Debates of May 27th, 2024

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is really all about certainty for investors. If it is going to take potentially years to get a decision, and if a full offshore development and production designated project review can take 1,600 days, people are not going to apply. The uncertainty has been there from the moment the Liberals tabled the bill. They should make a clear declaration that they are not going to proceed down this road of potential unconstitutional jurisdictional intrusion by adding more red tape. They should go with an entirely different approach and start again.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are talking about Bill C-49, an act to amend the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord. I am a member of Parliament from the other end of the country, the Pacific Coast, and it is a real honour for me to be joining in the debate about something that is so important to Canada. It goes to show that Canada really is a nation from sea to sea. I am from the other ocean, but it is wonderful to be here with my colleagues who are very knowledgeable about what happens on the Atlantic Coast. Listening to the speeches tonight, I have learned a lot about that part of my country.

Bill C-49 would impose, unfortunately, many of the Liberals' failed environmental assessment initiatives that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada for infringing on provincial jurisdiction. It was a real surprise for me, as I delved into this bill, to see that the Liberals would take the risk of incorporating a lot of the failed clauses of Bill C-69, which we call the “no more pipelines” bill, into this very important legislation about improving the economy of the Atlantic Coast, and I wonder why they would do that. The last thing that investment dollars and investment entrepreneurs want is risk. It has been pointed out before that this bill poses a political risk that is going to drive away investment. Here is a proof point that I think is really clear.

In 2022, there were five offshore land bids in Newfoundland and Labrador at a value of $238 million. If we move forward five months to May 30, 2023, about a year ago, when Bill C-49 was first introduced, which is not law yet. Business people read it and said that they did not want to take that risk, and in 2023, there were zero bids. That is just a really clear example of what happens when the government introduces legislation that does nothing more than introduce a lot of uncertainty into the mix.

If we take a look at what happened with the TMX pipeline, Kinder Morgan, which is a risk-taking company with very deep pockets. It was willing to take on the challenge of twinning the pipeline that had been in existence for 70 years with very little environmental risks involved. It started the project to twin that pipeline, which seemed like a very common-sense project to undertake, and it was, until the federal government started imposing environmental regulatory red tape that really did not do anything but slow down the project. Finally, Kinder Morgan said that it was out of there because It did not want that risk anymore. It is a business that wants to make money, and it could see that there was way too much risk there, so it pulled out. It was willing to walk away from its multibillion dollar investment at that point.

However, the Liberal federal government said that it needed that pipeline and that it could not let it go unfinished. It picked up the project for $5 billion, which was going to cost $7 billion altogether to complete it. In fact, the project is now finished, finally, but at a cost of $35 billion. The federal government is now saying it is for sale, but who is going to buy it? Certainly, not for $35 billion. That is what happens when government gets into business. It should just stay out of business and should let private enterprise do what it does best, which is to undertake projects that have a very good opportunity for earning a profit. I know “profit” is a bad word with the NDP-Liberal government, but let me assure members that private enterprise runs on profit. Profit drives innovation, competition, investment and creates wealth.

This is very important to Canada because our productivity numbers are lagging compared to our trading nations, and this has been pointed out on many occasions. It was recognized by the former Liberal minister of finance, Mr. Bill Morneau, in the book he wrote after he left government, after he was released from the Liberal Party's talking points. He said he had pointed out to the current Prime Minister that one of Canada's biggest economic challenges was its lagging productivity numbers.

Here is a nice, neat example of what exactly that means when compared to the United States. For every American worker who pumps in $100 into their economy, their Canadian counterpart, doing exactly the same kind of work, pumps $70 into Canada's GDP. We are 70% as productive as the United States. Does that mean that we do not work as hard? No, of course not. We are very hard-working and industrious people.

However, we do not have the tools, investment, creativity and tax fairness here in Canada. That is what is causing our productivity numbers to lag. That goes to the wealth of the nation. It goes to the wealth of individual people. This is what Mr. Morneau had pointed out to Mr. Trudeau on what he said were numerous occasions. He said—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Could the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove just back up and not use the name of the Prime Minister?

The hon. member.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing that out.

Mr. Morneau said he had pointed out, on several occasions, to the Prime Minister that he had a focus on improving Canada's productivity. Mr. Morneau said, unfortunately, the Prime Minister was not interested in that. He was more interested in distributing wealth, rather than creating wealth.

I think that is one of the fundamental economic problems in Canada today. The person at the head, the Prime Minister, is not interested in these sorts of things. That is very evident with what we see in Bill C-49. There is no interest in talking about the things that drive our economy and that are going to improve our wealth and wealth for Atlantic Canadians.

What are the sorts of things that we can do to improve our productivity, our per capita GDP? We talked about investment already. Bill C-49, the old Bill C-69, scared investment away, and that needs to be reversed. The Conservative members are saying that we need to bring this bill back to committee. These are the sorts of things that we have to look for.

We also need to reduce red tape. That is another common-sense solution to Canada's lagging productivity. We need more innovation. We need to develop our natural resources.

I want to talk about something that is very important to my end of the country, the Pacific region, and that is liquid natural gas.

It was pointed out in earlier debates that Canada has an abundance of natural gas. That is how most western Canadians heat their homes and buildings, and it is used for a lot of our vehicles. Natural gas is much cleaner burning than coal or even oil.

The world wants it. How do we ship natural gas? We liquefy it, we put it into special containers and we ship it around the world. This is a proven technology, and Canada is ready and willing, but not able to do it because the Prime Minister has told other countries there is no business case for this. Unbelievable. He said there is no business case for liquid natural gas.

Other countries in the world, like the United States, for example, see that there is a business case. Where we dropped the ball, the Americans picked it up and they are supplying Europe with liquid natural gas, which is exactly what Canada should be doing. Our allies are asking for this kind of help. It is a perfect solution to their problems, to wean themselves off Russian natural gas, and it is a perfect opportunity for us to grow our economy and improve our productivity.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I actually did not have time to talk about the important role that Canada could play in exporting our natural resources for energy.

The member touched on it a little. However, with some extra time, could he explain further about just why it is so important that Canada be a global supplier of reliable, clean and affordable energy for people throughout the world?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is rich in natural resources. Any country in the world that is rich in natural resources develops them for the benefit of their citizens.

We are a trading nation, and we have a lot of allies that want to purchase our resources. Again, I am thinking of liquid natural gas as one example of that. These are the sorts of things that we should be doing for our own benefit, as well as for the benefit of our friends and trading partners.

I could talk about other natural resources as well, but I will leave room for some other questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. We have heard many excellent speeches from Conservative colleagues tonight about the importance of the energy sector, jobs and opportunity.

After nine years of the Liberal government, it is clear that its policies are not working, and it is not worth the cost, the crime or the corruption. We will get to that, but in the context of the bill, certainly, it is not worth the cost.

However, the good news is that, after nine years, there is hope on the horizon. Canadians know that it was not this way before the extreme NDP-Liberal coalition took power, and it will not be that way once we have a restoration of common-sense leadership in this country.

Could the member share a little more about the promise associated with a restoration of common-sense leadership in this country and how his constituents are reacting to that?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. I am sure the member is hearing from his constituents; likewise, I am hearing from my constituents that they are eager to have a federal carbon tax election.

We have seen in some of the recent by-elections that this is resonating with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is certainly true in my region.

I talked about productivity and efficiency. One factor, any economist would tell us, is to have a competitive tax regime. Canada has a carbon tax, which has proven not to be effective at all in reducing carbon emissions and is just making our economy less efficient.

I say bring it on. We are ready for a carbon tax election. I would ask that the other opposition parties please vote with us. They should do what they are supposed to do and oppose the budget. Let us force a carbon tax election.

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

Mental Health and Addictions

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am up with a follow-up to a question that I had put to the Liberal minister. On May 3 in question period, I asked a question about the failed drug legalization pilot project in British Columbia. That project was a joint initiative of the federal Liberal government and the provincial NDP government to basically decriminalize the possession of small amounts of hard drugs for personal use. The thinking was that, if we treat drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal issue, then we will destigmatize drug use and, in that way, encourage addicts to seek medical treatment. That sounded good in theory, but one year into this three-year pilot project, it was clear that it was going to fail. It was a failed experiment.

There were 2,500 toxic deaths in the first year of the pilot project, up 7% from the previous year, and there was crime and chaos on the streets. We all heard examples from MPs right across the province, and I heard of it too in Langley. Citizens were worried that they were seeing people injecting drugs in front of an elementary school, people discarding used needles in playgrounds and people smoking crack at bus stops and on transit. Other communities across British Columbia had similar experiences. None were as stark as those in the Downtown Eastside, where chaos had become widespread. British Columbians were unhappy.

The provincial NDP government realized it needed to do something, and it did try. It introduced a provincial bill called the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, which put restrictions on consumption of drugs in open places, such as playgrounds, schools, etc. That made sense to common-sense citizens, but there was an organization, the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, that took issue with it. The organization took this to court and surprisingly, at least surprisingly to me, was able to convince the judge to issue a temporary injunction preventing the provincial government from bringing this law into effect.

The argument that convinced the judge was that it is more dangerous for a drug user to be using alone in a private place, at home presumably, than it is in the public eye. I do not argue with that, and I do not know if there is evidence to back that up, but this is what convinced the judge. He was convinced that this was a violation of drug users' section 7 charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person. I was surprised by that.

The provincial government realized that it had lost this battle and so instead, went to the federal government and asked for an amendment to the exemption order to effectively do the same as its provincial legislation was going to do.

I asked my question in that context, and it was whether the government was going to put an end to the disastrous failed drug-use experiment. What I got, unfortunately, was a nonsensical answer from the minister, who said that the Conservatives were not interested in protecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I do not know where that came from. I thought it was very surprising, coming from a minister whose government's failed plan for drug use basically undermined the Constitution itself. I was disappointed in that. I am hoping I get a better answer today.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, this is a tragic public health crisis, and it is impacting people deeply across this country. My heart goes out to those people who have been impacted by this public health crisis.

Our government remains fully committed to addressing this public health crisis, using every tool at our disposal to save lives and keep communities safe. We have taken unprecedented action since 2017, action that has been informed by evidence and the experiences of those who have been most affected.

It is clear there is no one-size-fits-all approach. We are committed to a comprehensive, collaborative and evidence-based substance policy approach that includes prevention, enforcement, treatment and harm reduction.

Too often, ideological approaches have gotten in the way of real progress, which inhibits the science. The toxic drug and overdose crisis is a public health issue. It is not a criminal justice issue. We do recognize that public safety must be maintained while we use a public health approach to address this crisis.

Let us be clear that B.C. asked for this pilot project, and we granted its amendment request to make sure law enforcement has additional tools to address the public safety issues while we continue to take a public health approach to addressing the toxic drug and overdose crisis. We all want the same thing, which is for people and communities to be safe and secure and for health care to be available to those who need it. We will continue to work with B.C. and to listen to concerns raised by all partners to make sure this exemption works seamlessly within the province's broader public health approach.

Law enforcement leaders in Canada support a public health approach. They know we cannot arrest our way out of this health crisis. British Columbia's exemption continues to be supported by rigorous monitoring and third party evaluation to gather evidence and data on its impacts and outcomes and to identify effective mitigation measures for any unintended consequences.

I will repeat that we are committed to a comprehensive approach that protects public health and maintains public safety. We will keep working with provinces and territories, municipalities, organizations, other partners and everyone involved to make sure we bring this public health crisis to an end.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the Liberals say they are taking a science-based approach. The science is in, and it is not working. There were over 2,500 toxic deaths last year during the pilot project. It was worse than the year before. This is going in the wrong direction.

We have known about this for quite a long time. The provincial government introduced this legislation a while ago, and unfortunately it failed at the B.C. Supreme Court level. However, we also have evidence coming out of Oregon, for example, which has also rolled back its harm reduction and its safe supply strategies, because they are not working. We are really looking for creative solutions that will protect people's rights, and their charter rights as well, I might add.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

As I said, Mr. Speaker, no one measure will work. We must do everything we can to prevent overdoses, save lives and help people find their way to appropriate treatment and pathways to recovery, while at the same time keeping our communities safe and addressing drug trafficking and organized crime.

Our government is focused on supporting a full range of services and supports to address the diverse needs of people who use drugs, as well as enforcement efforts to protect our communities. We are in the midst of a crisis. This is not a time to be pitting harm reduction against treatment. The truth is we need them both, and we need more than that. The evidence clearly demonstrates this. Going forward, we will continue to work hand in hand with all of our partners, including provinces, law enforcement, indigenous communities, people with lived and living experience and municipalities across this country every step of the way. We will adapt and adjust our approach to reflect the evidence and what is actually working on the ground.

Public Services and Procurement

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the costly, crooked, cover-up coalition engaged in corrupt practices in the arrive scam scandal. The Auditor General's report revealed that the government rigged the process, which was that senior officials sat down with the well-connected insider firm, GC Strategies, and discussed and arranged the terms of a deal, which GC Strategies would then bid on. It was able to rig the process, discuss the terms of the deal, which it then bid on and, surprise, got the contract. However, we still do not know why the NDP-Liberal coalition went to such lengths to favour GC Strategies.

Let us paint the picture. GC Strategies is two guys who work out of a basement. They do not do any actual work on projects; they simply receive the contracts and then subcontract them and take massive commissions along the way. It would be as if the member for York—Simcoe and I went out and started Lake Simcoe Enterprises, did no work but just got contracts and passed them along. That would be a good deal for us, but it would be a bad deal for taxpayers.

Why is it that the government did not simply hire the IT professionals to do the work rather than going through a couple of middlemen sitting in their basement who know nothing about IT and whose only business is to go on LinkedIn, find people who can do the work, then get the contracts, find the people to actually do the work, and collect millions of dollars in commissions in the process?

However, the government chose the two people from GC Strategies. The government chose this company to be the favoured son of Liberal corrupt procurement. Why were they chosen? We still do not have an answer to that. Maybe the parliamentary secretary will be able to explain it to the House.

Frankly, we have seen that the government, the Prime Minister and the people working under him, have persistently rigged the process to reward insiders and punish taxpayers, and the process is broken. We will hear Liberals say, “Well, those Conservatives will make cuts. What will they spend less on when they are in government?” I will tell members; it is not rocket science. If there is a two-person firm that receives the contracts then passes them along and does no work in the process, it seems pretty uncomplicated. I mean, it would be ideal to cut out the contracting in general and have the work done inside government, but at least cut out the middleman.

GC Strategies has rightly gotten a lot of attention. It has done very well under the current government. It was founded in 2015 and has done extremely well under the NDP-Liberals. However, there are over 600 different companies doing IT middleman contracting and subcontracting, doing so-called staff augmentation for the public service. This is out of control, and it involves massive amounts of money. There has been a dramatic growth in public service spending but also a dramatic growth in contracting out at the same time, and a substantial amount of the contracting out is going to do-nothing middleman companies and is going to advice from professional services.

Why is the government spending so much and getting so little for Canadians?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, taxpayer money needs to be treated with the utmost respect. Departments and agencies must follow contracting rules and handle all procurement processes in a fair, open and transparent manner, in accordance with all policies, guidelines, regulations and trade agreements. The gaps in management processes, roles and controls that the Auditor General of Canada and the procurement ombud have identified in their reports are unacceptable. We welcome the recommendations made in the reports.

The CBSA has already taken steps to strengthen its procurement activities and ensure proper oversight of them. The agency has established an executive procurement review committee tasked with approving contracts and task authorizations. This is already providing additional oversight on all contracting activities, with a focus on delivering value for money. Employees will be required to disclose interaction with potential vendors. Furthermore, Public Services and Procurement Canada will continue to strengthen all aspects of the federal procurement system; it will use findings from the Auditor General's report to improve the way the Government of Canada does business with its suppliers.

The hon. member will certainly remember the unprecedented context in which the ArriveCAN application was created. After the pandemic was declared in March 2020, the app was developed and launched as quickly as possible by Canada Border Services Agency, at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The data provided by ArriveCAN was essential for the government to monitor, detect and identify new COVID-19 variants of concern and to respond as these variants evolved. The CBSA was working as quickly as possible to replace a paper process that was not meeting public health needs. At the time, there were significant wait times at the border, which disrupted the essential flow of people and goods.

I wish to point this out to the hon. member: In her report, the Auditor General recognized that the government improved the speed and quality of information collected at the border by using the ArriveCAN app rather than the paper form. We should not forget that this app helped ensure the continued flow of essential goods, including food and medical supplies, for all Canadians.

The CBSA played a key role in facilitating the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines in this country. The public health measures that were taken have supported Canadian businesses that depend on secure and timely cross-border shipments. They kept food and goods on store shelves and ensured our frontline workers were equipped with essential supplies such as personal protective equipment.

I would like to emphasize the efforts of frontline border officers and all CBSA personnel, who diligently served and protected Canadian citizens during the pandemic. They continue to do so every single day in Canada and around the world.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that the NDP-Liberals are still defending the arrive scam policy. The fact is that this app was a disaster. Sixty million dollars was spent. A big chunk of it went to this do-nothing middleman company. Most versions of the app, according to the Auditor General, were not tested. As a result, over 10,000 people who followed all the rules were accidentally sent into quarantine because of a glitch in the app.

We can imagine that someone does everything they are supposed to. They are coming back home; they are supposed to be able to see their family and get back to work. They are sent into quarantine, not because they are supposed to go, but because the government could not be bothered to test the app. Rather, it hired two guys working out of a basement with no IT experience, who went on LinkedIn to find other people to do the work.

The Auditor General very clearly said that there is no excuse. The government continues to make excuses in spite of it. Does the government have no shame? Will it finally admit what a disaster the arrive scam policy was?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite the hyperbole and fake outrage, I will reiterate that transparency and accountability are priorities for the government. We expect that procurement processes will be properly followed and that anyone accused of wrongdoing will face the appropriate consequences. This has been and always will be the case.

The gaps found by the Auditor General of Canada and the procurement ombud in their reports are unacceptable, and we welcome the recommendations. The government is taking steps to ensure that all departments are better positioned to undertake projects of this nature in the future. Some of the recommendations outlined in the report have already been addressed. The president of the CBSA has implemented measures to strengthen and improve procurement processes and internal controls, and the government has full confidence that any investigation into wrongdoing allegations will be pursued with integrity and efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, the hon. member and all Canadians that the government remains unwavering in its commitment to prioritizing efficiency, accountability and transparency in the stewardship of public resources.

Carbon Pricing

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good morning. It is 12:20 a.m., and I rise to get answers and accountability from the NDP-Liberal government on behalf of the hard-working people of York—Simcoe. The Liberal carbon tax has made life more expensive for every Canadian across the country, raising the price of food, fuel and everything else. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered...most households will see a net loss.”

Rural Canadians are especially affected, as they have to travel farther for longer to go anywhere and face higher costs across the board compared to urban regions. While the government has introduced a 20% top-up to the carbon tax rebate for small town and rural Canadians, many residents are not eligible to receive it. Under the current rules, in order to qualify for the rural rebate, one must live outside a CMA, a census metropolitan area, as defined by Statistics Canada.

Under these ridiculous rules put in place by the Liberals, my community of York—Simcoe is considered to be part of the Toronto CMA, despite being made up entirely of rural areas, agricultural lands and small towns. This includes the Chippewas of Georgina Island on Lake Simcoe, who are classified as rural and remote in any dealings they have with the federal government.

If people google it, they will see that it would take 16 hours to walk to the closest subway station. We are the ice-fishing capital of Canada, the soup and salad bowl of Canada. That is York—Simcoe, and yet the upside-down Liberal government thinks that the CN Tower is right in our backyard. Houston, we have a problem. We know that the government is aware of this problem.

After all, Liberals recently rolled the census data back to 2016 for those living in Liberal ridings that were to be classified as part of a CMA in the most recent census. This ensured that they would still receive the rural top-up, but the Liberals have done nothing for those who are already unfairly excluded from the rebate, which is affecting those in York—Simcoe, outside Thunder Bay and elsewhere, coast to coast to coast.

Budget 2024 indicated, “The government is also working to expand rural top-up eligibility to more Canadians who need this support and will announce a proposal on better defining rural areas later this year.” As per Liberals, they say as much as they can without saying anything. The carbon tax has been in place for years, and now the Liberals are promising a proposal this year, but we all know what a Liberal promise is worth. That promise will be no relief to the residents of these excluded communities who are struggling to pay for groceries on their table and fuel in their cars right now.

Conservatives will axe the tax, but until then, my job is to stand up for my constituents and get every nickel that is owed to them.

Will the Liberal government commit today to stop screwing over rural Canadians and give York—Simcoe the rural top-up?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, our carbon pricing approach reduces emissions. Environment and climate change modelling shows that Canada's emissions in 2021, the second year that the national minimum price on carbon pollution was in effect in Canada, would have been about 18 million tonnes higher in the absence of Canada's carbon pricing plan. Canada recently released the national inventory report, which tracks and reports on the country's GHG emissions. The report showed that Canada remains on track to meet our emissions reduction goals for 2030, and it shows that our emissions have been significantly reduced, by 44 million tonnes, compared to our prepandemic levels. The data is very clear: Carbon pricing works.

More than 90% of fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to individuals and households through the Canada carbon rebate. People get them through cheque or direct bank deposit every three months, and eight out of 10 families in provinces where the federal system applies receive more money back than they pay. Low and medium-income households actually benefit the most because they tend to spend less on energy-intensive goods, and they still collect the full amount of the Canada carbon rebate.

Of particular interest to the member opposite is the fact that households in rural areas and smaller communities receive a 20% top-up to their Canada carbon rebate, reflecting that they may face higher costs and have fewer short-term options to reduce their emissions. Canada's approach to carbon pricing is designed to protect affordability and to return all the proceeds back to Canadians. Those who need it the most receive more back than they pay.

Carbon pricing simply is not the cause of the increased cost of living. The data proves it year over year, and I am concerned with the opposite member's questions, because Canadians have been through a lot in the last five years, and they are struggling with the cost of living. We have heard numerous calls to scale back the carbon pricing system in response, but carbon pricing is not the problem; it is designed to help families, through the Canada carbon rebates. That is why a pause on pricing would not help families keep life affordable.

It can be tempting to put off action for the future in favour of other short-term goals and needs, but in the case of carbon pricing, we actually do not have to choose. We can take action to protect ourselves and our children against climate change without hurting Canadians' pocketbooks.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague missed my four-minute speech. York—Simcoe does not qualify for the 20% rural top-up. I need her to understand that in York-Simcoe, we are on the outside looking in. I would also point out that the fastest growing area in Canada is East Gwillimbury, in my riding, and none of the six northern communities got any housing accelerator funds.

I would sum it up to my colleague like this. York—Simcoe is too Toronto for the rural top-up, but not Toronto enough for any housing accelerator funds. It does not make sense. It is completely upside down. I think of the Chippewas of Georgina Island, out in the middle of Lake Simcoe, which one has to take a ferry to. Could the member square the circle for us? What would she like me to tell the chief on the Chippewas of Georgina Island? They are not subject to getting the rural top-up. We do not qualify. We are part of the people who are not qualifying for the rural top-up.

Axe the tax.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member has particular issues in his constituency, but we cannot deny the devastating impacts of climate change, and doing nothing is not an option. Climate-related impacts are costing average Canadian households $720 a year. That is going to rise up to $2,000 a year by 2050. Climate change is costing people's lives. It is affecting physical and mental health. Doing nothing would lead us to lose out in the worldwide race to net-zero solutions. We need to listen to our youth. We need to listen to our communities and our businesses, and we need to take action now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

(The House adjourned at 12:27 a.m.)