Debates of Dec. 12th, 2023

Canadian Aviation Regulations

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this House to represent the amazing folks of Essex. I always give, and will always continue to give, all honour to my lord and saviour, to God, for the opportunity to do this. Without him, nothing is possible. I want to say to the folks of Essex, if it is the last time I get a chance to speak in the House before Christmas, merry Christmas to them.

One week from today will be a pretty monumental day. It will be 25 years of marriage to the love of my life, an amazing woman named Allison. I am kind of surprised she is still with me. She is one of the most remarkable human beings on this earth, someone who cares deeply. She has stood by me through thick and thin. She is an amazing mother of three and a remarkable grammy to Levi, our grandson, who is two and a half years old. Although, in this House, we cannot acknowledge anyone in the gallery, if she were here, I would say that I love her dearly and that I need her now more than ever. I would say that reaching 25 years is pretty darn special. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me that time.

Any time we give a politician who loves labour and loves firefighting an opportunity to speak about labour and firefighting, it can be kind of dangerous. However, I think it is a pretty awesome and unique opportunity here for me tonight. I am going to speak to Motion No. 96.

I served in the fire department in Kingsville for seven and a half years, from 1998 to 2005. It was one of the most critical and unique times in my life. It brings me back to one of the most unfortunate events that I had to go to. It was a plane crash off Pelee Island. There were eight souls and two dogs coming over from a pheasant trip. The plane went down in the icy waters of Lake Erie shortly after takeoff, and they were lost. I was part of the recovery rescue team.

This motion speaks to a lot of opportunities that we have, but it does not really get down to the granular issues of each and every airport. I think about the Windsor airport. Quite frankly, I do not believe that this motion would encapsulate the Windsor airport, which is right next to an incredibly busy airport, the Detroit airport. It occupies much of the same space as the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

About a month and a half or two months ago, I visited the control tower in Windsor. I listened to stories about the difficulties of talking to and working with the Detroit Metropolitan Airport control towers. I listened to how the control space, the area around Windsor, is much different than the areas around many other airports across the country.

Because of that conversation, I am now realizing that Motion No. 96 may fall slightly short of exactly what needs to get done. I want to thank the member for introducing Motion No. 96. I think its intentions are correct, but I believe it needs to be studied at committee.

About a month and a half ago, maybe a couple of months ago, I had an opportunity to speak with the firefighters from the Ottawa airport. They were in my office at the Justice Building. We had a really good conversation. I said to them at the end of the conversation, and it easy to speak to firefighters when one was a firefighter, that I would bring this to the transport committee, have a conversation at the transport committee and figure out the best way to move forward with this dialogue around potential legislation, which is what this should be, in my opinion. They were, I would suggest, ecstatic, to say the very least.

We could talk about the cost of this, easily. We are hearing anywhere from $1.50 to $2.50 per plane ticket, per individual, for each airport. We also understand, and I believe it to be true, that any airport that does not fly 180,000 flights per year does not fall under this motion. Just as a firefighter is a firefighter is a firefighter, a human being is a human being is a human being.

Somebody flying out of Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal should be the same as those flying out of the ones that are discussed at committee, whether they are at the Windsor airport, the Pelee Island Airport or the Greater Sudbury Airport. It is really vital that we bring this to committee to be studied.

I sit on the transport committee, and last night at transport committee, my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope introduced a notice of motion. I would like to read that into the record. He moved:

That the committee undertake a comparative study on the cost of federal taxes, fees and regulations on the price of airline tickets in Canada and the United States, allocating a minimum of 4 meetings to this study to hear from witnesses from Canadian and US airlines, Canadian and US airport authorities, and other interested parties, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

There was debate on this last night. I think this is the route the House needs to take.

I suppose, if we were to take it one step further, we would talk about labour and training. As I criss-cross the country, from coast to coast to coast, I continue to hear that people are struggling to find labour. They are struggling to find skilled trades. In my own municipality, in my own riding, I know how hard it is to get firefighters these days. Back when I was lucky enough to become a firefighter, it took a long time. Now they are screaming for firefighters. I am not so sure, without studying this at length, even if this motion were to pass, we would have the firefighters to fulfill these roles.

It has only ever been about service for me. It has only ever, and will only ever, be about service. I believe the service we are doing in the House tonight discussing Motion No. 96, and I thank the hon. member for introducing this motion, we are doing not only for the passengers of airlines but also for the firefighters. I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I would strongly suggest that this is sent to transport committee, and that we can come up with a solution that works for the passengers, the firefighters and all Canadians.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, anyone who has experienced a major fire knows how vital firefighters' expertise and specialized equipment are in situations where, often, every second counts. That is why it is not surprising to learn that, according to a 2021 Leger poll, firefighter is the most trustworthy profession, trusted by 95% of respondents. Politicians are trusted by only 31% of the population.

All of the members here will agree that all air travellers deserve safe landings at Quebec and Canadian airports. However, according to the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, over the years, Transport Canada has allowed airports to reduce service standards to the bare minimum. In some instances, there are only one or two firefighters on call while planes carrying hundreds of passengers are taking off and landing. Transport Canada has been warned about this many times over the years. Unfortunately, those warnings have gone unheeded until now. When the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees shared its concerns about the problems with the regulations that impact airport firefighting, Transport Canada advised that their primary concern is the financial viability of the airports.

The International Association of Fire Fighters, which represents over 23,000 professional firefighters, concluded that significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at Canada's major airports are needlessly putting the safety of the flying public at risk. Of note is the fact that the regulations fail to specify rescue as a required function of airport firefighters.

The Canadian aviation regulations, or CARs, require only that firefighters reach the midpoint of the furthest runway in three minutes rather than all points on operational runways within that time period. That means the response time for an accident at the end of a runway will be a lot longer. The CARs do not take into account certain rescue and firefighting standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, a United Nations agency that helps 193 countries.

ICAO is the global forum of states for international civil aviation. It develops policies and standards, undertakes compliance audits, and performs studies and analyses. It provides assistance and builds aviation capacity through the co-operation of its member states and stakeholders. Its head office is in Montreal. According to ICAO, firefighters at major Canadian airports should have the resources they need, as has already been mentioned, to reach the site of a fire or mishap anywhere on a runway in three minutes or less. As my colleague said earlier, three minutes is how long a plane can withstand flames before they melt the fuselage and spread everywhere, from one end to the other. Let us not forget that between 12,000 and 220,000 litres of fuel are stored under passengers' feet. As is the case when there is a fire in a building, the main cause of death in an aircraft fire is smoke. Airport firefighters must be able to interact directly on board the aircraft in the event of a fire.

The Bloc Québécois supports this motion because the fire safety standards set out in the CARs have not undergone a major review since the regulations took effect in 1996. We are asking Transport Canada to review the CARs, and we are supporting the demands of firefighters in order to prevent a tragedy from occurring in one of our airports. The current regulations do not specify that firefighters have a duty to attempt a rescue if a fire breaks out inside a plane. They are only obligated to extinguish the flames with water or foam in hopes that the passengers will be able to evacuate the aircraft themselves.

It is frankly absurd. They are supposed to wait for firefighters from neighbouring municipalities to arrive, yet municipal firefighters do not have the response times or training required to respond quickly and effectively to aircraft emergencies in restricted areas. Equipment, training and travel time requirements increase the risk of tragedy.

Moreover, simply hosing down the area, as currently prescribed, no longer meets ICAO standards. Firefighters should have the option of intervening directly, when the situation allows, obviously, by climbing aboard the aircraft to rescue passengers in difficulty and extinguishing fires at the source.

By adapting the CARs to meet ICAO standards, we will ensure that all airports meet the highest safety standards. I should note that, at present, there is nothing to stop an airport from adopting higher standards than the CARs. The result is uneven fire safety standards from one airport to the next.

For example, according to the Montreal airport, firefighters must be able to respond in less than three minutes, regardless of the location of the incident on airport property. Obviously, covering all runways in less than three minutes means more vehicles, more buildings and, of course, more firefighters, which means more resources. ICAO indicates that the regulations must establish a minimum number of firefighters on duty based on airport size, so that the travel time requirement can be met at all times.

The International Association of Fire Fighters points out that firefighters are required to carry out regular inspection and response tasks that take up part of their team's time. That is why it is imperative to properly assess firefighting personnel needs.

For example, the Montreal and Mirabel airports each have their own fire station in the immediate vicinity of the runways. Each fire station has four teams of firefighters who work in shifts to provide 24-7 protection. The Aéroports de Montréal fire service has its own training centre for conducting aircraft fire simulations and for training firefighters to respond to situations involving aircraft that contain highly explosive or flammable fuel.

According to the Aéroports de Montréal firefighting unit, the additional costs of bringing the CARs up to ICAO standards could be covered by a surcharge of less than a $1 per passenger. A dollar per passenger is a small price to pay for safety.

Additional resources are justified because even though aviation accidents are rare, the amount of fuel and the large number of passengers that the planes carry call for higher safety standards to be imposed. It can mean the difference between a terrible tragedy and an impressive rescue.

We really need to take action and adopt this motion. We need to move quickly. It is a matter of not only recognizing firefighters, but also allowing them to have the tools they need to do their job properly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, for his right of reply.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues here in the House who have spoken on Motion No. 96. The commentary has been really thoughtful and has illuminated an issue that has been hidden it seems for at least 25 years, and that is the gap between Canada's current aviation regulations and the standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Each speaker in the first round and in this hour has basically detailed the nature of those gaps in terms of response times to any point on an operational runway versus the midpoint, which is the current Canadian standard, or the lack of a mandate to rescue people from inside an aircraft, leaving firefighters officially responsible only to make sure a pathway leads from the aircraft through the flames so if anybody can actually make it out they can save themselves.

These gaps in fire crews' mandates exist officially, but for anybody watching and now all of a sudden extremely worried about safety when one flies and particularly at an airport, it does not mean operations at the 25 to 30 Canadian airports with more than 180,000 emplaned or deplaned passengers per year fall short of one or more of the ICAO standards.

Since we first spoke to this issue, I have heard from the two airports mentioned in my opening remarks. Senior management at the Ottawa International Airport tell me its firefighters are mandated to rescue passengers from inside an aircraft. YOW management say its response team is crewed, trained and equipped to do this. Some fire chiefs I have spoken to doubt municipal firefighters have the training to conduct these rescues, yet the International Association of Fire Fighters says that where airport crews are not trained, it is expected that municipal responders will fulfill this function.

YOW management here in Ottawa tell me that, in fact, its firefighters train municipal responders. Airport management wants us to know that other safety measures have been taken, some of which are unique, such as grooving the runway to prevent a landing aircraft from hydroplaning in wet conditions.

YVR in metro Vancouver has firefighting crews staffed, trained and equipped to rescue those inside a burning aircraft. The response time meets Canadian aviation regulations but not ICAO's. That said, YVR dedicated $5 million to double the number of firefighters and has brought two new state-of-the-art aircraft fire rescue trucks into its fleet at an additional $6.6 million investment.

It is quite likely the safety measures in place at other highest volume airports maybe follow the same pattern. They meet and sometimes exceed Canada's regulations, but I suspect on the whole there is great inconsistency across the country.

We cannot overlook the financial limitations some of our busiest airports face, and that is something we need to think about. There is one note in the 2003 Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement regarding the definition of “rescue” that should raise red flags for everybody in this House. It established a policy to ensure that the status quo in 2003 be maintained when it came to the types of activities included as aircraft rescue and firefighting services without imposing any additional obligations or costs.

It would not be unreasonable for the average Canadian air traveller to conclude at the very least that financial implications would be a factor in setting rescue standards. In approving Motion No. 96, we would be challenging this. We would be reinforcing the principle that if something is mandated, there would be an obligation to get it done.

By raising the question about the adequacy of and compliance with the Canadian aviation regulations, we would be opening the way for a more fulsome examination of gaps that may exist between best practices and the actual firefighting and rescue capabilities at Canada's busiest airports.

In closing, we should not doubt for a moment that airport managers and their firefighting crews adopt safety as their top priority. The consequences of Motion No. 96 and our debates should be a closer examination of the issues we have raised, and perhaps through a study at our Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, a study that leads to findings and recommendations that would reinforce public confidence in the exemplary safety record of air travel in Canada. I served on TRAN from 2015 to 2019 and this issue never came up. Now it has and now it is our obligation to see it resolved.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 13, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Automotive Industry

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government is spending an enormous amount of money on subsidies to various manufacturers involved in batteries here in Canada. Over $40 billion is being spent on this particular business subsidy program. This subsidy plan will cost every single Canadian family about $3,000.

Conservatives are committed to always standing up for workers, which is why we have asked for clarity from the government about whether there are protections for Canadian workers in the subsidy contracts that it signed with companies. Will Canadian workers actually benefit from this enormous outlay of taxpayer money? It is $3,000 per Canadian family; Canadians would like to know, and they would like to know how much workers are going to benefit.

The parliamentary secretary is clearly eager to respond. He is saying that they are going to benefit “lots”.

What we have asked for, quite simply, is that the government show its work and release these contracts to the public, so we can know the impacts. The particular genesis for this demand is that we have found out that the companies involved are actually going to be hiring a large number of foreign replacement workers. Therefore, over $40 billion in Canadian taxpayer money—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to think this is funny. It is not.

Over $40 billion in taxpayer money is being used not to employ Canadian workers but to hire foreign replacement workers, who are going to come to Canada to do the job. That is concerning, obviously. Did these contracts include protections for Canadian workers or guarantees for jobs for Canadians? We would like to know. If the government left that out and just said it was going to give tens of billions of dollars to these companies, and it does not know whether or how much Canadians are going to benefit, then that would be seriously troubling. This is why, again, we have insisted that we want to actually see these contracts.

Consistently, Liberals have been filibustering in the government operations committee in order to block the release of the contracts. For a while, we had all opposition parties, including Conservative, Bloc and NDP, standing together and prepared to vote in favour of ordering the production of the contracts. The Liberals were against it. They were filibustering to block their release.

Then, tragically, we had a flip-flop from the NDP. Rather than standing with workers, as they like to say they do, the New Democrats betrayed workers. They said that they do not actually need to see the contracts anymore. It is a shameful betrayal of workers from the NDP, under pressure from its colleagues in the costly and corrupt cover-up coalition. The Liberals put a bit of pressure on their friends in the NDP with a little filibustering. It was not even a very long filibuster, and I would know. Simply because of a little bit of pressure, the New Democrats buckled and betrayed workers. The only party that will stand consistently with workers in the House of Commons is the Conservative Party.

I hope we get a direct answer to my question for the parliamentary secretary, rather than more of the unrelated bluster that we often get from the government. What did the government offer the NDP members, its colleagues in the costly cover-up coalition, to get them to change their position, flip-flop and betray workers? Moreover, why will the government not release the contracts?

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that it has a lot to do with common sense. The Conservatives like to talk about common sense, and I suspect that the NDP, upon reflection and applying common sense, came to the conclusion that what the Conservative and Bloc coalition was proposing was maybe not in the best interests of workers. I think that is a possible scenario.

When the member talks about releasing contracts or the details, I think of the Volkswagen contract. As a government, we recognize the green transition. We recognize things like climate change. We recognize that in order to provide good-quality middle-class jobs, we have to be prepared to invest in certain industries in a very real and tangible way.

Ironically, we are not the only government that has made this decision, because we also see Progressive Conservative Doug Ford entering into agreements and using taxpayer dollars, as we have, to support and enhance an industry that is going to provide good middle-class careers and jobs well into the future for future generations of Canadians, something the Conservative Party opposes. I wonder if the member opposite has asked his good friend Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative, for a copy of the agreement. If not, why not? I wonder if Doug Ford has provided that information to the member opposite.

I know the Conservatives are trying to find some way to be critical of everything and anything the Government of Canada does at no expense, even if it means doing the opposite of what the member just finished talking about. When he talks about workers and the best interests of workers, seriously, at the end of the day, whether it is Stellantis or Volkswagen, we are talking about thousands of jobs. How can he possibly imagine that this is not in the best interests not only of those direct jobs but of the tens of thousands of other indirect jobs?

He is concerned that the Progressive Conservative Province of Ontario and the Liberals at the national level have worked together with private industry in order to secure good, solid middle-class jobs for future generations of Canadians. The federal Conservative Party says “whoa”. That is true to form in the sense that the national Conservative Party today, as I said, is the MAGA right. We see an extreme right that believes government does not have a role to play in things of this nature. The party does not believe that government should be assisting or subsidizing, or whatever MAGA terms it wants to come up with.

We on this side of the House recognize that the climate changes, that climate change is real today and that there is a responsibility of government to think ahead. That is why we have good, sound policies to support a transition that is going to see more green types of jobs, which will attract, I would suggest, even more jobs in the future. This makes Canada well placed in the future on this issue.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, as predicted, the parliamentary secretary did not even come close to attempting to answer the question. He said this is a great deal, these are great contracts and this is a great investment. Our question is quite clear: What is in these contracts for workers? How we can know what is in these contracts for workers is if the contracts are released. If the government thinks it has done great work, release the contracts; show the work.

What the Liberals are saying is that they did great work on these contracts and there are great opportunities for workers, but they cannot show us them. They cannot show people what is going to be in there or not in there for workers. That is, may I say, rather suspicious, which is why Conservatives are saying that we want to see what is in these contracts for workers. Release the contracts.

The Liberals have been consistent. I will give them that. They are always in favour of cover-ups. They never want the public to see anything. However, the NDP has flip-flopped and betrayed workers. Why the flip-flop—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member wants to know what is in the contract. What is in the contract is the opportunity for an industry to excel, to allow Canada to have a major footprint in the production of batteries for electric vehicles. Those on the other side need to wake up and, as many would say, smell the coffee, though I am not a coffee drinker myself.

I can tell members that a lot of good things are going to come out of this agreement between the provincial Conservative government of Ontario and the federal government in Ottawa. By having the agreement with companies such as Stellantis and Volkswagen, we are creating tens of thousands of direct jobs. There will be even more indirect jobs. The footprint we are putting in place is going to speak volumes in the potential growth of the industry.

Carbon Pricing

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is out of touch, and it is Canadians who are paying the price. That is exactly what we are seeing with the carbon tax. It has a negative effect on everyone in different ways.

I would like to focus on the farmers who grow the food. They are seeing some of the worst impacts of the carbon tax. As time goes on, farmers and ranchers face higher input costs, including on the fuel they need to use. They are getting crushed by rising fuel costs and are caught in the unfair position of absorbing costs at each and every stage of production.

That is why Conservatives brought forward a common-sense solution that we thought would receive the support of all parties. Bill C-234 would provide an exemption from the carbon tax on all on farm fuels. Everyone supported the idea and voted with us, except for the majority of the Liberal caucus, of course. Most of them voted against it, but fortunately for Canadian farmers, Bill C-234 passed in the House of Commons anyway. That was back in the spring. Eventually, the bill reached third reading in the Senate.

However, it seems that the Liberals cannot accept that their coalition partner, the NDP, supported our bill. At the last opportunity, some senators appointed by the Prime Minister have been trying to shut it down. There have been delays in passing it, and more recently, amendments have basically gutted Bill C-234. This is right in line with the Liberal approach to this bill. If they cannot stop it from passing, they want to at least make sure it will provide the least amount of benefit possible to the farmers who grow our food. We know that the activist environment minister does not want any more carve-outs to his carbon tax, no matter how much it hurts Canadians.

I originally called on the Prime Minister to tell his appointed senators to stop the blocking of Bill C-234. It seemed likely that the environment minister or the Minister of Agriculture might respond in question period, but instead, it was the Minister of Innovation, who I know is a very influential member in his caucus and cabinet. There are rumours that he might want to be the next leader soon. I hope that he will use his influence to exempt farm fuels from the carbon tax or, better yet, axe the tax altogether. I would even suggest that, if he includes that in his leadership race bid when the time comes, he might be the one to come out on top.

The situation with Bill C-234 has changed in some ways, but there is still a chance to pass it as the House of Commons intended. That needs to happen so that we can provide relief to our farmers and make a difference for Canadian families. It is not too late to fix the problem, if the Liberals really want to do that, but that is the question: What do they really want to do?

Week after week, I have been bringing up different examples of how much the carbon tax is crushing farmers and ranchers, but the Liberals are not going to support giving them some relief if they do not want it to happen. Is that part of the plan? Are they trying to make farming unaffordable, especially for the up-and-coming new generation of farmers? l hear about this regularly in my office, when I host town halls or when I am out buying groceries. It is amazing how many people talk to me about the situation with their families, with their sons or daughters wanting to take over the farm and what that is going to look like, or what the costs of that are going to be, especially after eight years of the Liberal government. The fact is that everything is costing more and more.

Is there a future for young producers? That is at the heart of this. That is at the heart of why Conservatives want to pass Bill C-234. It is to get a carve-out for all on farm fuels, for both the farmers of the present and the farmers of the future. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could confirm his support to repeal the carbon tax for all on farm fuels, as Bill C-234 was originally written and intended to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I would tell the member that the Government of Canada has supported and continues to support our farmers in many, many different ways.

The member started off his comments by saying that the Liberal Party is out of touch. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If the member and the Conservative Party would only take a look in the mirror, we could talk about being out of touch. Listen to what Canadians have to say about things like the climate and our environment. Listen to what it is they have to say about the type of behaviour they are seeing more and more of every day. What we are witnessing inside the chamber, which I talked about earlier this morning, is a pattern coming out of the Conservative Party. The member himself spoke about it, the issue of deception.

For example, the leader of the Conservative Party has been travelling the country, telling Canadians that he is going to get rid of the price on pollution, thereby making life more affordable. That is just not true. It would not make life more affordable. In fact, it would put less disposable income into the pockets of a vast majority of Canadians. On the one hand, he is saying that it would make life more affordable, but on the other hand, in reality, it would not. What does that remind people of? It reminds me of Donald Trump and MAGA politics that are creeping in from the south, using the leader of the official opposition's office in order to be able to bring in that style of politics.

The member opposite just stood up and is saying that regular gas and diesel were impacted by the carbon tax for farmers. Is it applied?

[An hon. member]

In some cases it is.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, they do not qualify that, because that does not fit their agenda. That is what I mean in terms of misleading. What we have witnessed is a Conservative Party today that is more concerned about bumper-sticker politics than it is about good, solid, public policy.

Just over two years ago, every member, including the one who just spoke, actually had an election platform that said that, if they were elected, they would have a price on pollution. They said it in each of the 338 constituencies from coast to coast to coast. A new leader came in, and they did a flip-flop and started spreading misinformation. That is the type of leadership we have seen within the Conservative Party today. We got a little hint of that when the person who just finished speaking tried to give the impression that we, as a government, are not there to support farmers.

I was in opposition when Stephen Harper gave it to farmers by getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. Members are applauding now, but he denied them the legislative right to have a referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board. He did not think twice about getting rid of it. What about the piles of wet grain that sat on the Prairies as boats could not get into Vancouver? Where were the prairie members of Parliament then? Were they standing up for the farmers there and for the Harper government to actually stand by the laws of Canada and allow a referendum on the Canadian Wheat Board? Instead, they ditched it on their own personal political agenda. They do not stand up—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

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

Madam Speaker, I can ensure people that imprisoning farmers was a Liberal idea because they simply want to have grain-marketing freedom. How absurd is that? That is the Liberal Party.

Farmers have always done more for the environment than the current government would ever dream of. In fact, the parliamentary secretary admitted in his remarks that all that the carbon tax is, is an income redistribution scheme. Notice that the Liberals do not have any statistics to talk about how emissions have gone down thanks to the carbon tax. The truth is that they cannot quantify it, so the only thing they can talk about is the income redistribution scheme that the carbon tax has become.

I just want to make my final point that, again, it was farmers, not the government, who came up with zero-till technology, or just the farming practice in and of itself. It was farmers who came up with the 4R principle, and they have been practising it on their farms for the last number of decades. It was not the government's idea. Farmers have done and always will do more for the environment than the government ever will.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, farmers recognize that climate change is real. In the rest of the world, contrary to the Conservative Party, there is a movement to have a price on pollution, whether it is Ukraine, the European Union, many American states and so forth. It is only the Conservative Party that wants to bring us back to the Stone Age. Members would think that Fred Flintstone is the leader of the Conservative Party.

At the end of the day, this is good, sound policy. The Conservatives talk about taxation, but they just do not understand it; they try to simplify it. However, at the end of the day, there is a good incentive. People will get more money net from the rebate than they will pay on the lesser amount of fossil fuels that they use, but the member does not understand that. Well, that is not my problem, it is his problem. The Conservatives can take another flip-flop—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to stand in the House to follow up on a question that I asked the Prime Minister, which fell under the agriculture file.

In my response today, I need to tell the story of a woman named Dawn who, up until recently, ran a multi-generational greenhouse called “Shirley's Greenhouse”, named after her mom. I chatted with Dawn the other day and she shared something very tragic. Due to Liberal policies, specifically the carbon tax, as well as the fact that she ran into some challenges in her life as a single mom, all of a sudden the planned resilience in her agricultural operation had evaporated following increased costs associated with the carbon tax and interest rates, both of which are a direct impact from the actions of this Liberal government. Dawn shared her tragic story with me about how, after trying to make things work as a greenhouse operator and a multi-acre vegetable crop grower, she simply could not make a go of it. She has been forced to sell, and just recently, that was finalized.

Dawn asked me to make sure that I keep fighting for farmers. She proudly told me that she did not put her logo on her trailer that she took around to farmers' markets, because she did not just promote herself. The sticker she put on her trailer and her vehicles said, “No Farmers No Food”. I could hear the emotion in Dawn's voice as she explained how the carbon tax and bad Liberal policies directly attacked her and her ability to make her operation successful, even though it was a multi-generational operation.

However, what is truly tragic is that she had another conversation with another politician. That politician was the Minister of Agriculture. In a video Zoom call, he had met with a number of farmers from across the prairies, and Dawn shared her concerns directly with him about how the carbon tax was impacting Canadians.

Now, I can get passionate in debate in this place, and there is a reason for that. Canadians like Dawn tell their stories. She described how, just days before my conversation with her this weekend, she had told her concerns to the Minister of Agriculture directly, and they fell on deaf ears.

Farmers deserve better, and what is truly tragic is that, as the Liberals are attacking farmers by their refusal to support common-sense Conservative Bill C-234, their attacks on fertilizer mandates and a whole host of other things, now the debates and discussions are ongoing about how they are going to regulate cow farts. I wish I was making this up.

As the Liberals attack agriculture, the reality is that it is Canadians who pay more. As farmers are forced to cut back, close their operations and reduce their ability to produce the world-class food that we need, it is Canadians who are forced to pay the price, and we see the direct impact of that in the cost of food.

My question is simple: Why will these Liberals not listen to farmers like Dawn—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The parliamentary secretary.