Debates of Nov. 28th, 2023

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

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who believes in free trade and trade agreements, on principle, I think we need to support trade agreements. It may be CETA, CUSMA, CPTPP, the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which was negotiated by the other side, if I remember correctly, or the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

Whether members agree or disagree on minor details within the agreement, at this time, when Russia has invaded Ukraine, it is a moral imperative that every single person in this House votes, and in the past tense, should have voted for that agreement, fait accompli. There is no argument on that front. It is silly to me. There are Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines fighting for freedom and democracy. Why is there a debate in the House over whether we should support a free trade agreement?

It is a moral imperative for us as MPs and as a democratic country to stand with democracies all over the world, including Ukraine. It is a shame that some members in the House did not do that. They should answer to their constituents for that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who is proud of my Ukrainian heritage, I am disgusted by that tirade from the member.

He is sitting here, defending putting more taxes on our farmers and creating more food insecurity at a time when we have record numbers of people lining up at food banks across this country. Does the member not realize that the food insecurity he is creating here in Canada is the very same food insecurity that he is aligned with, with Putin in Ukraine?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for this member of Parliament. I know he is proud of his heritage. I know he supports Ukraine in its fight against Putin with every inch and every ounce of his body. I will say that. I will take the high road. I will leave it at that.

What I will say on food security and food affordability is that we know it is an issue. Our farmers are on the front line, and they are being impacted by climate change, something that folks should think about when we adopt policies.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my colleague from British Columbia. York—Simcoe is now classified as being part of Toronto, which is entirely unbelievable. We talk about the Liberals playing games. They have actually played games by changing the CMA census data. Ridings that are supposed to become urban are being kept rural.

With respect to the choices for people in York—Simcoe, we do not have subways and we do not have transit. The member from B.C. knows that my riding is rural, being home to the soup and salad bowl of Canada. How does my colleague think it is fair for the riding of York—Simcoe to be looked at as urban, as though it were part of Toronto?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member enjoyed my speech.

I was talking about relief for farmers and all the measures we have already exempted, such as gas and diesel for farm use from pollution pricing, and all the measures we have already taken to help the farming community.

Being from British Columbia and my riding of Steveston—Richmond East, I have spoken to farmers, and they want to be a part of the solution. There are blueberry and cranberry farmers whose farms have gone underwater. There is also the impact of drought and all of those other issues that climate change and climate events have brought upon their farms, so they want to be a part of the solution. They believe in this policy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have with the Liberals is that they talk about this climate vision, but they have missed every single target they have ever promised. We see the Conservatives, who are dead set against investment in EV technology, ridiculing the investments in the battery plants. However, the Liberals are putting billions into it when they do not have a plan for the supply chain for critical minerals.

We have mineral deposits in Thompson, Manitoba, and in northern Ontario that could supply the EV technology that is needed, but without a coherent plan on tax credits, or a coherent plan from this government for an all-of-government approach, we are going to end up seeing the United States using our metals while we import metals from China, the Congo and Indonesia. This has been raised with the finance minister again and again, but we do not see any coherent strategy from the Liberals in comparison to Biden's IRA, which is creating billions in opportunities. Why is the government making promises without having the coherent plan to actually follow through?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's question, but I am a little confused by the thought of incoherence. If we were to look at our investments in the national supply chain corridor alone, we would be looking at solutions for those issues. I am a little confused by the question.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, part of the debate here today on the motion at hand is about the Conservatives trying to have the House dictate to the Senate what bills it should pass. Bill C-48 is a bill that is incredibly important to provinces and territories, including B.C. The Conservatives have not been too concerned about it in the Senate, shown by the fact that it has taken them two months to get through it.

Could my hon. colleague speak to the fact that Conservative games in the Senate are stopping the passage of crucial legislation that provinces, such as British Columbia, have asked our government to implement?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question.

I think that every member in the House, across the aisle, are getting a little tired of some of the procedural games that are taking place not only here in this House but also in our committees. If we look at the collaboration needed to move this country forward, we are not really seeing these things being met when it comes to the work that we are expected to do by our constituents, which we need to take into consideration.

I welcome collaboration when I do my work. It is expected of me when I am working with all levels of government, including with members of the Province of British Columbia and the City of Richmond. I think we need to get on with it.

[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.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting. At the beginning of the member's speech, he spoke about the pillars of democracy and what is so important in a democracy.

Is it the Conservative Party's and the Leader of the Opposition's desire that, in their terms, common-sense democracy means that when someone does not agree with another parliamentarian who does not share the same beliefs, it is okay to resort to bullying and aggressive tactics to the point where safety and security have now been an issue for two women in the Senate that the House leader of the opposition specifically targeted?

Are they learning lessons from January 6 in the United States and the MAGA Republicans? Is that how they view democracy in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question from a person who supports a Prime Minister who wore blackface, a person who supports the Prime Minister who elbowed a female MP on the floor of the House of Commons because he was not getting his way in a vote, a person who divided Canadians, called them undesirables and people who do not deserve to be in the same country when they just wanted to talk to the Prime Minister, and supports someone who will not ever talk to people if they do not agree with the Liberals and the Prime Minister.

The member asked what my opinion of democracy is. My opinion of democracy is when someone has a public phone number, and people can call it and ask for the person's stance. At least people can have a conversation, not being divisive or calling people undesirable, saying they should not have the same freedoms because they made a personal health choice. What a disgusting question.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see both sides of the issue.

I understand that the carbon tax, as applied in the Canadian provinces and territories aside from Quebec, makes it possible to build up funds that will help people when disaster strikes. That said, I also understand that our farmers, who make up 3% of the population, feed us and are already overburdened with expenses. I understand all that.

We really need to find a happy medium between helping disaster victims, including farmers, and enabling farmers to produce our food at a price that is good for both them and us.

In the case at hand, we have a bill that was passed here in the House by elected members. Now it is being studied in the Senate, and the Senate has decided to delay or stonewall it, despite the fact that members of the Senate are not elected. Basically, they do not represent the people of Canada and Quebec.

I would like to know my colleague's opinion on this subject. From now on, should senators be elected, instead of being appointed for partisan reasons?

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

Mr. Speaker, some senators are elected. Alberta has elections for senators already, but the Prime Minister will not appoint the senators that have already been elected by the people of Alberta. This is another way he thumbs his nose at democracy.

To the member's point, I agree that 3% of Canadians are farmers. They help feed Canada and the world, and they deserve this carbon tax exemption because it will help them innovate on their farms. One thing I will always believe is that a dollar in the pocket of someone who earned it is always worth more than a dollar in the government coffers that was taken from that person or company in the first place.

[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, 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.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am standing today is that last week, we had an opportunity to debate a common-sense Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax from all farm fuel. That debate took place in the House, then moved to the Senate and then it stalled. The reason it stalled is that the members opposite from the Liberal Party of Canada asked the Senate to stall it, to delay, to use every tactic in the book to try to prevent the legislation from going through. That is incredibly sad. What that means is farmers will not benefit from a carbon tax being taken off of such things as drying grain, harvesting their fields or heating their barns. Those are common functions for farmers, the people who produce food in our communities.

I am here to advocate for those individuals who produce our food, but I am also here to advocate for Canadians at large, those who buy food.

I was first elected about eight years ago. Shortly after I came into this place, I had a conversation with a member opposite. That member took an interest in my riding which, of course, is in Lethbridge, Alberta. It is a beautiful mix of a small city of about 105,000 people and a county, which consists of a lot of farmland and those who know how to make that land produce something incredible that is called food. The member asked me questions about my riding. He said to me, “That farmland that you have there, they are just growing for fuel, right?” I said, “Excuse me?” He said, “Yes, they are just growing for fuel, right?” I said, “No, they are growing food.” He said, “Oh. Normally we just go to the grocery store now for food. We do not really need that.”

It is interesting. In that moment, I realized just how out of touch Canadians at large are with where their food comes from, how it is produced and how important it is that we support those who produce it. It is easy to think that food just arrives on the grocery store shelves in a pretty package and maybe some nice marketing tools are used. We get to pick up that food, bring it home and consume it. We forget the process or maybe we never knew the process that it underwent in order to get there.

In my riding, I have the privilege of being able to see that process from start to finish. I watch as those farmers actually take the seed off their field. I watch as they actually process that seed and prepare it for use in next year's field. Then I watch as they till the ground and put that seed into it. I watch as they use water to care for it. I then watch as that seed produces plants which continue to flourish and eventually are harvested. Eventually, that harvest is taken, dried and processed. It is either shipped out like that or it goes for further processing locally. Eventually, it becomes food that is sold in our grocery stores. Much of that is sold right here in Canada in our grocery stores, but sometimes it goes to other places around the world.

Canada has this incredible gift called land. We have this second incredible gift called farmers. They are the individuals who work incredibly hard and with great innovation to make sure that Canadians are fed.

I will talk a little bit about these people in my riding, because if we care to learn, we can. These are individuals who are incredibly community-minded, who work collaboratively together. These are individuals who are incredibly hard working. These are individuals who care deeply about animal health and welfare.

These are individuals who are the original environmental stewards. They are the ones who take care of the water, land and air. They have done that from the beginning, because they know that to take care of those things is to take care of the food they produce and to be good at what they are doing. They are the folks who thrive in spurring on innovation, in bringing forward new technologies and great business practices. These are the individuals who are incredibly generous.

In my riding, it is these folks who have funded community swimming pools and community recreation centres. It is these individuals who have paved park pathways and created parkways. It is these individuals who have invested in our local hospital. It is these individuals who have given tremendous amounts of money to the underprivileged, especially those who are homeless.

It is these individuals who have helped to fund programs through our college and through our university. It is these individuals who are making a tremendous difference in our community day in and day out. These are the individuals the government insists on punishing through a punitive carbon tax. It is these individuals who feed Canada and feed those around the world.

To those in my community and to those who like to eat, we celebrate these men and women. We look at them as the individuals they are: people who are doing something wonderful, not only for my local community but for the nation and even the planet.

The member's opposite see these individuals as if they are the enemy. It is a mystery to me. Again, we are talking about women and men who are not only caring for us by producing food but taking care of the environment by sequestering carbon, by making sure soil health is good, by making sure the air quality is excellent and by making sure water is stewarded. These are the folks who get zero credit for those actions and instead are frowned upon for what they do and how tremendously wonderfully they contribute to society.

The government has decided to apply a punitive carbon tax, and yes, it is applied to farmers from the moment they put the seed into the ground to the moment they harvest to the moment food goes on to the grocery store. The carbon tax does not stop. It keeps going on and on, until finally it is picked up by the consumer at the store. The truth is that even then it does not stop, because the consumer pays the carbon tax at the till and pays the carbon tax again when they put the food in their trunk and drive it home. They then pay the carbon tax again when they turn on their stove and make that food. It just keeps going.

We are asking for the carbon tax to be taken off farmers. We are asking that this House exercise some common sense and make the determination that farmers are incredible people who deserve to be celebrated, not punished. It just makes sense.

When farmers have this punitive carbon tax attached to them, the carbon tax eventually makes its way to the consumer. When the consumer has to pick it up, they are detrimentally impacted too. There are more Canadians than ever before lining up at food banks. In my community of Lethbridge, since 2019 the number of people going to a food bank and relying on it as their primary source of food has doubled. The biggest group of people there, which is growing, is those who are working a consistent job. They are not able to make ends meet anymore, because under the government, things have become too expensive. They are desperate for help. They are desperate for a government to listen to them. They are desperate for a government to understand their concerns.

A woman recently reached out to me. She is in her sixties and has a disability, so she lives on a very small amount month to month. It is $1,700. We can imagine what it might be like to live on $1,700 a month and pay rent. She cannot just live anywhere because she is in a wheelchair. She has to pay extra because she needs to make sure it is wheelchair accessible. This an individual who then has to pay for her food, transportation and her phone. Then she might even want to engage in the human dignity of buying a birthday gift for someone once in a while. This is an individual who has to cut back on even the essential things of life.

The reason people are having to make these difficult choices among medication, healthy food, paying rent and paying their heating bill is that the government has made life so unaffordable. The ask on the table today is very simple, very straightforward and very tangible. It is to axe the tax on farmers. When we axe it there, we bring it down everywhere else and all Canadians benefit. That is what we are asking for today. It is common sense for the common people.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently and heard the member opposite talk about giving credit to farmers and celebrating them. I would like to give credit to and celebrate the National Farmers Union representatives who came to see me just last week. I had a wonderful conversation with farmers from New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, who asked the government to continue moving forward with a price on pollution. The last time I checked, they were farmers like any others.

Could the member opposite please comment on whether or not she will join me in celebrating and giving credit to those representatives from the National Farmers Union?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the farmers who pay into that union, I would ask the member to table the document that professes what he says it professes, because I am doubtful that it exists. Living in a farming community, I have not had one single person come to me to say they want the carbon tax to stay.

My request is simple. I would ask the member to table the document. Then I would be happy to concede.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see how the Conservatives bring everything back to the carbon tax. The conflict in Ukraine is all about the carbon tax. Now, the Conservatives are saying that the problems farmers are having are because of the carbon tax. The Conservatives' common sense boils down to one thing: eliminating the carbon tax, even if it does not apply in Quebec.

All of the Conservatives' efforts over the past 18 months have been focused on the carbon tax. I have a very simple question for my colleague, who says he wants to help and support farmers. If that is what he wants to do, then there is a very worthwhile bill that is also sitting in the Senate, the supply management bill. If the Conservatives want to help farmers, why do they not focus their efforts on Bill C-282?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, there is a difference between the member and me. I exist here as a member who belongs to the Conservative Party of Canada and he exists here as a member who belongs to the Bloc. I exist here to defend all of Canada and he exists here to defend Quebec. My picture of a wholesome and united Canada includes Quebec and all other provinces and territories. When I stand in this place, that is what I contend for. I contend for all people everywhere across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member. Today's debate is not about the carbon tax but about a motion to send a message to the Senate.

We are getting this motion from the party of the Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy scandal. This is the party that has appointed failed candidates and party operatives to its ranks. This is the party that has used its senators to block legislation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how in the world can we take Conservatives seriously when they are guilty of such rank hypocrisy?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the sole purpose of that comment was to launch a scathing attack toward me, so I will allow the member to do that. Of course, it his prerogative to use his time in that way. I do not know that I have a response to it.

[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?