Debates of June 3rd, 2024

Finance

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 9:13 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Carbon Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I rose in this chamber to ask the Minister of Finance when the Liberal government would stop sitting on the $2.5 billion in promised carbon tax rebates while business insolvencies skyrocket and small businesses suffer under higher taxes and inflation. Indeed, this promise was originally made in 2019.

In the budget, I will admit, the government did announce that carbon tax rebates would be forthcoming. However, it did take five years and this is a tax that 80% of small businesses want eliminated. This spring, however, the Liberals announced that they will reduce the amount of financial relief businesses will receive from carbon tax revenue in 2024 from 9% to 5%. Small businesses, as a result of the government's economic failure and incompetence, are drowning in debt and are struggling to stay afloat. Skyrocketing commercial rent, payroll and carbon tax increases, and Liberal red tape have created an impossible economic situation for many businesses across Canada. The latest report from the superintendent of bankruptcy revealed a 58.6% increase, year-over-year, in business insolvencies across Canada for the period ending April 30, 2024.

Statistics Canada reported that in February, more businesses closed their doors than opened. The largest declines were seen in transportation and warehousing, construction, so we think of home building, accommodation and food services. The labour force survey each month continues to highlight the massive gap in public sector job growth and private sector job growth. The growth in size of the public service is greatly outpacing private sector job growth. Quality of life is also continuing to decline in our country and our economy is underperforming the American economy by the widest margin since 1965. Among our G7 peers, only Italy has seen a greater decline in labour productivity compared to the United States.

In 1984, Canada produced 88% of the value generated by the U.S. economy per hour. By 2022, that figure had fallen to 71%. Again, only Italy performed worse over the same period. If the government truly had the back of small businesses, as I have heard in this House during QP, the situation would, in fact, look very different.

Rather than taxing Canadians into oblivion and offering a woefully insufficient rebate, far less than was originally promised, the government could start controlling its spending and stop driving up inflation and create a competitive economy for our small businesses to thrive. Indeed, the statistics I outlined do not lie.

If this government truly “urgently” wants to return the proceeds from the carbon tax, then I will ask: why did it take five years for this government to make an announcement? On what day will small businesses start receiving this rebate?

Secondly, why did the government reduce the amount given to small businesses from 9% to 5%?

[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, it is always nice to be in the House in the evening with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I thank him for the opportunity for an adjournment debate on this important issue.

Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy, and over the last four or five years, business owners have had a really challenging environment to operate in. Depending on what sector and where they are located, the pandemic has had an outsized impact on a lot of small businesses. However, throughout that tumultuous period, our government was there for small business owners. We paid much of their salaries, and we paid a lot of that rent. We kicked in wherever we could. We provided CEBA loans, and we kept the Canadian economy afloat.

We took on some debt so that the business owners would not have to and the result is that, over the last two years, the recession that so many economists, pundits and op-ed writers indicated was on the horizon in Canada has been avoided. It is really worth pointing out that, despite all the gloomy talk of the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada's economy is doing very well compared to our colleagues in the G7 or our partner countries. It is always easy to find a statistic to point out that it is bad here or it is bad there, but overall, Canada's wage growth has caught up to inflation, which is excellent news for workers. We have seen more than one million, the last figure being 1.3 million, new jobs compared to before the pandemic.

The member was talking about inflation and accusing this government of contributing to that inflation. He does not really give our government or the institution across the road, the Bank of Canada, too much credit for that inflation coming down. In the last 20 months consecutively, it has come down to a more reasonable rate of somewhere between 2.3% and 2.7%, which is getting really close to the Bank of Canada's target rate of 2%. We are getting there as a country.

I am not taking credit, as a member of this side. I want to give credit to Canadian workers, to Canadian innovators, to Canadian small business owners and to people who worked so hard during the pandemic and who took advantage of some of those government programs, which they were entitled to. They have continued to fight through the headwinds. The reason we are not in a recession now, in June 2024, is because of their hard work and ingenuity. As the member rightly pointed out, budget 2024 proposes to invest $2.5 billion to support 600,000 businesses across Canada. For context, the CEBA loans supported Canadian businesses with upward of $45 billion or $50 billion.

Our government has been there for small and medium-sized businesses. As we fight climate change and innovate to lower our emissions together, we will continue to serve Canadians, employ Canadians and make sure that Canadians have all of the opportunities they deserve. In the future, we will be there. We will have their backs, and we know that they will continue to do their great work in driving our economy forward to a green future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that, in respect to the carbon tax rebate, that money was collected from small business owners and redistributed back to small business owners. It is, in fact, not an investment. It is a wealth-distribution scheme put forward by the government.

It is not the Conservative Party of Canada, the loyal opposition, but Bank of Canada officials who outlined that we have a productivity crisis in Canada. It is the Bank of Canada that is outlining that the GDP per worker in this country is falling precipitously. That means workers are getting less on average than they did in the past. In other words, people are working harder and taking home less every month. That is what Conservatives want to fix, and that is why we continually say, “more powerful paycheques”. We want Canadians to be able to keep more for their hard work. We also want to see policies from government that give Canadian business a foundation of success moving forward.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we have the same goal. We both want to help Canadian business owners. However, we put forth ideas and actual policies, not just three-word slogans and rhyming couplets that look good on bumper stickers and hoodies. It requires some intellect to come to this place with policies and recommendations that would actually support the economy, support Canadians and, at the same time, lower our emissions and drive innovation forward.

Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Conservative Party is just constant sloganeering. “Powerful paycheques” sounds really good. However, what does that mean? They need to put forth a policy that suggests that paycheques would actually grow as a result of it.

Carbon pricing has been in place in that member's province for well over a decade. In fact, some of his colleagues on the Conservative side contributed to that policy, and it has been a great success. Emissions per capita have come down in British Columbia, and they continue to do so. We will continue to support evidence-based policies just like that one.

Mental Health and Addictions

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

Mr. Speaker, on May 3 in question period, I asked a question about the failed drug legalization pilot project in British Columbia. I say it was a failed project because we were about one year into a three-year pilot project. The evidence was clear that it was failing, with 2,500 toxic drug deaths in the first year of the project, a 7% increase over the previous year.

There was crime and chaos on the streets, and there were many reports from many different communities, including mine, about abuse on the streets. British Columbians were not happy with all of the negativity, and the provincial government was feeling the heat. It knew it had to do something, and in fact, it did. It introduced provincial legislation, the restricting consumption of illegal substances act, to put some restrictions in place on the open use of drugs in parks, playgrounds, hospitals, transit etc., and to give the police some extra authority.

An organization called the Harm Reduction Nurses Association challenged the legislation in the B.C. Supreme Court and convinced the judge to impose a temporary injunction preventing the B.C. government from actually bringing the new law into effect. According to the judge, prohibiting people from using drugs in public places was an infringement of their constitutional right under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. I was stunned by that, as I am sure many Canadians were. Is that what section 7 is all about? Is it about a constitutionally protected right to use drugs in public places?

When there were no exemptions at all to the federal legislation, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, no decriminalization of drugs for personal use, and no public experiments with hard drugs, as had been the case for all of Canadian history up until a year ago, there were never any arguments about whether people had a constitutional right to use drugs in public places. Once the federal government opened that door just a bit, it also opened the door to new and novel arguments to expand charter rights to include open drug use in public places.

I have to ask myself some questions. What happened to the big vision of a just society that inspired the original drafters of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What happened to giving people hope for a better life? What happened to health and treatment?

I know that the Liberals claim to be the party of the charter, and they often demonize the Conservative Party by suggesting we are going to gut the charter, but I do not think we have any lessons to learn from the Liberal Party on this. What we have seen with the Liberal government's ill-conceived ideas is that they are far removed from what the original drafters of the charter thought about a just society for all Canadians.

Will the Liberal government put a complete end to the disastrous, failed drug-use experiment altogether and instead give people hope for a better future?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, I would like to assure everyone that we are deeply concerned about the overdose crisis and its consequences on the lives of so many people in the country. Every loss of life is tragic and we must do everything in our power to help people and save lives.

Substance use and addictions are health issues first and foremost and should be treated as such. People need health care, not jail. The war on drugs did not work decades ago, and it still does not work today.

This crisis is constantly evolving, so we need to change our course of action, take innovative action, monitor those actions closely and track the data to figure out what is working. Our approach is responsive and adaptable. We owe it to Canadians to do everything in our power to keep them alive and help them.

Liberals are committed to continuing to work with and support provinces and territories to find solutions to meet their specific needs in order for them to offer timely services to their population. That is why we are continuing to work closely with the Province of British Columbia and to support its comprehensive response to the overdose crisis.

Let us talk about what this exemption does and does not do.

This exemption does not legalize drugs and never has. Under B.C.'s exemption, the sale, production and distribution of regulated substances remains illegal. What the exemption actually does is enable the province to focus on a health-based response, where people are encouraged to seek out health and social services, rather than being arrested and charged with personal possession of small amounts of illegal substances.

The stigma associated with criminal prosecution is still a barrier to care.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this crisis. A complex health and social issue requires a multi-faceted response.

That is why we continue to support the provinces and territories in strengthening health care services so that they are available when and where people need them.

In the 2024 budget, we announced $150 million over three years for an emergency treatment fund to help municipalities and indigenous communities quickly access funds so they can mobilize efforts and meet their urgent needs in order to save lives now.

Our actions are comprehensive, equitable, collaborative and compassionate, and are guided by our federal Canadian drugs and substances strategy. This all-of-government approach includes access to a full range of strategies to help people access prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services, and the supports they need when and where they need them.

We will continue to work closely with our partners on a range of actions to prevent substance use, reduce harm, support people in their treatment journey and keep communities safe.

What we have been hearing from the Conservatives' side is dehumanizing. They are basically saying that we need to clean up the streets because these people are a bother.

On this side of the House, we are here to help people who use drugs. Becoming addicted was not their choice. They did not wake up one morning and decide that they were going to start using drugs. The important thing is to give them a range of options so that they can find their way forward and resolve their problem, which is not a criminal justice issue, but a mental health issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her thoughtful comments, although I do have to take exception to them.

She said that Conservatives just want to criminalize all sorts of behaviour and get the streets cleaned up and that the very saintly Liberals want to help people. Their programs are failing. That is the whole point of this. They have taken one step down a very risky path, experimenting with hard drug usage, even in public places, which has proven to be a disaster. Now they are backpedalling on that, and rightly so, because it was a failed program.

The deep failure, and this is what I was getting to on what has happened to the big picture of justice in this nation, is that what people really need is help beyond that. The member said that the Liberals are doing this and that, and making announcements about it, but they are not getting very much done.

I am reading from The Globe and Mail today a headline that reads, “Detox beds in B.C. routinely sit empty because of staff shortages”. That is the problem. Why is the help not there that is really needed?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we have to do everything in our power to save lives and reduce risks, while keeping communities safe and fighting 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 where people are dying. This is not the time to be pitting harm reduction against treatment.

We need both at the same time, and the evidence clearly demonstrates that. People who need and are ready for treatment must have access to it when and where they need it. Those who are not ready or cannot access treatment need harm reduction options to stay alive. Without harm reduction services, more people will die.

Climate Change

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year's summer was the hottest on record and the most devastating for wildfires. Smoke from wildfires forced kids to spend their days indoors, and Canadians across the country were evacuated from their homes because of the wildfires.

Our kids are breathing in harmful toxins, and when I think about the summer to come, it is only going to get worse with this year's wildfire season. However, we have the Liberals, who keep acting like it is business as usual. They are breaking their climate promises, handing out billions of dollars to Canada's biggest polluters and watering down key climate policies, like the emissions cap. The Conservatives, though, cannot even agree that climate change is real. Canadians should not have to choose between deny and delay, but it is not only wildfire smoke that is contributing to air pollution and making people sick.

This past year, we saw increased deaths due to air pollution because of the wildfires, but on average, in Canada, 15,000 Canadians die each year because of air pollution. We also know that petrochemical plants are making people sick. In Ontario, the Aamjiwnaang First Nation issued a state of emergency declaration last month due to excessive discharge of benzene from an industry factory. Several people had fallen ill with headaches, nausea and dizziness, and it is all too common that these impacts disproportionately affect indigenous communities.

This is unacceptable, and the government must do more to regulate industry pollution. It also needs to do more to tackle the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving up emissions, that are threatening the future for our children and our grandchildren and that are polluting our air, so much so that a child in Edmonton said that it felt like an elephant was standing on their chest. This is in Canada.

I continue to be disappointed by the Liberal government's refusal to address environmental dangers, to address environmental racism and to protect Canadians. Will the Liberals stop putting the interests of the biggest polluters over the health and safety of 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, I would like to thank my colleague from Victoria for her consistent advocacy in the House, in committee and anywhere she goes to fight climate change. She is a true advocate and a true champion for the environment; I am proud to be her colleague. We work together on the environment committee; there, we have to endure a lot of misinformation and disinformation, not just from the Conservatives, but from a lot of witnesses who have a vested interest in taking us back to a time when our country did not adequately fight climate change.

However, that is not where we are today. In fact, we are lowering our emissions. We have turned the tide from 2015, when the government was elected by Canadians. We were elected on a promise to fight climate change and lower our emissions. At the time, Canada's emissions were going up fast, and we turned the tide. We have lowered emissions, and we are on target to meet our 2026 interim target toward an ambition to reach net zero by 2050. I am proud that the NDP, the Bloc, the Greens and the Liberals all agree on this. Only the Conservatives stand against it.

My NDP colleague from Victoria referenced the benzene concerns, and I have to presume that this is from the ongoing issue with the Aamjiwnaang First Nation around Sarnia, Ontario. I followed that issue very closely. It was with respect to the petrochemical industry. I was very heartened when the Minister of the Environment imposed strict benzene pollution controls in response to those concerns. It happened quickly, and we received the response and the feedback from environmental non-governmental organizations that we did the right thing and acted correctly.

With respect to the tailings pond leaks in the Athabasca River, this issue is having a negative and really devastating impact in the Kearl oil spill that we have all heard about. I had the opportunity to hold the CEO of Imperial Oil, Brad Corson, to account at committee. We must demand better from these companies. Sadly, much of the jurisdiction for oil and gas extraction, mining and forestry is provincial. A challenge we must face is that one level of government cares deeply about saving the environment and protecting our planet from degradation, excessive emissions and pollution from big industry, namely, from oil and gas extraction. I will say primarily from the oil sands, the only industry in Canada where the emissions continue to go up.

There is a bit of an elephant in the room. It requires us to be persistent, to be dogged and to stand up for what we believe in, what is right and what evidence tells us we must do every time we are faced with a bit of a challenge. In the House, we have been faced with challenges by the Conservatives, from the sloganeering to the misinformation and bringing forward ideas in the House that really do not have any basis in reality or fact. When the going gets tough, we have to keep going, but when the Conservatives put forward a motion to, as they say, axe the tax, it would hurt the lowest-income Canadians. It would also axe the Canada carbon rebate, which, I will remind Canadians, goes out on July 15. They will receive more than usual. A lot of Canadians do not do their taxes early; I did not do my taxes early. The Canada carbon rebate will be larger on July 15.

We need the New Democrats to be strong in their position as well. Sometimes, when the going gets tough, they vote with the Conservatives, and that is really disappointing for Canadian environmentalists and voters.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member wants bold climate action. Unfortunately, his party continues to water down key climate policies at the request of the biggest polluters. The Liberals even went so far as to invite the CEOs of oil and gas companies to help them craft their climate plan. It is not surprising that we see huge loopholes in the proposed draft on the emissions cap. This is one of the key policies that we need to drive down emissions, yet the Liberals are listening to the oil and gas industry once again.

The finance minister decided not to implement a windfall tax on oil and gas. We could have invested this money in climate solutions. Why was this? It was because oil and gas lobbyists asked her not to.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I find myself agreeing with most of what my colleague says. I do desperately want bold climate action, and we are finding with the current government, that we also have to be reasonable. Canadians still need oil and gas. They still create a lot of jobs in Canada. Most Canadians still use natural gas to heat their homes and still use gasoline in their vehicles. A just transition is under way. We need to work with the industry that is most responsible for those emissions. We cannot just ignore it. We cannot pretend it does not exist. There is not an on or off switch. There is no on or off switch for the oil and gas sector in a way that we could just say that we do not need that product anymore, when we definitely do.

It is a matter of finding innovations and finding solutions. The oil and gas sector is one of those parties that is going to find innovations and solutions for their polluting ways. If that sector does not, then who will? It definitely needs to transition to find other sources of energy and to find cleaner ways to extract the resources that they have.

I will not shy away from tough conversations with groups like Pathways Alliance.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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 9:42 p.m.)