Scott Anderson
Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, British Columbia · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, this is one of the deepest debates in Canadian politics, between the rights and freedoms of citizens on one hand and the powers of government on the other hand. I wonder if my colleague could speculate on why the Liberals want to shut down debate like this, so pre-emptively.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the poison pill. First of all, mandatory sentences, obviously, as my other colleague pointed out much earlier, do in fact stop crime because it is very hard to commit a crime when in jail.”
“Mr. Speaker, I was trying to think of great artists in history, such Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Cicero and Plato. Some of them had private benefactors, but none of them, to my knowledge, had government support behind them. I cannot think of any artist that had government support— Some hon members: Oh, oh! Scott Anderson: Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sovereign wealth fund, I recently asked my colleague the same question. The other day, my neighbour showed me his bank account, and it was enormous. I thought, “This is a secret”, so I maxed out my credit cards and put the money in my savings account.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to Norway's sovereign wealth fund, I decided to do the same thing as the Prime Minister , because he is a wise person. I decided that what I would do is take the bulk of the money out of my credit card, put it in my savings account and call it “Scott's retirement fund”.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has put a new face on what happened. In fact, the government has been trolling our benches, and some did slither over. The House is not reflective of Canadians' wishes. About 93% of the vote goes to the party now, by custom, and about 7% goes to the individual. By law, yes, we are elected as individuals.”
The complete record
Every one of 165 lines we hold for Scott Anderson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“Despite promises of restraint and fiscal responsibility, the government's spending spree is fuelling inflation and driving up prices across the board. Families already struggling to afford groceries, rent and mortgage payments now face even greater pressure as inflationary spending adds $5,400 per household per year. By running a $78-billion deficit, far above the $62-billion pledge, the government has made everyday essentials more expensive, leaving ordinary Canadians to shoulder the burden of its broken promises. In this budget, hidden food taxes, like the industrial carbon tax, still increase the cost of everything at every stage of production. The energy to grow, harvest, process and transport food is taxed at every step of the way.”
“CFIB also reports that small firms spend about 735 hours a year just on regulator compliance. That is 32 working days, a month and a half, lost to red tape. Here is the kicker: CFIB estimates that $18 billion of that red tape could vanish tomorrow and no one would even notice. That is enough to pay for safer streets, stronger border enforcement or better health care infrastructure, unless, of course, it disappears into Bermuda. (1005) Into this environment of record costs, ballooning debt and economic uncertainty, the government has brought forward the behemoth of budgets, a budget that makes even Justin Trudeau look like a miser. The new federal budget represents a direct hit on the affordability of life for Canadians.”
“What they do mind paying for is massive, wasteful bureaucracies built on vote-buying handouts. What they do mind paying for is over-regulation that feeds bureaucrats more than it helps Canadians. Let us look at what is actually happening on the ground. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small firms are suffocating under the cost of Liberal policy. CFIB's most recent research shows that business-operating costs are up 26% since 2017. Everything is more expensive: fuel, energy, insurance and shipping. Two-thirds of small business owners say that rising costs are their top concern. When the people who provide 60% of private sector jobs in this country cannot afford to stay open, that is not just a business problem; it is a national problem.”
“This does not sound like a vision for the strongest economy in the G7; it sounds dystopian. It sounds like bread crumbs for the masses while the Prime Minister 's rich friends belly up to the Canadian tax trough. There seems to be a real disconnect between the Liberals and Canadians. Hard-working Canadians want jobs and a thriving economy so they can look after their families, support their communities and help those who truly need it, like seniors on fixed incomes or single parents working two jobs just to stay afloat. I believe that Canadians want government to keep the country safe from outside threats, build conditions for prosperity at home, keep the streets safe and make sure Canadians can walk downtown without fear of harassment. Hard-working Canadians do not mind paying taxes for those things.”
“There is nothing free about any of this. Every free thing the government offers has a cost behind it, every cost has a tax behind it and every new layer of bureaucracy not only costs more, but squeezes the very people who create value in this country. The Liberals talk about affordability while quietly making everything Canadians buy, build or grow more expensive. They call it compassion; I call it economic vandalism. Now Liberal MPs are publicly mocking the very idea that parents want to be able to afford to feed their own kids rather than accept free handouts from the government. One asked last week where the logic was. Seriously? Where is the logic in wanting to be able to feed our own kids? Where is the logic in wanting to stand proudly self-sufficient instead of relying on Liberal handouts? What is next, soup lines for parents?”
“We Conservatives consistently try to explain to the Liberals that Canadians want and need jobs and an affordable life. We constantly try to explain that massive deficits, high taxation, onerous regulation and irresponsible spending are at the root of our economic problems, not Donald Trump. Incredibly, the Liberals' response is to boast about government handouts and more bureaucracy. They seem to think that it is quite acceptable to tax and regulate us all into poverty as long as they dribble a little back to some of us. They have the gall to ignore pleas for jobs and answer with boasts about better handouts, and they apparently cannot see the logic of self-sufficiency. This budget is part of a problem: the Liberal belief that more government, more regulation and more free programs somehow equal prosperity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley . According to the CIBC's most recent economic flash, Canadian GDP is abysmal. The bank expected a modest acceleration in GDP growth to 1% in the final quarter of the year, but the lack of momentum toward the end of the quarter suggests that not even this anemic goal will be met. This kind of thing has become a standard economic warning bell in Canada these days, with increasing blame for the economic malaise in Canada being put not on sector-specific tariffs by the Americans, but on Canadian government policy. It is no wonder the Liberals want a Christmas election. They know they cannot keep the bait and switch going with Canadians for very much longer. They want an election before the full weight of their disastrous policies comes crashing down.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep referring to the spending in the Liberal budget as investment. When I was a financial adviser, I was taught that investment is something we give away in the hopes that we get back not only the principal but a substantial amount of money with it. I am wondering, for the gun grab, whether my colleague thinks “investment” is an appropriate word. We are putting out millions of dollars, but what exactly are we expecting in return? Would the member call that spending or investment?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition calling on the Minister of Health and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to stop the ostrich cull in Edgewood, B.C. This petition also calls for greater transparency from the CFIA. There are over 40,000 signatures on this petition, almost double the number of signatures on most e-petitions. These petitions are set up so that signers have to take extra steps to do them, so when over 40,000 people sign them, it really means something. I urge the ministers to listen.”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would negotiate a win with the United States. He has broken that promise on softwood lumber. When the Prime Minister took office, softwood lumber tariffs were at 14%. Now they are at 45%. This year in north Okanagan, hard-working people are being sent home from mills because of the government's failure to secure a softwood lumber agreement. When will the government stop driving resource jobs out of Canada, stop taxing families into poverty and start trusting Canadians to stand on their own two feet again?”
“Mr. Speaker, the folks on the other side seem to want to split their time between insulting us, asking us to please vote for their bill and trying to avoid responsibility for the whole mess in the first place. If Bill C-14 is the great bill the Liberals claim it is, can my colleague explain why it is necessary in the first place? Who caused the problem in the first place?”
“Mr. Speaker, I note that the Conservatives are the only ones delivering speeches on Bill C-12 and that the only rebuttal Liberals have is an irrelevancy that has nothing to do with Bill C-12 . What does my colleague think? Is it that, now that the only provisions that allow the government to control Canadians have been removed, the Liberals simply do not care about Bill C-12 ?”
“Mr. Speaker, I apologize. According to an article, a former minister said that “Discrimination within Canada's criminal justice system is abhorrent, unacceptable and [distasteful] and related police misconduct is indefensible”. Why does my colleague think the Liberals are so focused on a statement by our leader , which was taken out of context, while they are ignoring everybody else?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of a former prime minister saying that the RCMP is systematically racist. He also tried to take away tools from the RCMP and said that it required cultural change. Bill Blair also said—”
“Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister ever had to choose between buying groceries and paying the rent? Has he ever felt the panic of not knowing how to make it until the end of the month? That is the reality for thousands of B.C. forestry workers this winter while he jets around the world handing out jobs to his wealthy friends and making concessions to the Americans. He bragged that his elbows would stand up to Trump, but Canadians are worse off than ever since his elbows arrived, so I have to ask this: How many B.C. lumber workers will lose their jobs because of the Prime Minister's failures, and why will he not fight for Canadian families?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to have seen the last 10 years be more productive, but, unfortunately, they were not. I do not think we should be passing flawed bills at all, especially when there are gaping holes that can easily be fixed. I served for 10 years; I do not need lessons on how to respect the Canadian Forces.”
“Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that a flawed bill should be fixed before it goes to committee if possible. This is a flaw in the bill, and it should be addressed. I am not entirely sure how. There is some low-hanging fruit here, like the interpolice communications, that I think can be done very easily. It simply needs a provision in the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can comment only on what exists in the bill. The bill does not have any provision whatsoever to revert to civilian justice overseas. Obviously, it is outside the jurisdiction. The flip side of that question is this: If the military is dealing with only those problems outside Canada, how is it going to maintain its expertise in doing so on the civilian side? That is the flip side of the same problem. There is no provision whatsoever in the bill for civilians, and I would like to see that provision.”
“I support making justice fair and seen to be fair. However, we must think carefully about the real-world impacts of these changes. What happens when offences occur overseas? What happens when communication breaks down? What happens if the military loses the ability to act quickly when it matters most? These are not hypotheticals; these are real questions that affect the lives of our armed forces members and their families. Let us pass the bill, but let us do it with our eyes open. Let us strengthen military justice, not slow it down. Let us protect victims and protect discipline. We can do both, and we must.”
“If we are going to transfer cases to civilian courts, there must be clear communication every step of the way. The military still has to manage the members involved as long as they are active service members and protect both the rights of the accused and the safety of others. Finally, this cannot be “set it and forget it”. We need to keep watching this bill as it rolls out. That means oversight, regular reviews and honest discussions about what is working and what is not. Because we overcivilianize the military justice system, we forget that it serves a unique and high-pressure environment, and we risk weakening it. If we weaken military justice, we weaken our ability to maintain order, protect victims and defend this country. (1355) I will say in closing that I support the goals of Bill C-11 . I support protecting victims.”
“Let me give members a real-life example I was told about recently. At a military camp last year, a serious incident of a sexual nature occurred. It was reported by the military to civilian authorities right away and the RCMP took over the case, which is exactly as this bill envisions. However, once the RCMP had the file, there was no communication back to the military. As a result of not knowing what restrictions were to be sent down the chain of command, the military sent both the victim and the accused home on the same bus. That should never happen. That is not a failure of values. It is a failure of process. Nowhere in this bill is there a formal mechanism for communication between the RCMP and the military. Without one, this kind of situation could happen again and again.”
“If issues have to go through a long civilian process with no clear chain of responsibility, our ability to act fast in critical situations is compromised. Commanders should not have unchecked power, but they must be involved, especially during active missions. Let us not weaken their ability to lead and protect their troops. The third thing is independence versus bureaucracy. This bill would give more independence to roles like provost marshal and director of military prosecutions. In theory, that supports fairness and impartiality. However, we must be careful not to create a system so wrapped up in bureaucracy that it becomes slow or even politicized. Our soldiers deserve a justice system that is efficient, focused and responsive, not one bogged down in red tape. The fourth thing is communication between systems.”
“If the military does not have jurisdiction over certain offences, who would handle those cases when they happen abroad? The bill implies that jurisdiction overseas would revert to the National Defence Act and be handled under the code of service discipline. In other words, it would be handled by the military. If military justice is not suitable in Canada, how is it suitable overseas? Would victims feel that justice has been served by a system not deemed good enough at home? This needs to be addressed. The second thing is command authority. Military discipline is different from civilian life. The military justice system exists to maintain order, morale and operational effectiveness. It gives commanders the tools to act quickly and firmly. This bill would risk taking too much control away from commanders.”
“They are not political attacks but honest concerns about how this will work in the real world with real consequences for the men and women in uniform. One of the biggest changes in this bill is that sexual offences that occur in Canada would now be handled by civilian courts instead of the military. On paper, that makes sense. We want victims to feel safe coming forward, and civilian courts have experience handling these cases. This could lead to better outcomes for victims. However, here is a question: What happens when something like this happens overseas during a deployment or mission? Our military operates around the world in peacekeeping, training missions and sometimes in combat zones. In many of those places, civilian police and courts are unavailable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I rise today to speak to Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act. Let me say right from the start that I support the intentions behind this bill. It aims to make our military justice system fairer, protect victims better and increase accountability. These are important goals. I think all of us in the House, especially on the Conservative side, agree that justice and fairness must be part of everything we do, including how we run our armed forces. That said, we also have a duty to ask tough questions to make sure that while we are fixing one problem we are not creating new ones somewhere else. I want to raise a few concerns.”
“Why would the Liberal health minister want to throw away valuable potential medical research? The nation is watching, and Canadians demand answers. Why will you not explain yourselves?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has failed to do its job, letting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency order the slaughter of a herd of ostriches with no transparency or communication with farmers or Canadians. Since the beginning, apparently unlike the CFIA, I met with the farmers and raised their concerns publicly. These farmers love their animals. Senior academics are begging for access to potential research on diseases. Canadians are travelling from all across the country in outrage. This communication fiasco has been allowed to escalate into a crisis. Now tens of thousands of Canadians have raised their voices on the issue, wanting to know why. Why is the Liberal agriculture minister not forcing the CFIA to properly retest these 400 ostriches?”
“While local food banks do heroic work, they are filling gaps left by Liberal failure, and they are no substitution for leadership. Conservatives would cut taxes, bring down inflation and make life affordable again.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee and across Canada, families are being crushed by the cost of living crisis. After 10 long years of the same old Liberal government, everything costs more: groceries, rent, mortgages, gas and everyday essentials that Canadians rely on. The Prime Minister asked to be judged on the cost of food at the grocery store, and the verdict is not good. I hear from parents forced to choose between paying bills and feeding their kids, and from seniors cutting back on medication just to make ends meet. The high cost of living is not just about dollars and cents; it is about people's lives. It fuels anxiety, despair and a growing mental health crisis. These heartbreaking choices are not normal, and they should never be acceptable in Canada. Hard-working Canadians deserve better.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a judgment on a hypothetical. Again, a hypothetical question has been put to me that I have no answer for. The courts certainly do have an answer for it. I would simply ask the member to reflect on some of the people we have let in who should not be here.”
“Mr. Speaker, there has been no analysis. We have no idea whether it is 30%. We have no idea what the actual number of new Canadian citizens will be, and this is at a time when our immigration system is buckling, frankly, from too many people coming in. To add to that is reckless, as I said in the speech. It is irresponsible and it is reckless. There has been no analysis done whatsoever. This is kind of the way the Liberal government has operated: Do things because they sound good on paper, without any analysis. They end up creating a new disaster. There are several disasters that we are dealing with right now because of that problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer presents itself in our history. We have let numerous people who should not be here through. Often, the problem is the lack of criminal record check. We must safeguard our borders. We have to do that for our own sake and we have to do it for international reasons. We cannot simply open the gates and let people in without any sort of criminal record check at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. There are all sorts of hypotheticals we could weave together to make some sort of narrative. I am not going to do that. These things will be dealt with as they come up through the courts, as you know. I am not going to deal with hypotheticals. I can come up with 10 dozen hypotheticals for you too.”
“Conservatives oppose aspects of this bill because it cheapens Canadian citizenship, undermines fairness and exposes taxpayers to enormous risk. We do not even know what the extent of the risk is because no analysis has been done. We support targeted reforms for adopted children and lost Canadians, but we reject the removal of the first-generation safeguard. Former Liberal minister Lucienne Robillard once said that we ought “to share our citizenship with those who want it and work hard to deserve it.” Conservatives agree. Canadian citizenship must be earned, not given away like candy or Liberal promises. Citizenship is not just a document. It is a commitment to Canada, its people and its future. Only common-sense Conservatives will ensure that it remains strong, meaningful and respected around the world.”
“The Ontario Superior Court has even ruled that the IRCC has a 50% error rate in processing, yet the Liberals want to add tens of thousands of new cases with no plan, no resources and no clear analysis of the impact. Peer countries are far more cautious. The United States, United Kingdom, France and Italy all limit citizenship by descent to the first generation abroad. Canada is an outlier under this Liberal scheme and not in a good way. As immigration lawyers and experts have warned, this bill is a reckless response to a flawed court ruling and extends citizenship far beyond any reasonable connection. Canadian citizenship is precious. It is not an insurance policy for those who want to live abroad and return only when trouble strikes. It is not a convenience for those who want benefits without responsibility. It must mean more.”
“At a time when Canadians are concerned about public safety, this is entirely reckless. Let us be clear about the costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that this change could create over 115,000 new citizens almost immediately, many of whom live permanently abroad, but we have no idea what the real numbers are. Processing these cases will cost at least $21 million up front, with far higher long-term costs to health care, pensions and other services. Canadians who work hard and pay taxes their whole lives will be asked to subsidize citizens of convenience who have never contributed a dime to our country. (1035) Meanwhile, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already overwhelmed. Constituents across this country tell us about endless delays for visitor visas, family reunifications and citizenship ceremonies.”
“What message does this send to newcomers who follow every rule, study for and pass the citizenship test, meet the residency requirements and undergo full security checks? These individuals invest years of their lives in Canada before earning citizenship. Meanwhile, under this bill, others could inherit citizenship automatically without ever paying taxes, speaking an official language or engaging in Canadian society. That is a two-tier system and it devalues the hard work of genuine immigrants. There are also serious security implications. Bill C-3 does not require a criminal background check for those inheriting citizenship under this so-called connection. Conservatives proposed reasonable amendments to address this, including measures to exclude those with serious criminal records. The Liberals voted them down.”
“The first-generation limit was a necessary, reasonable measure to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 throws that safeguard out the window. Under the Liberals' new connection test, a parent could pass on citizenship if they lived in Canada for just 1,095 nonconsecutive days at any point in their life. That could mean three years spent here decades ago as a student before moving abroad permanently. That is not a substantial connection. It is one under the Liberals' plan, but it is not a real substantial connection. This is a brief chapter, not a life, yet this bill treats it as equal to the lifelong commitment of Canadians who build communities, raise families and invest in our future here. It is not fair, equal or responsible.”
“However, where this bill fails, and fails profoundly, is in its removal of the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent and its replacement with a flimsy so-called substantial connection test. That safeguard, introduced by the previous Conservative government in 2009, was put in place for good reason. We saw, in 2006, what happens when citizenship can be passed down endlessly without connection. During the Lebanon conflict, thousands of Canadians of convenience, people with little or no real ties to Canada, sought evacuation at enormous cost to Canadian taxpayers. Nearly $94 million was spent bringing 14,000 people to safety, many of whom returned abroad as soon as the crisis ended. That incident showed us the danger of limitless citizenship inheritance.”
“It must reflect a genuine connection to this country, not just in words but also in participation and commitment. Unfortunately, Bill C-3 undermines these principles. There are parts of the bill we do support. We agree that the adopted children of Canadian citizens born abroad should be treated equally with biological children. That is fair, just and long overdue. We also agree that the injustice done to lost Canadians, those Canadians who fell through the gaps in the law through no fault of their own, must be corrected. These are people who grew up here, worked here, paid taxes and lived as Canadians and who should never have been in doubt. Fixing those wrongs is the right thing to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to rise in the House again after some time in my riding speaking with constituents and hearing directly from Canadians. It is always a privilege to stand here and debate legislation that touches not only on national policy but also on the very fabric of what it means to be Canadian. We are debating Bill C-3 , an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This bill speaks to Canadian identity itself and to the value of Canadian identity. Let us be clear. Canadian citizenship is not just a piece of paper or a passport. It is also a promise. It is a promise of loyalty, commitment and shared responsibility. It represents hard-won freedoms and responsibilities that generations of Canadians have defended and cherished. Conservatives have always believed that citizenship must be fair, secure and meaningful.”
“Mr. Speaker, in communities across the North Okanagan, families are being pushed out of the housing market. Young people cannot afford to buy and seniors are being forced out of the communities that they themselves built. Meanwhile, the Liberal government still has no budget, no plan, no urgency. While young families and seniors are begging for the Liberals to get housing built, the Prime Minister , much like the last one, is more focused on political optics than shovels in the ground. When will the Liberal government stop dragging its feet, deliver a budget and finally take responsibility for the housing crisis it helped create?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years building walls around the Canadian economy, and Conservatives have been asking them to tear them down. The Liberals have thrown Bill C-5 as a sort of rope ladder over the walls, and the Conservatives vote for it. The Liberals' take from this, apparently, is that if we voted for the rope ladder, we must love the walls. I am wondering if the member could explain to the Liberals why we would vote for the rope ladder and still not like the walls.”
“If the Liberals are serious about making Canada an energy superpower, they need to repeal their own anti-energy agenda, lift Bill C-69 , remove Bill C-48 , kill the industrial carbon tax and get Canadians back to work by finally tapping into our natural resources.”
“Mr. Speaker, after ten years of Liberal anti-energy laws, over 176 billion dollars' worth of energy projects have been scrapped. Bills such as Bill C-69 , the so-called “no new energy pipelines” law, and Bill C-48 , along with the job-killing carbon tax, have created so much red tape and uncertainty that energy companies will not even invest here anymore. In the B.C. interior, countless families depend on the oil and gas sector to put food on the table. Even our regional airports rely on flight revenues tied to energy-related travel and investment, but because of stalled pipelines, investment and job creation have dried up, not just in my riding, but across Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, as a former city councillor on the front lines of this emergency, I have watched from 2015 until today as Liberal policies simply made the opioid crisis worse. Each new policy just makes things worse. Decriminalization is not a case of not doing enough, but of doing too much of the wrong thing. Conservatives are calling for life sentences for fentanyl kingpins committing mass murder. When will the Liberal government recognize that Canadians who are battling addictions are worth fighting for? When will it stop enabling harm and start supporting real recovery instead of palliative care?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle for her speech. The member was talking about tax cuts. The carbon tax has two components, the domestic tax and the industrial tax. The current Prime Minister has taken away, paused, the domestic tax but left the industrial tax there and actually promised to enforce it or make it worse. That is the one that really hurts and drags on the middle class. My question is: Would it not make sense to eliminate the industrial tax as well?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member pointed out the exact problem. The Liberals made lots of promises, which he considers “outperforming”. I do not have to deal with the promises. I can look at the last 10 years, since 2015. If we are talking about performance, performance is action, not promises. The Liberals are famous for making promises and equally famous for breaking them. When the hon. member says the Liberals outperformed the Conservatives, I would suggest that he is—”
“Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the environment. We all know that we need to make improvements and work toward a clean energy future. I have no doubt that will happen eventually. What I am more concerned about is pretending that it has already happened and that we have the capacity to do that. We cannot simply run our economy on fairy dust, hopes and dreams, and technology that is not yet deployable, not yet mature. Reality suggests that we have to use fossil fuels for the foreseeable future while we transition into technologies that we may not even understand at this time.”
“Mr. Speaker, the last prime minister used to say that the Liberals were working for the middle class. He used to answer almost every question with that promise. Thanks to the work of the past 10 years, the middle class is on life support today. Middle-class people can barely pay their taxes, and they can barely pay their mortgages. The Liberal government says that it is working to make us an energy superpower. How poor are we going to be if we have 10 more years of that? I shudder to think about it. Government needs to get out of the way, not stand in the way. If we want to help our farmers, let us remove the industrial gas tax. That is what is hurting farmers right now, more than anything else. They do not want handouts; they want a fair shake.”