OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 257 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 28, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 28, 2023 DEBATES No. 257 No. 257 N o 257 Volume 151 257 28 11 2023 2023/11/28 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ English ] Ways and Means Notice of Motion

Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I would like to table, in both official languages, a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I would ask that an order of the day be designated for the consideration of this motion.

Veterans Ombudsman

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), it is my honour to table, in both official languages, the 2022-23 annual report of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman.

Taxpayers' Ombudsperson

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2022-23 annual report of the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson, entitled “Upholding Your Rights”.

[ Translation ] Criminal Code

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Bill C‑367. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑367 ,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred or antisemitism). He said: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a modern Parliament worthy of its name needs to address certain things that we are long overdue in addressing, things that perhaps never should have happened in the first place. There is a cost to living together and to living in harmony in society.

That cost may simply be to refrain from giving inappropriate and undue privileges to people within a society who use them to disturb the peace and harmony, especially if those privileges enable people to sow hatred or wish death upon others based on a belief in some divine power. That is even more true in a country that claims to be secular or that claims that there is a separation between church and state. That is why it is high time that someone took action.

I would ask the House to quickly support the act to amend the Criminal Code throughout the process in order to prevent the promotion of hatred and antisemitism. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1010) [ English ] Petitions Aquaculture

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling two petitions today. The first petition is for the Ministry of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. It talks about the importance of wild salmon stocks, which are currently under threat. Wild salmon support first nations cultural traditions and complex ecosystems, including contributing to coastal forests, which produce the oxygen we breathe. Pacific salmon runs on the British Columbia coast are in a state of emergency.

The petitioners, from my constituency, acknowledge and express support for the closure of the Discovery Islands fish farms and urge the Ministry of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to continue to save Pacific wild salmon by not issuing any more licences to open-net pen fish farms.

Expanded Polystyrene

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I will be tabling today is on expanded polystyrene, commonly known as styrofoam. The impacts of it are in the marine environment and cause significant harm to marine life, seafood resources and ecosystems. We know it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to clean up from the shorelines and that it has a high likelihood of entering the marine environment from damaged marine infrastructure, whether encased or not. The qathet Regional District and Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities have unanimously endorsed the prohibition of EPS in marine environments.

My constituents agree with this and call for the Canadian government to step up and prohibit the use of expanded polystyrene.

First Responders Tax Credit

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to table a petition today on behalf of constituents of mine from Bowser, Dashwood, Deep Bay, Union Bay, Denman and Hornby islands, and the other 20 communities that have volunteer fire departments in my riding and three search and rescue stations. Volunteers get a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer service are completed in a calendar year. The petitioners are calling on the federal government to allow that to be a $10,000 credit.

Given that Canada has a climate emergency and had the worst wildfire season in the history of our country, the petitioners are calling on the government to make this increase because it would help with recruitment, soften the burden of inflation and help with retention. I hope the House receives this petition and that all parliamentarians who are hearing this will stand in support of calling on the federal government to adopt the request made in this petition today.

(1015) Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Business of Supply

[ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

Motion moved:

That the House call on the unelected Senate to immediately pass Bill C-234,

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, to remove the carbon tax on the farmers that feed Canadians, as passed by the democratically elected House.

He said: Madam Speaker, why is it that the House of Commons is green? The answer is that the first commoners met in the fields. They were overwhelmingly farmers who harvested a living from the fields of England. They were overwhelmingly taxed, though, by a greedy Crown that took out of their pockets and out of their hands the bread they had earned. As a result, they imposed upon King John, in 1215, the Magna Carta, the great charter, which required a whole series of restrictions on the power of the Crown. Among the most important of these was that the Crown could not tax what the commoners had not approved.

Thus began the tradition that only the House of Commons can pass a bill to raise spending or taxes and only the House of Commons has the power of the purse. That principle remains in place today. I have the rule book, O'Brien and Bosc, which the Speaker follows in his chair as he administers this chamber. It says, “The Constitution Act, 1867 provided that any bill appropriating any part of the public revenue or imposing a tax or duty must originate in the House of Commons”, with the commoners. It follows that the same principle be that if the commons votes to remove a tax, that tax must be removed.

This House of Commons has voted for a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234 , to take the carbon tax off the farmers who feed us. The farmers who feed us, of course, need energy to do so. They need the ability to power their drying machines to transport their grains and heat and cool their barns for their animals, all of which requires energy. The more tax the government imposes on that energy, the more expensive it is for them to produce the food we eat.

Thus we have the misery and poverty that have resulted today in the same way they always have whenever the Crown, or in this case the state and the Prime Minister , takes too much. We see what has happened. The government is rich and the people are poor. After eight years of the Prime Minister and his NDP government, there is record food bank use. This week we learned that under NDP policies imposed through the Prime Minister, 800,000 people in Ontario alone visited a food bank six million times. This is a record-smashing number. Nationwide, two million Canadians are going to a food bank.

This is a 32% increase from when the Prime Minister took office. After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled, rent has doubled, mortgage payments have doubled, down payments have doubled and tent cities have formed in every major city in this country. In Halifax, in the province of the federal housing minister , there are now 30 homeless encampments. This is in one city. We never had this before the Prime Minister. What is his response? He divides to distract. He turns Canadian against Canadian. He gives out taxpayer-funded opioids to medicate people out of their misery.

Later next year, he intends to bring in medical assistance in dying for the mentally ill so that people who are living with the total misery and isolation that his economy has created can have their lives ended altogether. We could not even have imagined that life would be this hellish for our people eight years ago. What is his solution now? He wants to quadruple the carbon tax. He wants to raise it to 61¢ a litre on gas and diesel. Obviously this will make it unaffordable for people to drive to work and heat their homes.

However, then there are the indirect costs, because when we tax the energy of the farmer who makes the food and the trucker who ships the food, we tax all who buy the food.

(1020) Let me give an example. In my riding we have Carleton Mushroom Farms. They supply mushrooms across the Ottawa-Carleton region and into western Quebec. They are spending $150,000 a year on carbon taxes, and now the Prime Minister wants to quadruple that tax. We can presume that their tax bill would go up to $600,000 a year for one farm. How is that farm supposed to feed people? The answer is that it will become mathematically impossible to do so.

As the member for Foothills will tell the House, as I am splitting my time with him, we will see more of our food produced by foreign farmers in countries with poorer environmental standards. This is the famous story of SunTech tomatoes, another great farm in my riding where the Prime Minister taxes the C02 they release into their greenhouse even though it is absorbed by the plant life. Apparently, he missed that day in science class. The problem is that it is now more expensive to buy a Manotick tomato in Manotick than a Mexican tomato.

Therefore, the price signal the Prime Minister and the NDP send to the Manotick consumers is to buy the tomato that had to be trucked and trained across North America, burning fossil fuels from a less environmentally responsible country, to feed foreign food to our people. This policy of quadrupling the tax on our farmers will mean more expensive food for consumers and more foreign food that sends our money, our jobs and our future out of this country, at the same time as sending more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We would be better to repatriate food production to Canada.

We have the sixth biggest supply of arable land per capita in the world. We should not have to import any food, but here we are, more dependent on the rest of the world because the Prime Minister punishes the very farmers who try to feed us every day. This tax compounds again and again. It is a tax that does not apply once like, for example, the sales tax. Sometimes on a single product, it can apply 20 or 30 times. It applies, for example, when the farmer buys the fertilizer. That fertilizer has already been carbon taxed. Then he has to bring the seeds to his field.

The transportation of those seeds has to be carbon taxed. When the harvest comes out and he brings it in from the field, he has to be carbon taxed to dry those grains. Then, if it he is feeding those grains to his livestock, they might be in a barn. That barn has to be heated during the winter and so the barn is carbon taxed. Let us say they are hogs. When they are slaughtered, the slaughterhouse is carbon taxed. The trucker who ships the hogs to the slaughterhouse is carbon taxed. Then when the final cuts of pork are packaged and put in a truck to go to our grocery store, that truck is carbon taxed.

Then heating that grocery store, which has a lot of space to heat, that heat is carbon taxed as well. By the time that piece of food gets onto someone's plate, it may have been carbon taxed 15 or 20 times. People wonder why we have had the worst food inflation in 40 years after eight years of the Prime Minister. They wonder why food is so much more expensive in Canada than it is in the United States of America. They wonder why seven million people are skipping meals and not eating enough to remain healthy.

They wonder why we have lineups around streets, around blocks; if the images were put in grainy black and white, they would assume they were watching something out of the dirty thirties. The answer is the Prime Minister is taxing the farmer who makes the food, the trucker who ships the food and every other person who works hard to bring that food to our table. Common-sense Conservatives have a bill that has been passed by this House that would take the tax off.

The Prime Minister has deployed his carbon tax minister to pressure senators to block that bill, in an undemocratic attack on the prerogative of the commoners to decide who pays what. The government cannot tax what the people do not approve and the people do not approve of this carbon tax.

They want us to axe the tax; to bring home lower prices; to bring home our food production, our self-reliance and independence to this country; and to bring home more powerful paycheques, affordable food and decent homes to our Canadian people, the common people, the common sense of the common people, united for our common home; their home, my home and our home. Let us bring it home.

(1025) Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, one of the tactics that the Conservatives have been using in order to pressure senators into moving quickly on this bill was developing something that looked like a wanted poster that was distributed by the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle . One senator has received a number of threatening phone calls and emails and has been very outspoken about that aggressive tactic used by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition can comment on whether he regrets his House leader's decision to employ those types of intimidating tactics.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, the senator's contact information is widely available on websites. The member is simply trying to distract. I want to tell the member what intimidation looks like. Intimidation is when a single mother opens the fridge in the morning and there is nothing there. She looks over at the empty lunch bag that she needs to fill for her children and there is nothing to put in it. Intimidation is when, at the end of the month, she looks at the bills that have stacked up, then at her bank account and the former is way bigger than the latter. She does not know where she is going to live the next month.

That is the real intimidation that the government has imposed on working-class people right across this country. If he wants to talk about threats, it is the threat to the quality of life of the people who do the work in this country that I am most worried about.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, what we are seeing again today is not only intimidation, as my colleague pointed out, but also disinformation. I have heard the leader of the official opposition tell the House that people wanted medical assistance in dying because they had nothing to eat. The leader of the official opposition has also said that the ballot issue in the next election will be the carbon tax even though he is well aware that tax does not apply in Quebec. I have one very simple question for the leader of the official opposition. Does he even believe himself when he says things like that?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Yes, Madam Speaker, I do believe those things, and I know it. For starters, I am not the one who said that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they are going hungry. That was the CEO of Food Banks Mississauga. My colleague can read her comments about how people went to the food bank to request medical assistance in dying. They did so not because they were sick, but because they were hungry. The Bloc Québécois members do not know this because they spend all their time travelling around Europe to talk about sovereignist movements over there.

They could not care less about the people in their own ridings. Furthermore, the carbon tax does apply in Quebec. Food produced elsewhere in Canada is taxed when truck drivers transport it to Quebec, and there is another 17¢-per-litre carbon tax coming that will apply and that the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase. Only the Conservative Party wants to eliminate those taxes and bring prices down for Quebeckers.

[ English ]

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I am astounded at the sheer audacity of the Conservatives lecturing us on the Senate. After all, this is a party that has a history of appointing party bagmen and failed candidates. This is the party of Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy. This is the party that has 15 senators who still caucus with it every week, the only party, and this is a party that has their senators frequently block private members' bills in the past. Is the member for Carleton aware of his own hypocrisy and why does he think he can stand here and lecture us on the Senate?

(1030) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, I will tell the member why I think I can lecture him. It is because the member betrayed his constituents. They elected him to be a member of the opposition and, instead, he works for the Prime Minister . Every time I go to Vancouver Island, people say their MP sold them out, sold them down the river. He voted to ban their hunting rifles while allowing violent gun criminals onto the street. He voted to hand out dangerous drugs that caused crime and chaos in tent cities all over Vancouver Island. He voted to quadruple the carbon tax in order to fund the extravagances of the Prime Minister.

New Democrats, especially those from Vancouver Island, are working for the Prime Minister instead of working for the common people in their constituencies. It is not only me who should lecture the member. It is every single Canadian who should lecture New Democrats that their job is to work for the people, not for the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, every single Canadian wants one thing in life, or one thing among several in life, which is to have nutritious, sustainable and affordable food produced right here in Canada. However, the Prime Minister 's carbon tax coalition with the NDP is making that almost impossible for Canadian farmers and for Canadian consumers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear that Bill C-234 , which we are trying to pass through the Senate, would save Canadian farmers close to $1 billion by 2030. These are not insignificant costs we are talking about that Canadian farmers are trying to absorb.

We are seeing farmers struggle with higher input costs, higher interest rates and the paying of the carbon tax again and again. This is reality, but there are consequences to this reality, which seem to be lost on the Liberal government. There are 800,000 Ontarians who made close to six million visits to the food bank last year, which is an increase of almost 40%. This is the highest single-year increase ever recorded. They cannot afford to feed their families. The Liberals will say, every single question period, that all the Conservatives are going to do is cut.

The cutting that is happening right now is Canadian families cutting meals for their kids and Canadian families cutting the heat down at night and putting on a sweater or a blanket because they cannot afford to heat their homes. These are the cuts happening every single day by Canadians, who are having to face extremely difficult choice of either feeding their family or heating their home. These are not choices that should have to be made in a country like Canada, but that is exactly what an ideological activist agenda by the Liberal-NDP government is forcing Canadians to do.

We have a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill C-234 , that would help reduce costs for farmers and make food more affordable for Canadians, but the Liberal government is going out of its way to bully senators to block Bill C-234. This is disrespectful to this House of Commons, which is elected by the people to represent our constituents. This House, by a very strong majority, and in fact by every single opposition party in this House, supported Bill C-234. This is because every opposition party in this House understands the importance of Canadian agriculture.

Every member of the official opposition understands the importance of ensuring Canadians have affordable food to put on their table, produced right here in Canada by Canadian farmers, ranchers and producers. What we are seeing is the Liberals play games with the Senate, disrespecting, as I said, the decisions made by this House of Commons. My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has talked a great deal about the fact that this is a taxation bill that was passed by this House.

The Senate does not have the jurisdiction or the authority to override a taxation bill decided upon by the House of Commons, and yet that is exactly what is happening. The Senate is playing games with the livelihoods of Canadian farmers. It is playing games with the lives of Canadian families who are struggling to put food on the table. Food should not be a luxury and it should certainly not be a plaything in the political gamesmanship of the Liberal government. I want to take a moment to talk about the real-life consequences this is having on Canadian farmers.

I had a phone call from a dairy farmer two weeks ago who was basically in tears. She has come to the conclusion that she is going to lose her farm by Christmas to bankruptcy. She has a number of loans on her farm, as every single farmer does. They have lots of assets but a lot of debt. Her interest rate on her debt went from 1.9% to 7.2%. She can no longer afford the interest payments. On top of that, her carbon tax and fuel bills have doubled over the last year, making it impossible for her to maintain her operation. This is yet another lost farm for Canadian farmers.

It is lost jobs, but also lost production and lost yields.

(1035) A mushroom farmer from Ontario sent me a note. His carbon tax went up last year and he was going to be paying $173,000 in carbon taxes alone. When it goes up in 2030, his carbon tax bill will be $450,000 a year. How is that economically sustainable? I will tell us. It is not. The government talks about environmental sustainability all the time, but it never talks about economic viability, which is the most important element. One cannot be environmentally sustainable if one no longer exists. The note said, “It is difficult to see how our farm or any farm will remain in business if this continues.

It will be unsustainable for our next generation to take on our farms, killing the food chain within Canada. This is not fair to farmers, families or the farming generations to come. It is not fair to Canadian consumers who want to eat food grown in Canada, which has a lower carbon footprint.” Another letter from a poultry farmer in Alberta states that, last year, he paid $120,000 in carbon taxes. This year, he is paying $180,000. By 2030, his carbon tax bills will be $480,000 a year. He said, “We are a chicken business and just simply can't afford the crippling carbon tax.

If this is allowed to continue and go to $170 a tonne, we will need to shut down. The tax we pay is not going to do anything to eliminate carbon emissions. Our best hope is that we increase our selling price to the consumer to recover these costs, which is the last thing you or I want to see in these inflationary times.” We are seeing record-high food inflation in Canada as a result of farmers paying the carbon tax again and again. Not only do they pay it when they are heating and cooling their barns or drying their grain, but they are also paying it when they buy fertilizer, seed and chemicals.

They are paying it again when they transport their grain or their cattle and when the rail line sends them their bill for moving their grain to port. There are very few other industries that I can think of that pay the carbon tax more then Canadian farmers, yet they are dedicated to the job that they do and always finding better ways and new innovations to reduce their emissions. However, that is not taken into consideration whatsoever with bills that are being blocked by the Liberals. A veteran retired from the military and moved to Saskatchewan. He said that, in 2020, his fuel bill was $7,000.

In 2021, it was $9,000. In 2022, it is now $12,000. He said, “The weird

part is that I drive my machinery the same amount and the same number of hours each year.” His land is the same size, which means taxes are making up the difference in costs. “I am only farming a half-section, and I am farming organically. If I didn't, I would be broke by now.” These are stories that we are getting in our office every single day. These are the real-life consequences of the carbon tax and the impact it is having on farmers. This is then increasing the cost of food, and Canadians are having to deal with that every single day.

When one increases the cost and carbon tax on the farmers who are growing the food, the truckers who are moving the food, the processors who are manufacturing the food and the retailers who are selling the food, do we know what happens? Food becomes unaffordable for the Canadian consumer. That is why we are seeing one in five Canadians skipping meals and record-breaking numbers at food banks. This is not lost across Canada. We have letters from five premiers who are asking the Senate to pass this bill. Premiers across Canada understand the importance of this legislation.

Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are begging the Senate to do its job, respect the will of the House of Commons and pass this legislation. However, we have the Prime Minister 's environment minister threatening to resign if this bill is passed. He says there will be no more carbon tax carve-outs. This comes days after the Prime Minister already admitted that his carbon tax is unaffordable and had a carve-out for home heating oil. This is clearly common-sense legislation. It will make food more affordable.

The most important thing is that Canadians want nutritious, sustainable, affordable food produced by Canadian farmers. Bill C-234 will make that a reality.

(1040) Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives say they are begging senators. That is not what they are doing. They are actually inciting violence toward senators. I have a news report with me, titled “Canadian Senator Flees Home Amid Safety Concerns Following ‘Wanted Poster’ Incident”.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Can they at least stop heckling me while I talk about something so incredibly serious, Madam Speaker? It is outrageous.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Now they are laughing, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Scot Davidson :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Kingston and the Islands is—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member is not in his seat, so he cannot raise a point of order. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

Mr. Dave Epp :

Madam Speaker, I was not heckling the member across the way, so I do not know what he is talking about. Can he please explain?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member is not the one he is accusing of heckling. The hon. deputy House leader.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, here is what the

article says:

In a disturbing turn of events, Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by former Conservative Party leader [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle]. The post included Senator Clement’s picture and office phone number, triggering a deluge of abusive calls, including racist comments, and even a threatening phone call from an unidentified man.

Does the member agree that this was a good tactic by the Conservative Party of Canada?

Mr. John Barlow :

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member for Kingston and the Islands , of all people, is bringing this up. Members should take a look at his Twitter feed. It is the epitome of hypocrisy that the member is raising this. Of course, I do not agree with any member of the House or of the Senate being threatened. However, the Senate is receiving tens of thousands of phone calls and emails, through its information that is publicly available, from farmers and Canadians across this country asking senators to do the right thing and pass Bill C-234 .

What is happening in the Senate is that it is trying to bring in amendments that have been turned down in the House of Commons and at the committee. There is no alternative for Canadian farmers to power grain dryers and their barns. I agree that no one should be threatened or intimidated, but the Senate is being held accountable for the decisions it has made.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it is amazing to hear the hypocrisy of Conservatives talking about the Senate and democracy. They pick bums such as Larry Smith, who could not get elected, came in third, but got appointed to the Senate twice, as well as Leo Housakos, party bagman, who gets paid for life. What is even more astounding is that this party had the gall to stand in this House and vote against a trade deal with Ukraine. Meanwhile, we see Tucker Carlson's pro-Putin propaganda, Republican pro-Putin propaganda, the Danube Institute and Stephen Harper pro-Putin propaganda.

The Conservatives claimed it was on carbon pricing, which Ukraine has had for years. The fact that the Conservatives would use carbon pricing to undermine Ukraine's war effort to support their right-wing hack friends in the United States is the height of hypocrisy for the Conservative Party.

Mr. John Barlow :

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question there other than a diatribe. The epitome of hypocrisy from the NDP member is that they are propping up—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

(1045) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to allow the member for Foothills to address the comment, as this is a period of questions and comments. The hon. member for Foothills.

Mr. John Barlow :

Madam Speaker, the member of the NDP-Liberal government, unfortunately, never made it into cabinet with this agreement. I find it shocking in itself when someone sells their soul and does not really get anything for it. The member supports a government that sold a turbine to Putin to help him move his gas and helped fund Putin's war machine. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I think we are going to hear the two words “disinformation” and “bullying” over and over again today. We are going to hear those words a lot today. What happened to the two senators in recent days is exactly what the Conservative Party tried to pull with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska : to tell people to call his office and voice their discontent. They are trying to fire up the worst in people for political reasons. Does my colleague agree with me on that?

[ English ]

Mr. John Barlow :

Madam Speaker, no, I do not agree. We have encouraged Canadian farmers, who have done so by themselves. For example, the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, a group that represents hundreds of different agriculture stakeholders and commodity groups across the country, has encouraged its members to phone and call senators. When senators assume or accept that invitation to join the Senate, they accept the fact they are public figures. I know senators are upset by the fact that they are being held accountable for their votes.

However, it is the democratic right of Canadians to hold elected officials and senators, who are not elected, accountable for the decisions they have made. That is exactly what is happening.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address an issue Conservatives have brought forward. They often like to use the term “common sense”. I would suggest that the common-sense approach the Conservative Party takes today is nonsense. In fact, today's motion highlights the degree to which it is out of touch with reality and what Canadians believe. I do not believe for a moment that Conservatives understand the depth to which they are prepared to go to get “Axe the carbon tax” on a bumper sticker, which I believe will become the bumper sticker for the Conservative Party.

They are prepared to sacrifice principles and, ultimately, attack parliamentarians, not only directly but, I would suggest, also indirectly. It is amazing that Conservatives here are talking about this important piece of legislation and blaming senators because the Senate is not passing it based on the Conservative Party of Canada's political agenda. Members might recall the bail reform bill, which was not that long ago, in September. I spoke to the bill. There were a few people who spoke to it.

In essence, the bill ensured there would be a reverse onus for repeat violent offenders when it comes to bail requirements. The provinces, other stakeholders, law enforcement agencies and our whole judicial system were appealing to the government and the opposition parties to see that legislation come before the House and, ultimately, pass. That is what we were hoping to see. Back in September, we were pleased, as a government, when the Conservative Party suggested that we pass it with a UC motion.

Here in the chamber, the Conservatives felt it was worthy enough to pass unanimously through the different steps, so we could get it to the Senate. Interestingly enough, today, the bill still has not passed at the Senate. Why is that? Arguably, it is because Conservative senators are playing games with the legislation. Where is the concern from the official opposition today with respect to that piece of legislation? Conservatives sure liked to talk about it back in September. They wanted to make sure people had the impression that they wanted to see it pass.

They do not today, because now they are playing games with it at the Senate. It seems to me that, when there are accusations coming from across the way about the behaviour of the Senate, they are very selective. Today, they are highlighting the price on pollution. They are offended because of it. Do members know how risky they are prepared to be on that issue? For them, everything is based on the price on pollution. We now have a bill at committee called the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

When that bill first came to the legislature, much like the bail reform bill, I honestly thought it would pass with unanimous consent. It is incredibly difficult to understand and believe that the only party in the chamber that voted against the Ukraine trade agreement is the Conservative Party of Canada.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: If Conservatives do not understand its relevance, Madam Speaker, that is beyond me. It speaks to why they are so upset today at the Senate: the price on pollution.

(1050) Why, at least in part, did they vote against the Canada-Ukraine deal? Publicly, what they say is that it was because of the price on pollution, even though there is a price on pollution today in Ukraine and even though when it comes to trade agreements, the European Union has made it very clear that a price on carbon, a price on pollution, is important and is part of the process. That is the lame excuse the Conservative Party is using. Time and time again, Conservatives want to talk about the price on pollution.

Their sole focus is to try to make that the election issue, and that is why I say it is so risky. Conservatives were prepared to sabotage the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement because of the price on pollution. I suspect it probably has a little more to do with the far right element that we see day in and day out within the Conservative Party, and how the leadership office is run virtually by the far right today. It is disappointing, because the Conservative Party of Canada is more concerned about the election in the next two years than it is about good, solid, sound policy.

That is not in the best interests of Canadians. It might be in the best interests of the Conservative Party of Canada today under its new leadership, but it is not in the best interests of good, sound public policy. That is where the Conservative Party is found wanting. It was able to look at legislation and make a determination with respect to the bail reform bill, and I believe that was a good decision by the Conservative Party at that time.

When Conservatives saw there was a great deal of effort that went into the bill from stakeholders and provinces saying this was legislation they wanted to see passed, ultimately, it passed with unanimous consent. Then it hit the floor of the Senate. We do not hear Conservative members of Parliament today asking where that particular piece of legislation is. They should put that on their caucus agenda and ask their caucus colleagues in the Senate, and there are about 14 or 15 of them, why they are not supporting that piece of legislation. I am an optimist.

I think the Conservatives could be shamed into ultimately supporting the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Let us see what happens at third reading. Even if somehow the Conservative caucus could collectively out-manoeuvre the leader of the Conservative Party today and get the bill through the House with some of them supporting it, we still have to get it through the Conservatives in the Senate. Are we going to see the Conservative wing in the Senate do what it can to prevent the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

I remember standing in my place and talking about the trade agreement, saying it would be wonderful to see the legislation pass through the entire system before Christmas. What a wonderful, powerful statement that would make in support of Ukraine. More and more, it is looking like that will not be the case. Why is that? It is because of the fixation the Conservative Party of Canada has on the price on pollution. The member who spoke before me talked about how the Liberals are bullying the Senate. That is an unbelievable comment.

First of all, we need to recognize that we have a Prime Minister who has kept his word in terms of ensuring that the Senate is, in fact, independent. We saw this with the Senate appointments that have been made. At the end of the day, the only political, partisan senators are the ones who sit in the official opposition caucus meetings every Wednesday, the Conservative Party of Canada senators. They are the only ones who are aligned with a political party, but the party accuses the government of bullying the Senate.

(1055) My colleague put forward a question. Let us imagine, if we will, the former leader of the Conservative Party's developing and posting a wanted poster highlighting a senator's phone number and intimidating independent senators to take action. I got a copy of the one news article, and I would not mind making reference to some of the things that were said:

In a disturbing turn of events, Canadian Senator Bernadette Clement was reportedly forced to leave her home due to fears for her safety. The incident came about after a provocative post, akin to a ‘wanted poster,’ was shared online by former Conservative Party leader, [the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle]. The post included Senator Clement’s picture and office phone number, triggering a deluge of abusive calls, including racist comments, and even a threatening phone call from an unidentified man.

Following the threatening phone call, Senator Clement instructed her office staff to cease answering the phone. In a clear reflection of the heightened sense of fear, she decided to relocate from her Cornwall home to Ottawa, where her location could be safeguarded. The incident underscores the potential risks public figures face amidst escalating political tensions.

Senator Raymonde Saint Germain, a fellow member of the Senate, addressed this incident by raising a point of privilege with the Senate speaker. She called out attempts at intimidation and allegations of bullying, stating that one Conservative senator had labelled the independent senators as fascists. Furthermore, Senator Clement detailed a confrontation with Don Plett, the Conservative leader in the [Upper] House, who allegedly berated her and two other senators in a threatening manner.

Do the Conservatives really have the audacity to say that we as a government are bullying or intimidating senators, when they have the opposition House leader doing what he did, and a Conservative senator doing what he did to his senator colleagues? Can members imagine if something of that nature took place here on the floor of the House of Commons, if a member of the House of Commons made those sorts of threats? I do not know what allegations have been made, but I would be taking them very seriously.

I would suggest that it might be a borderline privilege issue, and I would probably suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs take a look at it. It comes from the leadership of the Conservative Party today, and that is why I say it is so risky. When we asked earlier the leader of the Conservative Party what he thinks about the actions of the former leader, his House leader , what did he say? He said that senators' phone numbers are already publicized. In essence, he does not have a problem with the behaviour of the opposition House leader.

When we posed the question to the previous speaker, he seemed a bit more rational on the issue, implying that he would not support any sort of violence. However, that was the member who accused the government of using inappropriate tactics to intimidate, when the situation is the absolute opposite.

(1100) It all comes down to the issue of the price on pollution and the degree to which the Conservative Party is prepared to push that issue. We have seen that. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the Conservative Party, in the last federal election, was against what is being proposed in the Senate today. According to an election platform document, in order to be a Conservative candidate, one had to support the party's election platform, and the election platform clearly indicated there would in fact be a price on pollution.

Every member of the Conservative Party was involved in the issue, and it is only since we had the new leader put in place that we saw a change of heart, or a change of mind, and the mind was concerned about the next election as opposed to public policy, which I talked about previously. The consequence of that change has been very profound. As a result, we now see a Conservative Party that jumps at every opportunity to highlight the price on pollution at all costs in order to condemn the government and the other opposition parties, because it stands alone on this issue.

It jumps at every opportunity to try to discredit the issue of climate change, a price on pollution and measures that are progressive in nature and are there to support Canadians. I do not say this lightly, because when we talk about the price on pollution, there is no doubt that if the Conservatives get into government, they will get rid of it. However, what they do not tell us is that in a riding like Winnipeg North, more than 80% of the constituents actually get more money back than they pay on the price of pollution.

The member stood in his place and talked about the issue of affordability, but the price on pollution in Winnipeg North ensures that there is more money going into the pockets of residents than there is in contributing towards the price on pollution. There is a net benefit, and Winnipeg North is not alone. However, Conservatives, in taking that risk and that extreme position, are today emphasizing farmers. As a government, we have been very supportive of our farmers, and maybe in a question or two, I might be able to expand on ways in which we have been supportive of our farmers.

The Conservatives are so fixated on the issue of a price on pollution that every one of them who voted actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, contrary to what Canadians as a whole, let alone people of Canadian-Ukrainian heritage, feel on the issue, how the ambassador of Ukraine to Canada feels on the issue or how the Ukrainian Canadian Congress feels on the issue, not to mention the widespread benefits.

They voted against the agreement because of their fixation on the issue, which is all based on the far right, extreme element that is alive and well in the leader of the Conservative Party's office. Like lemmings, they all follow the leader with respect to votes, which is why we saw opposition members ultimately vote against the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It was because of something Ukraine already has in place, a price on pollution. The Government of Canada and all the other parties except the Conservatives see the merit of that particular issue.

(1105) Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is my neighbour in Manitoba. He should get out of the city more often to talk to some farmers. He says there is so much great stuff for farmers. I wonder why farmers are not voting for the Liberals if they are doing so many great things. I would like to explain something to the member for Winnipeg North . When carbon taxes are put on the cost of growing our food, it increases the cost of food for everyone, whether it is because of the propane or natural gas used for drying grain or to heat the barns that keep our poultry and livestock warm.

The member would just as soon let all those animals freeze to death and allow piles of crops to go unharvested because we would not be able to dry it and properly store it. The policies the Liberals are pushing upon Canadians are creating food insecurity. He is doing no different than what Putin is doing in Ukraine in creating food insecurity. Why does the member of Winnipeg North hate farmers?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the farmers in Ukraine have a price on pollution, just like the farmers in all regions of Canada. There is support for a price on pollution. Countries around the world, and all political parties in this chamber, with the exception of the Conservative Party of Canada, understand that climate change is real and it can be addressed, in good part, by things like a price on pollution. Only the Conservative Party of Canada says no to a price on pollution.

It is so fixated on that issue that it voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which demonstrates it is taking Russia's side over supporting Ukraine at a very important time in world history. Shame on the Conservatives.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, people often say flamboyant and outrageous things in the House, but today I would like to make an apology. I would like to apologize to the leader of the Conservative Party because I have accused him of never having a job. Apparently, he has had a paper route. However, that is not fair of me to say because he did have a job.

When Stephen Harper needed someone to defend the secret bribery of $90,000 to Mike Duffy, of all the members of the Conservative caucus, nobody wanted to take the job, but the present leader of the Conservative Party did not mind defending Mike Duffy, who might be the worst choice for senator since Caligula appointed his horse. He could be on a list of all the other Conservative hacks, bums and friends of the party who were there to raise money for Stephen Harper.

With the Conservatives now being led by the leader of the Conservative Party, the man who defended a secret $90,000 payout to someone who was facing bribery and fraud charges, it shows what the Conservative Party is up to. I am amazed that he comes here with the gall to talk about democracy. There is nothing democratic about appointing bagmen such as Leo Housakos or Larry Smith, who was so bad as a candidate that Conservatives appointed him to the Senate. He ran in the election and lost, coming in third, and then Stephen Harper put him in the Senate for life.

I would ask my hon. colleague what it is about the Conservatives and their use of the Senate for friends, cronies, bums and corrupt allies, who the leader of the Conservative Party will stand up to defend day after day after day.

(1110) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, allow me to give a good example of the leader of the Conservative Party and the risk that we all take with him as leader. Last summer, the leader of the Conservative Party said that we should be resuming Parliament because the Conservatives wanted to pass the bail reform bill. He wanted us to come back early so the bill would be passed. In September, when we were back in session, we passed the bail reform bill. We passed it with unanimous consent. Today, that bill is stuck in the Senate because Conservative senators have chosen to play games.

The games being played in the Senate are, for the most part, by those in the Conservative caucus. The Conservative caucus is made up of Conservative members of Parliament and Conservative senators. It is a bad combination because they can be a destructive force on the floor of the House, as we saw with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and they can also be a destructive force—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, to my colleague across the way, there seems to be a lack of common sense that has been percolating from the other side for a long time. We have farmers. We heard earlier from my colleague that they are paying $480,000 a year in carbon tax. That is absolutely outrageous and unsustainable because food is not a luxury. I would like the member to talk to farmers directly, through the camera, to tell them that they also have to pay GST on that amount.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the member put out a challenge, but rebates also go to rural communities. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in our rural communities. My question to the member, and also to the leader of the Conservative Party , is about what I would classify as a big lie. There is an issue out there when the leader of the Conservative Party says they are going to axe the tax. What he never says is that he would be axing the rebate, which is a part of it. Eighty per cent of Canadians have a net gain, so he would be taking money out of the pockets of Canadians, not to mention he is continuing to deny climate change. The price on pollution is a good sound policy.

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the Conservatives have tabled this opposition day motion today when we could have been talking about so many things. New Democrats supported this motion because we believe that farmers deserve a break. However, we do not believe that Conservatives and Liberals would take seriously the issues that are present to Canadians, including a crumbling health care system that lacks funding from this place and a terrible situation when it comes to our economy, where we are looking backward rather than forward. We need to be debating the protections of workers today in this place.

Time is of the essence. Why is it that, from what the member believes, the Conservatives would take a whole day of the important business of this place to speak to how they themselves have always participated in the Senate? Now, all of a sudden, these same members, who have Conservative senators within the caucus who they meet with every Wednesday, are asking for that debate in this place. Canadians deserve so much better, If this is the type of leadership the Conservatives have in this place today, members can imagine what they will do tomorrow.

(1115) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of irony here. As I indicated, the only partisan politics that take place when a political entity is involved both here in the House and in the Senate are those of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative senators, on a weekly basis when the House is sitting, meet with the Conservative MPs at their national caucus. That is where they set their agenda for both places. I would suggest that it is somewhat hypocritical for them to be criticizing the independence of the Senate here on the floor of the House when they are the political side of the Senate itself.

I think this takes away from recognizing the fine work that many senators put in on a daily basis inside the chamber. I really do believe that the decision of the Conservative Party to have this particular debate is fairly consistent with other aspects, such as the price on pollution. It is so fixated on the price on pollution. Members can look at how many opposition days during that has been the issue debated. There are so many other issues, such as affordability, inflation and jobs, they could be debating. They choose not to do that. That is why I say they are risky.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this Conservative opposition day. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful and handsome colleague from Jonquière . First I would like to say something to the Conservatives, who may want to make a meme about my speech. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑234 , and all parties voted unanimously in favour of it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will talk about it a little later, but it is important to clarify this from the start.

Today, I want to talk about something I experienced, to give context to the Conservatives' motion that we have been discussing and debating since this morning. Today we are watching a finely orchestrated scene of intimidation. It makes no sense. There are women from all parties sitting here in the House, and I do not understand how the Conservative Party can deliberately orchestrate an intimidation campaign targeting two women senators over Bill C‑234. These two senators have been named and are doing their job.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois could do without the Senate, but today these two senators are here and the Senate is sitting. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are senators. The fact is they are here, they have a role to play and they are being deliberately intimidated. We are talking about senators Bernadette Clement and Chantal Petitclerc. As we know, Ms. Petitclerc is a Paralympic athlete, an admirable woman and role model in our society. The same applies to Ms. Clement, whom I have met. She is the former mayor of Cornwall.

She and I shared the responsibility for maintaining relations with indigenous people from the Akwesasne reserve. These two inspiring role models are being deliberately intimidated. What surprises me most is that this came from a Conservative member who, frankly, I respect. I am surprised to see that it is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who launched this intimidation campaign by tweeting photos of Ms. Clement and Ms. Petitclerc. As we know, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is the House leader of the official opposition. I believe that whoever holds such a position should exercise it with a sense of propriety.

They cannot engage in petty politics, resorting to intimidation to coerce two women senators, as he did. He published two photos on the social network X, one of Senator Clement and the other of Senator Petitclerc. Frankly, I may not be the most creative person on earth, but it did not take much imagination to see these two pictures looked like mugshots, such as those one might see on wanted posters in a western. The two women received many threats.

They received so many threats that Senator Clement, on recommendation by security personnel, even had to leave her home and family to take refuge in her official apartment in Ottawa, a much more secure place than her home. How can we, in 2023, accept the use of such partisan politics—indeed dirty politics, a term I rarely use—to attack individuals and their private life?

(1120) The member for La Prairie and I have also been victims of such nasty intimidation, and I can say that what we experienced at the time was serious. Our children, partners and family were all involved. What the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did is unacceptable. If the Conservatives think the Bloc Québécois will play their game and support a motion that encourages the intimidation of two women, they are wrong. We have no intention of playing that role.

I understand the Conservatives are on a quest, that they feel like kings in waiting, but I will tell them quite frankly, if they think they will appeal to Quebeckers with such tactics, they are wrong. They do not understand Quebeckers at all. In Quebec, we do not like people who viciously attack others, who bully them and who put so much undue pressure on them that it affects their personal and family lives. In the case of Ms. Petitclerc and Ms. Clement, I would even say it is affecting their professional lives. How would any of us feel coming to work, knowing that tons of people are writing to us?

I, for one, know how it feels. The member for La Prairie and I received hundreds, if not thousands, of hateful emails. Do my colleagues know why I received them? It was because I stood up in the House and asked the Chair to reprimand a member who had done something serious. I wanted an apology. The Chair thought I was right and asked the member to apologize. He never did apologize, but that is not the point. The point is that my personal life, and the life of the member for La Prairie, were severely affected. I went through sleepless nights because my children were getting death threats. That is serious.

If the Conservative Party hopes to govern Canada in the near future, it should know that this is not the type of thing that will inspire Quebeckers to trust it. Quebeckers abhor bullies. They abhor people who deliberately set out to hurt other people on a personal level. This seems like a ploy borrowed from the Americans, and that is not who we are. In addition to bullying, the Conservatives are moving a motion with a false premise. Its content supports some highly questionable tactics. With this motion, they are trying to make us believe that Bill C-234 will eliminate the carbon tax.

It does not eliminate the carbon tax. It extends the exemption for farmers who use propane to dry their grain by eight years. I will say it straight off: There is no carbon tax in Quebec. Bill C‑234 has no effect on Quebec farmers. If Quebec Conservatives are listening to us, maybe this will make them want to work for our farmers and say that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Again, passing Bill C‑234 will have no effect on Quebec farmers. If Conservatives want to work for Quebec, the Conservatives in the Senate should get a move on and work to pass Bill C-282 , which does affect Quebec.

It affects dairy farmers, poultry farmers, all farmers under supply management. That would really be working for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to stand up to bullies and fight for Quebec's interests.

(1125) Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about her previous comments. The Bloc is saying that the tax addressed in Bill C-234 does not apply in Quebec, but I think that is false. My colleague should look into it for herself. Just last weekend, I met with both chicken and pork producers again. Young piglets need heat, heating in the barns. Could my colleague please explain and prove to me that this does not apply in Quebec?

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille :

Madam Speaker, I do not know how to explain it. I know the member well. We met in a previous life, when he was president of Quebec's federation of municipalities, the Fédération québécoise des municipalités. I will say it again and, honestly, I cannot be any clearer than this: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec because we have the carbon exchange. The tax does not apply. Quebec farmers will not pay a carbon tax because it does not apply. I do not know how else to say it because he simply does not want to understand. I am surprised to hear this from an MP who knows a lot about agriculture and Quebec.

He is playing his party's game. He is trying to mislead Quebeckers and farmers. I cannot be any clearer than that. It does not apply.

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I do not think I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague clearly state whether or not that applies to Quebec. I am asking him again to clearly tell the House whether the carbon tax applies to Quebec, as claimed in the disinformation campaign by Conservative members from Quebec who have the audacity to rise in the House. I do not think they are very interested in talking about the Conservative government's record under Harper, which cut $200 million intended for farmers. That affected Quebec producers. I am therefore asking my Bloc Québécois colleague again: does Bill C‑234 apply to Quebec?

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me another opportunity to provide a few details. We supported Bill C‑234 because we understand that farmers in other provinces need support to help them make the transition and therefore be exempt from the carbon tax for eight years. However, this does not apply in Quebec because there is no carbon tax, so Quebec farmers will not see a carbon tax on the propane they use to dry their grain on their bills, as a certain member has claimed.

Still, I understand that all farmers currently have needs, especially vegetable producers, who have had an extremely difficult year, the toughest year in quite some time. People are beginning to realize that the government has not been there to respond to emergencies. I would urge my feisty colleague to convince his friends to support farmers who need help getting through the current crisis.

(1130) Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I listened to part of my colleague's speech. I would like to ask her the following question. When and why was the Senate abolished in the Quebec National Assembly?

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille :

Madam Speaker, this is not a history class. My colleague and I are well aware that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of abolishing the monarchy and the Senate. This is not the first time we have said it. Right now, we have to work with the Senate. We are not in the House to talk about swearing an oath to the King or praying. However, there is something that we have in common, and I am sure that the member will agree with me that we are both against intimidation.

We are against people who use their position, their notoriety and their media visibility to intimidate two women senators because they are not doing what the Conservatives want them to do. I think that is unacceptable. I am sure that the member who asked me a question disagrees with his party but that he has to remain silent because he has to toe the party line.

[ English ] Points of Order Alleged Unparliamentary Comments in the House Points of Order

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I want to add some extra information to the point of order that was raised yesterday after question period with respect to the government House leader , the member of Parliament for Burlington, when she said, “Is it because there is a group of Conservative members of Parliament who are pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine and they have to cover for them?” Yesterday, the Speaker ruled that the Conservatives could no longer say the NDP were Hamas supporters. In that light, we are saying that the Liberals should not be saying that we are pro-Putin when we are not. The Conservatives stand with Ukraine.

We have always, unequivocally, stood with Ukraine in their fight. I want to bring to the attention of the Speaker, when he considers his ruling, that—

An hon. member: Point of order.

Mr. James Bezan: I am making a point of order. Madam Speaker, in consideration of Russia and a reference made by the government House leader , I want to remind the Chair that on March 17, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant, a red notice, for Vladimir Putin for crimes against humanity and for the unlawful deportation of population and the unlawful transfer of population from the occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russia Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.

As members know, currently over 110,000 war crimes are being investigated by Ukraine against the Russian Federation during its war of aggression. We know that over 9,000 children are currently being held in military camps in Russia and are being reprogrammed or brainwashed by the Russian Federation. All these are crimes against humanity and are war crimes. These atrocities have to stop. For anyone to imply that the Conservative Party supports Russia is unparliamentary and is in contravention to the ruling that the Speaker made earlier yesterday, saying that we could not make these correlations.

I would ask that this is taken into consideration as the Speaker rules on whether those types of utterances are allowed.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

It is duly noted and it will be taken into consideration.

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, in making the point of order, my colleague, once again, mentioned something that one of his colleagues has to apologize for. I understand that the member is making a point of order in regard to my colleague across the way, the member for Winnipeg North , however, it is a problem for me that he is asking for the comment to be removed when he is doing exactly the same thing his colleague has to stand up and apologize for, as well as withdraw his comment.

(1135) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I think the hon. member was referencing it to make the comparison, and I get it. However, it will all be taken under advisement. It was the member for Burlington , not the member for Winnipeg North .

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it felt like my colleague had verged well into the area of debate in order to defend the Conservative record. The facts that have been raised here are very clear. The Conservatives are the only party that voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal. That is—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

That is going into debate. I am going to let the Speaker make the ruling on the point of order with the elements that have been brought to his attention.

[ Translation ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate Business of Supply

Motion The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, it was rather funny to see my whip “whip” the House leader of the official opposition . What a thing to see. First of all, defending an argument does not mean bullying someone; debating does not mean spreading disinformation; sharing political views is never to be done by pitting people against each other. I say that because I get the impression that, more and more, the danger I have seen lurking in Canadian politics is becoming all too real. It is the use of polarizing strategies like we have seen in the United States.

Far too often the purpose is to disinform and intimidate, strategies that replace reflection and democratic dialogue. I get the feeling that is what we are facing today with the Conservatives' motion. Essentially, if people have watched the events of the last few days with Bill C‑234 , what the Conservatives are saying is that not only are they not too shy to heckle, but they are moving a motion to show us that they will keep heckling and that is what they want to do. I will not reiterate what my whip said earlier in her speech.

Unfortunately, we all know that the leader of the official opposition and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle posted some nasty tweets about two senators to encourage people to intimidate them. My colleague explained it in detail earlier. A Conservative senator had to apologize for saying ridiculous things. We know all that. We are seeing more and more examples of the Conservatives' intimidation and disinformation strategy. It all seems to come down to one thing for the Conservatives: their fixation on the carbon tax.

The Conservatives have a passionate love affair with oil, which makes the carbon tax a cardinal sin in their eyes. This is version one million of my opposition day carbon tax speech. This has got to be the millionth time I am giving a speech on this topic. It is the Conservative obsession. It is a constant. Speaking of disinformation, In recent days and weeks, we have seen the Conservatives vigorously defend the notion that the carbon tax applies in Quebec, even during oral question period. There is no credible political player in Quebec who would say the carbon tax applies in Quebec.

Furthermore, during oral question period, I recall seeing the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis , brandish a sheet of paper, insisting that the infamous carbon tax existed and that she had an invoice. Afterward, we clearly saw that the invoice referred to the Quebec carbon exchange. There are people in Quebec who would say this kind of behaviour is illegal. The oddest

part is that the member for Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis was herself a minister in the Quebec government when the carbon exchange was implemented. This is part of the disinformation, much like the many false ads we have seen, that is, the carbon tax ads that often play in Quebec and that everyone ignores. This is part of this disinformation approach. They scraped the bottom of the barrel this week, when the leader of the official opposition refused to clearly say, when he spoke of a terrorist attack, that he was likely citing one of his favourite media sources, Fox News.

He accused CTV and scolded journalists, saying it was their fault, that CTV was confused, not him. He will not even admit to his own mistakes. Not to belabour the point, but let us recall the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, where they used the carbon tax as an excuse, saying they voted against the agreement because of the carbon tax. I believe this only proves that the leader of the official opposition—I will not be overly harsh—is not prime minister material. A good chief and leader usually brings out the best in others.

They inspire people to excel and, most importantly, follow one of the basic tenets of politics, which is to never mix lies into political discourse—a truth that should apply to everyone—and to never get careless with the truth.

(1140) What we have been seeing for the past several weeks is a leader of the official opposition who plays fast and loose with the truth. Then, if anyone disagrees with him and resists his lies, he bullies them. I will say it: People have talked to us about this. Alarm bells are ringing about how the member for Carleton operates, and those warnings are coming from none other than the Quebec Conservatives. Keep in mind that, during the Conservative leadership race, seven out of ten MPs from Quebec did not support Mr. Poilievre, sorry, the leader of the official opposition and MP for Carleton.

Why did they not support him? There were some rather puzzling quotes. I am talking, for one, about the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent . He said that Jean Charest, who was a candidate in that race, was likely the godfather of the Liberal family. He was even ordered to retract his statement. He also described Mr. Charest as one of the most corrupt politicians in Quebec. That said, he preferred to support Mr. Charest over Mr. Poilievre. One wonders why. I—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

That would be the hon. member for Carleton.

Mr. Mario Simard :

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I am talking about the member for Carleton. Sometimes I get carried away and make mistakes. Why did the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent make that decision? It is because he is well aware of how the member for Carleton operates. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier was also very informative on this point. He said that, if the member for Carleton became the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, he would have some thinking to do.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mario Simard: Madam Speaker, I am hearing some noise.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Can we avoid side conversations while members are giving their speeches? Order, please. The hon. member for Jonquière.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, before I heard the noise, I was saying that the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier stated that he would think long and hard about his future if the member for Carleton became the leader of his party. He said, “I will resign, or join another party in the House of Commons, or sit as an independent, or help form another party.” In other words, he was well aware of how the member for Carleton operates.

Here is another quote by my colleague for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, who said, “I had a lot of respect for Stephen Harper as an economist, and I have a hard time understanding how he could support a candidate who wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada and base the economy on Bitcoin.” Here is a final revealing quote by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. He said, “I have never seen such an aggressive race or such vicious personal attacks”.

That is why I say that even members of the Conservative Party from Quebec warned us about the Poilievre approach, which consists of two main elements, intimidation—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

You used the member's name again. Members are not allowed to refer to other members by name in the House of Commons. It is a well-known rule.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, we were told about the Carleton doctrine, which is based on intimidation and disinformation. The same goes for Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, who said that he was going to tear up his membership card, affirming that the Conservative Party of Canada was putting its entire future within the Canadian political landscape on the line in the last leadership race. He referred to Marine Le Pen's France and Donald Trump's United States, and then concluded by asking whether we really wanted to have this person, the member for Carleton, as prime minister.

To top it off, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was the victim of a hateful campaign. Members will recall that he left the party after the leadership race. When he left the Conservative caucus, he was being bullied by his colleagues. They called his office and told people in his riding to do the same, to pressure him. People like the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles even personally contacted his constituents to suggest they demand his resignation—

(1145) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I must interrupt. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Madam Speaker, I do not know what is the matter with the member for Jonquière today. He has a long list of smears. What he just said is totally false. I would like him to withdraw his words.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend that when the truth strikes a nerve it can sting sometimes, but it is for the best. It is better to tell the truth—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member says that the statement is incorrect so I will give the hon. member for Jonquière the chance to correct that.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that he was the victim of intimidation, pure and simple, and that the member for Carleton is the one who came up with that tactic. I am quoting the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. What I am saying is that the members from Quebec themselves know that the member for Carleton was using what we might call the Carleton approach. The members from Quebec themselves warned us that there was a danger, that there was cause for concern. Today we are seeing it become all too real.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Madam Speaker, after all this smearing of Conservative MPs from Quebec, I would like to reiterate my point. I never did what the member for Jonquière is accusing me of, and I would like him to retract his accusation.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

It is really not up to me to decide what is true and what is not. I will let the hon. member for Jonquière answer the member's request.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, I was referring to an

article in which the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said that he had been the victim of what I would describe as rather unorthodox treatment. My aim was not to smear anyone. I simply stated the facts. It is a fact that Conservative MPs preferred to support Jean Charest in the leadership race. It is a fact that Conservative MPs said it was irrational to make Bitcoin Canada's currency. I was simply referring to—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

This is a matter of debate. I was simply responding to the request of the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. The member for La Prairie wishes to speak on the same point of order.

Mr. Alain Therrien :

Madam Speaker, the member rose in the House to say that my colleague from Jonquière is telling lies. What lies is he talking about? Can the member explain why they are lies? None of this makes sense. The member stood up and accused my colleague of telling lies. What lies? Can he prove that it was a lie? I think it is up to the person rising on a point of order to prove that.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Indeed, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will be able to demonstrate to the hon. member for Jonquière that what was alleged is not true.

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus :

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Jonquière personally accused me of calling people in the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska to ask them to call the member and ask him to resign. I never did that. He directly accused me of doing that as the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I am just saying that I did not do that.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, what I told my colleague is that some newspaper articles refer to calls he allegedly made to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska's staff at the time, asking him to resign. I could send him the newspaper references. Not more than half an hour ago, I asked the leader of the official opposition if he was prepared to repeat comments he has made many times in the past, that people are asking for medical assistance in dying because they have no food. He said that his remarks were based on a newspaper

article he had read. If my colleague is unwilling to live with quotes from newspaper articles in the House, then the same also applies to his leader.

(1150) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

We will now move on to questions and comments on the speech of the hon. member for Jonquière. The hon. member for Beauce.

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member for Jonquière spent a lot of time not talking about this morning's motion in which we call on the Senate to pass Bill C-234 as quickly as possible. I was told that this bill does not apply to Quebec. I am going to try again and ask my colleague from Jonquière to check and see what is happening in his riding. If he has the opportunity to speak to farmers who use propane and natural gas to heat their buildings, I would ask him to check with them to see whether there is an additional amount on their bills.

The carbon tax also applies indirectly, because not everything we grow and eat in Quebec comes from Quebec. It is therefore really important to eliminate this tax and to get Bill C‑234 passed as quickly as possible. I hope we can all agree on that.

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, it is rather confusing. My colleague is telling us that the carbon tax applies but that it applies indirectly. It is hard to see what he is getting at. If we really want to help farmers in Quebec, then we need to defend the supply management bill. My advice to my colleague is to talk to the Conservative senators and ask them to pass Bill C-282 and move it forward a bit more quickly. I am sure that all farmers in Quebec will be much happier with him for doing that than for fiercely defending a tax that does not apply to us.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I agree that there is a disturbing Donald Trump type of pattern that we see from the Conservative leader today, which is consistent with what we heard in regard to the Senate intimidation and with how the leader of the Conservative Party responded to a question, in essence, supporting it, as well as what the member gave rise to with regards to the member for Richmond—Arthabaska . My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that there is a pattern the leader of the official opposition has taken that is in fact quite disturbing?

It is a pattern of intimidation that I would classify as a Donald Trump style. We saw it with the media confrontation, and there was the example of eating an apple. All those types of things come together.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North, which rarely happens. Not only that, but I would use another metaphor, one borrowed from my colleague from Winnipeg North. He often talks about the Homer Simpson awards. The big winner of the Homer Simpson award in recent weeks is definitely the member for Carleton . He lambasted CTV, saying it was the network's fault that he said there had been a terrorist attack, when it was later proven that that was a terrible lie.

He can say that he will be voting against the Canada-Ukraine agreement because of the carbon tax, except that it will be easy to demonstrate that the carbon tax does not apply to that agreement. We have a double nomination today. There is the Donald Trump award as well as the Homer Simpson award, which could be handed out at the end of the day.

[ English ]

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it has to be acknowledged that Bill C-234 would not have passed the House of Commons if not for the support of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party. However, I am amazed at the audacity of the Conservatives to lecture us on the Senate when this is a party that appoints failed candidates and party bagmen, and they have a history of using their own senators to block private members' bills in several parliaments past.

However, on the principle of it, does my hon. colleague agree that ultimately the Senate should respect the democratic will of the House of Commons and that no matter what the bill is, if we pass it here, based on the will of the people, the Senate should accede to those wishes?

(1155) [ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Then again, the best course of action would be to abolish the Senate altogether.

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives is confusing. It is hard to tell where they are going. We talk about the carbon tax. We say that it does not apply in Quebec. They continue to say that it does. We saw that earlier. We say again that it does not apply, and they keep saying that yes, it does apply in Quebec. We repeat that it does not, and they say that it applies indirectly. We simply do not understand them anymore. When they talk about Ukraine, they stand up in the House and say that they are for Ukraine because they voted against Bill C‑57 , which implements the Canada‑Ukraine free trade agreement.

They are so twisted that now the Ukrainians are wondering what is happening with the Conservatives and why they are against Ukraine. The Conservatives need to stand up and set the record straight. My question is very simple. When someone has no substance to offer, the only weapon they have left is intimidation, correct?

Mr. Mario Simard :

Madam Speaker, as always, my House leader said it best. That is what I called the Carleton method. That is it.

[ English ]

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we debate an opposition day motion the Conservatives decided to present to the House, which states:

That the House call on the unelected Senate to immediately pass Bill C-234 ,

An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, to remove the carbon tax on the farmers that feed Canadians, as passed by the democratically elected House.

Essentially, today's debate is on a motion to try to get a Conservative private member's bill through the Senate. I am amazed because today Conservatives are acting with outrage that the Senate is not moving quickly enough. It is as if they have not done far worse to move bills slowly in the past. The cognitive dissonance and the absence of any historical grounding in today's debate is absolutely shocking. When thinking of my remarks for today's speech, two words came to mind: irony and hypocrisy.

At best, we could be talking about the irony of this moment, but I think this is just plain and simple hypocrisy because I believe Conservatives are self-aware, and they know exactly about the entirety of their sordid history with the Senate. Irony is about highlighting the human relationship with reality. It teases out the inconsistencies that reside in all of us, but this is far more than inconsistency. Hypocrisy is simple. It is about contradicting ourselves but with a more forceful and a more deliberate vein. Quite simply, hypocrisy is the pretense of consistency to hide one's inconsistency.

Today's motion, if we look at the history of Conservatives' relationships with senators, is definitely one of inconsistency. Again, I am absolutely flabbergasted at the sheer audacity of the Conservative Party of Canada to come to the House today to lecture members of Parliament and the Canadian public on the Senate. I will get into that in far greater detail in my remarks today. I want to start with Bill C-234 . It is important to acknowledge that the bill was duly passed by a vote of 176 to 146 in the House of Commons earlier this year.

It is also equally important to note that the bill would not have passed the House if it had not been for the support of all opposition parties. They include the Green Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. There were also three Liberals who lent their support to the bill. The electoral math in this place shows that those kinds of numbers are needed for any bill. I want to highlight that because often, when I hear speeches by the Conservatives, they tend to conveniently leave out that little fact. It is also important to note in today's debate that we are not here to relitigate Bill C-234 .

That was done by the House. The bill went through second reading and then to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have been a proud member for the last six years. I was present for those meetings. I listened to the witnesses. I participated in the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the amendments to it, the reporting of it back to the House and its third reading. The House voiced its opinion on the matter. A clear majority of MPs decided to pass it, and we do not need to spend time talking about what was done.

At the time, I highlighted my support for Bill C-234 because I thought the provisions in it were consistent with the act it is trying to amend, namely the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, which was passed by a majority Liberal government in 2018. If members read the parent act carefully, they will see exemptions listed in the act for qualifying farm fuels, farm machinery and farming activities. After careful consideration of the bill and after listening to the many farm groups that appeared before our committee, I agree with them.

There are no commercially viable alternatives to propane and natural gas for certain farm activities. I thought this amendment was quite in line with the original document the Liberal drafters put together.

(1200) We did our due diligence on this bill. I do not think we need to spend much time dwelling on Bill C-234. I was quite happy with the amendments made to Bill C-234 at the committee stage. Its focus was narrowed so there is more clarity on what it would specifically be applied to. There was also a sunset clause introduced to signal to industry that there is a narrow window of time to start developing commercially viable alternatives. I know, from witness testimony, those efforts are well under way. It is a price signal sending a signal to the market that it needs to step up its game.

I have had the honour of spending, as I mentioned, six years on the agriculture committee. One thing I heard consistently from our farmers is that they are on the front lines of climate change. They are the ones dealing with shifting weather patterns caused by fossil fuel driven climate change. We had entire crops fail, whether from a drought or a flood. There was a shortage of feed, like we had in many parts of British Columbia, due to water sources drying up. That is now the norm in many parts of western Canada, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead.

Anyone with a simple knowledge of scientific facts can see this situation is going to get worse. When I hear my Conservative colleagues talk about support for farmers, I try to put that in conjunction with their support for the oil and gas industry, or their lack of effort in going after the intense corporate profits of the oil and gas sector, which are fuelling the planet's burning right now. There is a dichotomy where my Conservative friends like to say they stand on the farmers' side, but meanwhile, farmers tell us the greatest threat to their livelihood is climate change.

I do not see any viable policy alternatives to address that fact. Let us get to the heart of the matter today: the Senate. Canadians have legitimate questions about the Senate. In Canada's Parliament, we have a bicameral system. We have the lower house, which is the elected House of Commons, and we also have an appointed Senate. If someone is one of the lucky few who are selected for a senator's position, then one has a locked-in job until age 75. One never has to face the electorate. One gets to enjoy all the trappings that office has, with none of the accountability.

I, like every member of Parliament in this place, have to reapply for my job every certain number of years. I have to be accountable for the votes I make, for the speeches I make and for the policy positions I take because that is the heart of democracy. I am not here just by myself. I am here representing the entire riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and those are the people I report to. I have reported to them through three federal elections. Senators do not have to do that. Only a handful of democracies around the world have an appointed upper chamber.

I think many Canadians listening to today's debate would agree with me that in a modern, functional, 21st century democracy, an appointed upper house, with all the nominal powers of the lower house, has no room in this kind of system. The system we have has been begging for reform for many years. The NDP's position on the Senate is quite well known. We have certainly called for its abolishment. We note there are many countries around the world that do quite well with a single chamber of elected representatives. Other places have indirect elections or have direct elections for their senators.

Whatever system it is, at least those senators are accountable to the people they serve, unlike our upper body. This is an important context for today's debate. Ultimately, what we are doing here in the lower house is complaining about the appointed upper chamber thwarting the democratic will of the House of Commons. This is a moment in time, but it has to be placed in the context of history because this is not the first time it has happened. I also want to underline that I have a good working relationship with a handful of senators, and many serve on the agriculture committee.

I have had the pleasure of getting to know them and their work, and I do not question their commitment to their line of work. My comments today are based solely on the Senate as an institution and on the inherent contradictions it has in a 21st century democracy.

(1205) Let us go, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, to the Conservative hypocrisy and the Senate. I agree with the Conservatives that they have the right idea in today's motion in calling on the Senate to quit delaying the passage of a bill, in this case Bill C-234 . We in the NDP have called on the Senate to do this many times over our history, so this is well-trodden ground for us. I would like to welcome my Conservative friends to the club. They may not be used to this, but trust me, as New Democrats we have a long history of calling for this.

For the Conservatives to bring in today's motion, given their history, is quite something. I really want to underline this for Canadians who are watching today's debate. It is a fact in this place that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have a sordid history with the Senate. They have both been guilty of not only appointing failed candidates, loyal donors and party operatives, but using—

An hon. member: Bagmen.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, my colleague used the term “bagmen” and that is absolutely a legitimate term. They have used this appointed and unelected body to block bills from the democratically elected House. One only needs to look at our parliamentary history to see this is not a one-off situation. It has happened many times. To watch Conservatives and Liberals point fingers at each other goes to show that ultimately when it comes to this issue, these two parties are but different sides of the same coin. With respect to the current Conservative Party, let us take a little walk down history lane.

This is the party of Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright. The leader of the Conservative Party , the member for Carleton, stands in this place and gives us a lecture on the Senate, when he is the person who, when in government and a representative of former prime minister Stephen Harper, had to day in and day out defend chief of staff Nigel Wright, who gave a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy because of living expenses. That is what the member for Carleton had to stand up in this place and do time and time again.

Mr. Gord Johns: Selective amnesia.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, we do have selective amnesia in this place. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for referencing that, because we lose sight of our history in this place. The member for Carleton has been an MP for 19 very long years. I know the Conservatives have spent millions of dollars on burnishing up his image, but he has a long history in this House of Commons. If we do some digging, there are a lot of comments, a lot of questions and a lot of speeches from the member for Carleton that will give truth to who he really is.

However, it gets better, because the Conservatives have stood in this place accusing Liberals of bullying senators and imposing their will, when the Conservative Party is the only party in this House that still has 15 senators at caucus every Wednesday. Fifteen Conservative senators join their MP counterparts for every Wednesday meeting, and they get their marching orders from the member for Carleton on how to play games in the Senate. This has been the case for several Parliaments and we have seen it in the past.

Conservative senators have taken their marching orders from former prime minister Harper and have done the very thing that Conservatives are mad about today with Bill C-234 . Senators took their marching orders from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and used their procedural shenanigans in the red chamber to block multiple bills on multiple occasions that were passed by the democratic House. Again, it is rank hypocrisy from the Conservatives. I will outline a few notable examples.

Our former beloved leader Jack Layton, several Parliaments ago, had a bill that was passed by the House called the climate change accountability act . My God, how things would be different now if we had actually paid attention back then and passed that law. However, right now in 2023, we are dealing with the consequences of years of inaction from both Liberal and Conservative governments. That bill was held up. It died in the Senate because of procedural shenanigans instigated by Conservative senators.

(1210) We have also had other cases. Former NDP member of Parliament Paul Dewar, who represented Ottawa Centre, introduced Bill C-393 . It was a bill to permit the shipment and provision of generic drugs to Africa, a worthy cause, but it died in the Senate because of Conservative senator procedural shenanigans. Then of course, in the 42nd Parliament, there was the bill that brought us to where we are today. It was the bill introduced to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, Bill C-262 .

It was ahead of its time, ahead of where the puck was going, and it directly led to the government introducing its own legislation in the subsequent Parliament to make sure Canada's federal laws were in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill, which was duly passed by the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, was held up because of procedural shenanigans and games by Conservative senators at the request of their leader. This is the amazing thing about the Senate. We cannot do that here in the House.

With the rules there, one senator can throw in a wrench and jam up the entire works for days on end, and this tactic is used again and again. Conservative senators, under orders from their leader, have been doing precisely the same thing that Conservatives are mad about today when it comes to their own legislation. These are the things we have to highlight. They are incredibly important because we have short memories in this place. I am coming down to my final three minutes, and I very much look forward to the questions that will come.

However, it does us well to understand that, first of all, Bill C-234 would not have passed in this place if it were not for all opposition parties working together to pass it because they saw merit in the bill. That is number one. Number two, we fundamentally agree with the principle that the Senate, as an unelected body, needs to respect the will of the House. The only party that has been consistent on that position through several parliaments is the NDP. We are the only party that comes out squeaky clean in a debate about the Senate, and all members would do well to acknowledge that fact.

Consistent with our third reading vote on Bill C-234 , we will be voting in favour of today's motion, because that is consistent with the approach we have always taken. Had there been motions on our own private members' bills from several previous parliaments, we would have done the same thing. It is important to remind senators that we are the ones who have to face the electorate. We are the ones conveying the wishes of the people of Canada. Every seat in this place represents a distinct geographic area of Canada.

We are the ones bringing the voice of the people here, and senators need to be reminded of that fact. I will end by again highlighting the hypocrisy. I like serving with many of my Conservative colleagues, but as a party, we cannot take any moral lessons from them on the Senate given their history with appointing failed candidates, with party bagmen and with the instructions they give to their 15 caucus members who are members of the Senate.

With the entire history they have of blocking bills, Canadians who are listening to today's debate need to understand that the last place we would ever go for a moral lesson on the problems with the Senate is the Conservative Party of Canada. I just want to make that very clear. I will end my remarks there. I thank everyone for taking the time to listen, and I look forward to any questions or comments.

(1215) Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his impassioned speech, but there is something I disagree with. Conservatives have been standing up for farmers non-stop. I come from a very heavy grain area where farmers right now are telling me that their corn is coming in at 30% moisture or 28% moisture, and they need to get their corn dried down to 13% or 15%. Well, guess what. They have to use natural gas or propane to dry the grain because there is no other commercially viable option to dry grain in such huge amounts.

In northern Ontario, there are grain farms of 15,000 acres and 20,000 acres, much like in the Prairies. There are senators in the Senate stalling this legislation who are from northern Ontario and who should know that the cost for these farmers to dry their grain is exorbitant. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on why the senators from northern Ontario should not be held accountable by the constituents they are supposed to represent and why Canadians should not be able to call their senators to voice their concerns.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Mr. Speaker, those are all good points. That is why I voted for the bill. We understood very clearly from committee hearings on this bill that there are no commercially viable alternatives. The problems with drying grain and with getting appropriate levels of feed because of future droughts, as I said in my speech, are going to multiply because this is the new reality that our farmers are facing. It is not just Conservatives who support farmers. One of the reasons the agriculture committee gets along so well is that all parties around the table understand that they have farmers as constituents.

I think it is the only committee of the House of Commons that regularly works and makes decisions by consensus. I would argue with one point, though. Senators do not have constituents. We have constituents. I acknowledge that it is a problem; I do not agree that the Senate should be holding up a bill. However, I gave countless examples of where Conservative senators did the exact same thing for other bills. That is the hypocrisy people need to understand when it comes to the Conservative Party. Senators should not be doing this. They should be listening to the democratic will of the House.

I simply wish the Conservatives would have a consistent position no matter what bill is being discussed in the Senate.

The Deputy Speaker :

I am wondering why we cannot use the air in here to dry grain.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is because there are not enough Conservative speakers standing to breathe the hot air. At the end of the day, this is an interesting bill, but I suggest that the member give some thought to the bail reform bill. If the member can recall, sometime in June, the Conservative leader said there was really important stuff we needed to pass and that we should come back in session to get that particular bill passed. Then, when we came back in session in September, we passed the bill unanimously through the whole process.

Today, it is being held up and still has not passed because of the Conservative Party. Here we have the Conservatives now saying we should pass this bill. They seem to have forgotten this other important piece of legislation, which has a wide spectrum of support from different stakeholders. Every member of the chamber is supportive of it. I wonder if the member sees any irony there. Why are they being very selective about raising this issue on the floor? Why not the bail bill?

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The Conservatives have suddenly taken it upon themselves to have a greater interest in the beautiful Vancouver Island area, but I would remind them that in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, every single municipality I represent wrote to me asking that that bill get passed quickly. I am sure it is the same up and down Vancouver Island and in many communities right across Canada. Again, I think it goes to the theme of hypocrisy.

There is a selective memory in this place about how different parties have used the Senate to further their own ends or block an opposing party's piece of legislation. I would agree with my colleague from across the way, the member for Winnipeg North , that that is an important bill. I was proud to support it. I was proud to see how we all came together, because the municipalities in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, mayors and councils from every single town, wrote to me urging me to pass that piece of legislation quickly.

I am glad I was able to report back as their member of Parliament, something that senators do not have to do, that the House did its job. I would like to see the Senate recognize and respect that fact.

(1220) [ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his speech. I appreciated almost all of it, except the part where he said the NDP was the only party that has supported the abolition of the Senate. I would like to remind him that this is also the position of the Bloc Québécois. On this matter, our decisions are predictable. This allows the people who vote for us to know why they vote for us and to anticipate the decisions we will make in the House. I find it a bit sad that the Conservatives' decisions depend on what will serve their ends in the moment.

Consider Bill C-234 , but also Bill C-282 , which was passed by the House to protect supply management. The Conservatives are doing exactly what they are now scolding senators for doing, namely slowing down the passage of a bill. The only thing the Conservatives are consistent about is that if they can insert the words “carbon tax” somewhere, they will use it as an excuse to vote against something. This makes for some particularly bizarre decisions, like their decision to vote against the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

I would like to hear from my colleague as to whether he thinks this lax approach, this cherry picking, is disappointing for the public, because it does not give voters a sense of where the Conservative Party is generally headed.

[ English ]

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Mr. Speaker, allow me to withdraw the comment and apologize. I want to recognize that the Bloc absolutely is in line with the NDP on abolishing the upper chamber. The member is right. In addition to Bill C-234 , there is a very important bill that we were proud to support, Bill C-282 . There are a lot of supply-managed farmers in my riding who personally met with me. I met with many of their industry groups. We were proud to support that piece of legislation, because we simply cannot trust Liberal and Conservative governments to honour the spirit of supply management.

We agreed with the Bloc Québécois in putting that in legislation so that we can prevent future governments from negotiating away our supply-managed industries. I want to give another shout-out. The member for York—Simcoe has Bill C-280 in the Senate. I hope that the Senate will respect the will of this House, because that is another important bill dealing with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association and the fresh fruit and vegetable sector. Again, strong agricultural bills are coming from the House of Commons. I think one thing that Canadians deserve from us is for us to have consistency in our positions.

If we look at the Conservative history at the Senate, it has been anything but consistent.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, the issue of Conservative hypocrisy in the Senate is one of the reasons the Canadian people threw Brian Mulroney out. They gave him the bum's rush after he imposed eight senators to force through the most hated tax of all time, the GST. Canadians were stuck paying for these dudes until they were 75. They cannot be fired. The price of a Conservative sock puppet is enormous. Stephen Harper came in and said he was going to reform the Senate. What did he do? It is just one long list of pals and cronies. Let us talk about Larry Smith.

Larry Smith gets appointed to the Senate, and he is outraged when he finds out how much money he is going to make. He says it is “a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut” that he had to serve the Canadian people. This is how out of touch the guy is. He then runs for office. Needless to say, the Canadian people want nothing to do with Larry Smith, so he comes in third. This man is unfit for public service. Stephen Harper puts him back in, a loyal sock puppet, and we are stuck with this guy until he is 75. He cannot be fired. He does not have to show up for work. All he has to do is be loyal to the Conservative Party.

When I see the member who is living in Stornoway, a 19-room mansion, talk about the common people and the Senate, I am amazed. Does he not meet with them every week and know exactly how entitled and how out of touch and what cronies of the Conservative Party they are?

(1225) The Deputy Speaker :

Before I move on, I just need to remind members of Standing Order 18. It says:

No member shall...use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.

I think the hon. member comes pretty close to impugning other members in the other house. I would just remind folks to be judicious in their referral to hon. members of all our houses that represent Canadians. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay .

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and in that I do not actually deal with the unelected Senate on a regular basis, is it “crony” or “pal”? Is there a particular term that I should be aware of?

The Deputy Speaker :

We'll move on to the next speech. The hon. member for Huron—Bruce .

Mr. Ben Lobb (Huron—Bruce, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington . With regard to Bill C-234 , I would like to recognize a couple of people, the first being the member for Brandon—Souris . Before he was elected, he worked in the private sector. He was one of the people who gave the idea for the beginnings of this bill in the last Parliament to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South , which was Bill C-206 , which, at that time, talked about taking the carbon tax off the drying of grains.

With Bill C-234 , we look to, as we always do in life or in legislation, trying to make it better. We included the heating of livestock barns and buildings used to grow food, such as mushrooms that we see at grocery stores. I wanted to recognize those individuals, as well as the Conservative agriculture critic. He has done a great job and was a big advocate after the last election to include this. Like I said, these are the basics of the bill. At a time when farmers are seeing increased costs due to inflation everywhere they look, this bill is very timely.

Over the last two years, farmers have seen a tremendous increase in the cost of purchasing farm machinery, such as tractors. Some of the costs have skyrocketed, including the cost of carrying debt, such as mortgages on farms. For a lot of farmers, a portion of it is fixed and a portion of it is variable. They may also carry operating lines of credit, maybe for inputs or livestock, whatever it may be at the time. All these things have become more expensive, in large part, due to government spending. The amount of debt, inflation and printing money have caused this.

Farmers have borne a terrible amount of the brunt on this. In addition to that, a couple of years ago, we will remember how much the cost of fertilizer increased for farmers, even when some farmers had prepaid. In the previous fiscal year, farmers had prepaid, only to find out they had to pay more when it came time to put the fertilizer on their land. They have had some really challenging times, but they are still committed to being farmers and they are still committed to feeding Canadians. Canadian farmers, as we know, help feed the world many times over.

That is why this bill happens to be the right bill at the right time. It has been almost two years since I introduced this bill in the House of Commons. It will, hopefully, be voted on tonight or in the near future. Farmers need a break. We have heard in question period, statements and speeches what farmers are facing with the carbon tax. The other thing that is frightening to farmers is they know this is not the end of it. They know that on April 1 every year, the carbon tax will go up until 2030, to the point where, in many cases, the profit margin will no longer be there at all for small farmers.

They will have to make a decision whether to carry on or what to do. That is why this bill is so timely and it is so important for the Senate to make a decision on it. I am open to whatever way the Senate votes. If it votes it up or down, I can live with either result, but what I find unfortunate is that there are some games being played. I do not mind if a committee takes the time to study it, which it did. I appeared at committee and it was a great honour.

However, when amendments are put forward after virtually the same amendments were voted on at report stage and defeated, it does resemble a bit of a game, which is unfortunate. The people having the games played on them are Canadian farmers. It is not me or the members of Parliament in this House of Commons who suffer. It is Canadian farmers who suffer.

(1230) There is another thing that really hits home. I hear it every weekend when I am at community events at home. I see the farmers in my area, when I drive up and down the county roads. They are still taking their corn off. The corn that is being taken off