Debates of Sept. 27th, 2023

Criminal Code

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to represent Scarborough—Agincourt and delighted to speak today about the progress of Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding neglect of vulnerable adults.

Bill C-295, introduced by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre, seeks to criminalize owners and officers of long-term care facilities who neglect the residents in their care. We all remember the circumstances that led to the introduction of this bill, and it is hard to forget the headlines in recent years about the chaotic situations within the walls of long-term care homes. Available information shows that charges are rarely brought for negligence in caring for vulnerable people, and none were brought in connection with the recent cases of abuse denounced by the media at the height of the COVID–19 pandemic.

The Criminal Code currently addresses elder abuse through offences of general application. This means there is no specific protection, so neglect or abuse must be prosecuted under existing laws, such as laws regarding all forms of violence, abuse, fraud, and failure to provide the necessaries of life to a dependant who is unable to withdraw from a person's charge due to age or other circumstances. It is also possible for a person to be held criminally liable for aiding, abetting or conspiring with a third party to injure or harm the physical and psychological integrity of a vulnerable adult. These general offences do not necessarily target the right people.

The bill, as drafted, would target those in senior management positions and clarify consequences for their operational decisions. I will speak today about a few statistics that justify our support for the amendments proposed by the justice and human rights committee, and about some of the measures taken by our government to support the efforts of the provinces and territories in their fight against elder abuse.

According to the Royal Society of Canada's June 2020 report “Restoring Trust: COVID-19 and The Future of Long-Term Care”, home support workers provide up to 90% of direct resident care. It is not surprising to see a higher percentage of home support workers compared to nurses or other professionals working in long-term care facilities.

Another study, released in 2020 by Statistics Canada, entitled “The contribution of immigrants and population groups designated as visible minorities to nurse aide, orderly and patient service associate occupations”, informs us that Black and Filipino women are significantly overrepresented in this sector.

Thanks to the amendment adopted by the committee, this bill targets owners and officers of long-term care facilities, not frontline workers. In the legislation, “officer” will be defined as “the chairperson of the board of directors, the president, a vice-president, the secretary, the treasurer, the comptroller, the general counsel, the general manager or a managing director of a long-term care facility, any other person who performs functions for a long-term care facility similar to those normally performed by a person occupying any of those offices, or any other person designated as an officer of a long-term care facility.”

Frontline workers devote themselves to the task of care, often in difficult working conditions. With the amendments that have been adopted, committee members carefully took into account the very real difficulty in attracting and retaining workers in the care sector. This bill targets the correct decision-makers. This was the issue most often raised by groups representing long-term care facilities across the country, and it was recently raised in the ombudsman's report in Ontario entitled “Lessons for the Long Term”, published at the beginning of this month.

The data speak for themselves. Our population is aging, and these percentages will undoubtedly rise over the years.

The segment of the population most at risk of institutional abuse is made up of women aged 85 and over. In Canada, more than one-third of these women live in institutions, as they tend to outlive their male partners and may not have the health or support to age at home.

Forms of institutional abuse include physical abuse, neglect, emotional and verbal abuse, financial abuse and sexual abuse. Individuals in institutions may also experience systemic abuse, which is defined as systemic practices that result in neglect, substandard care, overcrowding and violation of dignity.

Some research suggests that up to 1% of Canadian seniors are victims of violent crime or physical abuse, and approximately 45% of seniors report having experienced some form of abuse by age 65. In addition, recent provincial and territorial reports, as well as reports from organizations serving seniors, have revealed significant systemic problems within long-term care facilities.

There are other adults who are also in long-term care facilities. Indeed, people with a disability or permanent incapacity often end up in these facilities because it is the only institution capable of providing them with the necessary care.

In my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt, we have three long-term care homes, one transitional care home and many senior housing facilities. In fact, 27% of the riding population of Scarborough—Agincourt is made up of seniors. It is so important that we provide competent care for all seniors across Canada.

Some seniors will have exhausted their own financial resources. Others will be placed by relatives, who are themselves aging or unable to provide the necessary care. To the same extent as seniors, these adults are vulnerable to neglect by those who have an obligation to care for them.

With a rapidly growing aging population in Canada, it is expected that companies specializing in this field will also experience some form of expansion. Currently, there are 2,039 long-term care homes in Canada; of these, 46% are public and 54% are private. The percentage of facilities varies considerably from province to province. For example, 86% of long-term care facilities in Quebec are public, compared with only 16% in Ontario.

This government is working on a number of measures to enhance protection for seniors, including a federal policy definition of senior abuse to better guide our policies, working in partnership with stakeholders and other levels of government to improve data collection, education and programs tailored to helping seniors and elders. It is also putting in place more measures to prevent senior abuse before it happens. Several commitments have been made in this regard, including the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada's mandate letter commitment to work with the Minister of Labour and Seniors to strengthen Canada's approach to elder abuse.

Initiatives have been put in place to address identified gaps in our long-term care facilities. Moreover, $740 million in funding has been invested to support our most vulnerable populations through infection prevention and control measures to protect those in long-term care and those receiving home care and palliative care. Several bilateral agreements have been signed, for example, to increase the number of beds in Nova Scotia or to establish screening protocols in Saskatchewan.

Most recently, the government provided $3 billion over five years to support provinces and territories in their efforts to improve long-term care in their jurisdictions. This is in addition to the $1 billion provided for the creation of the safe long-term care fund. This money will be used to protect people living and working in long-term care, and all provinces and territories have signed a bilateral agreement for this fund.

The work continues to evolve; despite our best efforts, we are not immune to another pandemic. We need to put elements in place to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

I am confident that the members of this House will recognize the importance of moving this legislative reform forward so that it can be quickly considered by the other chamber. The path ahead of us in long-term care facilities is one of collaboration as we continue to work with our provincial and territorial counterparts to improve outcomes for seniors.

We must recognize that for many, illness strikes without warning. We cannot control its speed or its effects, however we can ensure that those in need of long-term care receive the best possible care in well-maintained facilities that afford them the dignity and respect all Canadians deserve.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to engage in this debate on Bill C-295, and I want to commend the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing forward this bill. I am not sure we will be supporting it, and I will explain why in a moment, but she has brought forward a bill that addresses what is perhaps one of the most existential challenges facing not only Canada but western developed societies, which is the aging of our population.

A huge demographic challenge facing our country of course is the aging of our population. There are more and more Canadians who are becoming seniors. There are more and more Canadians who are moving out of the workforce, which is creating significant workforce shortages, and we are experiencing those today. At the same time, these seniors are requiring more and more care, which of course imposes a burden on taxpayers.

I would not for a moment suggest we should not be providing for the seniors who built our country. We owe it to them to do that.

However, the COVID pandemic, the first pandemic of its kind in over 100 years, left virtually every government around the world unprepared to meet that challenge. Here in Canada, that challenge manifested itself, among other things, by creating significant shortages of competent workforce members within our hospitals to address the increasing numbers of patients coming in suffering from the COVID virus. This became an acute problem for hospitals across our country.

There was not a province or territory that was not impacted by the fact that our hospitals could not provide the care needed. Beyond that, our long-term care facilities suddenly found themselves faced with this incredible challenge of having vulnerable seniors they were in charge of who had now contracted the COVID virus and trying to put into place protocols that were going to protect those vulnerable residents of those homes.

This bill seeks to address that by criminalizing the failure to provide the necessary care in those homes. More specifically, this enactment, Bill C-295, would amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers who fail to provide the necessities of life to residents of their facilities.

I think all of us can agree that is a worthy undertaking to make sure our long-term care facilities have the kinds of services and protective protocols that would protect the residents of those facilities. The problem is we have significant labour shortages in our country. Until we have actually addressed those labour challenges, it would be imprudent to impose on these facilities criminal sanctions that effectively mean these homes could not provide the kind of care the Criminal Code would require but that our labour challenges cannot address adequately.

My challenge with this legislation is we are trying to do two things. We are trying to provide those facilities with the labour force they need to adequately protect residents and patients, but at the same time we are trying to criminalize the activities of these facilities when in fact they are in no position to comply with the law.

I would raise one other point. The proponent of this bill, the member for Vancouver Centre, has said that this is all about protecting the most vulnerable within our society. I commend her for standing up and defending the rights and the welfare of our seniors, the ones who find themselves in extremely vulnerable positions.

However, there are other seniors and other Canadians who are also in vulnerable positions who call out for protection and those are our mentally ill, the mentally disordered in our society, who are now finding themselves caught under Canada's medical assistance in dying regime, Canada's assisted suicide regime, which is being extended by this government to the mentally disordered within our society, including those suffering from depression.

I do not know how we square that, on the one hand, advocating for the protection and welfare of seniors in our homes, but, at the same time, saying that we are going to also advocate for assisted suicide to be extended and expanded to include the mentally ill.

There is something wrong with that picture. It troubles me deeply that we have found ourselves in this place where competing ideologies are taking place right here in the House of Commons.

I earlier asked the proponent of this bill if she would support Bill C-314, which seeks to extract and remove the mentally ill from Canada's MAID regime. She hummed and she hawed and she explained this way and that way.

At the end, all we could conclude was that, no, she was not prepared to protect the mentally ill against medically assisted dying but, at the same time, would be advocating for the seniors in our homes and the residents of our long-term care homes who find themselves vulnerable and could see their lives and their health impaired by another pandemic.

We can see that I am quite frustrated to be placed in the position of having to judge the member for Vancouver Centre's bill based on her inability to understand that there has to be consistency when we bring forward legislation.

When we promote an ideology that is supposed to protect the most vulnerable in our society, that does not mean we can pick and choose between different vulnerable groups. We need to address their needs in a wholesome way, in a holistic way, and we have to be consistent in how we apply our ideology.

Unfortunately, that is not taking place here. Quite frankly, I lament that our country is moving down this road, where some of our most vulnerable are going to find themselves at great risk because of the life and death policies that this government is adopting, which have not been properly thought out.

I am going to ask the member for Vancouver Centre to reconsider her position on Bill C-314, as I will reconsider my position on her bill, Bill C-295. We both have objectives to protect and defend the rights of the vulnerable.

I call for one thing: consistency. All those who are vulnerable in our society are worthy of our protection.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Carbon Pricing

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand up this evening to talk about a question I asked the Minister of Environment back in June.

I was concerned that the carbon tax plan was simply that, a tax plan, and it does nothing to benefit the world we live in. I pointed out that hard-working families in Alberta are struggling to meet the needs of everyday life due to the fact that the government has imposed not one but two carbon taxes on all Albertans.

At that point in time, I also asked the minister to point me to which flood, fire, hurricane or drought had been prevented by all of the Albertans having to pay the carbon tax. The minister could not point to a single flood, fire, hurricane or drought that had been prevented by us paying the carbon tax. In fact, many of these floods, fires and hurricanes caused increased expenses for many of our constituents, yet the government is just taxing them, making them poorer. The carbon tax only makes Canadians poorer. It does not do anything to ensure that Canadians could prevent the effects of climate change or work to mitigate those effects.

Common sense Conservatives have been bringing forward common sense ideas that would make life more affordable. We have been saying that we would work to fight against the effects of climate change by using technology, not taxes, because we think that humanity has the capability to solve the problems that we are faced with. We do not think that paying more taxes would be the solution to this at all.

The reality is that minister is just playing a shell game with the pocketbooks of Canadians. His carbon taxes, both of them, are putting Canadians in dire situations. We are seeing Canadians from across the board groaning under the weight of this tax-and-spend, high-inflation, high-deficit, high-spending Liberal government, which has caused inflation. Now Canadians are struggling with it.

The carbon tax is a cumulative carbon tax. It is not like the GST. The GST is a flow-through tax that the end user pays. The carbon tax is applied to every level along the way. The carbon tax is paid by the farmer who grows the crops. It is paid as he puts the crop in the ground and as he takes the crop out of the ground. It is paid as he trucks the crop from the field to his bin, from the bin to the processor, from the processor to the mill, from the mill to the bakery, and from the bakery to the grocery store. It is also paid as consumers drive to and from the grocery store. It is paid all along the way. That cost is borne all the way through all of this.

It is a cumulative cost. Not only that, it is compounded by the fact that on top of all of that, the GST is paid on the carbon tax, all the way along and all the way through. Everybody then adds their percentage on top of that. That is causing a massive amount of inflation.

The ECHO Society, an organization that takes care of the most vulnerable disabled people in my riding, has complained that their utility bill last year was $8,000, $2,000 of which was just the carbon tax. Why?

Why do Canadians have to pay this carbon tax when it does not stop the things that the government is talking about? Why will it not just scrap this carbon tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come into the House and talk about our efforts to fight climate change.

Canadians across the country are well aware of the fact that 2023 has been a devastating year with historic wildfires in Canada that have impacted people in the member opposite's riding, all across Alberta and all across Canada in unimaginable ways.

However, the member opposite stands there, denies the existence of climate change and denies the importance of pricing carbon. The Conservative member's daily consumption of Tucker Carlson conspiracy theory nonsense and steady diet of climate change denial is also fuelling misinformation.

As we saw entire communities evacuating this summer, he tries to make a joke out of it and basically asked which fire or flood was prevented by carbon pricing. Scientists confirm and Canadians understand that these historic and intense wildfires were made far more likely by climate change, and they are made more intense by climate change. Pricing carbon is basically just a foundation to fighting climate change and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.

Last time I looked, there were no members of the House of Commons who have a Nobel Prize in economics. Therefore, we rely on experts in economics, environmental experts and paleoclimatology experts to inform us and tell us how we can do a good job fighting climate change.

Every member in this House ran on a commitment to fight climate change using some form of a price on pollution, a carbon price, in the last election. Not only do the Conservatives have absolutely no credibility on the environment, but they also have no credibility with their voters, as they promised in the last election that they would institute a carbon price if elected. Conservatives did not get elected. They failed to become elected. They did not form government, so they spun on their heels when their new leader decided they were not going to pursue any climate change action. They do not care about climate change. They will not talk about climate change and they will deny its existence entirely.

Alberta-based economist Trevor Tombe recently published research indicating clearly that family grocery bills are only marginally impacted by carbon pricing. In fact, in Alberta, carbon pricing has only increased groceries by about $5 on the monthly bill.

The Conservatives members may not believe in math. They do not believe in climate change. I would not be surprised if they did not believe in gravity because it is right in front of us. Climate change is real. Carbon pricing works. The Conservatives have—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Order.

The parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, individuals and families under the federal system receive direct rebate payments. It is not something that any of the Conservatives ever acknowledge. They just talk about how much it costs families. It is important to also acknowledge and be very clear that a family of four in Alberta receives $386 four times a year for a total of $1,544 annually. For 80% of families, that accounts for more than they pay through the price on carbon.

Members do not need to believe me. They can go to any university in Alberta, the University of Alberta, the University of Calgary, talk to an economist or a paleoclimatology expert, and ask them for a basic way to fight climate change in this country and they will hear directly from them.

Just like William Nordhaus said, and this is how he won a Nobel Prize in economics, if we are fighting climate change in our country, we ought to be pricing carbon.

I have more to say, but I believe it is the member opposite's opportunity to rebut.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful that the parliamentary secretary has so much confidence in his minister, but I do not.

When the minister was responsible for Canadian heritage, he had an opportunity to address online exploitation. In fact, in his own backyard, there is a company called MindGeek, the world's largest pornography company. In 2020, The New York Times embarrassed the Liberals into acknowledging the existence of this Canadian company.

This was well after we warned the government that MindGeek was publishing videos of online sexual material, child sexual material, child sex trafficking and rape, and was making a lot of money. The minister promised to propose legislation within three weeks. Those weeks turned into months, which turned into years, and still nothing was ever done. As a result, survivors have continued to be exploited on these platforms.

If we cannot trust the minister to do his job when he is required to protect women and children, how can we trust him on anything else?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issues raised by my colleague opposite are serious ones, but time and again we see Conservatives abusing adjournment debates, abusing late shows and coming in and talking about issues that are not on the agenda. Tonight, we are talking about climate change and we are talking about carbon pricing.

The opposition should know better than to constantly claim that carbon pricing does not work. When Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party, even when Stephen Harper was leader of the Conservative Party, and going back to Preston Manning, Conservatives have consistently run on a plan to price carbon. It is just this new leader, the member for Carleton, who has spun on his heels and determined for himself that carbon pricing does not work, in opposition to economists and Nobel Prize winners across the world. The Conservatives are basically pivoting and putting it on a T-shirt and a bumper sticker.

I am sorry, but good policy is not a bumper sticker. Good policy relies on facts. Good policy relies on evidence and research, and all of that evidence and research points to the fact that a serious plan to fight climate change includes a price on carbon.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair this evening.

After the last election, the Prime Minister said in this House on numerous occasions that “the Conservatives' plan on housing...was to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords”. He typecast all landlords as wealthy crooks, while ignoring key barriers to building new and affordable rental units. When the current government was elected in 2015, the Liberals promised to scrap the GST on purpose-built new rental housing. Was their definition of a landlord a little different back then?

For months, housing experts, home builders and Conservatives have been sounding the alarm and calling on the government to finally follow through and do something to address the housing crisis. Unfortunately, it took a massive tank in the poll numbers for the government to finally do the right thing and announce that it is removing the GST on purpose-built rentals. I wonder if the Liberals will actually keep this promise.

After eight years of the current government, housing costs have more than doubled. A recent C.D. Howe study determined that in Vancouver nearly $1.3 million on the price of an average home comes from unnecessary red tape added by government bureaucracy. In many parts of the world, that kind of money would buy someone multiple houses or a mansion, but in Vancouver it would get them about 60% of the average home, just enough to pay for taxes, delays, fees, regulations and the high-priced consultants who were involved in building it.

In my community of Abbotsford, the city needs to nearly double its housing starts over last year just to reach the new targets set by the province. Nobody wants to build new homes in Abbotsford because of all the hurdles they would have to jump through, and my city is far from alone. According to Rentals.ca, the average monthly rent in Canada hit a record of $2,100. A recent graduate in an entry-level job who is paying back tens of thousands of dollars in student loans cannot afford that. A senior on a fixed income who has to move, who is already struggling to pay the bills, cannot afford that. A young single mother working two jobs for her kids cannot afford that. It has just gotten so bad.

I believe there is consensus in the House of Commons now that we need to do much more on housing. Will the government commit to linking infrastructure funding to housing completions so that big-city gatekeepers will finally start approving more housing developments? Will the government commit to linking transit funding to housing completions so that our students and seniors can live close to public transit? Will the government penalize Nimbyism, which is stopping certain developments from taking place where housing costs are very high? Will the government commit to providing more money to communities, like a bonus, when they decide to build more homes so people can afford to have a place to live? Will the government commit to offloading federal assets to build more affordable homes?

In April, I asked the former minister of housing if he would allow the hard-working home builders, many of whom are small business owners, to get back to work to build the homes Canadians need. I will ask the parliamentary secretary the same: Is his government prepared to act, get out of the way and let home builders finally build homes, and no longer label them as tax cheats?

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

Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have, I would like to thank you for serving in this capacity tonight. It is great to see you in the green chair.

I am always glad to have the opportunity to speak about the government's record on housing, and I am excited to talk about our plans for the future, because the current government has prioritized housing since the beginning of its mandate. Indeed, we are the government that started Canada's first national housing strategy; the previous government did not even have a minister of housing. There was no one in that government that carried the portfolio of housing, and its record on housing is abysmal.

The Conservatives' plan on housing going forward has received similar reviews from experts, such as Dr. Mike Moffatt, from right here in Ottawa. Members should not take my word for it. Dr. Mike Moffatt referred to the Conservative leader's plan on housing as an “incredibly weak” plan that “would substantially increase federal bureaucracy.” He tweeted that the “Tory plan comes with [a] condition” around average rents, and something about below-market rent.

We have removed the HST, as per our commitment on all purpose-built rentals. Since that we have seen thousands of new commitments from developers right across this country to change their plans from building condos to building purpose-built rentals. It is a plan that is having an impact today. I spoke to a developer last week, who said that a 5,000-unit condo development is all being shifted to purpose-built rentals. This is good news for Canadians.

The Conservatives can stand there and say that it was their idea. That is hysterical. They have been in opposition for almost eight years, and they have never talked about removing the HST on purpose-built rentals. Indeed, we had it in our platform previously. As soon as the national housing accord came out, as soon as they made that recommendation, they made a presentation to our government and we took quick action.

Some in this House say that the federal government should abandon housing. Certainly, my colleague opposite has said that the federal government should get out of the housing sector and leave it to the provinces.

We believe that we have a strong role to play in helping Canadians meet their housing needs. Since 2015, the current government has invested more than $30 billion to support, create and repair half a million homes. That is not trivial. We are talking about millions of Canadians who have a safe and affordable roof over their heads because of the national housing strategy and the money that we have invested through it since 2017.

I am often heard talking about co-ops, or co-operative housing. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the last 25 years or so have neglected the need to build purpose-built, non-market housing. My favourite version of that is co-ops, because I grew up at the Chautauqua Co-op.

One of the first things that I wanted to talk about when I came to Ottawa was the importance of building more co-ops. In the most recent budget on housing, we can see a $1.5-billion investment in co-op housing that is already making a huge impact on the sector. The co-op housing sector is invigorated and revitalized, and we are seeing more non-market houses getting built. That is something that the Mulroney government ended entirely, and no government since except ours has reaffirmed a pledge to recommit to this.

Our government is getting more co-ops built. We are getting more homes built. Unlike the Conservative plan, which received negative reviews from experts across the country, including the development sector, the construction sector and academics such as Dr. Mike Moffatt, our plan is being received well. We are making things happen immediately.

Through the historic national housing strategy, we have been helping people throughout this country find suitable housing. We are proud of this, and it is making a big impact.

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

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that it is too little and too late. We can ask any member of the Liberal caucus who was elected in the 2015 general election if they could have imagined the Canada we have today. We can look at a home in Abbotsford that could have been bought for a price of under $400,000 in 2015 and fast-forward eight years to see that very house on the market today for $1.3 million to $1.4 million. Under the current government the social contract between all Canadians and their government to ensure that they have a safe and affordable place to live has been eliminated.

Oftentimes, the Liberals talk about extremism growing in this country. I am afraid of extremism too. I am afraid of neo-Marxism and of the government trying to fix every problem. The reason we are facing extremism is that the government screwed up so badly on housing that an entire generation of people will not be able to have the joy of home ownership or the security of it for their children.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely and what I just heard following my personal story about co-op housing, which is a form of non-market housing and a form of social housing, is the member opposite refer to that as neo-Marxism. I find that repulsive.

We are talking about finding solutions to people's problems and the market to date has not solved those problems. To suggest the government needs to get out of the way of the housing market is exactly the wrong path forward. The government needs to be involved in the building of non-market units, of new co-ops and of supportive affordable housing, and that is what our government has done since 2017 when we instituted this country's first-ever national housing strategy. I accept that housing is unaffordable right now, but it would be worse had we not invested $30 billion. It would be a lot worse if we were not removing the HST from purpose-built rentals.

We are going to keep investing in Canadians, in Canada and housing affordability on behalf of all of our neighbours.

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, when I asked my question last week, it was as a result of being at the International Plowing Match, which was a fantastic event in my riding.

Most members of Parliament should take the time to speak with the people who produce our food. I did that, and the message I got back from them was loud and clear: The carbon tax is making their lives a whole lot more difficult because it makes everything they do more expensive. If they are driving their combines, they are paying a carbon tax on the gas. If they are drying their grain, they are paying a carbon tax on the gas to dry the grain.

What does that do? It does a whole bunch of things. Number one, it makes exports more difficult because Canadian products are now more expensive. Who is our number one trading partner? It is the United States. They do not have a carbon tax on their farmers, so our farmers are automatically at a disadvantage when they are trying to export their products to the United States. There is a bill, which the Liberals opposed, to remove the carbon tax on farm fuels. It would be a great solution.

The other problem with this is that it makes everything more expensive. We know this because everyone throughout the supply chain is now paying a carbon tax, and that makes the price of food more expensive. What have we seen as a result of that? Canadians are saying they cannot afford to pay for food. We hear from seniors visiting food banks. Those numbers are skyrocketing. I have constituents calling my office and sending me emails every single week saying they cannot afford their grocery bills, their grocery bills are now going on their credit cards and they are paying off their credit cards with their line of credit. This is an economic disaster, and it is caused by the Liberal government.

Liberals are going to say things like Conservatives do not care about climate change and what about natural disasters, all these kinds of things, or they will come up with the one big one, which is that most Canadian families get more money back. All of these things are completely inaccurate.

First of all, the carbon tax will not prevent natural disasters. Canadian carbon emissions are 1.5% of global carbon emissions. Even if we completely eliminated all our emissions, a country like China will use up all that space in less than one year, because of a year-over-year 10% increase. Its year-over-year increase is more than our entire carbon emissions. Therefore, even if we go to zero, it will not stop any of the effects the Liberals are talking about because there is no carbon dome over Canada. As much as they might try to say that is what happens, it absolutely does not.

The carbon tax is hurting Canadians. The Liberals can quote the PBO all they want, but when it looked at a distributional analysis of the cost of the carbon tax throughout the entire economy, Canadian families are paying more, but then they are also paying it to heat their homes. They are paying it to drive to work. In my riding, people heat their homes with propane and they drive long distances to work. The carbon tax is killing them. It is making them have to make terrible choices with their personal finances.

The simple solution is to cut the carbon tax and deal with greenhouse gas emissions in another way, because Canadians cannot have alternatives. People in my riding drive their cars, heat their homes with propane and they have no alternatives. They get punished no matter what, as a result of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the concerns raised by my colleague opposite are what we have heard from the Conservatives over and over again. They would like to blame carbon pricing for all of the affordability challenges Canadians are facing. However, it is clear to me that this member has not gone to an economist. The Conservatives have not even looked at the simple math. They have not read the PBO report, which indicates not only that carbon pricing works, but also that the price on pollution instituted by the federal government as the back-stop program gives back to 80% of families more than they pay.

Like the member opposite, I live in a rural riding. A lot of my community is agriculture-based. Many in my community drive long distances to work, and a lot of my constituents use home heating oil to heat their homes. I understand full well the impact that the price on carbon has on the economy.

At the same time, I am listening to economists who have indicated that, sure, pricing carbon causes a moderate increase to the price of food, but let us look at how much. For an average family of four in Ontario, it is less than three dollars. Why? It is because there is no HST on food. Food is not taxed. There is also something called “output-based allocations”, which mitigate a lot of those concerns back to industry, such as farm fuels, as my colleague acknowledged, which are mostly fossil fuels. They are exempt from the price on carbon. That is something that the members opposite ignore entirely.

It is also important to recognize that all of those Conservative members, including the member for Dufferin—Caledon, ran on a promise to price pollution. When Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party, in their election platform back in 2021, they all ran on a commitment to price carbon.

I knocked on doors in Caledon in that last election for the Liberal candidate, and there are a lot of environmentalists who live in downtown Caledon. They want to know that we are fighting climate change because they recognize events like wildfires and floods. No, a price on pollution does not automatically prevent them as if this were some sort of fairytale that the member just popped the bubble of. That is not how it works. However, we do have to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and the price on pollution, carbon pricing, is the cheapest and best way to do that according to expert economists, paleoclimatologists and people who actually study this for a living.

Now, the member opposite mentioned that Canada is 1.5% of the global emissions, which is true. We are also 0.5% of the global population. What does that mean? It is simple math. It might not be something that the member opposite believes in because he also does not believe in climate change. As I have acknowledged, if he does not believe in climate change and simple math, it is possible he might not believe in gravity either, but it is right in front of us. If we are 0.5% of the global population and responsible for 1.5% of emissions, that means we are responsible for three times the average amount of anybody else from another country, which is too much.

We all have a role to play. Conservatives used to be a party of personal accountability. Let us be accountable for our own actions. Let us make sure that our personal finances are sacrosanct. That is not the case with this Conservative Party. Its members have completely abandoned the concept of accountability. In just the last couple years, the new leader, the member for Carleton, has been leading their party on a downward spiral of Tucker Carlson conspiracy theory videos and climate change denial. However, that does not change the facts that carbon pricing works, climate change is real and this government is committed to affordability while the party opposite has no credibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say a couple of things.

Number one, I won that election in 2019 by nine points. After that member came to canvass in my riding, I won by 19 points. I hope he will come to canvass in my riding again in the next election. It will go up by another nine or 10 points.

It is always disappointing for a member who was a former symbol of this country to take his commentary in a debate down to a level where he attacks people, saying we do not believe in gravity. It is incredibly disappointing for a former national figure, but unfortunately, this member always stoops to that level when he engages in debate.

The fact of the matter is this: The PBO made it very clear that most families do pay more, and if the member actually talked to a farmer, they might show him their bill for drying grain, which would include a carbon tax, and for some farmers, it is upwards of $100,000 a year. It needs to go.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, personal attacks on my character and my former career notwithstanding, I do not care. That does not matter. What matters is that we are standing up for Canadians. We are standing up for affordability, and we are fighting climate change, because that is what I heard at the doors in Milton and that is what I heard at the doors in Caledon.

I congratulate the member for being elected. I wish him luck in future elections. I would say that in the last election, where he won by more than the previous one, the Conservatives also all ran on a commitment to fight climate change, which they have since abandoned. As I said, when I was knocking on doors in Caledon, I heard loud and clear that climate change and fighting it was a priority, and running on a commitment to price carbon was part of their platform. I wonder what they plan to do in the next election.

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. They have to stick to the facts and talk to some experts about carbon pricing and fighting climate change.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The motion that the House do now adjourn 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 7:39 p.m.)