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.

[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.