Debates of Oct. 10th, 2024

Carbon Pricing

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing the debate with my colleague across the aisle about carbon tax.

One of the things that will probably occur tonight is we will probably both draw from a particular document that was released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer today. I heard the member refer to it earlier today. We will probably both refer to it as we verify our side of the debate. It says:

In 2030-31, taking into consideration both fiscal and economic impacts, PBO estimates that the average household in each of the backstop provinces will see a net cost, paying more in the federal fuel charge and related Goods and Services Tax, as well as receiving lower incomes (due to the fuel charge), compared to the Canada Carbon Rebate they receive and lower net taxes they pay (due to lower incomes).

That would suggest to me that there are people in this country who will get less back than they receive in rebates.

Here is another one from the report:

...the economic impact of the federal fuel charge is combined with the fiscal impact, the net cost increases for the average household across all income quintiles, reflecting the overall negative economic impact of the fuel charge.

In 2030-31, taking into consideration both fiscal and economic impacts, we estimate that the average household in each of the backstop provinces will see a net cost, paying more in the federal fuel charge and GST, as well as receiving lower incomes.

Another one says:

However, as PBO has noted, Canada’s own emissions are not large enough to materially impact climate change and therefore their reduction would not materially affect the Canadian economy.

There was a chart on the average cost for an Albertan showing they would pay $697, so almost $700 more, in tax than they receive. That is data from the report.

There are a couple more out there. There was the Agriculture Carbon Alliance. It sampled 50 farms and showed a total $330,000, in just one month, paid in carbon tax. Now if we have 190,000 farms in Canada, that gets to be a big number.

What makes it different in my riding is irrigation. As I said before, when I met with one farmer with an irrigated farm, he paid approximately $100,000 in carbon tax a year. I saw the bills he had, and went through them with him.

I have hundreds of irrigated farms in my riding. If we multiply that number, we get the amount that is paid in carbon tax from irrigation farms. There is no rebate on what they use to power this. There are no exemptions. The amount that irrigation farm farmers in my area, who produce high-quality crops, pay is huge. What they ask me is, “Why does EV production get a $50-billion subsidy, when we have to pay a huge carbon tax?”

The farmers in my area see the carbon tax as a huge cost to them, much higher than average farmers, who are paying a lot. They see the subsidy to EV batteries at $50 billion, rather than them paying the carbon tax. It is really tough for them to take.

[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 my friend and colleague pointed out, the PBO released today an update on his analysis for the impact of the federal fuel charge on Canadian households, because unfortunately there had been a mistake made. The PBO report confirmed just recently that when we look at the direct costs of pollution pricing and the amounts actually paid by households, in terms of the fuel charge versus the amounts actually received back through the Canada carbon rebate payment, we can see that the large majority of Canadian families are much better off.

The PBO report also estimated the economic costs of implementing the carbon pricing regime, but it has not set these against the large and growing costs of climate inaction nor the economic opportunities of moving toward a greener, carbon-free future. It also does not necessarily take into consideration the enormous social and economic costs of climate change itself, which is a destructive force.

Canadians are forced from their homes every summer during wildfire events. In fact, a really alarming statistic I heard was that over 40% of the worldwide population displaced from their homes from wildfire was Canadian. That is crazy. Canada has only 0.5% of the global population, but 40% of the world's people who are displaced from their homes because of wildfire live in this country.

That is because we are also extremely vulnerable to climate change in Canada. We have a forest that is drying quickly due to warmer summers and shorter winters, and less snowfall and less snowpack. There are also less frequent and harder to manage precipitation events in western Canada, where a lot of rain will fall all at once but then not again for a couple of months.

We know that carbon pricing has not and will not cost families in the long run. What will cost us is doing absolutely nothing about climate change. Sadly, the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge that climate change is a threat. Some of them even refuse to accept the notion that it is human-caused and that we have a role to play, but what they cannot refuse to do is nothing. Canadians will not accept that at the ballot box. Climate change has been an issue when Canadians have gone to the ballot box, and I think that the Conservatives are really underestimating how much people care about fighting climate change.

Canadian families stand to gain financially in the long run from fighting climate change with a carbon price. Other counties have demonstrated that. Actually, since it is Nobel Prize season, it is worth pointing out that William Nordhaus, not a Canadian but a fan of the Canadian carbon pricing system, won a Nobel Prize in economics for his work on carbon pricing and lowering our emissions with that market-based tool.

Contrary to the numbers that the Conservatives continue to peddle, the commission concluded that carbon pricing would in fact boost Canadian incomes, on average, by $3,300 more in 2030 than if an alternative approach were taken or if absolutely nothing were done. Nothing is not an option.

The global clean-energy transition is here. I will say that it actually matters in agriculture as well. My colleague and I have been on this topic a couple of times, with respect to propane-based irrigation. Canadians want affordable food and they also want low-carbon food. Our agriculture system has a carbon footprint, and it is actually one of the higher carbon footprints in the world with respect to agriculture. There are some unavoidable aspects of that. A propane-based irrigation system is not as efficient and certainly not as carbon-friendly as other forms of irrigation that are available.

A price on pollution provides a pricing mechanism to steer the agriculture sector toward greener production methods, because other technologies do exist, which is different from other sectors where things might not be available. It is important for us to demand better from various sectors, transportation, agriculture, oil and gas, and energy, that they lower their carbon footprint.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but sorry, propane is not something we use in irrigation. I am not sure where the member is getting that information. Irrigation does not use propane. He needs to come out and see the electricity and natural gas it uses. It is not propane.

I thank the member for the rest of what he said. Adapting is what we need to do, but here is the real problem, which is taxing other levels of government. My neighbouring MP and I looked at the school systems and their buses, and at the municipalities. We looked at the health systems. There are tens of millions of dollars leaving our two ridings for carbon tax. That would be more doctors, more nurses, more teachers, and more people having programs and schools for their kids.

Taxing other levels of government is a huge problem. We have been able to figure out that tens of millions of dollars have left our ridings in carbon tax. That is problematic, and we need a carbon tax election.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, carbon pricing has been on the agenda in the last two elections. In fact, my colleague got elected on the promise of a carbon tax with the former leader of the Conservative Party, Erin O'Toole.

The Conservatives turned their backs on climate action. They decided they were not going to be a climate-forward party. We hardly ever hear of climate action or climate change from members of the Conservative Party these days. If they are not employing propane-based irrigation in my colleague's riding, then they are using a form of irrigation that does use fossil fuels. Whether that is relying on the energy grid, which is, unfortunately, high-carbon in Alberta, or using natural gas, as my colleague pointed out during his rebuttal speech, both of those have high carbon footprints. That needs to be addressed.

Electricity in Manitoba and Ontario has a lower carbon footprint, so our carbon charge with respect to our electricity bills is much lower than in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We need to move toward a no-coal, low-carbon energy grid. Unfortunately, as my colleague pointed out, Alberta's is high.

If the member wants to talk about education and health care, he needs to talk to Premier Smith, who has hardly mentioned those two issues as long as she has been premier.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to raise concerns about radical criminal justice policies being introduced and considered by the Liberal government.

Right now, before the Minister of Justice is a report commissioned as part of the so-called Black justice strategy, and that report contains several radical policy proposals, including the decriminalization of a 30-day supply of hard drugs like meth, cocaine and heroine. The Minister of Justice has not rejected this proposal, as one might hope. In fact, the Minister of Justice celebrated it as “history-making” and “an important milestone”. It is unbelievable that the minister would celebrate policies that threaten to flood more drugs into our communities, when one looks at our country's overdose statistics. Over 42,000 Canadians, including children, have died from drug overdoses under the Liberal Prime Minister's watch.

The policy proposals in front of the Minister of Justice also include proposals to defund police departments by limiting their access to federal grant money and to reduce Canada's prison population through mass decarceration of 30% over the next 10 years. I am pleading that the Liberal government and its justice minister reject these ideas as the harmful ideas they are and not celebrate them as achievements.

We have seen a massive increase in addictions and overdoses since the Liberals began to fund hard drugs with taxpayer dollars. We have seen an increase in crime since the Liberals made bail more accessible to repeat violent offenders. Police officers in our communities, including my home community of Durham, are doing their part. They are working hard to enforce the law, but they are being let down by the laws and policies of the current federal government. Police want to do their jobs, but when they arrest somebody multiple times for multiple crimes, and a repeat offender is allowed back on the streets in short order, it undermines policing across our country. How could the minister celebrate a proposal to cut police budgets?

There is an ideological problem in the federal government right now. It is an ideology that has moved away from seeing the justice system as a system that ought to keep people safe and punish crime. Instead, there is an ideology running rampant all over this place that wants to weaken our justice system, because it regards our system as oppressive or racist.

Some people call this ideology “woke” or “far left”. Whatever label we choose or do not choose, I hope we can recognize the system needs to work for the good of the Canadian people. Tearing it down to permit more crime and more chaos will not help any of us. No matter what colour we are or where our parents come from, we need a strong system that is accountable, fair and true to its core mission of public safety and justice.

With that core mission in mind, I return to my plea to the Liberal government and its justice minister to please reject these radical criminal justice policies and please reject these radical policy proposals. Canadians do not want more drugs flooding into our communities. We do not want violent repeat offenders to have easier access to bail. We want our police to be resourced and empowered to enforce the law.

I ask the minister to reject these radical policies and to side with law-abiding Canadians.

[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, today is World Mental Health Day, which is an opportunity to shine a light on crucial yet often overlooked aspects of our lives, one being mental health at work. This year's theme reminds us that our workplaces must be safe with respect to our collective and individual mental and psychological well-being.

Our work environments are ever-evolving and more dynamic than ever before. As leaders, employers and managers, we must all prioritize mental health just as we do physical health. Mental well-being is not a luxury; it is essential for productivity, creativity and overall workplace harmony. When employees feel supported, valued and understood, they thrive.

Our government has collaborated with various Canadian mental health agencies to create policies and invest in programs that prevent mental health risks, promote well-being and build supportive workplaces where mental health is prioritized. So, on this World Mental Health Day, I would like to thank mental health workers of all kinds right across Canada.

I was asked to come to the adjournment debate tonight to talk about mental health and addictions policy. However, those sorts of guardrails get a little stretched occasionally, but if the member of Parliament for Durham would like to talk to the Minister of Justice or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, then he needs to indicate that. I came tonight to talk about mental health policy and measures that we have undertaken to address the overdose crisis.

It is also important to recognize that, when in government, Canadians of all walks of life, whether they are left, or as my colleague might label them “woke”, centrists or more far on the right end of the spectrum, even if they are sometimes considered extreme, if they are academics, if they are workplace experts or if they just have ideas, governments need to be open to good ideas, regardless of who those ideas are coming from. We should invite good ideas. This place should be a contest of ideas in fact, and we should not be afraid to criticize those ideas and should not be close-minded about hearing them either.

It seems as though in this place it is similar to a debate that happened a couple of years ago when an organization suggested that the federal government consider taxing the equity of personal primary residences. It is a notion that our government soundly rejected and did not want to do. Canadians do not want their primary residence home equity to be taxed. However, since somebody brought it up at a meeting, the Conservatives ran with it and sent out a whole bunch of mail that said, “Look, these Liberals are trying to tax home equity”, which was not true. However, suggestions that my colleague has made with respect to policy recommendations made by a third party are also not true. I am also certain that was a large document with multiple recommendations and suggestions. As a government, we will remain open-minded to the good suggestions from academics, civil service organizations, groups of people and experts, because that is important to do as a government.

I will turn back to the issue of all of the efforts we have undertaken to address the overdose crisis, which include efforts right across the continuum of care to prevent drug use, to reduce harm, and to support people in accessing treatment and recovery services that they need and deserve. We will remain committed to maintaining public safety through all of those enforcement efforts.

There are four aspects of drug policy and overdose crisis response that are all very important. It is like a table, and without any one of those four legs, that table falls down. They are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. If any group, party or academic suggests that an effective drug policy can operate without all four of those aspects, then they are wrong.

The Government of Canada has invested almost $200 billion over the last 10 years to support provinces and territories to deliver health services in addition to the $1 billion that we have directly invested to address this drug crisis, and we will continue to be there.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us return to some logic here for a moment.

We have, in the last nine years, lost 42,000 Canadians, including children, to drug overdoses. Some policy report comes across the Minister of Justice's desk saying to decriminalize hard drugs, a 30-day supply of hard drugs. Now, the logical response to that would be, “no”, rejection, and “we are not going to be doing that”. This is what I am asking the Liberal government to say.

However, what did the Liberals say when that policy proposal came to their desk? It was celebrated. The Minister of Justice said openly in a press release that it was “an important milestone” and “history-making”. That is not a logical response to a very serious problem.

What we need is specific vision and direction on how we are going to help struggling Canadians move forward, not to entertain more radical criminal justice policies.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all have a role to play in stopping the spread of misinformation, and the Conservatives, over the last couple of years, have made a tabloid of a lot of things they read in the ecosystem. Perhaps news is not as reliable as it used to be, or perhaps some of the Conservatives are getting their news from less trustworthy sources.

The truth is that, on May 17, 2024, we refused a request from Toronto Public Health to decriminalize the personal possession of controlled substances for people in Toronto, including youth. Health Canada reviews all exemption requests carefully and thoroughly on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration and account all relevant options, including evidence of potential benefits, and risks and harms to the health and safety of Canadians. It was determined that the model proposed would not adequately protect public health and maintain public safety.

That was not five months ago. The member of Parliament for Durham is suggesting that something way more extreme than that is being considered, and it is not. That is misinformation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish all members a happy Thanksgiving.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-64, An Act respecting pharmacare.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

October 10, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 10th day of October, 2024, at 6:26 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Secretary to the Governor General,

Ken MacKillop

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S‑205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)—Chapter 22; Bill C‑291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material)—Chapter 23; and Bill C‑64, An Act respecting pharmacare—Chapter 24.

The motion to adjourn the House is now 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 7:16 p.m.)