Debates of Nov. 28th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the substance of the matter. I asked it during question period and did not get a satisfactory answer.

Greenfield Global operates in Chatham. It converts corn into alcohols, everything from the special ingredient in White Claw to biofuels and hospital-grade pharmaceutical alcohols. It buys Canadian corn and American corn. The American farmers do not pay the carbon tax, and they truck right into Chatham and compete with Canadian corn.

What does the member say to the Canadian farmers trying to compete against American corn in that market in our own backyard?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am unaware of or unfamiliar with exactly what is going on in the member's riding. I understand and appreciate what he has just said. The reality is that 97% of farmers are exempt from the price on pollution. I am not sure whether what he is referring to falls into the 3% or not.

Conservatives need to stop overreacting to the issue and trying to generate more attention out of it. The reality is that they are blowing this up into something it is not.

[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, toward the end of her intervention, the member commented on fossil fuel subsidies and government investment. I would like to remind the member that, over the time of the current Liberal government, we have seen those go down significantly. They are on track to be completely removed, I believe it is by the end of this year or next year.

The problem is that there are still certain investments that have to occur in the oil and gas sector, such as cleaning up orphaned oil wells, for example. Unfortunately, the programs were not in place 30 or 40 years, or more, ago, when these wells were created, to ensure that there was a fund to deal with them afterwards. We cannot just totally turn our back on that now. I see, every once in a while, the conflation of government investment with doing the right thing, in my opinion, which is to deal with the orphaned wells, because we allowed people to get away with leaving them like that, but it is a reality of the situation. In terms of investing and providing fossil fuel subsidies that direct investments to those companies, that is certainly almost completely eliminated at this point, and it will be within the next year or so.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we are, debating a Conservative motion to send a message to the Senate for delaying a bill, or blocking a bill. In 2019, a handful of Conservative senators blocked 15 or 20 private members' bills that had been passed by the House of Commons. It was all to make sure they blocked the bill on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples put forward by Romeo Saganash. These five or six senators were able to block that bill and 15 or 20 others, including my private member's bill. I am just wondering whether the member could comment on that, and whether we should encourage the Senate to change its rules so its members could not do that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that all too well, because I had a private member's bill that had passed the House of Commons and gone over to the Senate. It was just before the election, and those Conservative senators stalled it to the point where my bill as well ended up dying on the Order Paper as a result.

Conservatives will meet tomorrow morning at their caucus meeting with senators, and I do not even know what that is like. I have been here since 2015, and I have never sat in a caucus room with senators. The concept is foreign to me. When Conservatives start pointing the finger at us like we are somehow able to control what happens in the Senate because we control the senators is ludicrous. They literally sit in the same caucus room once a week with Conservative senators.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful to the member for Kingston and the Islands for sharing his time with me, which is very generous of him, and for the opportunity to talk about our commitment to strong, profitable and sustainable farm businesses across this great country.

With respect to carbon pollution pricing, we recognize the special role our farmers play in Canada. I would remind members opposite that much of the agriculture sector is already exempt from pollution pricing. In fact, 97% of emissions are already exempt. We also provide exemptions for gasoline and diesel fuels used by farmers for agricultural activities. There is a partial rebate for commercial greenhouse operations. We will also be returning a portion of the proceeds from the price on pollution directly to farmers in backstop jurisdictions through a refundable tax credit. This would apply to farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are standing by our farmers, who are on the front lines of climate change. No one can deny that their crops, businesses and properties are dramatically impacted by the extreme weather events we are seeing at unprecedented levels and more frequently than ever before. Extreme weather events are adding more stress and unpredictability to farm businesses. We have all seen how recent climate disasters across our country have taken a heavy toll on Canadian farmers over the past couple of years.

In the summer of 2021, the worst drought in 60 years on the Prairies slashed Canadian grain production by 30% and forced many livestock producers to sell off their cattle. In November 2021, mudslides caused by historic flooding in British Columbia took out key rail and road arteries used to transport food and other critical supplies. Hurricane Fiona destroyed crops, buildings and livestock across Atlantic Canada. Just this past year, Canadian farmers have had to cope with extreme weather, from droughts, wildfires and flooding to extreme cold. While helping these farmers get back on their feet again, we are also helping them to be more resilient to future extreme weather. The point is that our farmers are doing their part, but if they are going to increase their resilience in the years to come, they cannot do it alone.

Doing the right thing for the environment takes investment and time. That is why, over the coming decade, the government is making historic investments of $1.5 billion to help Canadian farmers boost their climate resiliency through sustainable practices and technologies. For example, the $670-million on-farm climate action fund helps farmers adopt practices that will store more carbon and reduce greenhouse gases. The first phase of the program focuses on three priority areas: nitrogen management, cover cropping and rotational grazing practices for livestock. These practices also substantially improve soil health and strengthen the farmer's bottom line. The fund is designed to take down the barriers and support wider and faster adoption of these beneficial management practices.

From British Columbia to Atlantic Canada, 12 different agricultural organizations are distributing funding to help farmers take immediate action on their farms in the three target areas. Since it was launched last year, the OFCAF has made available almost $100 million in direct support to help more than 4,300 farmers across Canada take real action on their farms to reduce their carbon footprint. Another 14,000 farmers have participated in knowledge transfer and peer-to-peer learning activities aimed to scale on-farm implementation of beneficial management practices.

My message is that farm families across our country can rest assured that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with them to support their growth, their resiliency and the sustainability of their agricultural businesses. The OFCAF is also helping producers with the agricultural clean technology program, which is backed by a federal investment of almost $500 million.

The goal is to help farmers and agribusinesses continue to move toward a low-carbon economy by focusing on three priority areas: green energy and energy efficiency, precision agriculture and the bioeconomy. Hundreds of farmers across the country have already used the program for clean technologies, for example, more efficient grain dryers, solar panels and precision agricultural tools.

Under the fall economic statement, we will extend the clean technology investment tax credit to include electricity and heat from waste biomass. That includes agricultural by-products, such as corn stubble and manure. Our investments in climate resilience also include research and innovation. Science is a powerful tool for building climate resilience, helping farmers make incredible strides in productivity over the past few decades. Scientists at our 20 agriculture and food research centres across Canada are working hard to help farmers strengthen their resilience to climate.

My message today is that Canadian farmers are and will continue to be part of the climate change solution. As responsible stewards of the land, Canadian producers can lead the way in our transition to a low-carbon economy while supporting food security and environmental sustainability. Just as important, they can also benefit from the economic impacts of adopting those practices on their farms. It is a win for farmers, and it is a win for the environment.

We will continue to support the sector to maximize and accelerate the efforts of our farmers, our scientists and the industry. Our programs will help farmers care for their land and strengthen their businesses. These efforts will bring enormous value to our Canadian brand, which is already renowned in global markets for quality and for respect for the environment.

Today, climate resilience is perhaps the biggest challenge of our sector for our government and for the world. Agriculture has a vital role to play, and we know that farmers are strong partners. After all, they have the greatest stake in the fight against climate change.

Once again, I thank the hon. members for this opportunity. I look forward to answering any questions that members have.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated the work that the hon. parliamentary secretary has done on sustainable finance. I know he is sincere about the need to act on climate change.

I wonder, around carbon pricing, if the parliamentary secretary can riddle me this: There are viable affordable alternatives to home heating oil, yet his government put in place a carve-out for the price on carbon. For grain drying, there are no affordable viable alternatives, yet there is no carve-out for carbon pricing. Could the member explain the contradiction between these two things?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's good-faith question, which I always appreciate in the House. I also appreciate the member's support and work, broadly speaking, for climate action. I have found him to be an hon. member with whom one can have constructive debates and conversations.

In terms of the member's question, a lot of the arguments around this debate centre around people claiming that there are no commercially viable alternatives for grain drying. I would contest that. We have examples in Canada that we heard about at the agriculture and agrifood standing committee. We also have examples in other countries of grain-drying technology that works. Most of them work on biomass, which is one of the reasons that, in my speech, I pointed to the new investment tax credit.

I believe that we should not mess with the price signal that the price on pollution establishes to change behaviour. What we should do is support farmers in transitioning to the alternatives and scaling up those solutions. We have funds that are dedicated to that purpose, and our government is investing over $1.5 billion to help farmers make those changes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, a couple of the Liberal colleagues today have put out this statistic that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax. That is completely and utterly false. We know that the vast majority of farmers pay much more in carbon taxes than they would get in any rebate. In Bill C-8, which I am sure my colleague is referring to, the average farm gets about 15% to 20% back on its carbon tax. However, there is no exemption on natural gas and propane, which we are talking about today.

Can my colleague please table with the House the document that states that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax? I would love to see where the Liberals come up with that number.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not actually say what the member just claimed I said. I actually said that 97% of emissions on farms are already exempt from the price on pollution. It is not quite what the member opposite said.

The point is that farmers are at the forefront of fighting climate change. They are greatly impacted by the extreme weather that we all know is a primary concern for them. We want to support farmers in making the changes to more resilient and more sustainable practices. Farmers are on board with that. We have the tools to incentivize that and help finance that transition, and that is where I think we should be placing our time, our attention and our resources.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the importance of transitioning to a green economy, but how can he agree with investing billions of dollars in corporate polluters like the oil and tar sands industry in western Canada?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I assume the member opposite is referring to oil and gas subsidies. Our government has created a plan, ahead of schedule, for ending all oil and gas subsidies in Canada. That is progress, and I support our government's move to do that ahead of schedule.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, this has very little to do with the substance of the legislation. I would suggest to the member opposite that it has more to do with the intimidation tactics being used by the Conservative Party of Canada.

I see a disturbing pattern taking place that Canadians should be concerned about. I call it the Donald Trump syndrome. We are seeing that by the leader of the Conservative Party today. It is very disturbing and is a pattern we are seeing more and more.

Does the member believe it is appropriate to intimidate senators to push things through the Senate, intimidation that makes some senators so scared that they are scared to go home and are telling their staff to stop answering the phone? That is serious stuff. It is the Donald Trump syndrome, and the Conservatives are falling for it. Does the member disagree with the leader of the Conservative Party?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, the best way to know when one is losing a debate is when one starts flailing with ridiculous accusations. The fact of the matter is that nobody would ever support harassment or threats toward any elected or unelected member of Parliament.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Unless it's during your election. Then it's cool.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

The fact that senators are, for the first time, facing thousands of letters and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind the deputy government House leader that he does not have the floor and he should wait for questions and comments if he wishes to contribute to the conversation.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

As I was saying, Madam Speaker, just because some people are not accountable to anybody does not mean they should not expect, in this public life, to receive phone calls and letters. If they are, maybe they should have a second thought about what they are doing and why nobody is calling them to say they are doing a good job and people support them. However, thousands of people are calling and saying to pass this bill, get out of the way and stop playing politics. That is what the Senate needs to do and that is why we need to pass this motion.

[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 called the chamber of sober second thought, but right now that chamber seems to be drunk on power. When it finds problematic elements in bills like Bill C-11, that is one thing, but I would implore all of my colleagues to consider if this was their private member's bill. Let us say it passed through the democratically elected House of Commons, only to have, for the second time, a motion that senators decided was so important, despite having no involvement with the legislation, that they needed to amend the bill to make sure it cannot be renewed through an OIC and it has to go through a long bureaucratic process again. If that is what the senator felt so compelled to do, I feel sorry for her, because this House passed the bill and the Senate needs to pass it too.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Karma is tough, Madam Speaker. During the Harper regime, Conservatives appointed members to the Senate whose only qualifications were that they were defeated Conservative candidates. They did not delay bills; they killed them. They killed Jack Layton's climate accountability act. They killed bill after bill. Now the Conservatives are concerned about the Senate. It is too rich to even contemplate.

We spend $100 million every year for the unelected, undemocratic and, under the Conservatives, under-investigation Senate. Would the member agree with me that it is time to abolish the Senate now and forever?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we could abolish the current Liberal government in this chamber. That would be the best thing we could do.

I have not thought that much about the Senate in any serious way, but the actions of these senators at the behest of the Prime Minister on the backs of Canadian farmers and Canadians who are paying higher prices for this political gamesmanship is what bothers me and bothers my constituents. I will happily fight against it every step of the way.

[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.