carbon tax that they get no relief from. This was not audited in the Auditor General's public accounts report here, but I am speaking of a $1-billion tax relief for our farmers, and they deserve it. They work hard. I see this in those who retired to my riding who are ranchers and farmers who spent 40 or 50 years doing back-breaking labour producing the food that we eat that is in our grocery stores. The government imposes new taxes and raises the personal income tax and in fact went after farmers when it went after professional corporations. It jacked up taxes. I watched an orchard farmer from Atlantic Canada break down and cry at the finance committee because he was facing the destruction of his business, pre-2019, when the government was changing the small-business tax rate. He wanted to be able to pass the orchard on to his daughters. That is the current government. This is what it does every single time.

Therefore, as we are standing here drawing the attention of Canadians, of the House of Commons and of members of Parliament and senators who are watching, we want the senators to pass Bill C-234 before Christmas and the faster the better, so that Canadians can put a good healthy meal on the table and have a merry Christmas this winter, which they deserve and they work hard for.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that answers to questions have been tabled in the House.

The government has now created one carve-out for heating oil. It did it for electoral reasons. One of the Liberal cabinet ministers said exactly that, that if westerners, prairie Canadians like myself, expected to get a carve-out for natural gas, which is the primary fuel used to heat our homes in the winter, then we should have elected more Liberals. It is very much political. The Supreme Court decision on the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act confirmed that a carbon tax was possible in Canada. The Supreme Court specifically said that if applied all across the board, then there was a defensible nature to it. Carve-outs undermine that legal argument.

Bill C-234 demonstrates the willingness of the House to try to make groceries and food affordable again. After eight years of the Liberal government, we do not have that. Consistently, the number one issue I get emails about from the people in my riding is the sticker shock they get when they go to the aisles for fresh produce, cereals or meat. Everything is more expensive.

A lot of the government programs in place on which the Auditor General did an audit are trying to achieve affordable food, but we are not talking about more than $1 billion. Bill C-234 would give our farmers a billion-dollar tax break on the carbon tax by providing them with a carve-out. During question period today, members raised individual cases of farmers who are paying thousands of dollars a month on their farms for things like grain drying. These thousands of dollars then have to be passed on to consumers.

In my riding, I think the closest connection we have to farms is our grocery stores. I say that because a lot of farmers and ranchers retire to my riding; a lot of multi-generational farmers and ranchers choose to retire in the city. There is a very large hospital in my riding, and retirees want closeness to services. They retire to the city, but their kids continue the farm operations. They continue the long-standing family tradition of owning and operating a family farm. They are all facing tens of thousands of dollars in additional costs that they must pass on to consumers. That is what happens every time there is an increase that the government imposes. This is not a market mechanism; this is an imposition. It is going up $15 every single year. It does not care what the market says; it is just a government-imposed tax. It is simply driving up the costs of everything we buy in the grocery store.

As the Auditor General did an audit on these programs, I want to make sure people back home understand that the Senate continues to block Bill C-234 and not leave it to a vote because the Liberal senators do not want to see the vote. Liberal-appointed senators do not want to see a break for farmers of $1 billion. That billion dollars would be huge in my riding and would make a huge difference to the price we pay for groceries.

I always have a Yiddish proverb when I rise in the House. I think I may have forgotten once. The member for Edmonton West said “finally”, because he was waiting for this: “Truth never dies, but lives a [wretched] life.” That is a truth I want to share with the House today, because when we have heard from the government side, the Liberals' talking points are that they do not know how the Senate works. We do know how the Senate works. We have Conservative senators whom we caucus with. They explain to us what is going on on the floor of the Senate, what discussions are going on and which individual Liberal-appointed senators are leading the charge, making amendments and trying to stall at committees.

We have a bicameral system, two Houses in our Parliament. I am an Albertan, and I would like to see more elected senators. I hold firm to that position. A triple-E Senate is a long-standing Alberta position. Albertans have been demanding an elected Senate for generations now. We do have Senate elections. I want to pay homage to the fact that we do have them and that the Prime Minister should be appointing from our senatorial election list: Pam Davidson, Erica Barootes and Mykhailo Martyniouk, who is a proud Ukrainian Canadian. The government refuses to appoint them. The Prime Minister refuses to appoint a Ukrainian Canadian senator from Edmonton who earned the right to sit in the Senate by running in an election. I just checked, and he has received more votes, over 220,000 votes in the senatorial election, than any member of the House, including myself. I came near, as close as probably any other member, with over 44,000 votes in my riding. It was close, but not close enough to what Mykhailo got.

Some of our elected senators have received over 300,000 votes. They have earned the right, by universal suffrage in Alberta, to sit in the Senate and represent people and they have a right to do that.

Leading back to this audit and leading back to the Yiddish proverb that I shared, every single time the government rises in the House and tries to make a claim that we do not know how the Senate works, that senators are doing their jobs and that these are independent senators, I have not seen a single Conservative senator appointed by the government. I have not seen a single senator appointed by the government side that does not—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Shepard.

This is the 14th report of the Public Accounts committee, a committee I got to chair briefly. I know that there are other members here who have had the honour of chairing that committee as well. It is one of the most interesting committees to be on because it is one that deals very closely with the Auditor General and with their reports.

For constituents back home, the 14th report is an audit of several government programs, and I see five of them, that account for hundreds of millions of dollars, and of how the money is spent. All of these programs deal with input costs and how the government is trying to offset the high cost of certain grocery products available in the aisles. The report accounts for how, in this particular case, the programs try to provide reasonably, affordably priced groceries for people who are trying to purchase them.

For weeks now, we have been talking about Bill C-234, which is now stuck in the Senate because Liberal-appointed senators will not lead it to a vote so it can be passed after the House has already spoken. I have always been taken by the argument, made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, that Bill C-234 is a spending bill. The House has Standing Orders, and there is a long constitutional tradition that, when we pass spending bills in the House of Commons, the Senate of Canada, the other place, does not have the right to continuously block it; it has to pass those types of bills.

In a private member's bill, we cannot pass new taxation but we can do a carve-out, and Bill C-234 would do a carve out. There is already a carve-out that was, by the Liberal government's own admission, created by the government for individuals with heating oil—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to try to speak French. In the future, I hope to do an entire speech in French.

For today I will continue in English.

In 2019, we started a journey to remove the carbon tax on farmers. Our farmers said that it did not make sense to them that diesel and dirtier fuels were exempt for farmers but natural gas and propane were not. Propane's carbon footprint is considerably less, fully 50% less, than that of diesel.

Here was my naïveté coming into 2019, which was not far from 2015, when we were hearing things like “sunny ways” and “open by default”. I thought the Liberals probably made a mistake, that it was probably a drafting error. I was positive that once I brought it to their attention, they would say, “We do not want our farmers to be suffering. We have that one farmer in Milton, so we need to take care of this.” I thought, in my naïveté, that when I would bring this to their attention, they would say we would not even need to pass legislation; they would fix it in their next budget. However, somehow that did not happen.

We therefore brought it forward, and members will not believe this, but we got the support of the Green Party. We got the support of the NDP. We got the support of environmental activists; they were on our side. They realized that propane is cleaner than diesel, so why would we give an exemption to diesel but not propane?

The Liberal logic world is a very muddled place, because we then found out that they doubled down. Instead of providing an exemption on home heating with natural gas, which is way cleaner than oil, they gave an exemption to oil. It boggles the mind. The logic behind the carbon tax is to put a cost on fuels with a higher carbon intensity to reduce their usage. If that is true, they should be making it go up eight or 10 times on fuel, but they know it is not true. The logic behind Bill C-234, which is in the Senate right now, is that if we give farmers an exemption and give them control of their resources, they will make the right decisions. They will invest in the technologies that will clean our planet.

This ham-fisted stick-before-carrot approach of the carbon tax has been proven to not only increase costs but also increase global emissions, because it drives production, whether it be in a factory or on a farm, off clean Canadian energy and into coal-producing jurisdictions around the world. This is the ultimate in greenwashing. There is no bigger greenwashing tool than the carbon tax, because it moves farms and factories to Guangdong province, where, instead of being powered by clean Canadian hydro power in Quebec or Winnipeg or by natural gas in Alberta, they are powered by coal.

We are raising worldwide emissions because of the carbon tax. Instead of energy being produced here in Canada in a clean, sustainable way, we are exporting it. Worst of all, we are impoverishing ourselves to do it. Instead of having paycheques going to workers in our clean Canadian energy sector, those paycheques are going to Dubai. What is going on in Dubai? I believe they are in an air-conditioned dome in the middle of the desert. Can we get any more ironic than that? The fossil fuels they are burning will somehow reduce the amount of fossil fuels. The hypocrisy has no end with the Liberals.

Bill C-234 needs to be passed. Even if someone is a wholehearted believer in the carbon tax, Bill C-234 gives equity to our farmers. It does not matter if members are in the Green Party or the NDP. We all agree, except for the Liberals, that farmers deserve a break.

Carbon Pricing

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, after eight years, the government still does not understand that it could quickly bring down food prices just by giving farmers a break. That is why passing Bill C-234 is so essential.

The costly Bloc-Liberal coalition is really out of touch and wants to radically increase the carbon tax. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Farmers in my region are calling on me to get this bill passed quickly.

Will the Prime Minister tell the independent senators that he appointed to stop blocking Bill C-234 in order to bring down the cost of groceries for all Canadian families?

Democratic Institutions

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, after eight long years, it is clear that this Prime Minister simply is not worth the cost.

Jack, a grain farmer from southern Manitoba, paid over $6,000 in carbon taxes to dry his grain in October alone and, no, the government rebate is not making him better off. I assume Jack's money is now paying for the environment minister's high-carbon, high-hypocrisy, two-week trip to Dubai. Now the Liberals want to quadruple that carbon tax on farmers like Jack.

Will the Prime Minister tell his Liberal senators to pass Bill C-234 to help make food more affordable for Canadians?

Carbon Pricing

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative bill, Bill C-234, to axe the carbon tax for farmers remains stalled in the Senate. Senators appointed by this Prime Minister continue to make life unaffordable by delaying this bill.

Dave and Devon run a dairy operation in my community. They pay thousands more on the carbon tax just to heat their barns. Now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple the tax on them. Will this Prime Minister take his carbon tax off them, to make food affordable for Canadians?

Democratic Institutions

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of inflationary spending, after eight straight years of deficit, after doubling the national debt, after creating record-setting interest hikes and after implementing a punishing carbon tax, a record number of Canadians cannot afford food. Therefore, why will this Prime Minister not call his appointees in the Senate and have them pass Bill C-234 and take the tax off food production? What do farmers have to do to get a little respect around here; elect a few more Liberals?

Carbon Pricing

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, what every farmers is telling us, without exception, is that Bill C‑234 will save them $1 billion. That is tangible, that is real and that is what the farmers want.

There was a dramatic turn of events this week. The bill was adopted here in the House of Commons, and this week, the Senate was asked to speed up the process. The Liberals voted against that request and even the Bloc Québécois voted against. It is outrageous.

The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C‑234, but it voted against asking the Senate to adopt it. We cannot be on one side and the other and act like—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is what Canada looks like today after eight years of this Liberal government.

This week, the Journal de Québec reported that a 13-year old wrote to Santa, like many children, and asked for food. That is what Canada has become after eight years with a Liberal government in power.

We cannot have food without agriculture. Bill C‑234 was adopted here in the House of Commons. It seeks to reduce and cancel the carbon tax for farmers. Unfortunately, as we speak, senators appointed by the Liberal government are delaying passage of this bill.

When will the Prime Minister stand up and tell the—

Carbon Tax

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, after eight years, this costly NDP-Liberal coalition is at it again, planning to quadruple the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. Canadians understand that when farmers, truckers and processors pay thousands of dollars in carbon tax, this makes the food we buy more expensive.

The price of food is so dire that the Ontario Hunger Report confirmed that food bank visits are up 38% in Ontario, the largest year-over-year increase ever recorded. It is not just in Ontario; the director of Saskatoon's food bank said, “After about 18 months of living through increased inflation, folks are really struggling. We’re seeing about 23,000 [food bank users] per month.” That is in a city of only 300,000 people.

Conservative Bill C-234 would create another carbon tax carve-out by removing the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. The good news is that this will make food prices cheaper in Canada. The even better news is that the environment minister has said that he will resign if this bill passes.

It is time for the Prime Minister to tell his appointed senators to stop stalling and pass Bill C-234 to bring home lower food prices for Canadians.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, after eight years, we have seen once again that the Liberal-NDP government is just not worth the cost.

According to a Statistics Canada study released this month, 18% of Canadian families are experiencing food insecurity, and it should come as no surprise. The Liberals' carbon tax applies to farming activities all across the country, and those costs inevitably get passed on to consumers every time they go to the grocery store. Unfortunately, the Liberals used this month's fall economic statement to double down on their ever-increasing carbon tax.

Fortunately, Conservatives have a solution. Conservative Bill C-234 would exempt certain farming activities from the carbon tax. Those lower costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower grocery prices and fewer Canadians turning to food banks to feed themselves. It is time for the Senate to pass Bill C-234 so Canadian can feed themselves.

Carbon Pricing

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition proved once again that it is not worth the cost.

As usual, the Bloc members joined forces with the Liberals to defeat our motion calling on the Senate to pass our common-sense bill, Bill C‑234, to remove the carbon tax on farmers. Eight years in, our food banks are overwhelmed, yet those two parties want to increase the tax even more radically.

Will the Prime Minister tell his senators to stop obstructing Bill C‑234?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, everyone is struggling. Farmers across Canada buy their goods retail and sell what they produce wholesale. Farmers are now paying $150,000 in inflationary carbon tax. They know the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

When will the Prime Minister tell his appointed senators to stop delaying Bill C-234 and axe the tax so people can afford their groceries?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals voted with the Bloc to keep the tax on farmers. This bill would have saved farmers nearly $1 billion between now and 2030.

This Christmas season, people are hurting. P.E.I. farmers are paying between $30,000 and $75,000 more a year due to the carbon tax. A farmer in western New Brunswick has had his cost increase by over 30% on freight alone. This is unbearable for our producers and consumers.

When will the Prime Minister finally hear the cries of our farmers and tell his senators to pass Bill C-234?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the fastest way to provide more affordability for Canadians would be to pass Bill C-234.

We have the receipts to show just how much the carbon tax costs farmers who grow the food. The natural gas bills for different months from a Saskatchewan farmer show that one month without grain drying is $135, but one month with grain drying is $6,400. That is why the House should pass Bill C-234 to give farmers tax relief.

Who does the Prime Minister think should pay that ridiculous cost: the farmer who grows the food or the families who are struggling to put food on the table for their kids?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. People see it on their grocery bills and farmers who grow the food see it while paying for their fuel. A young producer showed me his propane bill for grain drying from the start of harvest. In the span of just 12 days, it cost him $950 in carbon tax alone, and the harvest was just getting going. He is still waiting to see the final bill from drying his crops.

Will the Prime Minister tell his appointed senators to stop delaying Bill C-234 and axe the tax for the farmers who grow our food?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition proved once again that it is not worth the cost. Its members defeated our motion to force the Senate to pass our common-sense bill, Bill C-234. After eight years, Canadians have never been in such dire straits, yet these two parties want to increase the carbon tax even more drastically.

Canadian farmers need our support. Will the Prime Minister tell the senators that he himself appointed to stop obstructing Bill C-234 in order to reduce grocery costs for all Canadians?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the government, there have been more people using a food bank than ever before. It is record numbers. The Prime Minister is responsible for bringing record-level hunger to Ontario.

I understand that the self-proclaimed socialist environment minister has threatened to resign if the bill passes, but Canadian farmers need this carve-out immediately. This will make food prices cheaper, because if we are taxing the farmers who grow the food, we are taxing Canadians who buy the food.

Again, will the Prime Minister tell his appointed senators to stop delaying Bill C-234 and pass the bill so we can bring home lower prices for groceries for all Canadians?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after enduring eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, one in five households in Ontario is struggling to put food on its table. That adds up to 2.8 million people, including 700,000 children. This is shocking. These are the highest recorded numbers we have ever seen. It is painfully clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister tell his appointed senators to stop delaying Bill C-234 and to pass the bill now to bring lower prices for food for all Canadians?

Carbon Tax

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of inflationary spending, Canadians can simply no longer afford to pay for this Prime Minister's costs. Today we learned that Canada's GDP declined by 1.1% in the last quarter, the fifth consecutive decline, while that of our American neighbours rose by 5.2%. This is very bad news for Canadians struggling to make ends meet, for the millions waiting in lines at food banks because this government's inflationary policies are raising the price of everything.

We can do something now to help Canadians. This Prime Minister can help lower food prices by taking immediate action: asking Liberal senators to vote immediately in favour of Bill C‑234 and stop obstructing the Senate. Unfortunately, this week, the Liberals voted with the Bloc to maintain the tax on farmers, increasing the cost of food here for everyone. Instead of giving Canadians the help they need, the Liberals and their allies in the Bloc are trying to make everything more expensive. Voting for the Bloc is costly.

Only the common-sense Conservatives will transform misfortune into hope by abolishing the tax on everything and reducing food, gas, and heating costs for all Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Were there any farm organizations in favour of Bill C-234?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Minister, I have a few quick questions.

How many organizations have you heard from that are not in favour of Bill C-234? How many farm organizations have come to you to actually ask that it be implemented?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Minister, if you're saying that the programs should come from the ground up, every single rancher in western Canada, including the premiers, disagrees with the map that your government has provided them. The agriculture ministers in those provinces are saying you're forcing a map on them that is completely inaccurate, but you're saying that this should come from the ground up. I completely agree, so you should listen to the ranchers and listen to the agriculture ministers in those provinces.

Minister, your primary responsibility in your role is to be a voice for Canadian agriculture. You voted against Bill C-234 in the House. When you realized what the bill actually was, you flip-flopped on your support, and then didn't support it. Do you still stand by your...? We have every single commodity group, agriculture group and farm group supporting Bill C-234, yet you continue to vote against it.

Do you still stand by your position that Canadian farmers support the Liberal carbon tax?

National Framework for a School Food Program Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place to debate the issues that are so important to Canadians.

Since we are talking about an issue that deals with education, and I will get to the substance of the bill in a moment, I want to give a shout-out to a young lady from B.C. whose name is Abigail. I had a chance to have a visit with her in the hallway prior to coming into this debate, and she informed me that she plans to be Canada's second female prime minister. I send a big shout-out to Abigail, a very bright young lady in elementary school. It just speaks to the incredible potential that exists across this country in our young people.

We are talking about one of the fundamental issues our country is facing, which is the affordability of food. There are three things I hope to be able to address in the short time I have here before us. The first is that, when it comes to the idea of a school lunch program, the idea of this sort of thing sounds great. However, as with many things that get talked about in the nation's capital, studies, reports and frameworks in this case do not feed kids.

I will start by emphasizing something because our country needs real action to ensure we can address the affordability crisis so many are facing. It is leading to kids going to school hungry and families making difficult decisions about whether to pay for rent, home heating or groceries. The first point I would like to make in this debate tonight is that food has become unaffordable for so many in our country, and it should not be that way.

Let me emphasize how fundamentally advantaged Canada is when it comes to being a producer of high-quality food products. We have the space, the capacity, the expertise and the experience to produce the world-class, quality food people need not only here in our own country but also around the world. Certainly it is a travesty that we are seeing approximately two million visits to food banks per month in our country when we have been blessed with such incredible capacity here at home. It is truly a tragedy.

We see the underlying causes of that. The fact that we have to talk about some of the issues surrounding kids going to school hungry is absolutely tragic. However, we have before us a very simple step in the right direction. It is a bill, currently sitting in the Senate, that would address some of the challenges, and it is the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax on all types of farm fuels and home heating. It would allow for the price of food to be brought down in our country. It would ultimately help families, our people from coast to coast to coast, because of course our north is deeply affected by the price of food, yet the bill is unfortunately being stalled.

We have to ensure that folks are able to have prosperous jobs, so we can address some of the challenges we are talking about. It has been raised several times in the debate tonight, and it is fundamentally important. In the short time I have, I will get into some of the jurisdictional challenges momentarily, but we have to acknowledge how important it is to ensure our society functions well, for civil society begins to deteriorate when people cannot afford food. The actions of left-leaning ideologies are directly forcing prices in this country to rise, and that is truly a travesty.

As a fifth-generation farmer of on my family's farm in Alberta's special areas, I was discouraged today by the fact that the Prime Minister did not offer support for farmers but said he will meet with them to tell them how they should or should not do their business. Truly, it is that attitude that farmers do not need. Left-leaning ideologies need to get out of the way to let farmers grow crops and raise livestock to ensure we have that high-quality food.

The second point I will make in the short time I have is that this bill is actually an admission of Liberal failure. In two of their election platforms, I believe in 2015 and 2021, the Liberals promised to have a national lunch program, yet they were unable to fulfill that. This is an admission of that failure. I would—

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know that there is someone watching who has been with me for 12 years. We work together in my office. It is Heather Kuntz' birthday today. I am not sure which one, but I want to say “happy birthday” to her in Regina.

I will ask my colleague from across the way a question. He said one thing that I think is very true, which is that our farmers do not get enough credit for how well and how much they have innovated in their farming techniques. Does he not think they would be able to innovate even further and bring forward new technologies? For example, in Saskatchewan, we have zero-till, rotational grazing and crop rotations that keep our soil healthy and strong. They make it very, very rich so we can grow bumper crops with less water and less fertilizer. Saskatchewan uses 75% less fertilizer than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Does the member not think that if farmers had more money in their pockets and we moved forward with the carbon tax exemption bill, Bill C-234, that the money could go toward even more innovation? Like he said, our farmers are the ones who bring forward innovation. Why will the Liberals not get out of the way and make sure farmers can do that?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to debate concurrence in the report on strengthening food capacity in Canada for food security and exports.

I am a proud member of the agriculture committee. Members on the committee work very well together, and this was a study we did during COVID. We heard from a lot of people across the country about challenges that we face in our agriculture sector. I was able to travel across this country during COVID to experience what our processors were facing first-hand. I had the opportunity to visit a couple of meat processing factories, and it struck me how resilient our agriculture processing sector is. However, processors also need a helping hand sometimes. We lack capacity in this country for food processing.

I am proud to come from a region that grows an abundance of fresh fruits and vegetables, and a lot of vegetables are grown for processing. As a matter of fact, there is a food processor in my riding, in Kent County, that processes field tomatoes. Until recently, there was also a pickling processing plant; unfortunately, due to circumstances, that pickling processing factory closed. It is really sad, because it was a thriving business that employed a lot of people in Wallaceburg. The owners tried to keep it open, but, unfortunately, they did not succeed. Why is this? Policies of the government impeded their ability to continue their business in Canada.

Sugar beets are another example of food produced in my riding, in southwestern Ontario, Kent County and Lambton County. However, 100% of them are shipped to Michigan to be processed. What happens then? They come back to Canada refined as sugar, and we pay a premium for that sugar, including tariffs, even though the sugar beets were grown in Ontario and are a product of Canada. I bring this up because we are seeing more and more that we are losing processing capacity in Canada, whether it is in the fresh food sector, sugar beets or oilseeds. I hear day in and day out that one of the big impediments to being able to compete in Canada is the carbon tax. The carbon tax makes it more expensive for any of the processors to do business in Canada.

Another example of food processing that we lose to the U.S. is pork. There is an abundance of pork producers in my riding. Most of the pork gets processed at Conestoga in Kitchener and, up until recently, at Olymel in Quebec. However, again, we do not process the value-added products in Canada. The pork bellies get shipped down to the States; they are made into bacon and then imported back to Canada, where we pay a premium on that product.

There is a plastics ban that has been proposed to eliminate plastics for all produce. Produce needs to be wrapped in plastic when it is shipped to maintain its quality. We rely on other countries to provide two-thirds of our fresh produce in this country. If it is not kept wrapped in plastic when it is shipped, we are going to see an exorbitant amount of food waste. Not only that, but we are also going to lose the ability to import food in this country, putting our food security at risk. That is talked about in this report.

Food security is of the utmost importance, and if we ban plastics in our produce sector in Canada, how are we going to get the imported food to feed Canadians that comes from all over the world? It is a global supply chain. We do not get to dictate the packaging on fruits and vegetables. Other countries do the packaging, and we need to make sure that ours is uniform, especially with our biggest trading partner, the United States. If this plastics ban goes forward, it will have serious consequences for our produce industry. It is going to cost our produce farmers upwards of $6 billion to make that happen.

Can members imagine what we are going to face in food security if we already have Canadians who cannot feed themselves? We have two million Canadians using a food bank. There are 800,000 who use a food bank in Ontario. The prices of groceries are high right now. I cannot imagine what the price is going to be when, all of a sudden, we have to pay up to 30% more for our fresh produce at the grocery stores. Families cannot afford to eat right now. They are choosing between heating and eating. If the prices continue to go up on food, we are going to have more people lined up at food banks. That is not acceptable in this country.

The carbon tax makes everything more expensive. I am a farmer, and I hear all the time in the House from the members opposite on the government side talking about how farmers do not pay a carbon tax. That is simply not true. Yes, there are things farmers do where they do not pay taxes on their fuel that I could name off, such as driving a tractor in their field, putting fuel into their generator to be able to pump water to an irrigation system or using vehicles that do not use a roadway. These are exempt from the carbon tax and from taxes on diesel fuel. However, in reality, as I am driving through the countryside on my way to Ottawa every week, the farmers are out in their fields combining their corn. This past weekend, on Sunday, was no different; this is very late right now, because it is so wet.

A lot of farmers do not use tractors and wagons anymore to transport their grains from the field back to the farm to the elevator. They are using transport trucks, which are required to pay the carbon tax for the fuel they use. When the trucks are paying more for fuel, of course the trucking companies are going to pass that cost on to the farmer. Most farmers are price-takers, so they do not get to necessarily pass those costs on to the consumer. What does that mean? Farmers are having to eat up those costs on their farm, taking it out of money they would generate as revenue and reinvest in their farm to purchase more innovative state-of-the-art equipment to keep their business in business. Instead, they have to pay more money in order to transport their grains from the field to the elevator.

In my region, it has been a very wet fall. Our farmers have had extremely wet conditions when trying to get the crops off. Not only that, but the corn is coming off the fields with a very high moisture content. Farmers have to dry the grain in order to keep it in the bins, because it goes for animal feed and to the ethanol plant. In order to deliver that corn to the ethanol plant, it has to be at a certain percentage. Whether for corn, beans or wheat, there are no commercially viable options in Canada other than propane and natural gas. If there were, I am sure farmers would use it. What I have heard from farmers is that we do not have an electrical grid system that could ever handle an electric grain dryer. Therefore, right now, they are forced to use propane and natural gas. That is why Bill C-234 is so important. We need to pass the bill, because farmers desperately need this relief from the carbon tax. It will have an immediate effect on food prices in the grocery stores.

As potato farmers, we use transport trucks to transport our potatoes from the field back to the wash plant. A lot of farmers do that now. Transport trucks transport most of the crops from the field back to the farm for processing, and they have to pay the carbon tax. There is no way around it. Therefore, farmers should be exempt from paying the carbon tax on drying their grain and heating their barns. I have 23% of Ontario's chicken in my riding; I have been in those chicken barns. In order to keep the animals alive, the barn has to be kept warm in the winter. How do they heat it? They do so with natural gas or propane. There is no other commercially viable option.

I implore the Senate to pass Bill C-234 and give our farmers that much-needed tax relief. This is about food security; that is what the report is about. We need to ensure that our farmers, now and in the next generation, can stay in business, so we can produce the food Canadians need to eat. Eating is a necessity, and we need to continue to be able to feed Canadians and the world with our nutritious Canadian food.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my very respected colleague on the agriculture committee. There is no question that Canadian farmers understand the changes in climate more than just about any Canadian, as they are certainly at the front lines of that. However, my argument today, in highlighting some of the issues in this report, and yesterday with Bill C-234, is that I do not believe that a carbon tax on Canadian agriculture and Canadian farmers is going to resolve issues when we are talking about the environment and climate change.

I have talked to many farmers. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in carbon tax does not allow them to invest in the new innovation and technology that will help reduce their carbon footprint and emissions.

I think we should be incentivizing farmers to do those things, not punishing them with a carbon tax.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a great deal about Bill C‑234 and the carbon tax.

I would like to talk about another issue, namely, the effects of climate change on farm products.

We can speak out against measures intended to mitigate climate change, but we still need to be aware of these changes. For example, I would like to draw his attention to the market gardening situation, especially in Quebec. I think the situation is the same in other parts of the country. This summer we had torrential rains that set all-time records. Last year, it was something else; it was aphids. In the past, aphids never got this far north, but with climate change, they are reaching areas further north and causing terrible damage. The year before that, there was a drought. The effects are significant.

Does my colleague agree that the government should urgently review insurance programs and the way that risk is shared for these farmers?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented to the House on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I want to concur in the report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on food security that looked at processing capacity in Canada with a particular focus on food security. I believe there is some very pertinent information in the report, which I would encourage all members of the House to take the opportunity to read if they have not done so.

There are a couple of things in this report that I found interesting on how things change quickly. For example, in the government response to our report, there is a line that says, “The Government recognizes that the Report focuses on ensuring that a secure supply of food will be available to Canadians”. Budget 2019 states that “one in eight Canadian households currently experience food insecurity, meaning that they are without reliable access to a sufficient quantity of affordable, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food.”

Now, that was in 2019, here we are in 2023, and that number is no longer one in eight, that number is now one in five. One in five Canadians are skipping meals because they cannot afford to put nutritious and healthy Canadian-produced food on their table. I think that is a statistic for all of us in the House that shows the devastating impact that Liberal government policies have had on everyday Canadians who are just trying to feed their families and make ends meet, pay their bills and carry on with their lives.

The focus of this report, and why I want to highlight it today, is about food security or, more specifically, food insecurity. I cannot help but go back to the debate we had yesterday on Bill C-234, which was a common-sense Conservative legislation that would enhance food security for Canadians. It would be making farming more affordable for Canadians, which was a critical element of this study.

However, what was not included in the study, and I want to highlight that as well, is that, at the time, we did not have definitive data on the impact the carbon tax was having on Canadian agriculture. For example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that Bill C-234 would save Canadian farmers close to $1 billion by 2030. We have a report here talking about food security. These elements would have been a very welcome part of the analysis and recommendations, as well as the impact that the carbon tax policy is having on Canadian farms and harming their ability to ensure that Canadians have nutritious and affordable food on their tables.

The report highlighted the importance of innovation and technology to ensure that modern Canadian agriculture could meet demand and meet its responsibilities. Again, with Bill C-234, we are highlighting the fact that there are no commercially available and viable alternatives for Canadian farmers across the country who are heating and cooling their barns and drying their grain, other than natural gas and propane. When I talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer report and the fact that Bill C-234 would save Canadian farmers close to $1 billion on a carbon tax exemption, that is only on natural gas and propane.

Ironically, gas and diesel already have an exemption and so really, with Bill C-234, what we are trying to highlight is correcting an oversight, which I believe the Liberal government inadvertently made on its initial price on pollution climate change policy when it made an exemption on gas and diesel but did not include an exemption on natural gas and propane. I believe that when the Liberals developed their price on pollution legislation, or carbon tax, they did not include natural gas and propane because I think they just did not have a clear understanding of what agriculture is and the energy sources that the agriculture sector relies on every single day.

This report highlighted the importance of technology and innovation. Farmers are doing that every single day by ensuring that their farm buildings and barns are as energy efficient and state of the art as possible. In fact, one of the farm families who were here last week, who met with members of Parliament and actually participated in a bit of a rally on the Hill and at the Senate, just built a new state-of-the-art chicken barn in southern Alberta, at a cost of more than $3 million, but it is powered by natural gas because there is no other alternative in rural Alberta. Despite using a very clean-burning fuel, they paid $180,000 this past year just to heat and cool that barn. When the Prime Minister quadruples his carbon tax, they will be paying $480,000 a year just to heat and cool that barn.

I have that study here in my hand where the government provided its responses on the importance of food security. I guess I would ask if perhaps we should be updating this study because I am not sure how we can even talk about food security when farmers cannot remain in business.

This particular farmer, who built a new poultry barn, told me that he could not afford these higher taxes. He really only has two choices. One choice is to somehow pass on those additional costs to the consumer. Again, the question arises about food security when Canadians are already facing record-high food inflation. That is only going to get higher as the carbon tax increases. His other choice is to shut down, to close up his farm and his agriculture operation, which again would impact food prices because that means less product on the store shelves and higher prices.

Another interesting fact about this study is that it talked about a concern of Dr. Charlebois, a professor of food and supply chains at Dalhousie University. He mentioned that we are seeing a number of Canadian agriculture and agri-food businesses stop their investments in Canada and Canadian operations. He said, “They're now leaving the country because they can't capitalize any projects as a result of...increasing fees. The competitive environment here in Canada is not...attractive.”

As a result of the carbon taxes, red tape and bureaucracy highlighted in this study, we are seeing Canadian farms declare bankruptcy or shut down, but also that agri-food businesses are picking up and leaving to more friendly entrepreneurial and business jurisdictions. The result of that, again, as we were talking about in Bill C-234, is that they are carbon taxing Canadian farms out of business, but then they are forcing Canadian consumers to purchase food imported from foreign jurisdictions. That causes two problems. One, it has a significant carbon footprint through moving, for example, tomatoes or mushrooms all the way from Mexico into southern Ontario, or fruit and vegetables from California into Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Two, it is a problem when we use foreign-grown products that do not have the same environmental standards we have here in Canada. There is a real significant problem when those food products are cheaper to import from Mexico, Brazil or Venezuela, when we should be able to produce them right here in Canada.

I wanted to share some of those facts that are highlighted in this report and just how much it is apropos to what is going on with our discussion yesterday about Bill C-234. When this study was published, one in eight Canadians were facing food insecurity. Four years later, it is now one in five.

Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would like Canadians to think about anything other than their hungry stomachs, after eight years in office. He would like Canadians to forget that he has doubled the cost of rent, that he wants to quadruple the carbon tax and that he has given us the worst interest rate hikes in Canadian history. The least he could do is back off on his plan to quadruple the tax on our farmers.

Will he stop blocking Bill C-234, the common-sense Conservative bill to take the tax off our farmers, so that our Canadian people can afford to eat?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot even have a bit of fun in this place because, of course, once the Prime Minister is off script, he starts rambling all over the map, unable to stay on any subject.

The question was about the cost of food. After he has forced Canadians to line up in breadlines that we have not seen since the Great Depression, with a record-smashing two million visits to a food bank, he now sees it as the time to quadruple the tax on the farmers who feed us. Will he stop blocking common-sense Conservative Bill C-234 to take the tax off the farmers so that Canadians can afford Christmas dinner?

Carbon Tax

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years under the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled, Canadians are close to a paycheque away from going broke and there has been a 52% increase in monthly visits to the food banks in Kootenay—Columbia alone.

I will address a pressing issue impacting the hard-working farmers in my riding. The individuals who work tirelessly, cultivating crops and raising herds, are facing huge challenges with the rise of the carbon tax. The current fixed market rate at which they sell their products is not providing them with the flexibility to absorb the escalating costs imposed by this tax. It is imperative that we recognize the plight of these farmers and work toward finding solutions that ensure their success. It is our duty to address the concerns of the hard-working people who toil day in and day out to put food on our tables. More taxes, fees and half measures are continually introduced by the NDP-Liberal government, but no issues are being solved.

We all need to support our farmers and ranchers by supporting Bill C-234.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to such an important motion. I represent the great riding of Oxford, a farming community with a long, proud farming legacy. It is home to nearly 1,900 farms that feed our families from coast to coast to coast. Our farmers are doing extremely hard work. They are doing God's work. Generations are helping out on the farms, making sure our food goes from the farm to our dinner table.

However, the Prime Minister's carbon tax coalition with the NDP is making that task nearly impossible. To feed families, we need need energy. Farmers need to dry their grain, run their operations and heat and cool their barns for their livestock, but the carbon tax makes everything more expensive for farmers to produce the food that we eat.

The Prime Minister’s appointed senators are delaying the passage of Bill C-234. This costly, unnecessary delay is hurting our farmers this harvest season. Corn moisture in Oxford was up to 30% this year. A lot of farmers are still harvesting, which means the corn has to be dried. Farmers are firing up their dryers to bring down moisture levels, and that is driving up the input costs. Winter is also on its way. There was snow today in southwestern Ontario, and farmers across Canada are turning on the heat in their barns for their livestock. They are again being punished by the carbon tax that is driving up their input costs.

The numbers do not lie. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion by 2030. That is not small change. Throughout today’s debate, I heard stories from my colleagues that I have heard in my riding, stories of farmers getting bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to the carbon tax. Before I stood to speak today, I spoke with a farmer in my riding, who is still out harvesting, by the way, and who said that the carbon tax is more than just a kick to the shin; it is a drop kick to the face.

Let me share the story of another farmer in my riding, just south of Highway 401 in Salford He is an asparagus farmer, a great farmer whom I visit regularly at the local farmers' market on Saturday mornings. Thanks to the carbon tax, he has seen the cost of his asparagus become triple that of what Mexicans sell in grocery stores. Let me get this straight: It is now cheaper to buy Mexican asparagus shipped 3,800 kilometres than it is to buy locally grown asparagus here in Canada, driven to a local market a few kilometres away. How do we expect our farmers to compete? How do we expect them to survive? Because of the carbon tax, we continue to see more food produced by foreign farmers in countries with horrendous environmental standards. The message the government wants to send is to go ahead and buy foreign-grown food from a country with lower environmental standards and that burns fossil fuels to ship it across a continent. That is complete nonsense.

We also have to look at the compounding effect of the carbon tax, which affects the supply chain and the cost of our groceries. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who ships the food, the processor who manufacturers the food and the retailer who sells the food, guess who pays for that? It is the Canadians who buy the food. That is why one in five Canadians is now skipping meals. There are a record number of Canadians at food banks, two million in a single month. Just yesterday, Feed Ontario released its report, stating that over 800,000 people in Ontario accessed a food bank in Ontario just last year. These are not just numbers and statistics; these are our friends, neighbours and family members. They are veterans, seniors, students, working-class Canadians and now, more commonly, professionals who never had to do so in the past but are now being forced by the government's reckless policies to go to a food bank. This past week—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague opposite that we really are talking about the possibility of passing Bill C‑234 as quickly as possible. People have been talking about pressure that was put on certain senators, even if they are supposedly independent. My understanding is that some cabinet members, and maybe even the Prime Minister himself, exerted considerable pressure. It is important to be clear about the context.

I would like us to talk frankly about the passage of Bill C‑234 and why it is being blocked in the Senate. Perhaps the first stone should not be thrown at the Conservative Party.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague the hon. member for Oxford.

I am rising today on behalf of my constituents in Beauce, whom I have had the privilege of representing for over four years. Today's subject is fairly simple, as my colleagues before me so clearly explained. The Senate needs to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible.

I find it unfortunate that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are delaying the passage of this important bill in the Senate. This bill is supported by all parties in the House, except for one, the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is very simple. Food prices have never been so high in our country, and the government needs to find a way to lower them. The simplest way to do that is to start on the farm.

This legislative measure has the support of all the agricultural industry stakeholders across the country with whom I spoke. These farmers need a break from the crippling carbon tax that is decimating their businesses and making food prices skyrocket.

I also spoke to a number of producers in my region, and their support for the bill is unanimous. Above all, it needs to be adopted as soon as possible. Winter is at our door, and they are very worried about how they are going to be able to heat their poultry and hog barns.

As Conservative critic for agriculture, and a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I personally attended every meeting about this bill, and I heard the various testimonies attesting to its importance.

I also went out to speak with citizens in my region who are not even farmers and who want the bill to be adopted as soon as possible.

Last Friday, I worked with volunteers at Moisson Beauce, a food bank in my region. We prepared Christmas baskets for families that do not have enough food for the holidays. Moisson Beauce reports record demand at the food bank and, right now, it is not receiving enough donations to meet that demand.

This is not the Canada I remember. We are at a point where it is cheaper to import food than to produce our own food locally.

Something I hear far too often from the Liberals, Bloc Québécois and New Democrats is that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. That is absolutely false. I repeat that the carbon tax applies to Quebec, both directly and indirectly. I can show my colleagues piles of farmers' bills indicating the amount of propane used to heat their buildings, for example, that include the federal price on pollution.

The carbon tax is also paid indirectly when we import goods from other provinces. As far as I know, Quebec is not self-sufficient. We import many products from provinces that pay the full carbon tax, and that tax is passed on to us, either in higher prices or high transportation costs.

When the government taxes the farmers that produce food, the truckers that transport it and, especially, the grocers that sell it, food becomes unaffordable.

The Liberal government has lost control. It has exempted a minority of Canadians from the carbon tax on heating oil, which helps the Liberals in a part of the country where their poll numbers are dropping. However, they do not exempt farmers from the carbon tax, which would help all Canadians feed their families.

Who can forget what the Minister of Rural Economic Development said? She said that, if Canadians want a break, they should elect more Liberal members. It is outrageous.

Another comment that makes me laugh is when the government says that senators are “independent”. Most senators who voted against this legislation were appointed by the current Prime Minister. That is shameful.

Canadian farmers protect our land. They are concerned about their animals and the environment. They work very hard to feed Canadian families and grow our economy. The Liberals' lack of support for this bill is dumbfounding.

I have to say something about the rural members of the Liberal caucus. I cannot believe that only three Liberals voted in favour of the bill. I suppose that only three of them want to get re-elected next time around. Just look at the polls. If the rural members think that farmers will ever vote for them again, they are sadly mistaken.

The Conservatives will always defend farmers and, more importantly, common sense. Canadians are suffering. Many of them are on the brink of insolvency. How can the government turn its back on them when all they want is to be able to afford to feed their families?

That is what this bill will do. It will reduce the price of food for Canadian families. It will also help farmers be more competitive and be the economic driver they have always been for our country.

If the government does nothing, our farming families, villages and small communities will continue to disappear. Our country will become even more dependent on food imports.

If the government has not yet noticed, everything it is doing right now is endangering the environment. Here is a very simple example: In grocery stores, vegetables grown in Mexico are now less expensive than vegetables grown here at home in Canada. It feels like the Liberal ministers are living under a rock somewhere. Can they not see how much we could reduce pollution if we supported our Canadian farmers instead of importing airplanes, ships and trucks full of food that could be grown locally at home?

Farmers can no longer bear the brunt of the government's poor economic management. Its lack of budgetary discipline has led Canada to this point. It is simply not worth the cost. The Prime Minister should step back and allow the Senate to pass Bill C‑234 as soon as possible.

Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleagues from Huron-Bruce and Foothills for their hard work in getting this bill to the Senate.

It is time this bill was passed so that farmers can do what they do best, and that is feed our Canadian families. Canadians can count on the Conservatives to keep on fighting for farmers, for more affordable prices and, above all, for common sense.

In closing, I hope that all my colleagues will support the Conservative motion today. We really want to pass Bill C‑234 as quickly as possible, as a first step in the right direction to help our farmers produce high-quality products, which they do, but also at a more affordable price.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to be able to rise in the people's House and share concerns and many reflections that we hear from back home.

Today, I rise in the House to speak to our motion regarding Bill C-234 and its intention to remove the carbon tax from farm fuels, and to urge the government to take the pressure off its appointed senators to keep holding up this bill.

Canadians are frustrated. They want relief, and they need relief fast. This is one of the steps that could be taken that would get immediate relief to those who literally keep our land and grow our food. The farmers are asking for this. Those who represent farming associations and farmers across the country are asking and demanding that this be passed speedily. We have had no fewer than five premiers who are calling upon the government to get this passed quickly. A majority in this House passed the bill already, and now it is being held up in the Senate through stall-and-delay tactics. That is unacceptable. The people have spoken through their elected representatives, and they want this legislation to be enacted. It is time to act. That is what this motion is all about.

When preparing my remarks, I was drawn to a famous quote that I have been reflecting upon. Perhaps it would be something all in this House could reflect upon. It was once famously said, “It's not about you. It's about things that are far more important than you and whether someone is mad at you has nothing to do with it if you're right. You can be in the middle of a hurricane or it can be on a calm day. North is still north. You can be in a thunderstorm. North is still north. You can be on calm waters, but north is still north. People can yell at you. North is still north. It doesn't change fundamental things, and in this business, right is still right, even if you stand by yourself.”

I have been reflecting on that. If there were ever a time that those who represent Canadians should do what is right and listen to the compass and recognize that north is still north, it is in times like these, when we are facing an affordability crisis. There are more people in line for food banks than ever in modern history. The cost of housing is through the roof. The cost of fuel is through the roof. Canadians from coast to coast are wondering how they are going to make it to their next paycheque and keep the bills paid. Some Canadians are choosing between whether they can heat their homes or get enough groceries to provide for their families for another week.

These are challenging times. These times are demanding serious leadership and action by a government that is hearing the demands of those who sent us here. For far too long, their voices have been ignored and they feel like they are absolutely being dismissed.

Farmers literally keep the land that we live on and grow our food. When they have a serious concern and their input costs are soaring and they are having a hard time keeping up, they keep doing what they love to do, in some cases for generations within their family. When they are asking for relief and we just ignore them or we stall it or hold back that relief, that is shameful and it is time we respond.

I cannot help but think of the old story of a naval vessel that was out on the sea. A call came to the vessel from an individual who said to adjust course 15°. The very large vessel's captain responded with absolute disdain and said he was captain so-and-so of U.S. naval vessel Montana, and for the other vessel to adjust course 15°. The other gentleman responded, “No, sir. You adjust 15°.” It goes back and forth. Then, in absolute exasperation, the captain of the vessel said, “I have the USS Montana under my command. We have six cruisers and we have destroyers. You adjust your course 15°.” The humble gentleman responded, “This is the lighthouse. You adjust course 15°, or you are headed for a shipwreck.” Finally, the arrogant captain of the vessel thanked him and adjusted his course.

The moral of the story is that there is a clarion call going out from the proverbial lighthouse of Canada's farms basically saying that it is time the captain of the vessel called the Government of Canada adjust course.

I think it would behoove everyone in this House to listen to those who are most affected by the policies that have been enacted by the government of late. When a motion has gone through the House and a bill has been passed by a majority of members in this House who represent the people, it should not be held up in the unelected Senate for various reasons. It is time it is passed and relief is given to Canadians.

We are hearing that cry. Over 70% of Canadians want this tax cancelled. I talked to a potato farmer today in my region and was going over some of this with him. He told me very clearly that since the enactment of the carbon tax, the freight charges on his potatoes per truckload have gone up from $1,200 to $1,800 Canadian. That is a 30% increase as a result of the carbon tax being implemented. It is directly affecting his freight charges. He said farmers need relief and they need it fast, because that 30% augmentation is going directly onto the consumers of groceries from coast to coast to coast.

The government needs to respond to what farmers are saying. They need relief and they need it now. This bill would provide some much-needed relief. It would help with the affordability challenges of Canadians and the food production challenges. It is time we listened to them.

I heard from a young man from a place called Hartfield. He said that farmers need relief and they need it fast. He cannot keep making ends meet. The cost of living has gone up so high, grocery costs are up and the cost of operations is up. Young Ivan is right. He needs relief.

Other business owners from across New Brunswick and across Canada need relief and need it fast. They do not need more empty promises. They do not need delay tactics. They do not need a captain of the vessel who is ignoring what is coming clearly from the lighthouse on shore. We need to adjust course quickly or we are going to hit the rocks economically. Getting this bill implemented is part of that. I hope the government will listen to us, put into action what has already been passed in this House and get the Senate to do the same.

I find that our greatest, most sacred responsibility is to listen to those who sent us here. They have given us a clarion call. It is a sacred responsibility. They are asking us to hear what they are saying, to implement it, and to stop ignoring and dismissing them. They may not have fancy degrees or titles. They may not occupy the spaces of the upper echelons of the intelligentsia class, but every day they carry a bucket to work. Every day they go out to their fields. Every day they work in their shops to employ people.

I believe it is time to do what is right by them and implement the changes they are demanding. I hope this House will do that, support this motion and make sure the message is sent to the Senate to pass the bill and get it into law.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my Conservative colleague for her comments today.

I admit that the members of the Bloc Québécois have mixed feelings. On the one hand, we are tempted to agree with what the Conservatives are saying about the Senate today, but on the other, we have a duty to defend the process that is under way.

I am fascinated to see that the Conservatives take a different view of the Senate's work depending on whether or not they agree with the bill it is studying. I remember when senators took the time they needed, and then some, before passing Bill C-11. We never heard anything from the Conservatives about how senators are unelected and had no business delaying a bill that way.

Today, I fail to understand the Conservatives' attempt to literally gag the Senate. We have mixed feelings about that.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts about this. What is the problem? Bill C-234 is at third reading in the Senate. That is how things are usually done. Now, the Conservatives are acting almost like Bloc members, denouncing these unelected members of the Senate who are making decisions that should be made by the House of Commons.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of this important motion, but boy do I wish we did not have to. I wish we did not have to defend the work of the elected chamber in the face of the unelected senators who are trying to overrule us.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

Personally, I have been following Bill C-234 since its inception, as well as its predecessor, Bill C-206, so I have the unique ability to provide a primer on what this bill would do, why it matters and how we came to the point of needing a motion in the House of Commons calling on the Senate to pass this bill.

At the farm level, a grain grower harvests his or her crop. They can choose to sell it immediately to an elevator or store it in a bin, the bins we see lined up around farmyards all across the country. Storing grain costs money, but one has the benefit of being able to market it at a later date at hopefully higher prices.

All types of commodities must be stored in a specific manner that protects the moisture level to avoid spoiling, rotting or sprouting inside the bin, which would reduce or eliminate the value of the commodity. If the moisture level is too high, a grain dryer must be used, powered by propane or natural gas, to produce the amount of heat and consistent flow to make sure the quality is maintained throughout winter months. These dryers are full of impressive technology to ensure maximum efficiency.

Despite the carbon tax being added on, the cost of the fuel is already quite expensive, on top of the cost of the dryer itself. I have had the chance to tour western grain dryers in my riding, in Elie, Manitoba, to see some of that technology first-hand. Farmers have been adopting these innovative technologies for years and years, and they should be applauded for it, not punished.

There are only two fuel options available to a grain farmer: propane or natural gas. Despite what is said by my colleagues across the way, who might live in some fantasy world with new ways to heat a grain dryer, they do not exist at any scalable commercial level whatsoever. All we are doing is punishing farmers for doing a practice they need to do to maintain the quality of their grain. Livestock producers are in the exact same boat. They need to maintain temperatures inside their barns to protect the health and welfare of their animals, and they rely on the same heat sources.

What Bill C-234 would do is exempt farmers from paying the carbon tax on propane and natural gas when used on farm. That is it. That is all it would do. It is a very narrow carve-out that would alleviate costs for farmers and help make Canadians' food cheaper.

The Liberals have decided, bizarrely, that this is the hill they are going to die on. This is the carbon tax sword they are willing to fall on. I can only assume it is because over the next seven years, this would mean $1 billion being left in the pockets of hard-working farmers. They firmly believe that is their money, that the government should be taking $1 billion out of farmers' pockets to do whatever it thinks is going to save the planet.

It is common sense to take the tax off these activities, and it is not just me saying this is a good idea. Five premiers have written open letters to the Senate calling on it to pass this legislation. All major ag groups, including the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which encompasses all major ag groups in Canada, are in strong support of this legislation. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have offered their support to the Senate to pass this bill unamended because it makes sense for farmers and makes sense for Canadians.

The carbon tax most definitely should, and soon will, be taken off all products in this country, but in the meantime, this is a pretty good place to start to help alleviate the cost of food for Canadians. Right now, we are forcing farmers to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to do what they absolutely need to do to produce our food, fuel and fibre.

Our farmers have an incredible sustainability track record and we should be proud of it. They regularly invest in new technologies, new equipment and new practices that make them more sustainable and improve their sustainability profile. The challenge is that when we take this much money out of their pockets, they are simply unable to reinvest capital into their own operations. Instead of buying new equipment that can more precisely apply crop protection products and fertilizer seed, they are forced to make a choice, saying they cannot do this, despite that action being the best way to reduce emissions on farm.

It is a prime example of when we talk about technology, not taxes. This is the difference. On the Conservative side, we believe the technology that farmers will readily and happily invest in if the government is not taking money out of their pockets will improve environmental outcomes at the individual farm level and therefore across the nation. The Liberals say, “No, we will tax them.” Is the carbon tax working in this case? No. However, they do not care and want to keep the taxes on because they need this revenue to fund their other pet projects.

This bill has been around since 2020, previously as Bill C-206 and now as Bill C-234. It is essentially the same bill. It has maintained support from all opposition parties in the House except for the Liberals. They just refuse to give in. They refuse to be adaptive. They refuse to be reasonable and recognize that when something is not working, we should probably change it, because it is harming farmers and Canadian consumers.

Instead, we have this stubborn, worn-out government grappling with the political fallout of its decision to climb down from the carbon tax on home heating for 3% of Canadians in certain parts of the country while leaving the rest of Canadians out in the cold. Now the Liberals are trying to figure out how to grapple with what would be another carve-out. It has been quietly making its way through the elected chamber and into the Senate, but all of a sudden, it is a big problem for the Liberals.

The Minister of Environment even admitted in the media that he had been calling senators. We have PMO staffers calling in favours with Liberal-appointed senators. I am fed up with hearing members across the way repeatedly state that the Senate is independent. Nobody in this chamber, nobody in the press gallery, no political nerd and no casual observer of politics believes for a second that somehow the Senate is independent of this party, when just a couple of weeks ago, it appointed a former Liberal MP. Just because they do not caucus together does not mean it is an independent Senate.

Our elected chamber has spoken. We have endorsed a common-sense carve-out on the carbon tax for our farmers. What has happened in the Senate? All of a sudden, at the agriculture and forestry committee, attention was far higher on this random PMB that has worked its way through. It was only enhanced after the Prime Minister decided to step back on the home heating carbon tax for certain Canadians.

Many amendments were proposed, one of which, due to a tie, was passed. It was brought forward at report stage to the larger chamber. The Senate rightly voted down that amendment, returning the legislation back to its original form, where it should stay and where it should pass as is.

Then somehow, out of the blue, at third reading in the Senate, the amendment that was already brought forward at the committee stage was tabled by a senator who seems to have no previous interaction with agriculture and no interaction with this committee. It just magically appeared, with no connection to politics whatsoever. This could not be about the Liberal government's climbdown on the carbon tax.

Nobody believes that the Liberals are not behind this. It does not add up, and the fact that they continue to hide behind this is just embarrassing. The fake outrage we see during question period and during this debate, as they try to keep a straight face when they say the Senate is independent, is just absurd.

That is where we are. In the Senate, Liberal-without-title senators are holding this bill hostage at the request of the Prime Minister. This elected chamber chose democratically to eliminate the carbon tax on our farmers, and the Senate is trying to overrule us. We should not be here debating this motion today. The Senate should be doing the right thing. We should never have had to spend a day in this chamber trying to tell the Senate to do the right thing. It is shameful that the Liberals are being so petty.

The tactics they are taking in the Senate are unheard of. Instead of being reasonable, the Liberals are digging their heels in because they are worried about their political fortunes if there is a second carbon tax carve-out. The Liberals need to realize that Canadians do not like the carbon tax. They do not see value in the carbon tax because life has become so unaffordable across every aspect of their lives. It is hard to justify seeing the government getting richer and Canadians getting poorer.

In the upcoming carbon tax election, Canadians will have a choice between quadrupling the carbon tax or axing the carbon tax. In the meantime, I implore my colleagues to support this motion urging the Senate to do the right thing and pass Bill C-234 unamended to give our farmers a break and Canadian consumers a break on their food prices.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois voted for Bill C‑234 because we are big believers in a just transition. We think it is important to support sectors that are disproportionately affected by climate change.

This morning, I met with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress. They are appalled by all the money this government is investing in oil companies and the western Canadian oil industry.

When it comes to sending a meaningful message about the just transition, what are my colleague's thoughts on the importance of funding programs that will really contribute to that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion of the Conservative Party.

I must admit that I was really surprised when the Conservatives put forward this particular motion. There are always a few opposition day motions put on the Notice Paper, and then the opposition will decide at the last minute which one they want to proceed with. When I reviewed the options, I have to be honest that this is the absolute last one I thought they would bring forward, given the context of what has been going with this particular bill. The motion calls on the Senate to immediately pass Bill C-234, but I thought they would not come anywhere near this issue because of what we have seen from Conservative members over the last couple of days and, indeed, week.

I really wish I could share a poster with members, but I respect the rules of the House. I realize that I am not allowed to use a prop, so I will not go so far as to show it, but I would like to describe it as I look at it. This is a poster made by the Conservative Party of Canada, which its members have been sharing in social media forums. It is meant to look like a wanted poster. The edges around the sides look at though they are burnt out. There are two pictures of two individuals on it with grainy pixelation. They have the individuals' names, in this case, the two senators, and then at the top it says “Call and ask these [Prime Minister's name] senators why they shut down debate on giving farmers a carbon tax carveout.”

The reason I find this so disrespectful is that, notwithstanding the fact that more developed out of that poster, which I will talk about momentarily, out of one side of their mouths, Conservatives are trying to somehow justify attacking senators to get results. On the other hand, we do not have to think that far back in the institutional memory of this place to remember when one of their own colleagues, Rona Ambrose, brought forward a bill intended to make sure that judges received sexual harassment training in this country. One would think that it would have been an easy bill to support, but their Conservative senators held that bill up in the Senate to the point it ended up being removed as a result of Parliament being dissolved.

I find it incredibly rich that we have this motion here today demanding that we get answers and that the Senate do something that the Conservatives want. Where was their outrage when it came to that really important piece of legislation that one of their own members, Rona Ambrose, tabled? She was a former minister and a former leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. Their senators would not even let that bill pass through.

As well, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Whitby.

I will go back to this particular call-out from the Conservatives in the form of a wanted poster, which is trying to generate phone calls and emails to these particular senators. Well, their plan worked. Now one of these senators, at least, is expressing extreme concern over the fact that she has been harassed and intimidated along with her staff. She has had to leave her home. I will read what she said about the matter. She said:

There has been much online chatter about my adjourning Bill C-234 last Thursday. I'm the deputy facilitator of the Independent Senators Group. I adjourn debate on numerous items every time the Senate sits—it's is my job and this adjournment is no different than any other.

She goes on to say:

I wasn't going to post about this because, as I said, there is no story here. However, in response to a...Twitter post that asked for calls to my office, a young female staff member received a phone call from a man threatening to show up at my house. This type of behaviour is unacceptable. It was fueled by social media posts, like that one, encouraging anger, and by the misinformation that has been circulating over the past week. I know the senators who posted this to [Twitter], and I recognize that it would not have been their intention to cause a stranger to show up at my house and put my safety at risk. More thought needs to be given to the dangerous effects of the angry public messaging targeted at others.

Conservative members and their senators targeted two female senators, which also affected one of their female staff members, as I indicated. I think it is also extremely perplexing that this is happening during the particular time period we are in right now, the 16 days of activism against violence against women. That is taking place this year between November 25 and December 10, yet we are getting this kind of action from Conservatives. It is absolutely despicable the way that they are engaging in activity that is certainly resulting in threatening and harassing forms of activity towards two senators. By the way, those two senators have never sat in a Liberal caucus. I have been here since 2015—

Carbon Pricing

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 71% of food bank users say their circumstances have become much worse after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government.

If the Prime Minister spoke to real Canadians lined up at food banks, he would know one cannot feed a family with AAA credit rating.

Will the Prime Minister stop blocking the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, so Canadian families can feed themselves?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all look forward to see what those high-carbon hypocrites come up with.

After eight years, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. The Hunger Report has said that food bank usage has gone up for seven years in a row.

The NDP and Liberals' carbon tax has hiked food prices and forced Canadians to skip meals or cut the basics. Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax for all, for good. However, a quick fix is Conservative Bill C-234, which would cut it from farm fuels.

Will the Prime Minister stop interfering with the senators and let them pass it so farmers can afford to feed Canadians and so Canadians can afford to eat?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know why the Prime Minister is blocking the carbon tax carve-out for Canadian farmers. It is because his environment minister has threatened to quit if Bill C-234 passes.

The environment minister does not care about Canadian farmers. He is jetting off to Dubai for two weeks. It is the middle of the day in Ottawa, but it is the middle of the night in Dubai.

Will the Prime Minister at least allow senators to pass a carbon tax carve-out while his minister is asleep in Dubai?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government is just not worth the cost.

Greenfield Global operates in Chatham, buying corn and converting it to a variety of alcohols, from pharmaceuticals to biofuels. It buys corn from Canadian farmers and from nearby American farmers, who do not pay the carbon tax on fertilizer, the delivery of seed, and the delivery and drying of their corn.

Could the Prime Minister explain what happens to Canadian farmers' bottom lines when they pay the carbon tax and have to compete with American farmers, who do not, in their own backyard? Why is he interfering with the so-called independent senators blocking Bill C-234?

Democratic Institutions

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the Constitution is clear. Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that any bill “for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons”. House of Commons Standing Order 80 is clear: A financial measure is not alterable by the Senate. The Liberals' attempt to block Bill C‑234 and bully senators is unconstitutional. It violates the Standing Orders of the House and is anti-democratic.

Will the Liberals stop their unconstitutional obstruction of Bill C‑234 and end the inflationary carbon taxes imposed on farmers so that people can eat this Christmas?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal senators are the ones preventing this bill from passing. After eight years, it is clear that this Prime Minister is in panic mode. He is downright desperate. Bill C‑234, which aims to exempt farmers from the carbon tax, is stalled in the Senate. The Prime Minister wants senators to overstep their role as unelected parliamentarians by literally asking them to kill this bill, which was properly passed by elected members of the House of Commons.

Why does he want to push unelected senators to disrespect both the Constitution and hungry Canadian families?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does not matter what the government thinks about Bill C-234. It does not matter what the Senate thinks about the bill, because taxation and spending are the exclusive right of this House, not the Senate. In our system, there is no taxation without representation. Section 53 of the Constitution says that all financial legislation must originate in this House. Standing Order 80 says that this House “alone grants aids and supplies”.

When will the Prime Minister direct his representative in the Senate to respect this democratic institution, the only democratic institution in this country, and pass the tax bill?

Carbon Pricing

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not worth the cost. It is costing all Canadians more and more. The Liberal carbon tax on farmers has a direct impact on food prices. I would like to remind members that people are struggling to put food on the table right now.

We, the Conservatives, have made a common-sense proposal to eliminate the Liberal carbon tax on food production. I am talking about Bill C-234, which is currently before the Senate. It does not happen every day, but the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Green Party agree with us on this. Only the sore losers disagree.

Why is the government now giving unelected senators the power to overturn the will of the House of Commons?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, farmers from across Canada are calling on Liberal-appointed senators to support a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, which would lower costs on farming and make food more affordable, but the Liberals' environment minister has threatened to resign if there are any carbon tax carve-outs. This is amazing when we have a record-shattering two million Canadians relying on food banks.

The environment minister's dedication to making life unaffordable is unwavering. Will the Prime Minister ask his environment minister to stop threatening so-called independent senators and allow the passage of Bill C-234, so Canadians can afford to feed themselves?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are against the carbon tax deal that the Liberals put before the House, and we are against quadrupling the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. The Prime Minister cannot defend his position, nor does he have the courage to just admit, as he did on home heating oil, that he was wrong. He plans to quadruple the tax on our farmers, who feed our people; this will send millions more people to the food bank.

Will the Prime Minister rise today and show the courage to admit he was wrong and back Conservative Bill C-234 to take the tax off our farmers, so our people can afford to eat? He should get up and answer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to dodge the question about the tax he plans to quadruple on Canadian farmers. One farm alone in my riding is spending $150,000 a year on carbon taxes, and the Prime Minister wants to quadruple that number, for up to $600,000. That might put the farm out of business, which would mean we would have to buy more foreign, expensive food from more polluting countries.

The Prime Minister is blocking a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, in the Senate that would take the tax off our farmers. Will he commit here and now to another carbon tax flip-flop and carve it out for our farmers, so our people can afford to eat?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has forced seven million Canadians to cut back on their diets, to a point where they are no longer healthy. The Prime Minister has forced Canadians to cut their budgets for food. Therefore. a record-smashing two million people are lined up at a food bank every month, around corners in ways that we have not seen since the Great Depression. That is the austerity he has imposed on Canadians. Now he wants to quadruple the carbon tax on the farmers who bring us our food.

We have a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234. Will the Prime Minister stop blocking this bill in the Senate and let it pass so that our farmers can produce food and our people can afford to eat it?

Carbon Tax

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling to afford food.

The Prime Minister's mini-budget shows no relief, and instead, the NDP-Liberal government is committed to quadrupling the carbon tax on gas, groceries and heating. As Canadians battle the rising cost of living, food banks face record demands. In Ontario alone, over 800,000 people accessed food banks, a 38% increase from the year before and the largest increase ever recorded by Ontario's food bank network.

Conservative Bill C-234 proposes a carbon tax carve-out for farmers. This measure would directly reduce food prices. The environment minister threatened to resign if Bill C-234 passes.

The Prime Minister should instruct his senators to pass this bill. It is a win-win: Canadians would get financial relief, and a minister who is in a different reality from struggling Canadians would step down. The government needs to finally help Canadians instead of its tax agenda.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this Prime Minister, it remains clear that there is no respect for decisions made in the House of Commons.

The common-sense bill, Bill C-234, creates a carbon tax exemption for Canadian farmers so they can continue to feed us. It was passed by a majority of elected members and is now in the Senate. However, Bill C‑234 is currently at an impasse.

The Prime Minister once again has the gall to force his senators to vote against the bill in the Senate. He needs to stop obstructing and interfering in the business of the Senate and let Bill C‑234 pass.

Conservatives have always stood up for Canadian farmers and will continue to be the voice of reason with common-sense bills like Bill C‑234.

It is time to pass this bill in the Senate so that farmers can continue to feed our families and agriculture can once again become the economic engine we need.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in last week's mini-budget, the Prime Minister doubled down on his plan to quadruple the carbon tax on gas, groceries and home heating. Does he understand that Canadians cannot afford his excessive tax grabs? Feed Ontario's “Hunger Report 2023” shows that over the past year, the number of people who have accessed food banks has increased by 38%, while visits have increased by 36%. These are the largest single-year increases ever recorded by Ontario's food bank network.

However, the Conservatives' Bill C-234 would create a carbon tax carve-out for hard-working Canadian farmers and would make food prices more affordable for Canadians. The Prime Minister's activist environment minister has promised to resign if this bill passes, which would be a welcome early Christmas gift for Canadians.

Will the Prime Minister tell his appointed senators to put Canadians before his environment minister and pass Bill C-234 so that Canadian families can afford to feed themselves?

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting the importance of getting Bill C-234 across the line. Could she once again explain to the members opposite how the carbon tax escalates the cost of food throughout the supply chain?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the NDP-Liberal coalition, I am sure we would not want to cast the sins of the father onto the son. The NDP leader would not want that to happen.

I was not around when this supposedly took place, but I appreciate the member's support for this motion. The member is an hon. member of the agriculture committee and I appreciate him being consistent in the application of his vote on third reading of Bill C-234 and this motion. I thank him for that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for heating buildings, grain drying and irrigation on farms. We are also talking about the role of the Senate in the parliamentary democracy of a two-house system.

My civics is a little rusty, but I do remember that the Senate does not have any ability for taxation because they are unelected. I cannot remember when the Senate has held up a taxation bill. My colleague from B.C. brought up a few bills, but I do not believe they were taxation bills.

First and foremost, we have to realize that what the Senate is doing right now is not within its purview. The Senate has no power of taxation because, as appointed senators, they are not accountable to their constituents. They are not elected every four years. One of the main points of democracy is taxation with representation. The Senate does not have the authority to hold up a taxation bill.

I wanted to get that on the record because the crux of the argument today is whether the Senate is doing what it is allowed to do. The other discussion is on how important Bill C-234 is and how quickly should we pass it.

My colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, has put on the record that he is the Conservative member who brought forward the private member's bill. I am very proud I was on the agriculture committee that talked about this bill, and we had the support of the committee to pass it on to the House for third reading.

The opposition came together and voted in favour. A majority of members from across the country, along with three Liberals, and I will not forget that, voted to move this bill forward to third reading because they knew it was important to Canadian farmers. That is what this comes down to.

Our leader put it very succinctly. One of his constituents is paying $10,000 a month in carbon tax. How can anyone be expected to run a business when the carbon tax is $10,000 a month? This has to be paid to the federal government on a taxation policy that does not do what it is supposed to do.

I am also very happy to say that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant member for Lethbridge.

Getting back to the $10,000 a month on carbon tax, no business can eat that kind of a bill. When the farmer who produces the food is taxed, and the trucker who ships the food is taxed, every Canadian who goes to the grocery store will be taxed. The fallacy the Liberals and NDP bring forward is that this is a rural and remote issue, hence the carve-out, for political reasons, in the Maritimes.

This is not a rural issue. It is not an urban issue. If people go to the grocery store to buy food for their family, it affects them each and every time. What we are trying to do in the House today is make the upper chamber realize, again, because we have already passed this bill, that this is an important bill to fight the ever-increasing cost of groceries across our country.

I am not sure that has sunk in for some of the members across the aisle. Maybe their chef has not told them that they have to pay extra for the food. Maybe they live in downtown areas and do not go to the grocery store often. I can say that my wife and I have to go grocery shopping, every now and then when I am home in time, and our grocery bills have continued to climb. We have talked to neighbours and friends, and people at the hockey rink, and they are feeling the pinch every day when trying to feed their families. We see mothers adding water to milk to make it go a little farther.

We see two million people in our country using a food bank every month. That is a staggering fact, and they are not just numbers. They are parents, grandparents and children. The majority of them are children. That is not the Canada I grew up in. It is not. It is not the Canada we want to leave for our children. It is something we need to have a very open discussion about.

Our leader, the member for Carleton, made it very clear that in two years we are going to have a carbon tax election. Canadians will be asking whether or not they want our common-sense Conservative approach, which would include axing the tax so people could afford groceries and getting spending under control to lower interest rates so people could afford to buy a home or pay rent.

Rents have doubled over the last long eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. Rents have doubled. Mortgages have doubled. It used to take 25 years to pay off a home in Canada, but now it takes 25 years to afford a down payment on a home in Canada. That has happened all in the last eight years under the Prime Minister and the Liberals' reckless spending.

This is where it comes back to the argument around Bill C-234. It is something that can be done immediately to lower the price of food for Canadians. It is something that can be done to ensure that our producers can continue to produce the world-class foods we have.

When $10,000 is taken out of the pockets of producers, they cannot invest in new farm technologies. They cannot invest in new fertilizer options or new machinery that would lower emissions. What we are doing right now is kneecapping our farmers so they cannot be innovative. It is not a slogan. Technologies over taxes is a way to lower our environmental emissions.

I am so proud to be from Saskatchewan. We have innovative policies in the agriculture sector, but we do not get credit for them. We have crop rotation. We have zero till. We have straight cut combines. We have precision agriculture. For example, when someone is adding fertilizer, it lowers and raises the rates depending on the field moisture. These are innovative technologies that have lowered emissions over the last 20 years. However, for some reason, the government has given no credit to those producers who have adopted this technology. I do not understand why.

The Liberals put a benchmark of 2018 as the year when people get credit for innovative farming practices. Why are we not praising all the Canadian agriculture producers who have being doing it right for the last 15 or 20 years? We can talk about some of the things we have done. The National Cattle Feeders' Association said it very well. It said:

Canada’s feedlot sector embraces innovative practices that support competitiveness and sustainability. To compete in an integrated North American market, cattle feeders carefully manage input costs including feed and fuel.

Feedlots rely on propane and natural gas for essential practices, including on-farm drying, steam flaking and barn heating. These are necessities on a feedlot to make sure they are producing the best opportunities for cattle to grow and have those gains for when they go to plants.

Why are we not promoting what we are doing on an international stage? The Liberals will always say the carbon tax is an environmental policy, not an economic policy. If the Liberals are so concerned about the environment, though they have not reached one target in the last eight years, why are we not taking Canadian agriculture to the world? Why do we go on the world stage, pretend it is a poor cousin and we are embarrassed about our agriculture sector?

Our ag minister should be going around the world saying how good our farming practices are here on Canadian soil, and promote that across the country and across the world. That is what we should be doing on the international stage, but we are not.

I asked the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge about the Liberal-appointed senators, because they are appointed by the Liberal Prime Minister. Why would they not vote in favour of this bill that would see all food prices in Canada lowered? It defies common sense.

When I talk to people in my riding and in my community in Regina, they talk about the cost of living. They talk about choosing between paying the heating bill, because it does get cold in Regina, and paying their mortgage. It is choosing between paying the heating bill or buying groceries they need for their kids to go to school with packed lunches. These are decisions in our country in 2023 that parents should not have to be making.

It is time we put this bill into practice, lower the price of food across our country, and use common-sense principles to bring home lower prices for my home and everyone's home. Let us bring it home for Canadians and pass this bill. Let us call on the senators to make sure it does happen.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the opposition is aware, Canadians across the country are facing more and more dramatic impacts from climate change, and farmers are on the front line of all the challenges. They deal with droughts, intense rainfalls, flooding and wildfires, which is very evident in my home province of British Columbia. At the same time, Canadians are struggling with sharp increases in the cost of living across the board, and they have charged us all with taking serious action on both of these issues.

I am here today to say that we can take and are taking action on both of these challenges. As we know, our government has put in place a comprehensive emissions reduction plan, the most comprehensive national climate plan ever implemented. I can say that every measure in this plan is designed with the following goals in mind: reducing carbon pollution to stop climate change, growing our economy and positioning Canada to be a leader on the clean technologies of the near future, as well as keeping life affordable for all Canadians.

A recent example of this is the new support we have put in place for moving from highly polluting oil heating to clean and efficient cold climate-adapted heat pumps, as well as the many other programs we already have in place. These are exciting programs that are making a real difference for households across the country, particularly low- and medium-income households.

I would like to take a few minutes to focus on carbon pollution pricing and how it has been systematically designed to keep life affordable for Canadians. Putting a price on carbon pollution has been a pillar of our climate policy since 2019. It sends a signal across the market that gives flexibility for households, businesses and organizations to choose when and how they will reduce pollution. This flexibility is the key to how pricing seeks out the lowest-cost, most effective ways to reduce pollution. It takes advantage of the collective intelligence of Canadians and Canadian businesses, which make thousands of individual decisions each day, based on the information that only they may have about the costs and benefits involved in their specific cases.

That is the power of market-based policies, and that is why economists across the world agree that carbon pollution pricing is smart, critical and a good policy. It is one of the most effective and lowest-cost tools we have to reduce emissions. It is also a policy, as has been said before, that has been designed from the ground up to protect our most vulnerable households. We take every dollar paid on pollution and return it to Canadians in the province or territory in which it was collected.

Where the federal fuel charge is in place and the federal government returns the proceeds directly, we return about 90% to households via quarterly climate action incentive payments. This is done in such provinces as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador. Because the climate action incentive is a flat amount based on the number of people in a household, these payments do not affect the powerful incentive of carbon pricing to encourage Canadians to choose cleaner alternatives. However, the payments protect the affordability of daily life. More than eight out of 10 households get back more than they pay, on average, and lower-income households benefit even more.

Where proceeds go back to the governments, such as in Yukon and Nunavut, they have their own programs that use the proceeds to protect against affordability impacts. We have demonstrated that we can take action on climate change and help keep life affordable.

Our approach also takes the realities of rural living into account. Every rural and remote resident gets a 10% top-up to their climate action incentive payment, and now we have announced this will double, to become a 20% top-up. The top-up makes sure that affordability is protected for rural households, which often face higher energy and transportation costs and may have fewer options to reduce their emissions in the short term. Doubling this top-up will protect those households even more.

Our government is very concerned about the impact of increased energy costs on household budgets, and we see how more households are struggling. However, as I hope I have made clear, putting a price on pollution is not what is causing the strain on household budgets. In fact, it can be part of the solution to this challenge. The climate action incentive payments actually mean there is less stress, rather than more, on lower- and medium-income households, since so many households get back more than what they pay at the pump or on gas bills.

When we stack the carbon price paid up against those four quarterly payments, people come out ahead. For example, a family of four will receive $986 this fiscal year in Ontario and $1,544 in Alberta, and rural households in each case will receive an additional 10%. Those payments happen ahead of time so householders will have the money in their accounts before they are paying the carbon price on energy bills. We can address climate change and affordability using the same well-designed policy.

I am sometimes asked how this works. If we collect the carbon price and then return all of the money back to households, how does it help us reduce pollution? The key is the way we return the proceeds. Because the payment is the same for all households, Canadians still get a benefit from reducing pollution. For example, after choosing cleaner vehicles, switching to a heat pump to heat their home or insulating their home, they would get the same payment regardless and come out ahead.

Canadian farmers are on the front lines of the fight against climate change and play a key role in the solutions. While Bill C-234's intent of supporting farmers in an increasingly uncertain landscape is laudable, the changes proposed are misguided. Our carbon-pricing system is already designed specifically with the competitiveness of farmers in mind. The vast majority of emissions on farms are not priced. This includes emissions from livestock, which are the majority of carbon pollution from the sector. Gasoline and diesel used in tractors and for farm machinery are also exempted, and greenhouse operators get 80% relief on the natural gas and propane they use for heating. Importantly, we have addressed the concerns raised by the sponsors of Bill C-234 by putting a refundable tax credit in place to address cost impacts of natural gas and propane use by other farmers.

Beyond this, farmers can also earn revenue from reducing emissions under a provincial and federal offset system. All of this is before considering the many funding programs also available for farmers who are taking action to reduce emissions. We remain committed to helping our farmers meet the world's need for food while safeguarding resources for future generations.

Carbon pricing is an important policy, but it is one of a whole suite of complementary policies we have put in place to address climate change. Some policies deal with specific sources of pollution, such as the historic phase-out of coal-fired power generation. Other policies work to accelerate innovation by funding research and development, and the deployment of new, cleaner technologies. Seizing the opportunity of the clean energy transition and protecting our children and grandchildren against the ravages of climate change requires an all-hands-on-deck approach.

These initiatives work hand in hand with our efforts to deal with the affordability crisis. Just like addressing climate change, keeping life affordable means taking comprehensive action. Our affordability plan has given Canadians $12.1 billion in new supports to help make life more affordable. From the Canada workers benefit in 2022 to our increase of the old age security pension, along with support for affordable day care and for lowering the cost of going to the dentist for lower-income households, we are helping Canadians with concrete steps. That is the kind of effective climate policy our government delivers: programs that are designed in lockstep with affordability policy and that support innovation at the same time. This is all within a comprehensive climate plan that is delivering the action Canadians demand.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's whole speech. He did not mention Bill C-234 or the Senate at all.

Very simply, over the last week, how many Liberal-appointed senators did the environment minister call to try to bully them and convince them to vote against this bill?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to do this to my colleague, and I do appreciate what he is trying to do here, which is to talk about anything other than Bill C-234 and its impacts on Canadian agriculture and the carbon tax farmers are paying. I would really appreciate it if, at some point in his 20-minute speech, he would at least hint at or even mention Bill C-234 and the fact that Liberal senators are doing all they can to block the legislation in the Senate. This motion today is about it that, and I would appreciate it if he would address it.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my suggestion remains. Canadian farmers, growers and ranchers are growing our economy. Bill C-234 is a vote for Canadian farmers, for rural communities, for sustaining farm practices and for food security. I think that answers the question.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. She made a long speech about the Senate respecting the decisions of the House of Commons. Would she be willing to repeat her speech in its entirety and present exactly the same message, but simply replace Bill C-234 with Bill C-282, which deals with supply management?

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to rise in this place and speak in favour of our opposition day motion to expand the pause on home heating to all forms of heating. The goal was to lower costs for Canadians as they prepare to heat their homes for the cold Canadian winter ahead.

Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the government continued in its staunch refusal to accept common-sense solutions being brought forward by opposition parties that would result in much-needed financial relief for struggling Canadians. However, today, we have another opposition day motion, and the House has another opportunity to do the right thing and vote in favour of our motion to help our farmers. The very straightforward motion reads as follows: “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.”

Allow me to give a bit of background. The private member's bill, sponsored by the member for Huron—Bruce, was sent over to the Senate in March of this year, with all parties in support of the legislation except the Liberals. Every single opposition party with status, in addition to the two Greens and two of the three independents, support the legislation. There is support from across the political spectrum, save for the one party that seems hell-bent on staking its political future on a deeply unpopular and deeply flawed carbon pricing scheme.

I would also like to point out that the legislation's support transcends jurisdiction too. Several premiers have taken the unusual step of throwing their support behind the legislation. Premier Ford said, “This legislation would help farmers in Ontario and across Canada by lowering their costs, which would help lower the grocery bills of hardworking families in need of extra support right now.” Farther down, he states, “While the federal government has finally admitted that the carbon tax is hurting families by pausing its tax on home heating oil, all Canadians deserve a break right now. This includes removing the carbon tax from all forms of home heating and passing Bill C-234 as soon as possible.”

One farmer in my riding wrote, “Grain drying and heating for livestock barns (for young livestock) has come a long ways in efficiency, but we have no alternatives. Heat pumps cannot be built large enough to be effective. Hopefully the Senate can move C-234 forward without further delaying a bill in which the Liberal government has used multiple unusual procedural tactics to stall.” I hear the same sentiments repeatedly, whether at a hockey game, a local event or in a grocery store in the riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

Given the unique nature of this opposition day motion, this speech is as much for our friends in the upper house as it is for Canadians at home. Recent media reports have indicated that flaring tempers and procedural games have reared their heads in the red chamber, and it has attracted the attention of the provinces. Premier Scott Moe of Saskatchewan touched on this unfortunate development. He writes:

The House of Commons recently took an important step in this direction by passing Bill C-234, which would exempt agricultural producers from paying the carbon tax on natural gas and propane used to dry grain and to heat and cool farm buildings like barns and greenhouses. This would reduce the cost of food production, which in turn would reduce the cost of groceries for Canadian families. I commend all MPs who voted for this bill for taking this important step to reduce the cost of living for the people they represent.

It is extremely concerning that the Senate now appears to be blocking the passage of this bill, which was passed by our elected MPs. While Senators are not elected, you are appointed to represent the residents of your province who are struggling with high grocery costs. It is unacceptable that the Senate would stand in the way of providing Canadians with a break on grocery costs by blocking this carbon tax exemption, which has been approved by the House of Commons.

Similarly, Premier Higgs of New Brunswick wrote, “I urge you to support passage of Bill C-234, An Act To Amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which is now before the Senate. This legislation would remove the carbon tax from fuels used by farmers in the production of their crops, which would have a beneficial impact on the price of food.”

The neighbouring premier, in Nova Scotia, Tim Houston, also wrote in support of Bill C-234:

The carbon tax has a significant impact on the Nova Scotian agricultural sector. For example, it will cost an average poultry producer an estimated $400 in propane and $1,300 for heating in 2023 (pre-exemption) and $2,900 in 2030.

Farmers across our country are struggling to deal with the impact of the carbon tax on their activities. The pain is also being felt by ordinary Nova Scotians and Canadians with out-of-control food inflation forcing citizens to skip meals or choose between rent or groceries. Food is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Bill C-234 will save farmers close to $1 billion by 2030 and bring desperately needed relief both to farmers and consumers.

There is another point I would like to touch on, which was raised by the member for Carleton earlier today: the capacity of Parliament, more specifically, the House of Commons, to raise monies. The long struggle that this legislature and its predecessors have gone through is to secure our ultimate and most basic function: to oversee the expenditure of public monies. This was not achieved without the shedding of blood. Lord Durham, sent to investigate the rebellions taking place in Upper Canada and Lower Canada, wrote:

The Assembly, after it had obtained entire control over the public revenues, still found itself deprived of all voice in the choice or even designation of the persons in whose administration of affairs it could feel confidence.

It is difficult to conceive what could have been their theory of government who imagined that in any colony of England a body invested with the name and character of a representative Assembly, could be deprived of any of those powers which, in the opinion of Englishmen, are inherent in a popular legislature.

In short, only the House of Commons may propose the expenditure of public funds. The House has been extremely clear in our intention: We want the legislation passed. I urge the senators who are opposed to the legislation to take phone calls from their constituents, to listen to small businesses in their provinces and to listen with empathy to what struggling Canadians have to say. If they are truly willing to stand against a piece of legislation that received support from across the political aisle, except for the party that appointed most of them, they are going to have to explain their reasoning, and it is not a very good look. They are going to have to justify the actions of an institution that is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought, not of blind political ideology. We already know the government is fanatically devoted to its carbon tax. I hope its political appointees in the Senate can come to some common sense.

It is imperative that all parliamentarians, elected or not, respect the will and the voice of Canadians, and about Bill C-234, Canadians and their elected representatives have been exceedingly clear. They want the legislation and need this legislation, and they needed it yesterday. It has been sitting on the dockets of both houses for nearly two years. Thankfully, it is in the final stage of the process. I look forward to seeing the legislation come into force so the wallets of our farmers and of Canadians at large can finally get some relief.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to put on the record that, while I would like to take the credit my colleague just gave me for Bill C-234, I think he meant the member for Portage—Lisgar, because he wrote the legislation. I do support it wholly and just want to commend him for his thanks to the colleagues for their work on the bill.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

With regard to Bill C-234, I would like to recognize a couple of people, the first being the member for Brandon—Souris. Before he was elected, he worked in the private sector. He was one of the people who gave the idea for the beginnings of this bill in the last Parliament to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, which was Bill C-206, which, at that time, talked about taking the carbon tax off the drying of grains.

With Bill C-234, we look to, as we always do in life or in legislation, trying to make it better. We included the heating of livestock barns and buildings used to grow food, such as mushrooms that we see at grocery stores.

I wanted to recognize those individuals, as well as the Conservative agriculture critic. He has done a great job and was a big advocate after the last election to include this.

Like I said, these are the basics of the bill. At a time when farmers are seeing increased costs due to inflation everywhere they look, this bill is very timely. Over the last two years, farmers have seen a tremendous increase in the cost of purchasing farm machinery, such as tractors. Some of the costs have skyrocketed, including the cost of carrying debt, such as mortgages on farms. For a lot of farmers, a portion of it is fixed and a portion of it is variable. They may also carry operating lines of credit, maybe for inputs or livestock, whatever it may be at the time. All these things have become more expensive, in large part, due to government spending. The amount of debt, inflation and printing money have caused this. Farmers have borne a terrible amount of the brunt on this.

In addition to that, a couple of years ago, we will remember how much the cost of fertilizer increased for farmers, even when some farmers had prepaid. In the previous fiscal year, farmers had prepaid, only to find out they had to pay more when it came time to put the fertilizer on their land. They have had some really challenging times, but they are still committed to being farmers and they are still committed to feeding Canadians. Canadian farmers, as we know, help feed the world many times over.

That is why this bill happens to be the right bill at the right time. It has been almost two years since I introduced this bill in the House of Commons. It will, hopefully, be voted on tonight or in the near future.

Farmers need a break. We have heard in question period, statements and speeches what farmers are facing with the carbon tax. The other thing that is frightening to farmers is they know this is not the end of it. They know that on April 1 every year, the carbon tax will go up until 2030, to the point where, in many cases, the profit margin will no longer be there at all for small farmers. They will have to make a decision whether to carry on or what to do.

That is why this bill is so timely and it is so important for the Senate to make a decision on it. I am open to whatever way the Senate votes. If it votes it up or down, I can live with either result, but what I find unfortunate is that there are some games being played. I do not mind if a committee takes the time to study it, which it did. I appeared at committee and it was a great honour. However, when amendments are put forward after virtually the same amendments were voted on at report stage and defeated, it does resemble a bit of a game, which is unfortunate.

The people having the games played on them are Canadian farmers. It is not me or the members of Parliament in this House of Commons who suffer. It is Canadian farmers who suffer.

There is another thing that really hits home. I hear it every weekend when I am at community events at home. I see the farmers in my area, when I drive up and down the county roads. They are still taking their corn off. The corn that is being taken off on November 28 needs to be dried. That is the reality. That uses propane and natural gas. Had the Senate dealt with this bill in the spring, farmers drying their crops today would not be paying the carbon tax. Farmers heating their broiler barns, their turkey barns, their layer barns and their hog barns would not be paying the carbon tax.

People have come up to me, and I imagine they are of all political stripes, and they cannot believe that this bill has not been passed. They understand. As many members have talked about today, this is not the only place it has touched the price of food. It is passed along many times. One pork farmer in my riding told me that the fuel surcharge, just the surcharge, for him to ship his 20,000 hogs a year to the processing plant, was $20,000.

In the big scheme of a significant operation, it is not going to put the fellow out of business, but it is $20,000. That is $20,000 he could have put into his operation. That is $20,000 he could have put on his line of credit or paid down his debt.

There is a pork farmer in my riding whose carbon tax bill in the month of March 2023 was $3,500. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who sits right beside me, talked about one yesterday. It was $1,500 a month. The leader of the Conservative Party has a mushroom grower in his riding who pays $10,000, $11,000, $12,000 a month. Farmers cannot afford this any longer. They need Canadian lawmakers, senators and members of the House of Commons to make a decision and move forward on this.

The other key point is that when it becomes more cost-effective, cheaper, for grocery stores and retailers to buy food, vegetables or whatever, from Mexico, California or Colorado, put it in a transport truck and ship it for five days to Ontario, where I live, there is something wrong with the cost structure in Canada and in my province of Ontario. Carbon tax is one of them.

We need to address this. It should not be political. One of the most important things a country can do, in addition to defending its citizens, is be able to feed its citizens, to have enough adequate food and nutrition to feed its citizens. We have had a lot of discussion about food banks, but the very idea of having a sustainable food production system, a full cycle in our country is one of the most important things.

In the last eight years, we have seen an erosion in food sovereignty in Canada. A number of processing plants have closed because of cost and mismanagement at the government level on trade. There are all sorts of issues on that. It is very important.

The last thing I will say is that we can drive up and down the rural roads and see people we have known pretty much our entire lives, people who have worked hard around the clock. They can be seen out at 11 o'clock at night combining their corn, harvesting their corn. We know they are doing it for Canadians. They like to make a little money, but it is a passion, a livelihood. It is their life.

We have to make sure that we get this right. We have to make sure that we take the carbon tax off and make it affordable for the consumer, make it right for the environment and make it right for the farmer.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his speech. I appreciated almost all of it, except the part where he said the NDP was the only party that has supported the abolition of the Senate. I would like to remind him that this is also the position of the Bloc Québécois.

On this matter, our decisions are predictable. This allows the people who vote for us to know why they vote for us and to anticipate the decisions we will make in the House. I find it a bit sad that the Conservatives' decisions depend on what will serve their ends in the moment.

Consider Bill C-234, but also Bill C-282, which was passed by the House to protect supply management. The Conservatives are doing exactly what they are now scolding senators for doing, namely slowing down the passage of a bill. The only thing the Conservatives are consistent about is that if they can insert the words “carbon tax” somewhere, they will use it as an excuse to vote against something. This makes for some particularly bizarre decisions, like their decision to vote against the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

I would like to hear from my colleague as to whether he thinks this lax approach, this cherry picking, is disappointing for the public, because it does not give voters a sense of where the Conservative Party is generally headed.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

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?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member for Jonquière spent a lot of time not talking about this morning's motion in which we call on the Senate to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible. I was told that this bill does not apply to Quebec. I am going to try again and ask my colleague from Jonquière to check and see what is happening in his riding. If he has the opportunity to speak to farmers who use propane and natural gas to heat their buildings, I would ask him to check with them to see whether there is an additional amount on their bills.

The carbon tax also applies indirectly, because not everything we grow and eat in Quebec comes from Quebec. It is therefore really important to eliminate this tax and to get Bill C‑234 passed as quickly as possible. I hope we can all agree on that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was rather funny to see my whip “whip” the House leader of the official opposition. What a thing to see.

First of all, defending an argument does not mean bullying someone; debating does not mean spreading disinformation; sharing political views is never to be done by pitting people against each other.

I say that because I get the impression that, more and more, the danger I have seen lurking in Canadian politics is becoming all too real. It is the use of polarizing strategies like we have seen in the United States. Far too often the purpose is to disinform and intimidate, strategies that replace reflection and democratic dialogue. I get the feeling that is what we are facing today with the Conservatives' motion.

Essentially, if people have watched the events of the last few days with Bill C‑234, what the Conservatives are saying is that not only are they not too shy to heckle, but they are moving a motion to show us that they will keep heckling and that is what they want to do.

I will not reiterate what my whip said earlier in her speech. Unfortunately, we all know that the leader of the official opposition and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle posted some nasty tweets about two senators to encourage people to intimidate them. My colleague explained it in detail earlier. A Conservative senator had to apologize for saying ridiculous things. We know all that.

We are seeing more and more examples of the Conservatives' intimidation and disinformation strategy. It all seems to come down to one thing for the Conservatives: their fixation on the carbon tax. The Conservatives have a passionate love affair with oil, which makes the carbon tax a cardinal sin in their eyes. This is version one million of my opposition day carbon tax speech. This has got to be the millionth time I am giving a speech on this topic. It is the Conservative obsession. It is a constant.

Speaking of disinformation, In recent days and weeks, we have seen the Conservatives vigorously defend the notion that the carbon tax applies in Quebec, even during oral question period. There is no credible political player in Quebec who would say the carbon tax applies in Quebec.

Furthermore, during oral question period, I recall seeing the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis, brandish a sheet of paper, insisting that the infamous carbon tax existed and that she had an invoice. Afterward, we clearly saw that the invoice referred to the Quebec carbon exchange. There are people in Quebec who would say this kind of behaviour is illegal. The oddest part is that the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis was herself a minister in the Quebec government when the carbon exchange was implemented. This is part of the disinformation, much like the many false ads we have seen, that is, the carbon tax ads that often play in Quebec and that everyone ignores. This is part of this disinformation approach.

They scraped the bottom of the barrel this week, when the leader of the official opposition refused to clearly say, when he spoke of a terrorist attack, that he was likely citing one of his favourite media sources, Fox News. He accused CTV and scolded journalists, saying it was their fault, that CTV was confused, not him. He will not even admit to his own mistakes. Not to belabour the point, but let us recall the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, where they used the carbon tax as an excuse, saying they voted against the agreement because of the carbon tax.

I believe this only proves that the leader of the official opposition—I will not be overly harsh—is not prime minister material. A good chief and leader usually brings out the best in others. They inspire people to excel and, most importantly, follow one of the basic tenets of politics, which is to never mix lies into political discourse—a truth that should apply to everyone—and to never get careless with the truth.

What we have been seeing for the past several weeks is a leader of the official opposition who plays fast and loose with the truth. Then, if anyone disagrees with him and resists his lies, he bullies them.

I will say it: People have talked to us about this. Alarm bells are ringing about how the member for Carleton operates, and those warnings are coming from none other than the Quebec Conservatives. Keep in mind that, during the Conservative leadership race, seven out of ten MPs from Quebec did not support Mr. Poilievre, sorry, the leader of the official opposition and MP for Carleton. Why did they not support him?

There were some rather puzzling quotes. I am talking, for one, about the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He said that Jean Charest, who was a candidate in that race, was likely the godfather of the Liberal family. He was even ordered to retract his statement. He also described Mr. Charest as one of the most corrupt politicians in Quebec. That said, he preferred to support Mr. Charest over Mr. Poilievre. One wonders why. I—

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me another opportunity to provide a few details.

We supported Bill C‑234 because we understand that farmers in other provinces need support to help them make the transition and therefore be exempt from the carbon tax for eight years. However, this does not apply in Quebec because there is no carbon tax, so Quebec farmers will not see a carbon tax on the propane they use to dry their grain on their bills, as a certain member has claimed.

Still, I understand that all farmers currently have needs, especially vegetable producers, who have had an extremely difficult year, the toughest year in quite some time. People are beginning to realize that the government has not been there to respond to emergencies.

I would urge my feisty colleague to convince his friends to support farmers who need help getting through the current crisis.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague clearly state whether or not that applies to Quebec.

I am asking him again to clearly tell the House whether the carbon tax applies to Quebec, as claimed in the disinformation campaign by Conservative members from Quebec who have the audacity to rise in the House. I do not think they are very interested in talking about the Conservative government's record under Harper, which cut $200 million intended for farmers. That affected Quebec producers.

I am therefore asking my Bloc Québécois colleague again: does Bill C‑234 apply to Quebec?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about her previous comments.

The Bloc is saying that the tax addressed in Bill C-234 does not apply in Quebec, but I think that is false. My colleague should look into it for herself. Just last weekend, I met with both chicken and pork producers again. Young piglets need heat, heating in the barns.

Could my colleague please explain and prove to me that this does not apply in Quebec?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this Conservative opposition day. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful and handsome colleague from Jonquière.

First I would like to say something to the Conservatives, who may want to make a meme about my speech. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑234, and all parties voted unanimously in favour of it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will talk about it a little later, but it is important to clarify this from the start.

Today, I want to talk about something I experienced, to give context to the Conservatives' motion that we have been discussing and debating since this morning. Today we are watching a finely orchestrated scene of intimidation. It makes no sense. There are women from all parties sitting here in the House, and I do not understand how the Conservative Party can deliberately orchestrate an intimidation campaign targeting two women senators over Bill C‑234.

These two senators have been named and are doing their job. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois could do without the Senate, but today these two senators are here and the Senate is sitting. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are senators. The fact is they are here, they have a role to play and they are being deliberately intimidated. We are talking about senators Bernadette Clement and Chantal Petitclerc. As we know, Ms. Petitclerc is a Paralympic athlete, an admirable woman and role model in our society. The same applies to Ms. Clement, whom I have met. She is the former mayor of Cornwall. She and I shared the responsibility for maintaining relations with indigenous people from the Akwesasne reserve. These two inspiring role models are being deliberately intimidated.

What surprises me most is that this came from a Conservative member who, frankly, I respect. I am surprised to see that it is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who launched this intimidation campaign by tweeting photos of Ms. Clement and Ms. Petitclerc. As we know, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is the House leader of the official opposition. I believe that whoever holds such a position should exercise it with a sense of propriety. They cannot engage in petty politics, resorting to intimidation to coerce two women senators, as he did. He published two photos on the social network X, one of Senator Clement and the other of Senator Petitclerc. Frankly, I may not be the most creative person on earth, but it did not take much imagination to see these two pictures looked like mugshots, such as those one might see on wanted posters in a western.

The two women received many threats. They received so many threats that Senator Clement, on recommendation by security personnel, even had to leave her home and family to take refuge in her official apartment in Ottawa, a much more secure place than her home.

How can we, in 2023, accept the use of such partisan politics—indeed dirty politics, a term I rarely use—to attack individuals and their private life?

The member for La Prairie and I have also been victims of such nasty intimidation, and I can say that what we experienced at the time was serious. Our children, partners and family were all involved. What the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did is unacceptable. If the Conservatives think the Bloc Québécois will play their game and support a motion that encourages the intimidation of two women, they are wrong. We have no intention of playing that role. I understand the Conservatives are on a quest, that they feel like kings in waiting, but I will tell them quite frankly, if they think they will appeal to Quebeckers with such tactics, they are wrong. They do not understand Quebeckers at all.

In Quebec, we do not like people who viciously attack others, who bully them and who put so much undue pressure on them that it affects their personal and family lives. In the case of Ms. Petitclerc and Ms. Clement, I would even say it is affecting their professional lives. How would any of us feel coming to work, knowing that tons of people are writing to us? I, for one, know how it feels. The member for La Prairie and I received hundreds, if not thousands, of hateful emails. Do my colleagues know why I received them? It was because I stood up in the House and asked the Chair to reprimand a member who had done something serious. I wanted an apology. The Chair thought I was right and asked the member to apologize. He never did apologize, but that is not the point. The point is that my personal life, and the life of the member for La Prairie, were severely affected. I went through sleepless nights because my children were getting death threats. That is serious. If the Conservative Party hopes to govern Canada in the near future, it should know that this is not the type of thing that will inspire Quebeckers to trust it. Quebeckers abhor bullies. They abhor people who deliberately set out to hurt other people on a personal level. This seems like a ploy borrowed from the Americans, and that is not who we are.

In addition to bullying, the Conservatives are moving a motion with a false premise. Its content supports some highly questionable tactics. With this motion, they are trying to make us believe that Bill C-234 will eliminate the carbon tax. It does not eliminate the carbon tax. It extends the exemption for farmers who use propane to dry their grain by eight years. I will say it straight off: There is no carbon tax in Quebec. Bill C‑234 has no effect on Quebec farmers.

If Quebec Conservatives are listening to us, maybe this will make them want to work for our farmers and say that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Again, passing Bill C‑234 will have no effect on Quebec farmers. If Conservatives want to work for Quebec, the Conservatives in the Senate should get a move on and work to pass Bill C-282, which does affect Quebec. It affects dairy farmers, poultry farmers, all farmers under supply management.

That would really be working for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to stand up to bullies and fight for Quebec's interests.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member for Kingston and the Islands, of all people, is bringing this up. Members should take a look at his Twitter feed. It is the epitome of hypocrisy that the member is raising this.

Of course, I do not agree with any member of the House or of the Senate being threatened. However, the Senate is receiving tens of thousands of phone calls and emails, through its information that is publicly available, from farmers and Canadians across this country asking senators to do the right thing and pass Bill C-234.

What is happening in the Senate is that it is trying to bring in amendments that have been turned down in the House of Commons and at the committee. There is no alternative for Canadian farmers to power grain dryers and their barns.

I agree that no one should be threatened or intimidated, but the Senate is being held accountable for the decisions it has made.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, every single Canadian wants one thing in life, or one thing among several in life, which is to have nutritious, sustainable and affordable food produced right here in Canada. However, the Prime Minister's carbon tax coalition with the NDP is making that almost impossible for Canadian farmers and for Canadian consumers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear that Bill C-234, which we are trying to pass through the Senate, would save Canadian farmers close to $1 billion by 2030. These are not insignificant costs we are talking about that Canadian farmers are trying to absorb. We are seeing farmers struggle with higher input costs, higher interest rates and the paying of the carbon tax again and again.

This is reality, but there are consequences to this reality, which seem to be lost on the Liberal government. There are 800,000 Ontarians who made close to six million visits to the food bank last year, which is an increase of almost 40%. This is the highest single-year increase ever recorded. They cannot afford to feed their families.

The Liberals will say, every single question period, that all the Conservatives are going to do is cut. The cutting that is happening right now is Canadian families cutting meals for their kids and Canadian families cutting the heat down at night and putting on a sweater or a blanket because they cannot afford to heat their homes. These are the cuts happening every single day by Canadians, who are having to face extremely difficult choice of either feeding their family or heating their home. These are not choices that should have to be made in a country like Canada, but that is exactly what an ideological activist agenda by the Liberal-NDP government is forcing Canadians to do.

We have a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, that would help reduce costs for farmers and make food more affordable for Canadians, but the Liberal government is going out of its way to bully senators to block Bill C-234. This is disrespectful to this House of Commons, which is elected by the people to represent our constituents. This House, by a very strong majority, and in fact by every single opposition party in this House, supported Bill C-234. This is because every opposition party in this House understands the importance of Canadian agriculture. Every member of the official opposition understands the importance of ensuring Canadians have affordable food to put on their table, produced right here in Canada by Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers.

What we are seeing is the Liberals play games with the Senate, disrespecting, as I said, the decisions made by this House of Commons. My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has talked a great deal about the fact that this is a taxation bill that was passed by this House. The Senate does not have the jurisdiction or the authority to override a taxation bill decided upon by the House of Commons, and yet that is exactly what is happening. The Senate is playing games with the livelihoods of Canadian farmers. It is playing games with the lives of Canadian families who are struggling to put food on the table. Food should not be a luxury and it should certainly not be a plaything in the political gamesmanship of the Liberal government.

I want to take a moment to talk about the real-life consequences this is having on Canadian farmers. I had a phone call from a dairy farmer two weeks ago who was basically in tears. She has come to the conclusion that she is going to lose her farm by Christmas to bankruptcy. She has a number of loans on her farm, as every single farmer does. They have lots of assets but a lot of debt. Her interest rate on her debt went from 1.9% to 7.2%. She can no longer afford the interest payments. On top of that, her carbon tax and fuel bills have doubled over the last year, making it impossible for her to maintain her operation. This is yet another lost farm for Canadian farmers. It is lost jobs, but also lost production and lost yields.

A mushroom farmer from Ontario sent me a note. His carbon tax went up last year and he was going to be paying $173,000 in carbon taxes alone. When it goes up in 2030, his carbon tax bill will be $450,000 a year. How is that economically sustainable? I will tell us. It is not.

The government talks about environmental sustainability all the time, but it never talks about economic viability, which is the most important element. One cannot be environmentally sustainable if one no longer exists.

The note said, “It is difficult to see how our farm or any farm will remain in business if this continues. It will be unsustainable for our next generation to take on our farms, killing the food chain within Canada. This is not fair to farmers, families or the farming generations to come. It is not fair to Canadian consumers who want to eat food grown in Canada, which has a lower carbon footprint.”

Another letter from a poultry farmer in Alberta states that, last year, he paid $120,000 in carbon taxes. This year, he is paying $180,000. By 2030, his carbon tax bills will be $480,000 a year. He said, “We are a chicken business and just simply can't afford the crippling carbon tax. If this is allowed to continue and go to $170 a tonne, we will need to shut down. The tax we pay is not going to do anything to eliminate carbon emissions. Our best hope is that we increase our selling price to the consumer to recover these costs, which is the last thing you or I want to see in these inflationary times.”

We are seeing record-high food inflation in Canada as a result of farmers paying the carbon tax again and again. Not only do they pay it when they are heating and cooling their barns or drying their grain, but they are also paying it when they buy fertilizer, seed and chemicals. They are paying it again when they transport their grain or their cattle and when the rail line sends them their bill for moving their grain to port.

There are very few other industries that I can think of that pay the carbon tax more then Canadian farmers, yet they are dedicated to the job that they do and always finding better ways and new innovations to reduce their emissions. However, that is not taken into consideration whatsoever with bills that are being blocked by the Liberals.

A veteran retired from the military and moved to Saskatchewan. He said that, in 2020, his fuel bill was $7,000. In 2021, it was $9,000. In 2022, it is now $12,000. He said, “The weird part is that I drive my machinery the same amount and the same number of hours each year.”

His land is the same size, which means taxes are making up the difference in costs. “I am only farming a half-section, and I am farming organically. If I didn't, I would be broke by now.”

These are stories that we are getting in our office every single day. These are the real-life consequences of the carbon tax and the impact it is having on farmers. This is then increasing the cost of food, and Canadians are having to deal with that every single day.

When one increases the cost and carbon tax on the farmers who are growing the food, the truckers who are moving the food, the processors who are manufacturing the food and the retailers who are selling the food, do we know what happens? Food becomes unaffordable for the Canadian consumer. That is why we are seeing one in five Canadians skipping meals and record-breaking numbers at food banks.

This is not lost across Canada. We have letters from five premiers who are asking the Senate to pass this bill. Premiers across Canada understand the importance of this legislation. Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are begging the Senate to do its job, respect the will of the House of Commons and pass this legislation.

However, we have the Prime Minister's environment minister threatening to resign if this bill is passed. He says there will be no more carbon tax carve-outs. This comes days after the Prime Minister already admitted that his carbon tax is unaffordable and had a carve-out for home heating oil.

This is clearly common-sense legislation. It will make food more affordable. The most important thing is that Canadians want nutritious, sustainable, affordable food produced by Canadian farmers. Bill C-234 will make that a reality.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

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.

Madam Speaker, why is it that the House of Commons is green? The answer is that the first commoners met in the fields. They were overwhelmingly farmers who harvested a living from the fields of England. They were overwhelmingly taxed, though, by a greedy Crown that took out of their pockets and out of their hands the bread they had earned. As a result, they imposed upon King John, in 1215, the Magna Carta, the great charter, which required a whole series of restrictions on the power of the Crown. Among the most important of these was that the Crown could not tax what the commoners had not approved. Thus began the tradition that only the House of Commons can pass a bill to raise spending or taxes and only the House of Commons has the power of the purse.

That principle remains in place today. I have the rule book, O'Brien and Bosc, which the Speaker follows in his chair as he administers this chamber. It says, “The Constitution Act, 1867 provided that any bill appropriating any part of the public revenue or imposing a tax or duty must originate in the House of Commons”, with the commoners. It follows that the same principle be that if the commons votes to remove a tax, that tax must be removed.

This House of Commons has voted for a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, to take the carbon tax off the farmers who feed us. The farmers who feed us, of course, need energy to do so. They need the ability to power their drying machines to transport their grains and heat and cool their barns for their animals, all of which requires energy. The more tax the government imposes on that energy, the more expensive it is for them to produce the food we eat. Thus we have the misery and poverty that have resulted today in the same way they always have whenever the Crown, or in this case the state and the Prime Minister, takes too much.

We see what has happened. The government is rich and the people are poor. After eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP government, there is record food bank use. This week we learned that under NDP policies imposed through the Prime Minister, 800,000 people in Ontario alone visited a food bank six million times. This is a record-smashing number. Nationwide, two million Canadians are going to a food bank. This is a 32% increase from when the Prime Minister took office.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled, rent has doubled, mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled and tent cities have formed in every major city in this country. In Halifax, in the province of the federal housing minister, there are now 30 homeless encampments. This is in one city. We never had this before the Prime Minister.

What is his response? He divides to distract. He turns Canadian against Canadian. He gives out taxpayer-funded opioids to medicate people out of their misery. Later next year, he intends to bring in medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill so that people who are living with the total misery and isolation that his economy has created can have their lives ended altogether. We could not even have imagined that life would be this hellish for our people eight years ago.

What is his solution now? He wants to quadruple the carbon tax. He wants to raise it to 61¢ a litre on gas and diesel. Obviously this will make it unaffordable for people to drive to work and heat their homes. However, then there are the indirect costs, because when we tax the energy of the farmer who makes the food and the trucker who ships the food, we tax all who buy the food.

Let me give an example. In my riding we have Carleton Mushroom Farms. They supply mushrooms across the Ottawa-Carleton region and into western Quebec. They are spending $150,000 a year on carbon taxes, and now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple that tax. We can presume that their tax bill would go up to $600,000 a year for one farm. How is that farm supposed to feed people? The answer is that it will become mathematically impossible to do so. As the member for Foothills will tell the House, as I am splitting my time with him, we will see more of our food produced by foreign farmers in countries with poorer environmental standards.

This is the famous story of SunTech tomatoes, another great farm in my riding where the Prime Minister taxes the C02 they release into their greenhouse even though it is absorbed by the plant life. Apparently, he missed that day in science class. The problem is that it is now more expensive to buy a Manotick tomato in Manotick than a Mexican tomato. Therefore, the price signal the Prime Minister and the NDP send to the Manotick consumers is to buy the tomato that had to be trucked and trained across North America, burning fossil fuels from a less environmentally responsible country, to feed foreign food to our people.

This policy of quadrupling the tax on our farmers will mean more expensive food for consumers and more foreign food that sends our money, our jobs and our future out of this country, at the same time as sending more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We would be better to repatriate food production to Canada. We have the sixth biggest supply of arable land per capita in the world. We should not have to import any food, but here we are, more dependent on the rest of the world because the Prime Minister punishes the very farmers who try to feed us every day.

This tax compounds again and again. It is a tax that does not apply once like, for example, the sales tax. Sometimes on a single product, it can apply 20 or 30 times. It applies, for example, when the farmer buys the fertilizer. That fertilizer has already been carbon taxed. Then he has to bring the seeds to his field. The transportation of those seeds has to be carbon taxed. When the harvest comes out and he brings it in from the field, he has to be carbon taxed to dry those grains. Then, if it he is feeding those grains to his livestock, they might be in a barn. That barn has to be heated during the winter and so the barn is carbon taxed. Let us say they are hogs. When they are slaughtered, the slaughterhouse is carbon taxed. The trucker who ships the hogs to the slaughterhouse is carbon taxed. Then when the final cuts of pork are packaged and put in a truck to go to our grocery store, that truck is carbon taxed. Then heating that grocery store, which has a lot of space to heat, that heat is carbon taxed as well. By the time that piece of food gets onto someone's plate, it may have been carbon taxed 15 or 20 times.

People wonder why we have had the worst food inflation in 40 years after eight years of the Prime Minister. They wonder why food is so much more expensive in Canada than it is in the United States of America. They wonder why seven million people are skipping meals and not eating enough to remain healthy. They wonder why we have lineups around streets, around blocks; if the images were put in grainy black and white, they would assume they were watching something out of the dirty thirties. The answer is the Prime Minister is taxing the farmer who makes the food, the trucker who ships the food and every other person who works hard to bring that food to our table.

Common-sense Conservatives have a bill that has been passed by this House that would take the tax off. The Prime Minister has deployed his carbon tax minister to pressure senators to block that bill, in an undemocratic attack on the prerogative of the commoners to decide who pays what. The government cannot tax what the people do not approve and the people do not approve of this carbon tax. They want us to axe the tax; to bring home lower prices; to bring home our food production, our self-reliance and independence to this country; and to bring home more powerful paycheques, affordable food and decent homes to our Canadian people, the common people, the common sense of the common people, united for our common home; their home, my home and our home. Let us bring it home.

Canada Labour Code

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we know that improving labour relations should be the ultimate goal of any government. It is better for workers, employers, the economy and all Canadians. However, the current labour climate suggests that we are moving in another direction. Across the country, we are seeing more labour strife than we have at any other time in recent history.

The strife is undoubtedly being fuelled by the spiralling cost of living crisis in this country, which is a direct result of the NDP-Liberal government's inflationary deficits and taxes. The costly coalition has made life more difficult for hard-working Canadians, and paycheques are not going nearly as far as they once were.

We know the carbon tax is increasing the cost of everything. Food prices have gone up year after year, housing costs have doubled and mortgages have gone up by 150% since the Liberals took office. There are reports indicating that over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke, which is simply outrageous. Working Canadians across this country are struggling to put food on their tables and to keep a roof over their heads. That is unacceptable, but it is the devastating reality after eight years of the Liberal government, which continues to be propped up by its NDP friends. They have failed Canadian workers and broken the unspoken promise that if one gets a job and works hard, one will be able to pay one's bills and build a better life.

That is the climate in which the Liberals have tabled this bill. As we consider Bill C-58, it is critical that we do so with a view to finding balance. Governments should never encourage labour disruption or give either side in a dispute an uneven advantage, because there are very serious implications for all Canadians when labour is disrupted. This is particularly true when we consider the industries and the sectors that are federally regulated.

Whether it is our rail system, our ports, our telecommunication networks or air travel, labour disruptions in these critical industries have a serious cost for businesses. Beyond that, they can also have a potentially devastating impact on everyday Canadians. That downstream impact should not be cast aside in this debate, and it cannot be ignored. It raises questions about what happens when medicine cannot get to the end destination on store shelves and, ultimately, is not there when Canadians need it.

What happens if telecommunication services are down? How does a family member check in on loved ones? What impact would this have on payment processing? Would there be Canadians unable to access basic necessities? If fresh food in transportation spoils, what is the cost to consumers? These questions raise just a few examples of what impact a strike could have on Canadians. Ultimately, a strike that impacts our supply chains, such as those in our ports or railways, will always have a ripple effect beyond the employer and worker.

It will also impact small businesses that depend on the efficient flow of our supply chains. The longer a strike lasts, the greater the harm it will cause. For small businesses, it is a situation that is generally well beyond their control. This is certainly true for farmers, who need to get their commodities to market. In my province of Saskatchewan, which is a landlocked province, a disruption in any part of the supply chain network is seriously detrimental.

It is critical that, in considering this legislation, we understand the potential impact on farmers and their operations. Farmers certainly cannot afford to take any more hits. They are already some of the hardest hit by the NDP-Liberal coalition's failed policies. Farmers I have spoken to certainly feel that it is intentional and that the government has no regard for their industry or their contributions to our country. Failed policies such as the Liberal carbon tax are putting the viability of farm businesses in jeopardy. There is also, of course, the Senate; so-called independent senators are now doing the government's bidding by dragging their feet on Bill C-234. Ensuring the viability of farm operations is critical to the industry, as well as to an affordable and dependable food supply.

I recently had a farmer in my office who shared with me that a single day of rail disruption delayed his shipment by a matter of weeks, which, of course, directly impacted the cash flow of his operations. That is because a single day of disruption never equates to a single day of backlog. This brings to mind this past summer's port strike in Vancouver, which created a massive bottleneck in our supply chain infrastructure. The job action in Vancouver lasted weeks, and now all these months later, the port is still working to clear the backlog.

Let me be clear that Canadian workers, without question, have the right to collective bargaining and striking. Striking should be the last resort, and it should not be incentivized. The best outcome for all parties is coming to an agreement at the bargaining table. That is why it is critical that government foster a level playing field for unions and businesses so that ultimately government is helping only to foster better labour relations. Government should not intervene to tip the scales.

Other jurisdictions that have implemented similar bans have seen an increase in job actions, which should be cause for warning. It is not clear what lessons from those jurisdictions are being applied in this legislation, and it is not clear that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between labour and employers. In fact, the bill contains a lot of ambiguity that requires clarification. This is, of course, a pattern with the Liberal government, which has a tendency to introduce what it has coined as “framework legislation”.

There is another matter of great curiosity. The bill would impose a ban on replacement workers for federally regulated industries, but it would not apply to the public service. This policy decision certainly raises questions. If the Liberals have determined through their consultations and analysis that what they are proposing is positive for labour relations, then it would make sense to apply it to themselves, but they deliberately chose to exclude the federal government and the public service from the scope of this legislation. I think industry deserves clarity from the labour minister on this particular policy decision.

In another example of “do as I say and not as I do”, the Liberal government seems to villainize replacement workers through this legislation while at the same time funding foreign replacement workers. Last week, we learned that the Stellantis battery plant is reportedly hiring 1,600 foreign workers despite receiving $15 billion in subsidies from the NDP-Liberal coalition. This is not in the interests of our Canadian workers, and it certainly is not fair to them or Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayer subsidies should be going to support Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers.

We do not even fully understand the extent of the government's budgeted contract negotiations, because not only does the story keep changing on that side of the House, from claiming disinformation to claiming one worker and then a handful, but the Liberals are deliberately choosing to keep the contracts hidden. If it is such great news for Canadian workers, why the secrecy? What are they trying to hide?

Well, we know now that the Northvolt plant will be utilizing taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers, which also calls into question whether Volkswagen will. Canadian taxpayers and tradespeople deserve answers. The Prime Minister must confirm what provisions were negotiated to secure good, long-term jobs for Canadians, because at the end of the day, that is what Canadians workers want. They want to work. They want Canadian businesses and industries to succeed so they have job security. They want businesses to continue to invest and create jobs in Canada that will allow them to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table. They want a guarantee that they can build a life for themselves.

As I said at the outset, improving labour relations should be the government's goal. Having healthy and good labour relations is what is best for workers, employers, the economy and ultimately all Canadians.

Carbon Pricing

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the 800,000 people who used Ontario's food banks last year were their own city, it would be the third-largest city in Ontario. It is clear after eight years that the NDP-Liberal government is just not worth the cost.

Conservative Bill C-234 would remove the carbon tax for farmers, making food prices cheaper. The Liberal environment minister has promised to resign. I hope he sticks to that.

Will the Prime Minister tell the senators to put Canadians first and pass Bill C-234, so Canadians can feed themselves?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years of the NDP-Liberal government, everything is up. Taxes are up, fuel is up, food is up and Canadians are fed up, but they are still hungry. Now, in the midst of this affordability crisis, the Prime Minister has doubled down on his plan to quadruple the carbon tax. We, as common-sense Conservatives, have brought forward Bill C-234, which would create another carbon carve-out for our farmers. We understand that when one taxes the farmer who grows the food, one taxes the trucker who ships the food and one taxes everyone who buys the food.

Will the Prime Minister finally back off, prioritize food security and let his appointed senators pass this bill?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like that high-priced communications consultant certainly is not worth the cost. The real nonsense is the rhetoric coming from the Liberals.

There is a real opportunity to lower the cost of food for Canadians. It is in the name of a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234. It is a simple and pragmatic way to reduce the cost of food production on our farms.

Will the Prime Minister put his ego aside and do what is best for Canadians and stop the pressure he is applying to his appointed senators, which is keeping them from passing a common-sense bill, Bill C-234?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal-NDP policies being forced on Canadians, we see that the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Recent reports show that food banks saw nearly two million visits in the last month. The tragedy is that this is a feature, not a flaw, of the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the carbon tax on gas, groceries and home heating.

How high does the number of Canadians starving have to get before the Prime Minister gets out of the way and allows his appointed senators to pass a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234 and help farmers and ranchers lower the cost of food for all Canadians?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how clueless the agriculture minister is about the real-life costs of agriculture. One reason is that ranchers buy their fuel at outrageous prices. One rancher just showed me that his propane costs are over $1,500 a month. The carbon tax is a third of that cost. The quarterly rebate cheque does not even begin to add up to that much let alone to other costs for gas and diesel. This is all a tax on growing our food, which makes it more expensive to buy the food.

The Prime Minister needs to quit telling his appointed senators to block Bill C-234. When will the he back off so we can finally remove the carbon tax from all on-farm fuels?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-234 would take the carbon tax off propane and natural gas used on farms. Five premiers, countless farm organizations and farmers from across the country have asked the Prime Minister to axe the carbon tax and give farmers a break.

The carbon tax on farmers is where food inflation and high grocery costs start for Canadian families.

Will the Prime Minister and the environment minister stop interfering with the Senate and let the vote happen tomorrow?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, after the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle posted a photo of the female senators who opposed Bill C‑234, the Senate and the police had to launch an investigation in response to the threats these independent senators received.

We do not tell senators how to vote, unlike the Conservative Party, which not only tells them how to vote, but encourages them to bully other senators who do not think like them. It is unacceptable.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear, and we saw it in last week's economic statement, is that the Liberals want to drastically increase the carbon tax.

However, Conservative Bill C‑234, supported by a majority in the House, will carve out an exception to the carbon tax being imposed on Canadian farmers.

The Minister of Environment has promised to resign if this bill passes. Perhaps that is why he is going off to the other side to talk to independent senators. He is telling them to vote against it.

Will the Prime Minister tell the senators he appointed to put the interests of Canadians ahead of the environment minister and pass Bill C-234 so Canadians pay less to feed their families?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years under this Prime Minister, we are once again seeing that he has no respect for a decision made by the House of Commons.

A majority of MPs voted in favour of Bill C‑234 and sent it to the Senate, where it has stalled. The Minister of Environment is even lobbying senators.

Will the Prime Minister ask his minister to stop exerting pressure to block the bill, respect the decision made by the House of Commons and let the senators do their job so that they can vote in favour of Bill C‑234?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a Liberal minister who gets almost $300,000 a year and drives around in a limo says that it is nonsense to talk about the 800,000 Ontarians who went to a food bank for the first time. This kind of conduct from these Liberals is disgusting, and there is an answer. There is a fix. They could tell their senators to stop blocking Bill C-234, which would take the carbon tax off farmers, the people who feed us, but no, they are not doing it because of the delicate sensibilities of the environment minister who says, “I'll resign if there are any more cuts to the carbon tax.”

Will they take it off? Will they pass Bill C-234?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, Canadians know the Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Over 800,000 Ontarians visited a food bank over six million times, 41% for the first time ever. The first time ever they had to do it is after eight years of a Liberal government. Now, that is not bad enough. If these 800,000 people formed a city, it would be the fourth-largest city in Ontario, and it would be dependent upon feeding itself at a food bank.

The government could do something: Stop holding up Conservative bill, Bill C-234, to take the carbon tax off farmers. Will it do it?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the agriculture minister stand up and defend Canadian farmers, but if the finance minister's plan for Canadians is to cut meals and cut their heat, well, mission accomplished, their carbon tax plan is working extremely well.

A common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, would provide a carbon tax carve-out for farmers and make food more affordable for Canadians, but the Prime Minister's environment minister has promised that if this bill passes he will resign. Is that why the environment minister is bullying senators in the Senate to block Bill C-234? Is it because he wants to save his job rather than ensure that Canadians can afford to feed themselves?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, almost six million Ontarians visited a food bank, an increase of more than 40% and the highest single increase ever recorded. Clearly, this Prime Minister's carbon tax plan is not worth the cost.

Conservatives have a common-sense bill, Bill C-234, in the Senate, which would reduce costs on farmers and make food more affordable for Canadians, but the Prime Minister is blocking this bill, forcing Canadians to food banks.

Will the Liberal minister of agriculture do his job? Will he defend Canadians farmers, and phone Liberal senators to support Bill C-234 to have this carve-out for farmers and make food more affordable for Canadians?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just because the leader of the Conservatives says something does not make it true, as we saw several times last week, whether it was with regard to how they voted on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, perhaps why he blamed others for his mistake when he jumped to a conclusion about a terrorist attack, and now what he is saying about Bill C-234 he know is patently false. When it comes to food prices, it is because of the war in Ukraine and inflation.

He cannot direct the Senate either and, unfortunately, his members are doing things that are threatening the democratic principles and rights of independent senators. That is shameful.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister wants to quadruple the carbon tax, including on our farmers. There is a farmer in my riding who is spending $10,000 a month on carbon taxes alone. All of that is passed on to the consumer. The consequences have been a record number of Canadians relying on food banks. Seven million Canadians are going hungry and one in five is skipping meals regularly because they cannot afford the price of food.

Will the Prime Minister get out of the way, stop interfering with the Senate and let it pass common-sense Conservative Bill C-234 to take the tax off the farmers who feed us?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Feed Ontario, a coalition of food banks, released staggering numbers yesterday: 800,000 Ontarians went to the food bank for a total of six million visits. This is a 36% increase, the biggest increase ever. If the total number of people who visited a food bank were a town, it would be the fourth-biggest town in all of Ontario.

Will the Prime Minister therefore cancel his plan to quadruple the carbon tax on the farmers who feed us, and pass common-sense Conservative Bill C-234 to carve out the tax for farmers?

Carbon Tax

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of reckless spending and sky-high carbon prices, Canadians are out of money and the NDP-Liberal government is out of touch. Last week’s mini-budget just offered more of the same. The Prime Minister chose to quadruple his carbon taxes on gas, groceries and home heating, and Canadians cannot afford it. Between April 2022 and March 2023, 5.9 million visits were made to Ontario food banks alone. That is an increase of 36% over the previous year and the largest single-year increase ever recorded by Ontario’s food bank network. This is in Canada in 2023. Common-sense Conservatives have offered real solutions. Bill C-234’s carbon tax carve-out would save Canadian farmers a billion dollars over six years. Lower costs for farmers mean lower food prices for all Canadians.

It is time for the Prime Minister to put Canadians ahead of his environment minister and above his politics. Canadian farmers have made it clear. The Prime Minister must stop pressuring his appointed senators to vote against Bill C-234.

Carbon Pricing

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, just as they wanted, the NDP-Liberal-Bloc's carbon tax hikes the cost of heating, cooling and fuel, and so it hikes the price of food. The PM showed this when he paused it for some but not for 97% of Canadians.

Common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax for all for good; we know that it is not worth the cost, and so do Canadians. However, will Liberal senators stop blocking the Conservative bill, Bill C-234, to cut the tax on farm fuels so farmers can afford to feed Canadians and Canadians can afford to eat?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that response will do nothing to shorten food bank lineups.

After eight years, the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Lineups at food banks have never been so long. People are hurting bad, and the NDP-Liberal government still plans to quadruple its carbon tax on gas, groceries and home heat.

Bill C-234 would lower taxes for farmers who produce our food. This would lower the cost of groceries. It is just common sense.

Will the Prime Minister tell his appointed senators to put people first and pass Bill C-234 so Canadians can afford to eat?

Carbon Tax

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's mini-budget, prices are up, rent is up, debt is up and taxes are up. The time for the Prime Minister is up. He has doubled down on his plan to quadruple the carbon tax on gas, groceries and home heating.

Conservatives are the only party working to lower taxes for Canadians. That is exactly what Bill C-234 would accomplish. It would create another carbon tax carve-out by removing the carbon tax for Canadian farmers. This bill would help lower prices in Canada, because when there is a tax for the farmer who grows the food, and a tax for the trucker who ships the food, groceries cost more. An added bonus for Canadians is that the Prime Minister's activist environment minister has promised to resign if this bill passes.

Will the Prime Minister instruct his Liberal Senators to put Canadians before his environment minister and pass Bill C-234, so we can leave a billion dollars in the pockets of our hard-working farmers and Canadian families can afford to feed themselves?

Carbon Pricing

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, this Prime Minister still does not understand that he can quickly cut food prices. The Conservatives, on the other hand, get it.

We introduced a common-sense bill, namely Bill C‑234, which would exempt farmers from the carbon tax. However, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition wants to drastically increase the carbon tax. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.

Liberal ministers, meanwhile, are upset and begging senators to delay the bill's passage in the Senate. When will the Prime Minister tell his senators to pass Bill C‑234 so farmers can feed our people?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of their failed carbon tax, food bank lineups are longer than they have ever been and Canadians are going hungry. Now they want to impose this Liberal carbon tax on Ukraine. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Conservative Bill C-234 would deliver lower food prices for Canadians by removing the carbon tax on our farmers. Ministers are panicking and begging senators to block it.

Will the Prime Minister tell his ministers to back off, put Canadians first and let his appointed senators pass Bill C-234 so Canadian families can feed themselves?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, life has never been so unaffordable. While Canadians struggle, he is quadrupling his carbon tax, which will raise the price of everything. He is just not worth the cost.

The Liberal-NDP government can pass Conservative Bill C-234, create another carbon tax carve-out for farmers and make food cheaper. The Prime Minister's environment minister has threatened to resign if it passes.

Will the Prime Minister accept his resignation and pass C-234 so Canadians can put food on their tables?

Carbon Tax

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, the NDP-Liberal government has finally admitted that it not worth the cost and that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians.

A farmer in southern Saskatchewan shared his carbon tax costs with me. He goes through 150,000 litres of diesel on his farm every year. At over 15¢ per litre, he is paying $24,000 in carbon tax on diesel fuel alone. There is more. The GST gets added on top of that, bringing the total to just under $25,000, but there is still more. The NDP-Liberals will quadruple that number for him, and he will be paying $100,000 a year just on the carbon tax for diesel fuel, thanks to the radical Prime Minister.

Canadian families will pay more for groceries as well, yet the Liberals do not seem to care. They broke ranks with their NDP coalition to vote against common-sense Conservatives who would remove the carbon tax from farm fuels. Now, there are senators, appointed by the Prime Minister, who are trying to shut it down at the last minute. The Prime Minister needs to stand with Canadian families and producers, and tell his senators to stop blocking Bill C-234.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

You guys belong to the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, so I'm glad you've heard about it.

Trade is supposed to be about trade. I think I heard that said by all three witnesses here. I'll give this back to the Pork Council.

With the context of Bill C-234, which is currently being delayed in the Senate and which removes the carbon price on farmers, would you not agree that the carbon tax has a negative impact on food prices and supply chains in Canada?

[Stephen Heckbert]

We have heard of Bill C-234. We are in support of the original bill. We think it's going to be vital for farmers to help control their costs. Frankly, if we can control costs on the farm, it will also help grocery costs in Canada. It actually has an impact all the way through the value chain.

Yes, we're supportive, and yes, we've heard of it.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for joining us online or in the room today.

I'll start with the Pork Council first, if that's okay. I'm hoping I can still get over to Mr. Dal Ferro with some questions as well.

To either Mr. Heckbert or Mr. Roy, have you heard of Bill C-234?

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks the big talk. He wants to help Canadians with affordability, yet the bill would not do that. The government is quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers. The Senate is stalling Bill C-234, which could give $1 billion of relief to farmers to help bring down our food prices, and the government is also trying to take away the ability of free enterprises to make their own business decisions. The reality is that the bill would not do anything to bring down grocery prices for Canadians. The government is living in a fantasyland if it thinks that retailers are not going to pass along to consumers any new taxes or protocols that the government puts in place.

Why will the government not do something concrete, like axe the carbon tax and push its senators to get Bill C-234 passed in order to give farmers immediately relief from the carbon tax?

Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, they still do not have a plan to fight climate change. What they have is a plan to quadruple a tax that has failed to fight climate change, giving Canada the 58th ranking out of 63 countries, missing every target but one in eight years and on track to missing their targets in 2030. They should stop distracting from the real agenda here, which is to take money away from farmers, from food and from the necessities of Canadian life.

Will they, yes or no, announce their support for the Senate passing the common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, to take the tax off the farmers who feed us?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we have lineups at our food banks that, if we were to put the images in black and white, we would assume they were images from the Great Depression. We have never seen two million people going to a food bank in a month. We never had seven million people eating less than is healthy, but that is the starvation we have as a result of eight years of the Prime Minister.

There is a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, that has passed through the Senate. The Prime Minister's ministers are panicking and begging senators to block it. Will the Prime Minister tell his senators that they have go-ahead to pass this common-sense Conservative bill so that our farmers can feed our people?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, fear and falsehoods are the only things the Liberals can use to distract from their disastrous record. They are the ones clawing back from seniors and families with their quadrupling of the carbon tax. It is the first time in Canadian history we have seven million people who are skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat, and two million people, a record-smashing number, are now eating at food banks.

There is a common-sense solution, which is Conservative Bill C-234 to take taxes off the farmers who feed us. Will the Prime Minister back down again, stop fighting this common-sense bill and stop taxing our farmers so that our people can afford to eat?

Carbon Tax

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, farmers from across the country are in Ottawa for a rally outside the Senate. Why are they out there today when they should be finishing their corn harvest? They are asking a few Liberal-appointed senators to stop playing games and put my bill, Bill C-234, to a vote. It is a bill that would axe the carbon tax from propane and natural gas to dry their crops and heat their livestock barns on farm. Axing the carbon tax would save Canadian farmers $1 billion over the next 10 years.

Farmers feed cities and they help feed the world. At a time when the high-priced, high-inflation Liberal government should be helping farmers, it instead tells them to install a heat pump in their hog barn. How out of touch can they be?

Whether they are trying to raise a family, enjoy retirement or make an honest living as a farmer, Canadians know one thing: After eight long years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just highlight that the interruptions and points of order have taken much more time than I was planning to use to speak to this.

I am unaware of any threats to any senators. I, of course, in no way would ever condone physical harassment or threats. It certainly did not come from me. When I speak about a “march”, that is a typical protest that happens in front of Parliament Hill every day. It is not a threatening march to go attack senators.

However, the reason that people are here and angry is that this chamber, the House of Commons, passed a piece of legislation that would solve an affordability crisis for Canadians and would help farmers deal with increasing costs.

The reality is that natural gas and propane for grain drying and heating and for cooling of barns should have been exempted originally. Had the government been more aware of farming operations, they would have exempted that to begin with, just as they did for diesel and dyed fuel. We had a chance.

We have a chance. This chamber passed Bill C-234 with the support of the NDP, Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, Greens and some Liberals.

Mr. Chair, these are thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs. They go directly against the bottom line of Canadian farmers. That ensures that their families have less prosperity and that they're not able to support their community in the same way. More importantly, as it relates to the environmental implications, farmers are not able to reinvest into new technologies, new practices and new equipment to actually improve environmental outcomes.

This issue, unfortunately, has become political. It was not really meant to be political: That's why we saw such cross-partisan support for Bill C-234. It became political when the Prime Minister decided that 3% of Canadians were going to receive a break on the carbon tax on home heating, stepping back on a major marquee policy.

This legislation is about doing the right thing for Canadian farmers, doing the right things for Canadian consumers and passing this legislation. The Senate is absolutely playing shenanigans with this legislation.

To the point of the carbon tax, I understand what it is trying to use. It's trying to use market dynamics. In the case of these practices, much like operating a tractor or a combine on a field, there are simply no alternatives available.

Last, I would just say that it is unheard of in the Senate to do this to a private member's bill. I would just urge all members of Parliament to consider that if it were your private member's bill that was making its way through the House of Commons effectively, passing through the democratically elected chamber, only to be delayed by the unelected Senate—

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

—relevant to what is happening right now, as it relates to a rally happening at the Centennial Flame. People will be marching to the Senate to protest the unprecedented political game.

As per the notice I put on motion last week, I would like to move:

Given that:

(a) Canadian Farmers have some of the most environmentally friendly agricultural operations in the world;

(b) The Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have issued public letters calling on the Senate to urgently pass Bill C-234, a carbon tax carve out for farmers;

(c) Bill C-234 will provide relief for farmers struggling with the burden of the Government's Carbon Tax; and

(d) Bill C-234 will help lower food prices for all Canadians across the country,

The committee calls on the Senate of Canada to pass Bill C-234, a carbon tax carve out for farmers, as soon as possible, and report this to the House of Commons.

Mr. Chair, I do want to keep my comments brief, but this is extremely important legislation. This is $1 billion coming out of the pockets of farmers over the next seven years, or money that could be left in the pockets of farmers.

The minister had previously falsely stated in the media that 97% of on-farm emissions are exempt. He had to walk that statement back through a communications adviser. What he was alluding to is that diesel and marked gasoline were exempted originally from the carbon tax. This was due to the fact that—

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the carbon tax, one of the things the Liberal government fails to understand is that nobody else is doing this. Our trading partners certainly are not. It is a complete and total competitive disadvantage for what we are doing.

If we just look at where the carbon tax comes from, it is paid by farmers. Right now, we have a Liberal government that is stalling a bill that we passed here in the House, Bill C-234. All members of Parliament and of the Senate passed it. The Liberal government is now stalling on trying to help farmers, to help them with what they are doing for heating or cooling their barns and drying their grain. Why would the Liberal government want to continue with a carbon tax that actually puts the price of food up? Then it goes to the truckers who have to pay the tax on their fuel. It goes all the way through. When we are in a complete and total financial crisis, an affordability crisis and a housing crisis, one would think that the government would be looking at other things, such as technology, something other than a carbon tax, when, quite frankly, most of the other countries in the world that we trade with do not have the same disadvantage.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

I'm good. I know what it says. It just was clear that the amendment related to division, and that's exactly what I was speaking to—the significant division that sadly now exists across this great country related to the policies that the NDP-Liberal government has created. These policies are perhaps not specifically related to Bill C-234, but the difficulty with Bill C-234, of course, is that it's stalled now in the Senate thanks to the Prime Minister's Office trying to stall it there. That's crystal clear in my mind, again, creating more division throughout this country.

Certainly, that is something that we don't need. We know that my colleague talked about productivity and the difficulties that exist there. As I said very clearly in wrapping up, Chair, the difficulties that exist in Atlantic Canada with respect to the affordability crisis and the ability for people to feed themselves, keep a roof over their heads and to heat their homes in the coming winter is a position that is absolutely untenable.

People do not want to simply exist. They would like to thrive, and I truly believe that Canadians have the ability to do so, which is being usurped by the NDP-Liberal coalition. Perhaps, as my colleague would say, it is not specifically related to the NDP part of Bill C-234, but it certainly relates to their support of other government incredibly expensive and not spendthrift policies.

Chair, having had the ability to speak a little bit about Atlantic Canada, I want to make it clear.... It's interesting that my colleagues talk about our wanting to prop up Danielle Smith. I'm obviously not from Alberta. I've never met Danielle Smith and certainly have no requirement to prop up Danielle Smith's government. I think that she's more than capable of doing that herself.

That being said, I do think it's important that people really continue to understand that the job of His Majesty's loyal opposition is to hold the government to account, and when we see things that are not appropriate for all of Canada and are causing division, then I think that it continues to be the job of the loyal opposition to call those out.

That is the style of government that we have. I think everybody around this table knows that. I believe Mr. Blaikie knows that very clearly—the Westminster style of government—and certainly that is something that we, as Conservatives, will continue to support.

I would have to say that the division sowed is troubling to me, and, on behalf of Atlantic Canadians, it is troubling to all of us.

I thank you, Chair. I will cede the floor.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Absolutely, Chair. We're talking about division, and I think it's important that folks understand the carve-outs that have happened with respect to the carbon tax around this country. That has created significant division, and the division, of course, is related directly to energy security. Of course, now the tidal power project has been cancelled by the lack of direction provided by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was a significant glimmer of hope for Atlantic Canadians to allow them and us—I'll include myself there—to become energy-independent. This is a significant division-creating area for all of us in Atlantic Canada, based on the policies of this NDP-Liberal coalition government.

When I asked Sustainable Marine whether they would consider coming back, how this gentleman worded it was, “You know, if you threw me a lifeline, I would probably climb up the rope.” That says a lot for the gentleman and for Sustainable Marine to be looking at how to harness tidal power as an energy source, which would be a tremendous feat.

As I said, the largest tides in the world are in the Bay of Fundy. If we could possibly do that, which they were well on their way to doing, then that would change the landscape. We wouldn't need to be talking about the divisive policies of the NDP-Liberal government here in Ottawa, because Atlantic Canadians would not be requiring carve-outs, because they continue to need to use home heating fuel as a fuel source. As I said, this certainly causes significant difficulties for the two elderly ladies whom I discussed previously.

One other thing, of course, that has caused significant problems for Atlantic Canadians is that, historically, they would rely meagre pensions, the OAS—and we're talking about the Canada pension plan—but they also rely on equity built up in their homes after many years. In Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces, people tend not to move around a whole lot. They would own their own homes for a considerable length of time. Now when we begin to talk to young people in Cumberland—Colchester, we understand very clearly that the cost of a home has doubled, the cost of a mortgage has gone up 150% and, of course, the cost of rent has doubled.

We're beginning to see that. People have not only energy insecurity now, because we know their ability, as I discussed over the last several minutes, to pay their energy bills has gone down, and their energy bills have gone up; and we also know their ability to buy a house is now being lost. The next generation coming along have significant despair.

It's interesting. My colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets came up with a great new word that this government, the NDP-Liberal coalition, is selling to people, and it's called “hopium”. They are wanting people to have hope from their opioid-laced policies. I won't divert myself into the opioid crisis, but for many of their other policies they're selling this haze-inducing utopia that just does not exist for the average person out there.

Certainly those of us on this side of the discussion are clearly getting incredible numbers of people who are losing hope, because of the divisive nature of this NDP-Liberal coalition. I know very clearly that my colleagues on the other side are getting it as well. I talked to many of them after we came back in September on how their summer was. When they were out door-knocking, the disdain with which they were greeted at the door really led them down this road of division, of needing to carve-out a carbon tax relief for Atlantic Canadians.

We know that when they were out door-knocking and talking about their “hopium” policies, people were not buying that any more. People really understood very clearly the policy of continuing to spend $600 billion of inflationary spending, as my great colleague spoke about, and supply-and-demand economics. We know very clearly that those “hopium” types of policies are things that Canadians from coast to coast have been able to see through and understand. This kind of foolish spending is no longer something that they believe in.

What they believe in is common sense. They know very clearly that things like tidal power, like being able to afford a home, to feed yourself, and to keep a roof over your head are very important to Canadians. What they understand very clearly is that they want the chance to do that.

They want a chance to buy their own home so that they could get back to what would normally happen to Atlantic Canadians, before the highest inflation we've seen in 40 years. Their ability to buy a house would appreciate modestly in value over the many years that they would actually own the home. Then if they were owning that home—and of course, as their lives became shorter and shorter—they would know that not only would they have perhaps a small pension, if they were fortunate, but they would have equity in their home, which would then allow them to live through the latter years of their lives in relative comfort.

We know that, as the NDP and Liberals have gone around knocking on doors this summer, they know that the “hopium” they were selling to Canadians just doesn't exist. Canadians are not buying that, and they know very clearly that the crisis that now exists is creating a division across this country.

The other thing, of course, that is causing division and distrust in the NDP-Liberal coalition is related to Bill C-234, which my colleague talked about, being in the Senate now. We know very clearly that Canadian farmers....

I think it's important and germane that we understand how that supply chain works. When you tax the farmer who grows the food and you tax the trucker who delivers the food, then the person, the consumer at the final end, of course, is going to be paying more and more. That's common sense that anybody could understand. As a friend of mine once said, “Businesses don't pay more tax. They pass those taxes on to consumers.” When you tax the farmer and you tax the person who delivers it, then the person who buys it at the end of that chain, of course, is going to pay more for that product.

There's no expectation—well, perhaps there is on the part of this NDP-Liberal coalition—that the farmer would absorb all of those costs. We know, when we talked to our agriculture critic, that the costs for farmers and the requirement to heat their barns and dry grain have gone up precipitously over the last eight years, making it almost untenable.

We know that, very clearly, Canada really should be a powerhouse in our ability to feed the world. Very sadly, the disrespect that the NDP-Liberal coalition has shown to farmers is not allowing Canadian farmers to do that. When we have an ability to do that—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much. I'll anchor my comments to make sure that the connection is clear.

The carbon tax is having a huge impact on the economy, and we actually heard that testimony. You don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Chair. You can take Tiff Macklem's word for it. The number one problem with the economy—which I think is universally agreed upon by Bill Morneau, John Manley and Minister Freeland—is inflation.

We heard testimony from the Governor of the Bank of Canada that 16% of that inflation or 33% above target is directly related to the carbon tax, so one really can't talk about the economy without talking about the carbon tax.

I know that might offend the sensibilities of some Liberals because this is the signature piece that has really—it hasn't really accomplished anything on the environment. In fact, all it's doing is actually, as I had the opportunity to talk about a little bit, pushing Canadian companies to either leave fully or to put their manufacturing offshore so that they don't have to pay a carbon tax.

In places like Guangdong province or in West Virginia, where they may rely heavily on coal, they don't have to pay the carbon tax, which means that instead of having clean Canadian natural gas powering industry relatively efficiently, we have the same products being made in Guangdong province, in West Virginia and elsewhere in the world where they power with coal.

I would much rather have the hydroelectric dam in Niagara Falls powering and creating manufacturing in Ontario as opposed to having coal in the outskirts of Beijing and around other industrial areas where they don't have the same clean tech that we do here in Canada.

Getting back to the bill I was talking about, which was Bill C-206, agriculture is a primary part of the economy, and I think one of the most critical parts of the economy. We want to talk a little bit about how carbon tax interrelates with agriculture, both of which are critical to the economy.

I had the great pleasure of introducing Bill C-206 in Parliament in 2019, which was a bill to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax regime for farmers. As I said, it would affect farmers from coast to coast to coast, but particularly those who are drying grain. This was on the heals of—excuse the language; it's the term they use in agriculture circles—“the harvest from hell”. It was a very wet harvest, which created a very moist grain and corn. Individuals had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax. That continues to this day, and that was at $20 per tonne. As I said, it's been quadrupled now to $80 per tonne. We heard great testimony on the road. I hope that members of the government, particularly, were listening to CAPP and other expert witnesses.

We took that all the way to the Senate, Mr. Chair. We got it all the way there, and unfortunately, Prime Minister Trudeau called his unnecessary $600 million election, so it stalled there in the Senate.

To my great relief and admiration, my great colleague Mr. Ben Lobb brought it back in the form of Bill C-234. I might say that Mr. Lobb actually improved the bill to include barn heating amongst other small but important amendments that he made to that bill.

We're here now again. It's back in the Senate. Unfortunately, the Liberal government in the so-called independent Senate, and I do say “so-called”, is utilizing pressure on the senators it controls.

They can call them Liberals. They can call them whatever they want to call them. They listen to their master in Prime Minister Trudeau, and they are currently stalling that bill.

One of the reasons I think they might be stalling it is that the environment minister, Mr. Guilbeault, has said that if there's one more carve-out, he will resign as environment minister. That carve-out, I believe, is coming.

We have the support there, so I would call on the Prime Minister to.... If he has to choose between his environment minister and Canadian agriculture, the choice is easy. You go with Canadian agriculture. I'm sure Mr. Guilbeault, despite his criminal record, is eminently employable. I believe he'll be just fine, going forward.

The question is on the carbon tax. We should have farmers, and will likely have farmers, as exemptive, as long as the Liberal senators don't hold it up too much.

By the way, to anyone listening, please write your Liberal MP—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With your indulgence, I would just like to congratulate all of the members and witnesses whom we heard on our week of travelling from coast to coast. I thought there were great questions and even better answers from many of our witnesses. I had the pleasure of being there for Quebec City, Toronto and Winnipeg. I'm sure all stops were great.

As I said earlier, I just want to make sure my comments are anchored in the motion. I'll just read the first line of the motion:

Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan as the foundation of a secure and dignified retirement for tens of millions of Canadians and a pillar of Canada’s economy;

My remarks will focus mainly on Canada's economy per the motion.

We are of course, in an extremely difficult economic time, really with extremes that we haven't seen since the Great Depression. Philip Cross, of course, the noted academic and statistician has said that we have the worse GDP since the Great Depression. We're actually contracting. I believe it's per person GDP. Those numbers are obscured a little bit.

For those Canadians listening at home, they may be confused when they hear the Liberals say, we had an increase in GDP. Our increase in population is obscuring the actual economic numbers because while the absolute numbers are higher, the actual per Canadian numbers are lower. This government is in some respects successfully obscuring the truth. But you know what, Canadians feel it. The people of Northumberland—Peterborough South are very much aware of the economic times.

We see other indicators such as food banks being at record levels. I believe it's two million Canadians per month who visit food banks. I heard a statistic just this morning that fully a third of food bank attendees, customers—I guess "clients" may be the best way to refer to them—are new. These are folks who have never been to a food bank before. I heard a great interview this morning of one of the individuals who is in charge of a food bank.

You can imagine the energy, exhaustion and the stress it would take for someone who had never been to a food bank and probably never thought they would ever go to a food bank. Yet this government, instead of focusing on these very critical issues, is obsessed with scoring political points, to sow division. We all know from the first Prime Minister Trudeau of policies that, if not a willful, are certainly negligent, and of efforts that have alienated large portions of our country. Traditionally that might be viewed as western Canada, but I can tell you that in rural Ontario it's the same thing.

The folks in my riding, in part of rural Canada, very much feel like they are alienated and aren't thought about or cared about by this government. You see that even more so in the carve-out from the carbon tax. Yes, I'm glad that the Prime Minister got the memo from the Atlantic members of caucus who said that they can't campaign on this. We can't go back. We can't face our residents with a carbon tax at $80 a tonne.

I'll just remind people on the record as well, because there was some confusion—I'm sure it was honest confusion—on the road when I said carbon taxes had quadrupled. In 2019, the carbon tax was $20 per tonne. It is now $80. Four times $20 is $80. Sorry, it will be in the spring of 2024. I should correct that. We have the quadrupling of the carbon tax and in many cases a very meagre rebate coming back the other way.

We get this exemption, this carve-out, this acknowledgement that in fact the carbon tax is leading to an affordability crisis, as we heard from Tiff Macklem. He shared with us that 16% of inflation is actually directly because of the carbon tax and that 33% of inflation over target is directly because of the carbon tax. Those are all numbers.

I'm sure this is honest confusion, but I have heard many Liberal and even NDP members in the House, and even in this very committee, get very confused on that point and say things like it's only 1.5%. That's just not true. That's not what the governor said. The governor said, and he confirmed it, that it was actually 60 full basis points, which is 16% of inflation.

There is no doubt that by having that exemption, that carve-out only for Atlantic Canada.... I should be fair, though. I want to be completely transparent and make sure that we have all the facts. It does apply to other people across the country who heat their homes with oil. The reality is that the majority of people who heat their homes with oil are out on the east coast, which is where the Prime Minister's caucus was very upset. It's going to make many Canadians feel left out in the cold, literally and figuratively.

It's the logic, Mr. Chair, that really.... I don't understand it. I hear Minister Wilkinson say, you don't understand. Fuel oil is really bad for the environment, so we have to take the carbon tax off it. But then that same guy will say, you don't understand, gasoline is really bad for the environment so we have to quadruple the carbon tax. There's a complete gap of logic.

Every time I hear this debate, not even as a partisan or as a Conservative but as someone who studied philosophy at university, I don't understand the logic of it. Either the carbon tax leads to less of something, and so we should put it particularly heavily on bad things, or it doesn't, and then we should remove it all and, instead, allow Canadians to have the resources they need to make the decisions they need to. Actually, that brings me to Bill C-234.

As some of you might be aware, I originated Bill C-206—it's a private member's bill—back in 2019. That was the predecessor to Bill C-234, which was to remove the carbon tax from propane and natural gas for farmers. This would affect farmers from coast to coast to coast.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay.

Bill C-234 is a bill that was presented by one of our members. It's an opposition member's private member's bill that would call for an exemption from the carbon tax for things like grain drying in agricultural operations. That bill is currently being held up in the Senate. If you're not completely familiar with it, I won't ask your opinion on it, but I'd urge you to do some research on it. It would be an interesting policy for your members to get behind.

There are a couple of other things.

Canada is in a situation where we have a serious problem with per capita GDP. For example, in 2021 the OECD projected that our economy would perform worse this decade than all other member countries, with per capita GDP growing at only 0.7 of 1% annually, though at least that would be an improvement over the last five years.

We have a situation where this government has been in office now for eight years. We have anemic economic growth. They've doubled our national debt from $600 billion to $1.2 trillion. Interest rates have skyrocketed. Doesn't this put businesses in a terrible position in terms of how they're going to navigate their way into the future?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay.

Perhaps I'll ask you a question more related to business, then, when it comes to the carbon tax. Are you familiar with Bill C-234?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

We have Bill C-234 in the Senate right now. It's being held up in the Senate by Liberal-appointed senators.

Are you familiar with that bill? It's the bill that would call for a break on heating for grain drying and things like that for agriculture.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Are you aware of Bill C-234?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Fair enough.

I'll ask the same question to the National Cattle Feeders' Association.

How important is Bill C-234 to helping bring affordability back to our producers?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Fair enough.

Going back to Bill C-234, I didn't get a chance to properly ask you about this, but how important is this bill? I know that all opposition parties are in agreement with this and with getting it passed immediately. How big an impact would this bill make?

[Greg Schmidt]

I would absolutely. That's home heating, and I think more important to our industry is Bill C-234 at the Senate.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Do you have any comments on Bill C-234?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Would the chamber like to see the passage of Bill C-234?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My colleague also brought up Bill C-234. Are you familiar with that bill?

I wanted to ask if it would help, in your opinion, to lower prices.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Yes. In fact, we had the Minister of the Environment, Minister Guilbeault, say that there would be no more carve-outs as long as he's the environment minister.

Now, Bill C-234, which is I think the bill you were alluding to, is being tied up in the Senate by Liberal-appointed senators right now, but I look forward to its passing and to Minister Guilbeault resigning as cabinet minister, assuming he's a man of his word.

Can you maybe talk about the unfairness when it comes to businesses, because the government has been telling us for eight years that people get back more than they pay. We know now that's not true, because they've created a carve-out for home heating oil in Atlantic Canada. Those people weren't getting back more than they paid. We know businesses, small business people, have never gotten back more than they've paid. Can you comment on the unfairness of that?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start with a bit of carbon tax math. There was confusion in the earlier panel, but it's important, I think, for the question I'm going to ask you, Ms. Verwey.

In 2019, the carbon tax was $20 a tonne. This spring, it will go up by four times to $80. That's a quadrupling of the carbon tax, just so we're all clear on that.

In the absence of Bill C-234 going through, how will an $80-a-tonne carbon tax affect your members?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have limited time. Six minutes goes very fast in this business.

I take it that you would like to see Bill C-234 passed.

[Jill Verwey]

Certainly. Thank you for the question.

I think it's important to realize the financial burden of this additional tax, combined with inflationary and input costs that have happened and snowballed over the last number of years.

When the exemption was first granted on the use of gasoline and diesel, the fuel for grain drying and heating of buildings was omitted. Bill C-234 would make it inclusive. This carbon we're using in the production of food is inclusive. It includes everything.

Depending on the type of operation you have, those costs can be significant, anywhere from $40,000 on a poultry farm to an additional $8,000 on a grain farm in Saskatchewan. It varies depending on the type of operation. The important thing to realize is that these additional costs make us not competitive in an international market. They also hinder the working capital of our operation.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your testimony, all of you. It's been very interesting.

Ms. Verwey, we have a situation now where Atlantic members of the Liberal caucus successfully lobbied the Prime Minister for a carve-out of the carbon tax on home heating oil. That set off a firestorm across the country. Canadians are saying they're not being treated equally.

I'll juxtapose your comments on Bill C-234 with the highly political decision reinforced by Minister Hutchings, who said that if western Canadians want a carve-out on their home heating, they should elect more Liberal MPs. They are giving a break to Atlantic Canadians but are basically saying to the hard-working farmers across this country, “When it comes to you, you can forget about it.” As evidence of this, Bill C-234, which has made its way through the House, is now being held up by Liberal-appointed senators in the Senate, who are trying to block an additional carve-out for the carbon tax for things like grain drying.

I'm wondering if you could talk a bit about what your members are saying about the hardship that this tax is imposing on them and their livelihoods.

[Jill Verwey, President, Board of Directors, Keystone Agricultural Producers]

Good morning.

Mr. Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for having me here today to present on behalf of Manitoba farmers for the 2024 federal pre-budget consultations.

My name is Jill Verwey. I am president of Keystone Agricultural Producers. I operate a multi-generational mixed farming operation with my husband and children in Portage la Prairie, where we primarily grow 8,000 acres of grain. We own a commercial beef operation and a dairy operation.

I'm joined here today by our manager of communications and stakeholder relations, Colin Hornby.

Keystone Agricultural Producers is Manitoba's general farm policy organization, providing a unified voice on the issues that affect agriculture. We are also members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, a lead national advocacy organization for our sector that presented to your committee last month and provided you with several recommendations.

As a member of CFA, we endorse their recommendations; however, we would like to underline a few that are particularly important to our members here in Manitoba. These recommendations highlight areas where the federal government can make a positive impact for farmers, agriculture and the Canadian economy through the budgetary process.

First is to extend the on-farm exemption for qualifying farm fuel to marketable natural gas and propane. This would implement the changes outlined in Bill C-234, which we fully endorse. Farmers should not be excessively taxed on an essential part of their business when economically viable alternatives do not exist. In particular, this pertains to activities like drying grain to ensure farm food safety, and heating and cooling of livestock buildings to maintain animal welfare and best practices.

Number two is to exempt farms from filing the underused housing tax or UHT return, which requires private corporations and partnerships, including farming operations, that own residential properties to file a UHT return, adding unnecessary financial burden even if we do not have to pay the tax. This requirement has caused financial and administrative burden to many farmers, as they have to pay a professional to prepare and file this UHT return even when they know that they are exempt from the tax. Although there is an exemption process available for farmers, the application process itself is costly, adding to the already increasing expense of the farming operation in our input costs, energy costs and regulatory requirements.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Davidson, does the chamber have a position on Bill C-234?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Can I also ask you about Bill C-234, which is the bill that would exempt agricultural production from the carbon tax? Does the Manitoba business council have any policy on that?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I want to thank all of you for your statements.

It's nice to see so many familiar faces. Many of you I met during my time on the Winnipeg city council, and to be back in Winnipeg with the finance committee and see all of you here is very special for me.

Mr. Barletta, I'm going to start with you.

I'm on the Food Banks Canada website, and I just want to read something to you. It says:

Despite years of sounding alarms and recommending much-needed solutions to address the struggles of low-income Canadians, food bank usage in 2023 rose to an unprecedented level, with over 1.9 million visits reported in the month of March alone.

That's a staggering number. This committee has heard from executives of food banks over the past year who are sending out a dire message that basically their services may be unsustainable.

We also have high inflation in this country. It has come down somewhat, but we had some interesting testimony from the Governor of the Bank of Canada recently at this committee, when he essentially said that government spending was making his job more difficult and that, interestingly, the carbon tax comprises 0.6 of 1% of the inflation rate. For example, if their target rate is 2%, inflation is now 3.8%. If you took away the carbon tax, the inflation rate would be 3.2%, and that would ease inflationary pressures significantly and bring them much closer to target.

I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about what we can do to stem the tide of increasing visits to food banks, and whether or not you have some thoughts around whether the government should consider pausing the carbon tax and also passing Bill C-234 through the Senate in order to get the carbon tax off the grain-drying and agricultural processes in order to ease the cost of food for Canadians.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Yes. We have supported Bill C-234 from its inception in the House. We will continue to do so and are encouraging senators to pass it quickly.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Of course, another carve-out that's currently, unfortunately, being held up by Liberal or Progressive senators is Bill C-234, which would give farmers an exemption from the carbon tax with respect to natural gas and propane.

Is that something that your organization and your members support?

Carbon Tax

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, winter has arrived, and the NDP-Liberal government has left Canadians out in the cold. The Prime Minister's carbon tax carve-out of home heating oil leaves 97% of Canadians without relief, including 90% of Saskatchewan homes heated with natural gas. After eight long years, he is once again pitting region against region and Canadian against Canadian.

The common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234, offers a solution to this divisiveness through long overdue carbon tax relief for farmers. By axing the tax from the on-farm use of natural gas and propane, farmers would save almost $1 billion between now and 2030.

The alternative is unacceptable. The coalition's plan to quadruple the carbon tax on those who grow the food will make everyone pay more. Farmers will fail, and a great number of Canadians will be forced to make the choice between eating and heating. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

Carbon Pricing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, his carbon tax is not working, he has missed every single target, he is on track to miss his 2030 targets and Canada is ranked 58th out of 63 on climate action.

The question is about our farmers. There is a bill, Bill C-234, a common-sense Conservative bill to carve out farmers from the carbon tax. All it needs is for the Prime Minister to give his senators permission to adopt this carve-out. Will the Prime Minister stand up to his environment minister and stand up for farmers and let Bill C-234 pass and allow this carve-out to go ahead?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, our common-sense plan is found in Bill C-234, which would give another carve-out to farmers on the carbon tax.

The Prime Minister has claimed that he will not cave again. He says there will be no more carve-outs. We are asking him to keep in mind that there are two million people who have to go to the food bank every month because of his policies.

Will he put his ego and pride aside and ask his Liberal senators to pass common-sense Bill C-234 to axe the tax and create a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as my father used to say, when someone points a finger, there are always three fingers pointing back at them.

When it came time to decrease funding to farmers, the Leader of the Opposition sat on his hands at the cabinet table. When it came time to increase funding to farmers, all Conservative MPs sat on their hands. On Bill C-234, if it was so important for the Leader of the Opposition, he should not have sat on his hands but worked a little harder.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a new term we could use tonight: “prince of darkness”, or something of darkness. Maybe we can use that new term.

In February 2022, the Conservative member for Huron—Bruce introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would also exempt natural gas and propane used on farms for essential tasks like drying grain and heating barns. A year later, in March 2023, it passed the House of Commons with full support from the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and a handful of Liberals. However, the bill is now in the Senate and has been there for some time. Then the Senate amended the bill and took out the exemption for buildings. This was a piece of legislation passed in the House through three readings and through committee, and it went to the Senate.

This is with respect to the exemption for farmers on carbon tax. These are the people who do not get a rebate. We hear all the time that the government is sending a rebate. I have talked to many people at farm operations, because my riding is a rural one, including last weekend at a meeting I had in the small community of Enchant. The farmers do not get a rebate, but they are paying a huge carbon tax. The bill has now been amended. I have the utility bills from one of those people, and for one their buildings, they paid $15,000 in carbon tax. This would have been exempted, but now the bill is sitting in the Senate, amended.

For the bill to get out of there, amended, it has to come back here and go through the process. Is there a likelihood of the bill's being passed before we get to another summer? The bill has been kicking around for two summers. For two summers, farmers across the country, from coast to coast, have been paying carbon tax on propane and natural gas for grain dryers and buildings. The bill was what we needed for our agricultural sector. Now, the Senate has amended it and taken out the exemption for buildings. Like I said, a constituent of mine paid $15,000 for carbon tax. It was not the price of the power and the electricity; it was carbon tax because they are using natural gas.

The bill is going to come back here. The delay costs the agriculture sector because of Prime Minister-appointed senators making the amendment to it. Let us understand that: It was Prime Minister-appointed senators who made this amendment. They knew what they were doing. They knew the delay that they were causing. This is hardship. The carbon tax allows no rebate to these kinds of farmers. They do not get the rebates that the government members constantly talk about. It is a travesty to our agricultural sector that this has happened.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

The challenge with the carbon tax at the farm gate is that farmers have no ability to pass on extra costs to their clients. That's the biggest challenge. I think it's being recognized in Bill C-234 right now. That's why I'm hoping it will pass. The economics around farming are far different from supply chain economics.

[Dr. Sylvain Charlebois]

Thank you for the question.

I think Bill C-234 needs to pass. I think it's a must for farmers, but farmers are being taken care of by Parliament right now. Parliament is giving attention to farmers. The forgotten child in the supply chain is manufacturing, and that's kind of the point I'm making here.

We're talking a lot about retail prices and we're talking a lot about farmers. There is some attention given to farmers, but I think what we need to do is look at where the wealth is created in agri-food. That's in processing and manufacturing. That's where the innovation occurs. There are lots of SMEs in Canada, including in food services, that are really struggling right now due to higher costs. To operate a business now is much more expensive than before.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for all the testimony we've heard today. Thank you for being here and for joining online as well.

After eight years of this Liberal-NDP government, we are seeing that our farmers are being punished quite a bit. I represent Oxford, a riding of a lot of great farmers who do amazing work feeding our families.

Professor Charlebois, you mentioned farmers playing a role in helping us bring down some of our prices and making sure that groceries are more affordable for Canadians. The carbon tax has been punishing our farmers. We have seen that farmers are paying a lot more now to heat their barns, dry their grain and run their operations. There is a bill now in the Senate, Bill C-234. We're hoping it passes, but it's being blocked by some Liberal senators there.

Do you think eliminating the carbon tax or pausing it would have a positive impact on our farmers and reduce some of their input costs?

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his sincere words. In a past life, I had the pleasure of working with him, and I look forward to working collaboratively with him here.

The legislation the member mentioned is an important piece. There are currently exemptions, but so many costs are passed on to the farmers, who are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to this. I appreciate his support for Bill C-234, and I would encourage my hon. colleagues in the other place to quickly pass that legislation to expand the carbon tax exemption for farmers across Canada.

The last thing I will point out is that profits are not a bad thing. I think wealth creation is a good thing, and given that we are invested heavily in all of our pensions, we should want Canadian companies to succeed.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the member for Portage—Lisgar to the House. I also offer my sincere congratulations to him on the election of an NDP government in the wonderful province of Manitoba.

The member talked about the carbon tax a lot. We are very familiar with this at the agriculture committee. He knows as well as I do that there are exemptions in the existing act. He also knows that there is room for improvement, which is why I voted for Bill C-234.

However, what I never hear Conservatives talk about is that, over the last three years, we have seen the oil and gas industry increase their profit margin by over 1,000%. Why do Conservatives never talk about the gross profiteering of the oil and gas companies off the backs of working families right across this country from coast to coast to coast?

[Keith Currie]

I think the easy answer is yes. The one thing about carbon tax is that rural Canadians and farmers pay disproportionately more in tax. For those who live in an urban setting, when they walk out the door to go to the grocery store, they have two choices. They can get in the car and drive and choose to pay the carbon tax, or they can go down the street and get onto public transit.

We don't have that option. We have to drive everywhere, so we're paying disproportionately more. From a farming perspective, everyone who gets charged a carbon tax for a service they provide or whatever the case may be puts that added cost onto the products they're selling to the public. Farmers are price-takers, not price-setters. We don't have the luxury of passing that cost on, so we get piled on by more and more service charges, which narrows our margins even more.

It would be a definite boost, especially if Bill C-234 gets through and you could put the push on the Senate to get this through committee quickly, especially on a couple of senators who are holding this up. We'd really appreciate it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to switch gears and talk to you, Mr. Currie, for a bit. Thank you for all the work you and the farmers do across the country. I think the best farmers are in Northumberland-Peterborough South, but I might be biased.

In all seriousness, one of your recommendations was, of course, to reduce the carbon tax on all fuels, including natural gas and propane. That's Bill C-234, which is currently in the Senate, but I want to talk more broadly than that. Tiff Macklem said that 0.4% of inflation was directly attributable to the carbon tax.

If, in fact, we were able to remove all the carbon tax on your members, would that reduce the input costs and potentially reduce the cost of food in Canada?

Carbon Pricing

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, on September 20, I rose to ask a question about how the carbon tax is impacting farmers. The minister responded by suggesting that somehow the carbon tax will stop natural disasters, which occur in this country and all around the world. The fact of the matter is this: The carbon tax has not done that, and that is because we live in a global environment where the carbon emissions from other countries, such as the carbon emissions of China, impact whether or not there are large carbon emissions going on in the world.

There is no such thing as a carbon dome covering and protecting Canada so that somehow if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while countries like China continue to put out more than double our total output in their year-over-year increases, the carbon tax is going to protect us. It is not going to protect us, and in fact it makes the cost of everything more expensive.

Farmers at the International Plowing Match were telling me that this is a huge challenge. However, what makes it worse is that when I raised this question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment suggested that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax and stated that they do not pay a carbon tax, even to dry grain. Then, when I suggested that he was wrong, he accused me of spreading misinformation. That is outrageous, because he is absolutely wrong. Farmers do pay a carbon tax to dry grain. Farmers do pay carbon taxes on all the inputs on the farm. The only thing they do not pay a carbon tax on is purple gas, which is exempt. However, the trucker who brings in that purple gas pays a carbon tax on the gas they use.

The parliamentary secretary is so woefully uninformed on his file that it is embarrassing. To accuse me of spreading misinformation when he did not know what he was talking about is deeply shameful, and the member should apologize.

If he spent five seconds talking to a farmer instead of blustering here in the House of Commons, he would know that farmers pay a carbon tax to dry grain. If they did not pay a carbon tax, why would Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels be in the Senate? Why would the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion?

The parliamentary secretary's lack of information and his audacity to accuse me of misinformation are exactly the reason we are in a mess in this country. The Liberals do not have a clue about what they are talking about.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Liberal government's Bill C- 56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

This is yet another half-baked, half-measure bill from the Prime Minister to solve an affordability crisis that he, himself, and his government have created. After eight years of inflationary taxes and out-of-control spending, Canadians have now found that they cannot afford the Liberal government. They cannot afford housing. They cannot afford fuel, and they certainly cannot afford food.

What makes this bill that much more frustrating is that the Liberals are adding more bureaucracy to try to solve a problem that they created, when there is actually a very quick measure they could enact today that would reduce costs for Canadians significantly, and that would be by eliminating the inflationary carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. These two carbon taxes and the inflationary aspect of them are making life unaffordable for Canadians.

Today, we saw in a report by the Financial Post that their new initiative, the Canadian sustainability standards board, is actually going to exacerbate those costs on Canadians, especially when it comes to food costs. It is going to add additional bureaucracy to every industry and every commodity, asking them to identify the impact of carbon on every link in the supply chain. This is going to add so much red tape and bureaucracy, and and an onus on every industry, manufacturing every product and growing every commodity, that it is going to make life that much more unaffordable.

The interesting thing is that the Liberals are implementing or imposing these punishing carbon taxes on, for example, agriculture, which is one of the industries that we are a leader in. We are world class in sustainability, in our emissions and in our ability to grow food with the lowest emissions in the world.

The data in painfully clear on the impact the Liberals' carbon tax 1 and 2 is having on Canadian farm families. According to the Canada food price index, a 5,000-acre farm would be paying $150,000 in carbon taxes every single year. There is not a farmer I know that could absorb those types of costs and still remain economically viable.

That is the question the Liberals always seem to forget. They talk about sustainability. I think they get a quarter every time they say it. However, they never talk about economic viability. When these new regulations and taxes are imposed on industry, agriculture or energy, it is impacting their ability to remain economically viable.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer just published a new report confirming the correlation between inflation in Canada and the suffocating carbon tax on our farmers. Diesel will go up 70¢ a litre. In many provinces, gas has already exceeded two dollars a litre.

When I was in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, in the GVA meeting with some farmers, it was $2.08 a litre for gas. It is unbelievable that the government is now expecting Canadians to absorb that and still be able to put food on the table and pay their mortgages. This year alone, the carbon tax collected from farmers, just from on-farm propane and natural gas, was $50 million.

I find it interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said in his speech on Thursday that he did not know why we were so excited, that the carbon tax does not impact farming. The statistics from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Canada food price index and just about every commodity group in the country say otherwise.

This is why we have brought forward Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from natural gas and propane because they are still paying the carbon tax on those two fossil fuels, and that is because there is no alternative. They need these fuels to heat and cool their barns, dry their grain and power their irrigation equipment. This is not something the Conservatives are tossing around, these are indeed the facts.

Those who think those numbers are bad can hold my jerry can. The newest Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the impact of the carbon tax on farming said that between this year and the year 2030, agriculture will be paying $1 billion in carbon taxes alone.

The Liberals are saying that these costs on farmers, which they do not even believe exist, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms they do exist, are not impacting the price of food and not the reason we are seeing these high costs at the grocery store shelves.

I do not know anyone, other than maybe those in the Liberal-NDP coalition, who thinks that adding taxes will somehow reduce prices. However, that is exactly what they are saying. As part of this discussion, the Prime Minister has threatened the CEOs of the major grocery chains in Canada, saying that, if they do not stabilize grocery prices by Thanksgiving, there will be tax consequences. He is threatening to increase taxes on the grocery store CEOs and the major chains in Canada.

Is there an issue with competition in Canada? Yes, I would agree with that. We need to do things to improve competition in Canada, which always brings down prices. However, do the government members honestly think and truly believe that if they increase taxes on Sobeys, Loblaws, Costco and Walmart, the companies are just going to absorb those additional costs? There is no scenario where an industry just says, “The government is right; we are going to pay more taxes, and thanks very much.” Of course they are not. They are going to pass them on to the consumers, and that is going to drive up costs even more.

I want to emphasize the real-life consequences these taxes are having on those whom we are relying on to grow the food that we use to feed our families; these growers certainly play a key role in Canada's ability to help feed the world. A fruit and vegetable grower in my riding showed me their power bills for the last few months. They were paying $5,000 a month in carbon taxes alone, plus $800 of GST on top of that carbon tax; it is a tax on a tax. The grower has now decided to close their market in the winter months because they simply cannot afford to stay open. That is fresh fruit and vegetables at a nearby farmers' market and grower, which my rural constituents were able to go to without having to drive into the city. That is now going to be closed, forcing constituents to drive even further. It makes a lot of sense if climate change and reducing emissions is their goal.

A farmer in southern Alberta told me he paid $140,000 in carbon taxes last year, meaning that he could not invest that money in new equipment, which would have been more energy efficient and more fuel efficient. More frustrating for this grower is that he was hoping to have that money to put aside for his daughter, who wants to take over the family farm. She would have been the fifth generation to take over that farm. Now, instead of having that money to invest in his operation, improve efficiency, reduce emissions and help the next generation, where has that gone? It has gone to the Liberal government into general revenue. In fact, again, if reducing emissions and addressing climate change is their ultimate goal, this is doing the exact opposite.

There is another interesting thing. The Liberals want to increase taxes on the grocery CEOs; however, many of the grocery stores in Canada are actually owned by local franchisees. I went to visit the operator at one of the larger Sobeys operations in my riding, to see how things were going. His energy bill has gone up $6,000 a month as a result of the carbon tax. He is trying to absorb those costs, because he is a local business owner. However, he says that, eventually, he is going to have to pass this on to the consumers; otherwise, it is going to have an impact on what he can pay his employees or what he can contribute to local community initiatives, service clubs, sports teams, youth organizations and all those things that business owners try to help support.

The Liberals think that these costs are just magically absorbed by those farmers and small business owners, but they are not; of course, these costs are passed on to the consumer. That is why we see apples up 61%, carrots up 72%, and oranges and potatoes up 76%, just in time for Thanksgiving. The Liberals need to realize that when they increase the tax on the farmer, trucker, manufacturer and retailer, those costs are passed directly on to the consumer. Canadians are paying the price for that.

We are seeing that with millions of Canadians. Seven million Canadians went to a food bank last year. In Alberta, food bank use is up 70%. The food bank in Calgary is supporting 700 families every single day. These are numbers that I know the operators of food banks across the country have never seen before.

In conclusion, if the Liberals really cared about grocery prices and family farms, they could do something right now: They could eliminate their carbon taxes and certainly their plans to quadruple the carbon tax. That, not more red tape and bureaucracy, would make food more affordable for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.

I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.

I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.

The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.

The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.

I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.

The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.

I asked the member for Calgary Forest Lawn about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.

The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.

From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.

I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.

This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.

I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.

I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.

The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.

The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.

It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.

Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill C-234.

However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.

On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.

The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.

This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.

I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.

I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.

Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.

Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.

This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.

First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.

The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.

On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.

There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.

The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for Long Range Mountains, and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.

I want to go to Bill C-49. The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.

Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.

I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.

To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.

I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.

I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.

On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.

I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.

Carbon Tax

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, families in my riding and across Canada are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living has increased dramatically over the last eight years because of the government's mismanagement and punitive carbon tax.

Conservatives care about the environment. There are many ways to fight climate change without resorting to a carbon tax that increases the price of everything. Our farms, processing plants and shipping companies have to take on this extra cost, which is then passed on to consumers.

Liberal and Bloc Québécois members want to radically increase the tax. Our common sense Conservative approach is to completely axe the carbon tax to give a break to families and farmers and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using science. With legislation like Bill C-234 and today's opposition motion, Conservatives will continue to defend the interests of Canadian farmers and families.

Let us come together and axe the carbon tax so that Canadians can buy food, have a home and bring home a bigger paycheque.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to make my colleague understand.

In York—Simcoe, people feel that they are on the outside looking in. They are paying the carbon tax, and right now they feel like they are subsidizing China to produce. They are looking around and saying to me, “Scot, we have got onions coming in from Egypt and Morocco. We are losing our competitive edge internationally.” This has got my farmers very worried. The government could have passed Bill C-234 for farmers, and that would have made a huge difference to grocery prices. Farmers are going to have to dry their grain and their beans. Half of my riding is on propane, half on natural gas. We want the infrastructure, and the carbon tax is not working for the people of York—Simcoe.

Sitting Resumed

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise to speak on behalf of the people of northern Saskatchewan. Debates such as this on Bill C-47 are good opportunities for members of Parliament to bring their own unique backgrounds and perspectives to the House. As a former accountant and mayor, members can imagine that I have dealt with a few budgets and many numbers in my day. I want to spend the first few minutes tonight talking about a few of these numbers, some very big numbers.

In 2015, when the Liberals were first elected, Canada's national debt was $612 billion. This budget projects Canada's debt to be $1.22 trillion by next March, which is $81,000 per Canadian household, and it will reach $1.3 trillion by 2028. A simple fact is that the Prime Minister has accumulated more debt in eight years than all of Canada's previous prime ministers combined.

How did we get here? In 2015, the total expenditures of the government were $280 billion. This budget again calls for billions of dollars in new spending. The Prime Minister simply cannot help himself. This past year, total expenditures were $480 billion, and this budget projects to start at $497 billion and rise to $557 billion by 2027-28. That is an average of $526 billion in each of the next five years. That is also $246 billion per year or 88% greater than expenditures were in 2015.

If this is what the finance minister meant when she said, “we will review and reduce government spending, because that is the responsible thing to do”, I would hate to see what the irresponsible thing looks like.

I have a couple more numbers. Canada will have accumulated over $700 billion of new debt under the Prime Minister by 2028. As projected, the cost of interest on that debt will rise to over $50 billion per year. That is more than a 100% increase over 2021 and 2022, and it would then become about 10% of the total expenditures of the government. If I had run my accounting practice for the little City of Meadow Lake the way the Liberal government has run Canada's finances, I would have been out of business and run out of office.

Let us consider some promises made in 2015. First, the Liberal Party said it would run small deficits and return Canada's finances back to balance in 2019. I hate to break it to the members opposite, but not only did the Prime Minister overspend this promise by about $700 billion, but the budget was never balanced and there is no plan to ever balance it. It is no wonder that record numbers of Canadians no longer trust their government institutions.

Second, the finance minister talked a lot about the declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This was her fiscal anchor. She said, “This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” That sounds like another promise. I hate to once again break it to colleagues opposite, but the debt-to-GDP ratio has risen every year since the government was first elected in 2015 and is projected to rise again in the coming year. When the Prime Minister and finance minister make promises about debt and deficits, forgive me if I do not hold my breath.

Sometimes one must invest in things to be successful, so it is important to measure what one gets in return for choosing debt and increasing spending. Let us consider the state of Canada after eight years of out-of-control Liberal spending and inflationary deficits. Food price inflation is at a 40-year high. Nearly half of Canadians feel they are less than $200 from insolvency. One in five Canadians is skipping meals to reduce the cost of food, and 1.5 million people used food banks in a single month. The average cost of housing, both to rent and purchase, has doubled since 2015. This is the record of the Liberal government and the measures it is proposing in budget 2023 will, in fact, make the situation worse for Canadians by pouring another $67 billion of new deficit spending fuel on the flames of inflation.

I am very proud of coming from northern Saskatchewan. I believe it is an area that is a very good benchmark to measure how Canada's economy is performing. It is a region that has many important sectors of our economy: mining, forestry, agriculture, oil and gas, tourism, etc. It is also home to a unique cross-section of communities and people, communities and people that, frankly, should be thriving. Instead, everywhere I visit when I go home, people speak about how frustrated and desperate they are with the current economic situation.

Municipalities are struggling. The cost of much-needed infrastructure projects has ballooned over the last few years. Whether it be upgrading a sewer line, building a recreation complex or improving a street, community leaders are being tasked to do more with less. The result is that not only do they have to do the heavy lifting for their people, but the conditions under which they are operating keep getting worse due to the economic policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

These same policies are negatively impacting small businesses in northern Saskatchewan. This winter, I was talking to a business owner. He supplies people living in remote and rural communities with home heating fuel. He described to me the difficult position he was in due to the rising cost of this home heating fuel. His customers were either being forced to buy very small amounts, or they were pleading with him to extend credit until they could pay. They were having to choose between feeding their families or living without heat in the middle of a northern Saskatchewan winter, and he was having to choose between possibly losing money or seeing these families live without heat. That is the choice that this small business owner was facing because of the NDP-Liberal coalition nightmare.

Small business owners are also continually telling me how the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural and remote areas like northern Saskatchewan. This is becoming a very serious situation for them. Not only are they dealing with a labour shortage crisis, but due to the rising carbon tax they are forced to increase prices. Now the costly coalition is adding a second carbon tax that will ultimately add 61¢ per litre to the cost of fuel.

Everything, everywhere in northern Saskatchewan must be trucked. There is no other option. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this will cost the average household in Saskatchewan $2,840 per year. Increasing taxes at a time when people are struggling to get by is not a recipe for economic success. Is it any wonder that the people I talk to are fed up?

That anger can also be felt when I talk to farmers back home. The government members seem to forget that agriculture is the economic backbone of Canada. A stabilizing sector and one that provides the food we all rely on deserves better from its government. Let us imagine being the Minister of Agriculture in Canada and voting against Bill C-234, a bill that would give farmers carbon tax exemptions to produce the food we need. If the minister will not stand up at the cabinet table for farmers, who will?

Let us face it. When it comes to agriculture, these Liberals have become the living definition of biting the hand that feeds them. In a country that feeds the world, Canada is now a place where people cannot afford food. For many people in northern Saskatchewan who were already struggling with the increased cost of living, the skyrocketing price of food has become a crisis.

“This isn't working” are the words of a food bank chair from northern Saskatchewan, who adds, “Everything is increasing—gas, rent, food, heat.... I just don’t know how people are supposed to manage.” The food bank's monthly food budget is $5,000, and it now provides half the number of food hampers that it did just three years ago. The Liberals' mismanagement of the economy, assisted by their NDP enablers, has created conditions that directly harm the most vulnerable in our communities the most.

All of this is while the people from northern Saskatchewan and Canada have a Prime Minister who spends $6,000 a night on a hotel in London, but would not admit to it for months and still takes no responsibility; a Prime Minister who vacations in Jamaica at a luxurious estate of Trudeau Foundation donors; a Prime Minister who spends $8,000 a month on groceries; a Prime Minister who is embroiled in a foreign election interference scandal and uses Trudeau Foundation members and friends to investigate; a Prime Minister who named an interim Ethics Commissioner who is the sister-in-law to a cabinet minister, who is also a long-time family friend, to replace the former commissioner who grew so frustrated by the continued Liberal ethical lapses that he finally walked away. This is not leadership by any measure at any time in our history.

Budget 2023 is not an economic document. It is the political document of a government led by a Prime Minister who has chosen power over principle.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to what the Leader of the Opposition said at the beginning of his speech, nine out of 10 young people believe they will have difficulty buying a house and becoming homeowners. That is certainly true. We need to take action on that and develop social housing, among other things.

However, that is not today's topic. We are talking about the carbon tax and the fact that the Conservative Party is constantly calling for all environmental measures to be completely abolished. He talks as if everyone else in the House of Commons is completely unreasonable and out of touch, when, in my opinion, it is quite the opposite.

My question for the Leader of the Opposition is this. Does he recognize that members of the House are capable of taking reasonable action, by voting in favour of Bill C-234, for example? I asked the question this morning and did not get an answer. Does he agree that we were reasonable in voting for Bill C‑234?

What is he going to do for the 10 out of 10 young people who are asking us to take action on climate change?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I wish the Conservative Party would stop with the populism. They have been shouting at us for almost a year, for example, that the government has been in power for eight years, when it will actually be eight years in October. Of course, if they say it enough times, it will eventually be true.

Today, all sorts of things are being said. Puns are being made with the Prime Minister's first name. All day, we hear talk about “common sense”. A person can claim that something is “common sense” all day long, but it has to be put into practice all year long.

Would my colleague not agree that people can show “common sense” but still take moderate measures to ease the impact of the carbon tax, the way that Bill C‑234 does?

I am quite proud of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We reached a reasonable comprise to help people through the transition. Does my colleague acknowledge this? This is my first question.

My second question is: What will the Conservative Party do to address climate change? When will it realize that climate change exists? There are wildfires burning now.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, prior to being elected to this chamber I served with the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. I had the opportunity to work in Pontiac with that organization, and I got to know some of the excellent farmers and rural folks in the member's riding.

I am curious what reaction to the budget the member is seeing from her own agricultural constituents, as 6.8% of Canada's GDP comes from the ag sector. I noticed that she voted against Bill C-234, the carbon tax exemption for farmers, as did most, but not all, of her colleagues, which I want to acknowledge.

There is almost nothing in this budget for agriculture. What reaction is she getting in her riding from her agricultural constituents?