Debates of Oct. 4th, 2023

Old Age Security Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Carbon Pricing

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, on September 20, I rose to ask a question about how the carbon tax is impacting farmers. The minister responded by suggesting that somehow the carbon tax will stop natural disasters, which occur in this country and all around the world. The fact of the matter is this: The carbon tax has not done that, and that is because we live in a global environment where the carbon emissions from other countries, such as the carbon emissions of China, impact whether or not there are large carbon emissions going on in the world.

There is no such thing as a carbon dome covering and protecting Canada so that somehow if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while countries like China continue to put out more than double our total output in their year-over-year increases, the carbon tax is going to protect us. It is not going to protect us, and in fact it makes the cost of everything more expensive.

Farmers at the International Plowing Match were telling me that this is a huge challenge. However, what makes it worse is that when I raised this question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment suggested that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax and stated that they do not pay a carbon tax, even to dry grain. Then, when I suggested that he was wrong, he accused me of spreading misinformation. That is outrageous, because he is absolutely wrong. Farmers do pay a carbon tax to dry grain. Farmers do pay carbon taxes on all the inputs on the farm. The only thing they do not pay a carbon tax on is purple gas, which is exempt. However, the trucker who brings in that purple gas pays a carbon tax on the gas they use.

The parliamentary secretary is so woefully uninformed on his file that it is embarrassing. To accuse me of spreading misinformation when he did not know what he was talking about is deeply shameful, and the member should apologize.

If he spent five seconds talking to a farmer instead of blustering here in the House of Commons, he would know that farmers pay a carbon tax to dry grain. If they did not pay a carbon tax, why would Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels be in the Senate? Why would the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion?

The parliamentary secretary's lack of information and his audacity to accuse me of misinformation are exactly the reason we are in a mess in this country. The Liberals do not have a clue about what they are talking about.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the follow-up from my colleague. I am capable of coming into the House and having an honest and open conversation without accusing my colleague of being shameful or anything like that. I hope we can carry on forthwith in that regard.

I thank my colleague again for voicing the concerns of farmers, who are crucial, as I mentioned in my answer back then. I also live in a rural riding. I talk to farmers regularly. They feed our cities. They boost our economy and they create jobs. I enjoy going to the farmers market on Saturdays and eating the fresh produce they produce. Canada's agriculture sector is a pillar of rural communities like Dufferin—Caledon and Milton. It is a vital part of our economy, and the food supplied to urban centres comes from there. Our economy greatly benefits from this sector, and it is crucial that we do more to support our farmers.

The real reason we are here is that my colleague is really proud of a Facebook post that he put up, where he accused me of giving up. I just want to make it clear that I am not giving up on fighting climate change or on countering misinformation in this place. I was forced to sit down halfway through my response to his question that day in question period, because the Conservatives were making so much noise heckling me that the Speaker stood up and told me to sit back down, so I did. I am not going to give up. I will follow instructions from the Speaker, but I will always stand up for truth and for science, and I will continue to fight climate change.

I will also say that all members of the House ran in the last election on a commitment to price carbon. The member has a short memory if he does not recall on what basis he was asking his constituents to send him to Ottawa. Erin O'Toole ran on a commitment to price carbon. That is why many members of Dufferin—Caledon's community voted for that member, because he claimed to care about climate change, as farmers in our region do.

I am not willing to give up fighting climate change just because there are countries with larger carbon footprints. Indeed, that is not how to measure a carbon footprint. We can measure them per capita, and Canadians have an extraordinarily high per capita carbon footprint. We need to do more to lower those emissions and that reliance on fossil fuels. That is one of the reasons why we have a carbon price in Canada, because a carbon price is a proven methodology, a market-based instrument. It is actually a very conservative methodology to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and drive innovation in the energy sector.

With respect to the member's accusation that I do not know my facts, many farm fuels are exempt. I am well aware of the recent bill's efforts to change some of the regulations around propane and natural gas for grain drying, but I am not here to say I know more about this than other people, certainly not more than farmers, who are the experts in their operations. I am happy to see that the bill has the support it requires to go forward. Nonetheless, my family are apple farmers, and the fuel on that farm is exempt from the price on carbon, as are many other products that farmers use to produce food.

That also leads me to my next point of what is driving inflation and higher costs at the grocery stores. It is mostly climate change. This is not a refutable concept. When we talk to farmers, they talk about how all the rain they expect over a month or even a season sometimes now falls over a 24-hour period, and then it does not rain at all for two months. We also have fruit- and vegetable-producing regions that have suffered wildfires.

The member opposite is being very disingenuous when he suggests that the minister has stood up to suggest that a carbon price is going to eliminate natural disasters. That is absolutely not what the minister said, and that is not what any person has said with respect to why a carbon price is important. A carbon price will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, demonstrating that we can build our economy forward in a green and sustainable manner. It is disingenuous for the member to suggest that a carbon price is just going to end floods, fires and extreme weather.

We rely on science on this side of the House, and I hope the member will come on board as well.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to perhaps put the words the member said the last time we debated this directly to him. He said that farm fuels are mostly fossil fuels and they are exempt from the carbon price. He said, “The member opposite mentioned grain drying. The farm fuel exemption applies to the gas that people use for drying grain as well. The spread of misinformation on that side is rampant.”

In fact, the only thing on a farm that is exempt from the carbon tax is purple gas. The member should know that. One does pay a carbon tax to dry grain. That causes an increase in the cost of grain. The fact that all the inputs on a farm, like fertilizer, which is subject to a carbon tax, come from oil and gas increases the price of food.

Will he just finally admit that the carbon tax is causing food inflation?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we do not need to go back and forth in arguing what our opinions are on this matter; there are actual economists in this country who are measuring these things. The member can go consult that data on how the carbon price impacts food inflation and the cost of groceries. The reality is that it is climate change that is driving food inflation. Any farmer will tell us that climate change is having an impact on their productions.

I did look at the member's Facebook when I was tagged in the post where he accused me of giving up. I once again want to say that I am not giving up on fighting climate change and I am not giving up on standing up for science, facts and evidence, but I am also kind of concerned, because throughout the thread a lot of the people who were commenting on that Facebook post by the member for Dufferin—Caledon were saying that climate change is a hoax and that it is not true. One person said they were a farmer and climate change is not real.

It is that kind of misinformation that we need to stand up against, and it is that member who is allowing it to occur on his social media. He is encouraging it by liking those posts and promoting those posts. That is shameful, and the member ought to apologize.

Electoral Reform

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, over 1,800 times, the Prime Minister promised in the 2015 election—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I want to remind members that once they have had their opportunity to voice their questions and receive the answers, there is not another opportunity to continue.

I am going to allow the hon. member for Kitchener Centre to restart.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, over 1,800 times, the Prime Minister promised in the 2015 election that it would be the last election under a winner-takes-all first-past-the-post system. I probably do not need to bore anyone with the details to know that this promise was not kept. It is obvious that politics got in the way.

Why does that matter? First, it is because promises matter for Canadians across the country to have trust in our democracy, particularly promises as significant as that one. Second, it is because winner-takes-all first-past-the-post systems dramatically distort the results and the interests of Canadians. As just one example, in Ontario's last general election, the current party that now has 100% of the power at Queen's Park only earned around 17% of the popular vote. What a massive distortion that first-past-the-post continually leads to, time and time again. Quebec's most recent election is just another example.

Another reason it matters is that it has been proven, time and again, that first-past-the-post is not appropriate for Canada. In fact, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, when she spoke on this same topic last night and joined in this advocacy as she has for so many years calling for electoral reform, pointed out that eight times, since 1921, this House or various law commissions have studied the issue, found that first-past-the-post does not fit well for us and recommended we do something differently. We are going to continue this advocacy.

Here is what is in the works: Earlier this year I introduced a motion, working with Fair Vote Canada, to call for a citizens' assembly on electoral reform to take the politics out of it and to have regular Canadians come together like a jury to get expert opinion. This would be a randomized group, and it would then make recommendations back to parliamentarians. This approach is supported by 76% of Canadians.

Fair Vote Canada volunteers then went out across the country and met with MPs and spoke to them about the importance of following this intention from Canadians and supporting this motion. We were allowed up to 20 joint seconds in this place on a motion. Thanks to the work of those volunteers, MPs from the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party joint-seconded to fill up that list. In fact, Fair Vote had to create a separate website to show all of the MPs who wanted to be known for their support. There are almost 40 now, including the parliamentary secretary who is with us here this evening.

The Liberal Party itself then had a convention earlier this year where it also endorsed the idea, through the grassroots volunteers of that party. I asked the Prime Minister shortly after, in light of all this, if his opinion has changed. At the time, it had not. His answer was kind of, “my way, or the highway”. Until we had consensus on a winner-take-all ranked ballot, he was not interested in moving ahead at the time.

The good news, though, is that while a vote on the motion I had brought forward would not happen for some time still, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith took it upon herself to bring this motion forward. She had drawn a much better number in our lottery system for private members' motions, and there will be a vote on it.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Will there be a change in focus from his party to now support this really important motion?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be in the House tonight to talk to my friend and colleague from Kitchener Centre. It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the importance of democratic reform in Canada.

The Government of Canada is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions.

Our electoral system, the fundamental rules determining how votes are translated into seats in the House of Commons, is one of the most foundational pieces of our democracy and it is also one of the strongest in the world. Among many things, it provides Canadians with a direct connection to their member of Parliament, who must work with every one of their constituents to develop national policy and make political decisions while engaging and remaining accountable back home in an increasingly digitally connected Canada.

Our current first-past-the-post system is not perfect. Certainly, no system is, but it has served Canada well for over 150 years and continues to advance the democratic values that Canadians want reflected in their system of government. It includes strong, local representation, stability and accountability.

How Canadians vote and how we govern ourselves are fundamentally important and they impact us all. Given this, this government's view has been very clear. Any major reforms to the electoral system should not be imposed on Canadians but, rather, they would require the broad support of Canadians. That is hard to achieve because, as the member stated, only 17% of Ontarians actually voted in favour of the premier. I think that was the number that he provided. It is tough to get people to the polls.

We all have that challenge every election. What we do during the period of an election is go out to our supporters and make sure that they vote. Voter turnout is actually pretty low. It is higher for federal elections than it is for other levels of government. In Canada, it can be challenging to get people to engage. That apathy is something that we all have to challenge a little bit.

As the member stated, I am a signatory to the idea of having a national assembly on democratic reform, to pursue some type of better representation. I am also fairly of the opinion, personally, that it should not include more unelected people, more people who do not know exactly who their representative is.

I think it is very relevant to my community that they know exactly how to find me. Just before I was here, I was in my office over at the Valour building and a member of my community reached out over Facebook Messenger and I just gave them a call. We chatted for 20 minutes. He knows exactly who his member of Parliament is and that is very important to the integrity of our electoral system. I can be accountable, I can be reassuring and I can make sure that his voice is heard in here.

However, some systems of proportional representation would have members of the House who do not directly have a constituency, as members of the Senate do. I have concerns about the lack of accountability. My concerns extend to both a future potential unelected House of Commons as well as, quite frankly, an unelected other place.

Given this and all of these things, our government has been very clear that we are not of the view that a new system ought to be imposed on people. After the 2015 election, our government consulted very broadly with Canadians. Many members of this chamber held town halls in their own riding on this topic and we heard a myriad of ideas and concerns, which is important throughout that engagement. However, no clear preference or consensus emerged.

Therefore, the government decided not to proceed at that time. I think that is where the utility of a citizens assembly could be really effective. I had a great conversation recently with Fair Vote Canada. I am supportive of the notion of Canadians coming together to talk about how our electoral process and system of governing could be enhanced.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by pausing on this point about any kind of reform being imposed. This notion to me is not a fair argument to start with because that is what elections are for.

Promises are made, people are voted for and those promises are meant to be followed through on. I think that is a really important promise from the 2015 campaign. Not to belabour that point, I really appreciate the support of the parliamentary secretary for this motion calling for a citizens assembly. He knows, like I do, that we are going to need a lot more support across all sides, including from the governing party.

Can I hear more about what he is going to do to build that kind of support?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think most members of the House of Commons have their own strong views on this. This really comes down to how we arrive in our current place of work. Every community is very different. I think of, given the diversity of Canada's landscape, how different a riding like Kitchener Centre is from the the Assistant Deputy Speaker's riding on Manitoulin Island, a place that I love to visit, which I did not make it to this summer but I hope to next year. Those two ridings are really different. The systems by which one does one's work in those two communities are very different.

To answer the question clearly, how am I going to encourage more discussion? I am going to stay open and honest on the subject. I am going to meet with my constituents and talk to my colleagues here in the House of Commons about how we can create a more robust democratic institution here in Canada.

Health

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I hope you will not mind indulging me for one quick moment. On Monday, my oma, at 96 years of age, passed away. She left an amazing legacy: 14 grandchildren and 25 great-grandchildren. She was a constant in my life and just an absolutely wonderful human being.

In May, I highlighted how the NDP-Liberal government has failed to uphold its duty to protect children in the agreement signed with the Province of British Columbia to decriminalize possession of illicit drugs. I asked the former minister of mental health and addictions why her government had not done more to protect children. Countless times, needles and other drug paraphernalia have been found on school grounds and in other areas frequented by children, like parks, and specifically Mill Lake in Abbotsford.

Earlier that same day, during debate on an opposition motion related to the opioids crisis, I told this House about the time my son's day care had to be closed because paraphernalia had been left behind on the property in front of its entrance way. What was the minister's response to me in question period that day? She stated, and I quote, “The exemption we have approved in British Columbia specifically states that playgrounds and areas attached to schools and day cares are not exempt and must be enforced.”

Unfortunately, while true, this ignores the fact that the current government provided no resources for local health authorities and law enforcement to contain these dangerous drugs and protect communities. While the government did amend its agreement with B.C. last month to broaden the scope of areas where these substances are banned, it begs the question of whether these rules will actually be enforced.

In 2022, a record 2,383 British Columbians needlessly died from an illicit drug overdose. In 2023, we are on pace to surpass that figure. Those British Columbians and the thousands more like them across Canada deserve timely access to treatment and recovery services. Instead, the government has focused on making access to dangerous drugs easier without addressing treatment.

The tragic story of Kamilah Sword from Coquitlam highlights how easy these drugs are to access for children. She was 14 when she died of an overdose of the very drug the current government encourages to be dispersed. Students in the area told the National Post at the time that some as young as 11 were abusing this drug, hydromorphone, and that a tablet could be bought for just $5 to $10 in their community. The reckless and irresponsible implementation of the current government's drug handout program has had tragic and deadly consequences for many Canadian youth.

Therefore, will the government finally uphold its obligation to protect children under the agreement with the Province of B.C. and will it finally deliver the treatment and recovery services that are so desperately needed in my province and should be tied to any such agreement in the first place?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. This crisis is having a tragic and unrelenting toll on Canadians, their families and communities.

There are four pillars, recognized internationally, that are necessary for a successful substance use strategy, and they are irrefutable. These pillars are well-established in the medical community. I am not a doctor. The member is not a doctor. We ought to listen to science and experts when it comes to something so critical as protecting the lives of our most vulnerable community members. The four pillars are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement.

Our government is committed to a comprehensive approach that implements policies and supports in all four of these essential areas. To address this public health crisis, we have to use all the tools we have, including innovative approaches, such as granting the province of British Columbia an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That is a democratic approach.

B.C. asked for the three-year, time-limited exemption, which began January 2023. We take the safety of all Canadians seriously, and that is why, from the beginning, we have approached this from both a public health and a public safety perspective. This exemption will be continuously monitored, assessed and adjusted if needed. B.C. requested this exemption because of the stigma that criminalization produces.

Criminalization kills people. People are dying because they fear the repercussions of asking for help. The fact is that people who use substances need support, not judgment. They need community, not isolation. They need empathy and understanding, not stigma.

Local governments do have tools and bylaws they can use to amend and address any unintended consequences or concerns that their communities are experiencing. Local governments know their communities, their needs and what works best for them. Addressing the ongoing public health crisis while maintaining the safety of all Canadians is essential.

To ensure the safety of children and youth in B.C., this exemption does not apply on elementary and secondary school premises, nor licensed child care facilities, on playgrounds, at spray pools, at wading pools or at skate parks. We need to be careful of the potential for recriminalizing personal possession among some of the most vulnerable people who use drugs in our communities.

We are committed to continuing our work with British Columbia to find solutions, but to find solutions, we must first understand the many different factors that drive substance use. That must include addressing mental health. Prevention, treatment and harm-reduction measures all have a role to play, as do actions that reduce stigma and provide continued access to health and social supports for individuals.

Let me quote the Vancouver police department, which said, “Police can now focus on those doing the most harm in this crisis — persons and organized crime groups who import, manufacture and distribute these toxic substances.” They are not aware of any incidents in Vancouver in which safe supply has been trafficked to youth, a response that is contrary to the assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition in a much maligned video, which was, frankly, disgusting. There are media reports that have made it into the House of Commons that are further stigmatizing individuals and communities.

I want to know if the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon would commit to something tonight. The Fraser House Society in his riding is receiving federal funding to create podcasts for men in the trades to provide tools and information on pain, trauma and substance use, while enhancing awareness, decreasing stigma and encouraging shared lived experiences.

Is the member ready to commit to publicly meeting with those individuals? They have answers, insight and perspective that may help the member further understand the very complex nature of the illness that is addiction. I have met with survivors of addiction, with people who have recovered from addiction and people who require this help, and he should too.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, my office is right beside Haven in the Hollow, and I see every day the impacts of the approach taken by the government.

At the end of the day, I believe that all of us in the House have one thing in common, and that is that we do not want to see people die. I firmly believe that, but the actions taken by the government were irresponsible because none of the four pillars that my colleague from Milton mentioned, which are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement, are tied to the agreement with the province of British Columbia. Since the implementation of those actions, all we have seen is an increase in the number of deaths.

I would be pleased to meet with the group he mentioned. I would also encourage him to come to Vancouver and come to the Fraser Valley, where it is a fact that we do not have treatment options available for people who want to get clean, who want to restart their lives and who want to have a fighting chance at breaking addiction. The government is not supportive of those actions.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is categorically false that the government has not supported recovery options. That is absolutely not the case.

Harm reduction services are a vital part of a comprehensive, compassionate and collaborative public health approach to problematic substance use, which includes prevention, enforcement, treatment and additional social and health supports.

I appreciate the invitation from my colleague, but, tragically, Milton and the GTA are also experiencing an opioid crisis. However, there is harm reduction that occurs in my riding. I have met with pharmacists who assist people living with addiction to get the services and the treatment they require so that they can continue their lives and their journey toward a drug-free life.

There are a lot of people in the Lower Mainland whom I would encourage my colleague to meet with. Furthering the stigma attached to people who use substances is not a solution to saving their lives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:01 p.m.)