44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 4, 2023 02:00PM
- Oct/4/23 5:58:56 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I did give her the one-minute mark. I thought she was wrapping up, but as she went past it, I could not allow her to continue.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous member's speech. I never knew I was part of the government. I want to set the record straight, but I will also go a step further: We are not propping up the Liberals; we are using our leverage and bargaining power to force them to do things they never had the courage to do before.
I am pleased to rise to speak to a subject of tremendous importance to me and to all my colleagues in the NDP caucus. I am referring to the living conditions and quality of life of seniors in Montreal and across Quebec.
I congratulate and thank the member for Shefford for taking the initiative to introduce this bill, which will truly improve the lives of the people we represent and who are finding it very hard to make ends meet at the moment. Seniors are the population segment most affected by the rising cost of living because their incomes are stagnant. When someone's income is fixed or practically fixed and inflation is 7%, 8% or 10%, it shows and it hurts. We hear it a lot in our communities.
Saturday was the International Day of Older Persons. I was lucky enough to take part in a march in my riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. It was organized by the Comité d'action pour la qualité de vie des aînés de La Petite‑Patrie, a group working to improve local seniors' quality of life, and it ended in Montcalm Park. Afterwards, a number of seniors, mostly women, took to the stage to speak to elected officials from various levels of government about their reality and the fact that they face extremely difficult, impossible choices. They talked about the cost of food, housing, rent, home adaptations, health care, medication and many other things.
Seniors live on a fixed income that does not change, or barely changes, which results in poverty. If they do not have the good fortune of receiving income from a private pension plan and possibly from the defined benefit pension plan that enhances old age security, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement if they are poor enough. However, even then, the situation remains extremely difficult.
It is a travesty that a country as rich as ours, a G7 country where the average per capita income is so high, is abandoning these generations of Quebeckers who built modern-day Quebec, the generation of people like Lesage, Lévesque, Parizeau, Bourassa. Today, these people are sometimes stuck in long-term care facilities, in private residences that cost an arm and a leg, where there are no services and they are isolated. As a progressive and a social democrat, this breaks my heart. I do not want to live in a society that looks the other way and allows this to happen.
I want to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the women who addressed a crowd of hundreds in La Petite‑Patrie on Saturday. I will share with the House their demands, which line up with the bill. There are seven demands and they are not very long.
First, they are calling for real home support, because that can make a big difference in a person's life, especially if they are isolated or have unfortunately lost their spouse.
There is currently more than a two-year wait to receive home care. Seniors want to age in their own homes, with their memories, and they need more help and support to do that. One thing that must be done is to ensure the quality and continuity of care, as well as to increase and protect funding, which currently accounts for an insufficient proportion of the budget envelope.
I see that as a perfectly legitimate, noble and understandable demand.
I would also like to commend the work of Dr. Réjean Hébert, who has spent years tackling the issue of home care, which is obviously related to health transfers in Quebec. We need to think about the priorities we want to set as a society to be able to take care of seniors in their own homes in order to have an impact on their quality of life.
Home care would also help relieve the pressure on hospitals. Why would a senior go to the emergency department when they could stay at home and be cared for by a nurse, social worker or personal support worker and avoid the endless lineups?
The second demand is better access to health care, again on the health theme.
Access to basic health care is still difficult, despite the fact that some services have returned to the [local community service centres]. Unfortunately, spots open up at a snail's pace, which forces seniors to travel outside their own neighbourhoods for simple blood tests. The wait for a new family doctor is very long, and it is unacceptable for a person aged 70 or more to be on a waiting list for several months [and sometimes even several years].
Again, this comes back to funding our public health care system. Access to basic services, tests or examinations can sometimes be very distressing and time-consuming for everyone. It is even more important for our seniors.
The third demand has a more human dimension. It is about being cared for with dignity. Seniors want “a doctor who takes the time to listen to their patients”. They want to be more than just a number. Health care is not a factory. Seniors are calling for the following:
To be treated with respect. Respect for the person's physical integrity. The right to end their days in dignity and respect. Better training for health care workers and first responders on proper treatment and compassion.
Once again, more training is needed. Health care workers also need to take a more humane approach where they are not always running from one patient to another, or one client to another, to use the current terminology.
There are still four more demands. The next has to do with 50,000 new social housing units.
The wait time for social housing is getting longer and longer. As a result, many seniors have to pay exorbitant amounts for rent because they are still waiting for a subsidized apartment. Access to housing should be a right, and Quebec needs to invest in buying or building new social housing units to meet the demand.
Once again, the federal government can collaborate. Today, we are paying the price for the years of disinvestment in social housing and housing co-operatives by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The situation is disastrous for everyone, including seniors.
Another demand is for an increase in old age pensions. The text reads as follows:
Senior women represent the poorest segment of Quebec's population. They should never have to choose between putting food on the table or being able to get to a doctor's appointment.
That is the reality. These are the agonizing choices that many seniors, including women, are facing right now.
This brings me to the heart of the bill before us today. For some ridiculous and absolutely inexplicable reason, the Liberals decided to increase old age security for people aged 75 and over, but they did absolutely nothing for people aged 65 to 74.
We have never seen this kind of discrimination or distinction before. People aged 65 to 74 have the same growing needs, and they are dealing with the same inflation, the same cost of living and the same housing crisis. Why would they have fewer needs than people aged 75 and over? Did the government just want to save money, so they decided that those individuals needed to find part-time work, which is a little harder for those aged 75 and over to do? To me, that is serious.
The Conservatives sought to raise the retirement age to 77, and now the Liberals are kind of playing the same game. They are telling people aged 65 and over that they need to take care of themselves because they have a little more autonomy and that the government will only take care of people aged 75 and over. I think that position is incoherent and really hard on our seniors aged 65 and over, who are suffering as a result.
Lots of people came to talk to me about this on Saturday in La Petite‑Patrie. These individuals were experiencing this injustice and they asked me how I could explain it. I could not explain it. I would like to hear the members of the Liberal party in the House explain it. The NDP feels it is totally unacceptable to create two classes of seniors in our country.
There are lots of things we can do to help seniors. We need a universal public pharmacare program. I said universal and public, not a hybrid system. A lot of people are still falling through the cracks in the Quebec system. This plan is a step in the right direction when the alternative is nothing at all, but that is not what others, including Quebec unions or the Union des consommateurs, are calling for.
Seniors also need access to dental care. I am very proud that the NDP is forcing the Liberal government to make sure that, starting early next year, people 65 and over who earn less than $70,000 a year, which includes the vast majority, will have access to dental care. The dentist will send the bill directly to the federal government. This will improve the health and finances of all our seniors in Quebec.
1627 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension).
This bill is intended to correct a mistake made by the government, a mistake that resulted in discrimination against people aged 65 to 74 and thus created two classes of seniors.
Yes, I will boldly speak about discrimination here, not only discrimination based on age, but also discrimination based on sex. I will therefore explain to the House why the government saw fit to adopt a doubly discriminatory measure. I will show that the government’s arguments barely hold water. I will show that the measure in fact discriminates in two ways. Finally, I will explain why it is essential that this mistake be corrected.
When the government decided in 2019 to make an election promise to increase the pension for seniors 75 and over, it essentially had two arguments, only one of which was stated loud and clear.
The first argument, which is not often raised, was that the increase in life expectancy means that pensions are paid out over a longer period, which puts pressure on the pension fund and its fiscal capacity to cover the additional years of life, especially as there will be more old age security recipients than workers contributing to the fund as a result of an inverted age pyramid. This situation gives the government two choices: Raising workers’ contributions, either by increasing the number of workers or the amounts paid by those workers, or reducing the amount paid to seniors every month.
Increasing the monthly amount of the pension for seniors aged 75 and over falls into the second category, as strange as that may seem. Indeed, refusing to increase the pension for those aged 65 to 74 is a roundabout way of reducing the monthly amount they are paid, given that they are on a fixed income while their expenses keep rising. Inflation is not fixed. A dollar today is not the same as a dollar five years ago. Their income is fixed, but the costs of meeting their basic needs are not.
The second argument, the one most commonly put forward, is that people aged 75 and over have higher health-related costs. These people may need help at home, including specialized care or help with housework or meal preparation. In short, according to the government, people aged 75 and over have expenses that those aged 65 to 74 do not have. That is true in some cases, but not always.
The government has made a massive generalization, forgetting that plenty of people aged 75 and over will never need home support or specialized care. It has also forgotten that plenty of people between the ages of 65 and 74 do need specialized care and home support. That has been completely erased from the government's reasoning. These people do not receive a penny, even though their needs are just as great, if not greater, than some people aged 75 and over.
The other argument that would, according to the government, justify an increase for those aged 75 and over is that seniors aged 65 to 74 are healthy enough to work and have an income that could meet the needs they or their spouse might eventually have. This is also true in some cases, but not always.
Those over the age of 65 who want to work quickly realize that they are paying out of their own pocket to do so. This is because they are taxed at a higher rate, one that is closer to the rate paid by single people, when they have paid taxes all their lives. What is more, if they earn a little too much money or a little more—and we are not talking about astronomical amounts here—their old age pension is reduced.
We are talking here about double taxation that does nothing to encourage people to work. I would like to remind the House that the Century Initiative strongly suggested that the government encourage people between the ages of 65 and 74 to stay in the workforce. Is giving more money to people aged 75 and up another roundabout way to respond to this suggestion by the Century Initiative? One has to wonder.
As I said, those aged 65 and up who want to work and who are in good enough health to do so are held back by double taxation. Bill C-319 makes it possible for those people who want to work—and not everyone does—to do so and to earn more money before cuts are made to their old age pension. The bill would increase the exemption from $5,000 to $6,000. That is not a huge amount, but it can make all the difference for someone who does not have much income. In fact, $6,000 is practically a bonanza for such people.
Seniors should never have to work if they do not want to, if they are not healthy enough to work. It should always be a choice. These individuals have worked their entire lives, whether they were paid on the job market or they volunteered. People always forget to include the value of volunteering. It is a lot of money. Rather than paying someone $30, $40 or $50 to deliver meals, we can ask a volunteer to do it. At the same time, that volunteer helps another senior come out of isolation and ensure that the senior is in good shape. Volunteering is worth a fortune, but it is never counted in our calculations. It is invisible work.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that the government's measure to increase pensions for seniors aged 75 and over is discriminatory in two ways. It discriminates by age, and that is obvious, I think. When the old age security program was put in place, it was universal. When someone turned 65, they could start receiving their old age pension. It was universal.
Now they decide to create two categories of seniors. It is discriminatory because historically women are the ones who had lower incomes. They are the ones who often end up without an RRSP for a variety of reasons. I know a woman who had to cash in her RRSPs because she could no longer work at age 45 after a workplace accident. At 65, her RRSP was completely depleted and she was left with $600 a month to live on with a $400 rent to pay. She is still lucky that her rent is only $400, but that leaves her with just $200 for everything else.
Bill C‑319 seeks to correct this mistake that was made by the government. Let us not forget that aging is a part of life. When we help our seniors live with dignity, live well and have social activities, essentially, we are helping our own children by extension. Eventually, they will be old, like us, and will need support. We never know what life has in store for us. Becoming a senior and having to skip meals or eat soda crackers for supper is not living with dignity.
1205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the second hour of the second reading debate on Bill C-319.
I would like to thank the member for Shefford for sponsoring this bill. It continues to spark important conversations. That is because we are constantly looking at how best to support older persons in Canada. Not everyone needs the same kind of help. Seniors themselves would agree.
To demonstrate my point, I give an example from Manchester, United Kingdom. A communications campaign in 2020 called “Valuable, not vulnerable” highlighted contributions of older people in the pandemic response. It featured those who performed jobs in person on the front lines, those who volunteered in their communities and those who took on caregiver roles. The campaign successfully countered the idea that an entire group should not be labelled as frail or vulnerable, and the slogan was picked up around the world, including here in Canada.
I bring this up because I want to underline that our government chose to raise the OAS pension for seniors 75 and over, and it was a good choice. It was based on data. It helped avoid lumping all seniors into the same category. As we know, the evidence tells us that seniors 75 and over are more likely to be vulnerable in certain circumstances. They are more likely to need more support.
As the Minister of Employment said to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, this policy step was a very big step. The decision to increase the OAS pension for older seniors was in recognition of the more precarious life circumstances that are known to happen more often at age 75 and upward.
Let us crunch the numbers to get a more detailed view. We know financial needs increase in this age group, and in 2020, more seniors aged 75 and over received the guaranteed income supplement compared to those 65 to 74. There are also more women in the 75 and over category than men. As well, there are more Canadians with a disability in that age group. According to the Canadian disability survey in 2017, 47% of seniors aged 75 and over had a disability, compared to 32% of those in the younger group. That is quite a jump.
That is why our government increased the OAS pension for seniors aged 75 and older. Budget 2021 provided a one-time payment of $500 to OAS pensioners who were 75 or over as of June 2022. We then increased OAS payments for pensioners aged 75 and over by 10% on an ongoing basis as of July 2022. This policy has helped approximately 3.3 million seniors. They will receive more than $800 extra over the first year of the increase, and the benefit, of course, is indexed, so it will continue to go up.
I want to turn to another matter that has been commented on in this House and that we need to consider with Bill C-319. That is the critical work that is under way to modernize the IT infrastructure that supports the OAS program. Canada's IT infrastructure has been aging faster than the pace of repairs or replacements. By investing the time and money to fix this infrastructure, our government is ensuring key programs like the old age security program and employment insurance will continue to be delivered in the timely way Canadians deserve.
These system changes were spurred on by the pandemic. We realize a modernized benefits delivery platform is crucial so that we are able to target support when Canadians need it the most. We hope to ensure all Canadians are receiving all the benefits to which they are entitled.
The timelines for Bill C-319 do not take into account the ongoing work. If passed, the bill would require complex changes to the existing OAS legacy system that would in turn jeopardize the critical deployment and stabilization of OAS onto the new platform.
The benefits delivery modernization work has been under way since budget 2021 provided nearly $650 million for Employment and Social Development Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat to undertake it. In this year's supplementary estimates (C), our government is planning for nearly $1.3 billion in expenditures related to the workforce capacity for OAS and to modernize the IT infrastructure that hosts it.
As I mentioned, Bill C-319, if passed, would require various system changes to the legacy OAS system. The earliest recommended date to introduce policy changes that would require IT system changes is after September 2025, once the deployment of OAS onto the new system has been properly stabilized.
What is more, in October 2022, the then minister of families, children and social development confirmed that safely onboarding OAS is a number one priority. The Canadian population is aging. Seniors are the fastest-growing age group and we need to consider how best to support them, knowing that older Canadians are valuable and that some are vulnerable, just as we would find in any age group. Bill C-319 is not ideal. Our government already has a good plan to support older Canadians, and work is under way. In fact, we have been supporting seniors since 2015.
Most recently, in budget 2023, we introduced a one-time grocery rebate to help offset the rising cost of food for eligible seniors. In addition, budget 2023 provides funds to implement the Canadian dental care plan. This plan provides dental coverage for uninsured low- to medium-income Canadians, including seniors. This means that no Canadian will ever have to choose between taking care of their oral health and paying the bills at the end of the month. These measures are in addition to the steps already taken by our government, which include returning the age of eligibility for the OAS pension and the GIS to 65 from 67; enhancing the GIS for the lowest-income seniors, which benefited 900,000 seniors and contributed to lifting 45,000 seniors out of poverty; increasing the OAS pension by 10% for seniors aged 75 plus, based on good data; and, of course, indexing all our key benefits, so they keep pace with the cost of living and never decrease.
Supporting seniors has been and will always be a top priority for the government. Our seniors have built the country that we know and love today, and they are the backbone of Canadian society. We will always have our seniors' backs.
1083 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:25:45 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Shefford has five minutes for her right of reply.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what can I say in five minutes to close out this second hour of debate at second reading of this important bill, Bill C‑319? The text of the bill amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and over are entitled by 10%. It also amends the act to raise the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.
I venture to call it “important” because that is what I have been hearing all summer. Yes, I admit that I set out on a mission this summer and travelled to all four corners of Quebec. I heard the discontent of some seniors and the despair of others, but above all, I heard people asking me to do everything in my power to ensure that the majority of MPs in the House vote in favour of Bill C‑319.
First of all, let us not forget that, for years, the Bloc Québécois has made the condition of seniors one of its top priorities. Seniors were the people hardest hit by the COVID‑19 pandemic. They were among those who suffered the most and they continue to suffer the negative consequences of the pandemic: isolation, anxiety, financial hardship, and so on.
I do not want to paint an overly gloomy picture today. I repeat myself because I believe it: I want seniors to be treated with dignity, like the grey power they are. Right now, old age security benefits fall far short of offsetting the decline in purchasing power or the dramatic rise in housing and food costs.
With inflation rising sharply and quickly and with the shortage of labour and experienced workers, the Bloc Québécois remains focused on defending the interests and desire of some seniors to remain active on the labour market and contribute fully to the vitality of their community. This is why the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for an increase in the earnings exemption for seniors. It is vital that we adjust our public policies so that older Quebeckers can maintain a dignified quality of life in the manner of their choosing.
In May 2018, following an extensive pan-Canadian scan, the Department of Employment and Social Development published a document entitled “Promoting the labour force participation of older Canadians — Promising initiatives”. After identifying the harmful consequences of ageism in the workplace and the challenges faced by seniors, the study proposes a number of measures to facilitate the integration of experienced workers and encourage their participation in the workforce. Socializing in the workplace is beneficial for breaking out of isolation. Since life expectancy is steadily increasing, and more jobs are less demanding than in the past, let us make this happen.
We are also seeing the growing distress of small and medium-sized businesses that are desperately looking for workers, as well the closure of many businesses and the devitalization of certain communities and regions. We must take action.
I find it hard to understand the choices the Liberal government has made since it came to power. At best, it has contented itself with half-hearted or ad hoc measures, as we saw during the pandemic. As previously mentioned, modest sums have been granted to date and one-time assistance was offered during the most difficult times of the pandemic. We appreciate these efforts, but we are clear about the indirect and very minimal effects of this hastily put together aid.
In budget 2021, the Liberal government increased old age security benefits for seniors over the age of 75. This delayed and ill-conceived measure created a new problem—a divide between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over. The Bloc Québécois opposed this discrimination that would create two classes of seniors. Naturally, today's insecurity, economic context, loss of purchasing power and exponential increase in food and housing prices do not affect only the oldest recipients of OAS; they affect all recipients. This measure misses the mark by helping a minority of seniors. In 2021, there were nearly 2.8 million people 75 and over, compared to 3.7 million between the ages of 65 and 74. To date, nothing has been done to address this injustice. This bill seeks to end this discriminatory measure. The one-time $500 cheque for people 75 and over in August 2021 did not fix anything.
In closing, Bill C‑319 will improve the financial situation of seniors and eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists. Seniors who live on a fixed income are having trouble paying their bills because their daily expenses are going up faster than their pension benefits. Other than the increase to index it to inflation, the full OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74 remains unchanged at $666.83 a month. Who can live on that?
The Bloc Québécois is calling for an increase in old age security for all seniors aged 65 and up, and has even pointed out that the government is discriminating against people aged 65 to 74.
I would like to say one last thing. The RQRA, Afeas, AREQ, AQRP and FADOQ, all of these Quebec organizations, and Quebeckers and Canadians are calling for this bill. Seniors are watching us and asking us not to make them pay the price of partisanship.
I invite my colleagues to take action for the dignity of seniors. I will see them on October 18 for the vote.
968 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:30:58 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Shefford.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:31:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:32:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on September 20, I rose to ask a question about how the carbon tax is impacting farmers. The minister responded by suggesting that somehow the carbon tax will stop natural disasters, which occur in this country and all around the world. The fact of the matter is this: The carbon tax has not done that, and that is because we live in a global environment where the carbon emissions from other countries, such as the carbon emissions of China, impact whether or not there are large carbon emissions going on in the world.
There is no such thing as a carbon dome covering and protecting Canada so that somehow if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while countries like China continue to put out more than double our total output in their year-over-year increases, the carbon tax is going to protect us. It is not going to protect us, and in fact it makes the cost of everything more expensive.
Farmers at the International Plowing Match were telling me that this is a huge challenge. However, what makes it worse is that when I raised this question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment suggested that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax and stated that they do not pay a carbon tax, even to dry grain. Then, when I suggested that he was wrong, he accused me of spreading misinformation. That is outrageous, because he is absolutely wrong. Farmers do pay a carbon tax to dry grain. Farmers do pay carbon taxes on all the inputs on the farm. The only thing they do not pay a carbon tax on is purple gas, which is exempt. However, the trucker who brings in that purple gas pays a carbon tax on the gas they use.
The parliamentary secretary is so woefully uninformed on his file that it is embarrassing. To accuse me of spreading misinformation when he did not know what he was talking about is deeply shameful, and the member should apologize.
If he spent five seconds talking to a farmer instead of blustering here in the House of Commons, he would know that farmers pay a carbon tax to dry grain. If they did not pay a carbon tax, why would Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels be in the Senate? Why would the Parliamentary Budget Officer say that Bill C-234 would save farmers $1 billion?
The parliamentary secretary's lack of information and his audacity to accuse me of misinformation are exactly the reason we are in a mess in this country. The Liberals do not have a clue about what they are talking about.
448 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:35:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the follow-up from my colleague. I am capable of coming into the House and having an honest and open conversation without accusing my colleague of being shameful or anything like that. I hope we can carry on forthwith in that regard.
I thank my colleague again for voicing the concerns of farmers, who are crucial, as I mentioned in my answer back then. I also live in a rural riding. I talk to farmers regularly. They feed our cities. They boost our economy and they create jobs. I enjoy going to the farmers market on Saturdays and eating the fresh produce they produce. Canada's agriculture sector is a pillar of rural communities like Dufferin—Caledon and Milton. It is a vital part of our economy, and the food supplied to urban centres comes from there. Our economy greatly benefits from this sector, and it is crucial that we do more to support our farmers.
The real reason we are here is that my colleague is really proud of a Facebook post that he put up, where he accused me of giving up. I just want to make it clear that I am not giving up on fighting climate change or on countering misinformation in this place. I was forced to sit down halfway through my response to his question that day in question period, because the Conservatives were making so much noise heckling me that the Speaker stood up and told me to sit back down, so I did. I am not going to give up. I will follow instructions from the Speaker, but I will always stand up for truth and for science, and I will continue to fight climate change.
I will also say that all members of the House ran in the last election on a commitment to price carbon. The member has a short memory if he does not recall on what basis he was asking his constituents to send him to Ottawa. Erin O'Toole ran on a commitment to price carbon. That is why many members of Dufferin—Caledon's community voted for that member, because he claimed to care about climate change, as farmers in our region do.
I am not willing to give up fighting climate change just because there are countries with larger carbon footprints. Indeed, that is not how to measure a carbon footprint. We can measure them per capita, and Canadians have an extraordinarily high per capita carbon footprint. We need to do more to lower those emissions and that reliance on fossil fuels. That is one of the reasons why we have a carbon price in Canada, because a carbon price is a proven methodology, a market-based instrument. It is actually a very conservative methodology to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and drive innovation in the energy sector.
With respect to the member's accusation that I do not know my facts, many farm fuels are exempt. I am well aware of the recent bill's efforts to change some of the regulations around propane and natural gas for grain drying, but I am not here to say I know more about this than other people, certainly not more than farmers, who are the experts in their operations. I am happy to see that the bill has the support it requires to go forward. Nonetheless, my family are apple farmers, and the fuel on that farm is exempt from the price on carbon, as are many other products that farmers use to produce food.
That also leads me to my next point of what is driving inflation and higher costs at the grocery stores. It is mostly climate change. This is not a refutable concept. When we talk to farmers, they talk about how all the rain they expect over a month or even a season sometimes now falls over a 24-hour period, and then it does not rain at all for two months. We also have fruit- and vegetable-producing regions that have suffered wildfires.
The member opposite is being very disingenuous when he suggests that the minister has stood up to suggest that a carbon price is going to eliminate natural disasters. That is absolutely not what the minister said, and that is not what any person has said with respect to why a carbon price is important. A carbon price will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, demonstrating that we can build our economy forward in a green and sustainable manner. It is disingenuous for the member to suggest that a carbon price is just going to end floods, fires and extreme weather.
We rely on science on this side of the House, and I hope the member will come on board as well.
800 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to perhaps put the words the member said the last time we debated this directly to him. He said that farm fuels are mostly fossil fuels and they are exempt from the carbon price. He said, “The member opposite mentioned grain drying. The farm fuel exemption applies to the gas that people use for drying grain as well. The spread of misinformation on that side is rampant.”
In fact, the only thing on a farm that is exempt from the carbon tax is purple gas. The member should know that. One does pay a carbon tax to dry grain. That causes an increase in the cost of grain. The fact that all the inputs on a farm, like fertilizer, which is subject to a carbon tax, come from oil and gas increases the price of food.
Will he just finally admit that the carbon tax is causing food inflation?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:40:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we do not need to go back and forth in arguing what our opinions are on this matter; there are actual economists in this country who are measuring these things. The member can go consult that data on how the carbon price impacts food inflation and the cost of groceries. The reality is that it is climate change that is driving food inflation. Any farmer will tell us that climate change is having an impact on their productions.
I did look at the member's Facebook when I was tagged in the post where he accused me of giving up. I once again want to say that I am not giving up on fighting climate change and I am not giving up on standing up for science, facts and evidence, but I am also kind of concerned, because throughout the thread a lot of the people who were commenting on that Facebook post by the member for Dufferin—Caledon were saying that climate change is a hoax and that it is not true. One person said they were a farmer and climate change is not real.
It is that kind of misinformation that we need to stand up against, and it is that member who is allowing it to occur on his social media. He is encouraging it by liking those posts and promoting those posts. That is shameful, and the member ought to apologize.
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:41:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over 1,800 times, the Prime Minister promised in the 2015 election—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:41:44 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I want to remind members that once they have had their opportunity to voice their questions and receive the answers, there is not another opportunity to continue.
I am going to allow the hon. member for Kitchener Centre to restart.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:42:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over 1,800 times, the Prime Minister promised in the 2015 election that it would be the last election under a winner-takes-all first-past-the-post system. I probably do not need to bore anyone with the details to know that this promise was not kept. It is obvious that politics got in the way.
Why does that matter? First, it is because promises matter for Canadians across the country to have trust in our democracy, particularly promises as significant as that one. Second, it is because winner-takes-all first-past-the-post systems dramatically distort the results and the interests of Canadians. As just one example, in Ontario's last general election, the current party that now has 100% of the power at Queen's Park only earned around 17% of the popular vote. What a massive distortion that first-past-the-post continually leads to, time and time again. Quebec's most recent election is just another example.
Another reason it matters is that it has been proven, time and again, that first-past-the-post is not appropriate for Canada. In fact, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, when she spoke on this same topic last night and joined in this advocacy as she has for so many years calling for electoral reform, pointed out that eight times, since 1921, this House or various law commissions have studied the issue, found that first-past-the-post does not fit well for us and recommended we do something differently. We are going to continue this advocacy.
Here is what is in the works: Earlier this year I introduced a motion, working with Fair Vote Canada, to call for a citizens' assembly on electoral reform to take the politics out of it and to have regular Canadians come together like a jury to get expert opinion. This would be a randomized group, and it would then make recommendations back to parliamentarians. This approach is supported by 76% of Canadians.
Fair Vote Canada volunteers then went out across the country and met with MPs and spoke to them about the importance of following this intention from Canadians and supporting this motion. We were allowed up to 20 joint seconds in this place on a motion. Thanks to the work of those volunteers, MPs from the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party joint-seconded to fill up that list. In fact, Fair Vote had to create a separate website to show all of the MPs who wanted to be known for their support. There are almost 40 now, including the parliamentary secretary who is with us here this evening.
The Liberal Party itself then had a convention earlier this year where it also endorsed the idea, through the grassroots volunteers of that party. I asked the Prime Minister shortly after, in light of all this, if his opinion has changed. At the time, it had not. His answer was kind of, “my way, or the highway”. Until we had consensus on a winner-take-all ranked ballot, he was not interested in moving ahead at the time.
The good news, though, is that while a vote on the motion I had brought forward would not happen for some time still, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith took it upon herself to bring this motion forward. She had drawn a much better number in our lottery system for private members' motions, and there will be a vote on it.
My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Will there be a change in focus from his party to now support this really important motion?
614 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:46:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to be in the House tonight to talk to my friend and colleague from Kitchener Centre. It is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the importance of democratic reform in Canada.
The Government of Canada is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions.
Our electoral system, the fundamental rules determining how votes are translated into seats in the House of Commons, is one of the most foundational pieces of our democracy and it is also one of the strongest in the world. Among many things, it provides Canadians with a direct connection to their member of Parliament, who must work with every one of their constituents to develop national policy and make political decisions while engaging and remaining accountable back home in an increasingly digitally connected Canada.
Our current first-past-the-post system is not perfect. Certainly, no system is, but it has served Canada well for over 150 years and continues to advance the democratic values that Canadians want reflected in their system of government. It includes strong, local representation, stability and accountability.
How Canadians vote and how we govern ourselves are fundamentally important and they impact us all. Given this, this government's view has been very clear. Any major reforms to the electoral system should not be imposed on Canadians but, rather, they would require the broad support of Canadians. That is hard to achieve because, as the member stated, only 17% of Ontarians actually voted in favour of the premier. I think that was the number that he provided. It is tough to get people to the polls.
We all have that challenge every election. What we do during the period of an election is go out to our supporters and make sure that they vote. Voter turnout is actually pretty low. It is higher for federal elections than it is for other levels of government. In Canada, it can be challenging to get people to engage. That apathy is something that we all have to challenge a little bit.
As the member stated, I am a signatory to the idea of having a national assembly on democratic reform, to pursue some type of better representation. I am also fairly of the opinion, personally, that it should not include more unelected people, more people who do not know exactly who their representative is.
I think it is very relevant to my community that they know exactly how to find me. Just before I was here, I was in my office over at the Valour building and a member of my community reached out over Facebook Messenger and I just gave them a call. We chatted for 20 minutes. He knows exactly who his member of Parliament is and that is very important to the integrity of our electoral system. I can be accountable, I can be reassuring and I can make sure that his voice is heard in here.
However, some systems of proportional representation would have members of the House who do not directly have a constituency, as members of the Senate do. I have concerns about the lack of accountability. My concerns extend to both a future potential unelected House of Commons as well as, quite frankly, an unelected other place.
Given this and all of these things, our government has been very clear that we are not of the view that a new system ought to be imposed on people. After the 2015 election, our government consulted very broadly with Canadians. Many members of this chamber held town halls in their own riding on this topic and we heard a myriad of ideas and concerns, which is important throughout that engagement. However, no clear preference or consensus emerged.
Therefore, the government decided not to proceed at that time. I think that is where the utility of a citizens assembly could be really effective. I had a great conversation recently with Fair Vote Canada. I am supportive of the notion of Canadians coming together to talk about how our electoral process and system of governing could be enhanced.
682 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:49:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start by pausing on this point about any kind of reform being imposed. This notion to me is not a fair argument to start with because that is what elections are for.
Promises are made, people are voted for and those promises are meant to be followed through on. I think that is a really important promise from the 2015 campaign. Not to belabour that point, I really appreciate the support of the parliamentary secretary for this motion calling for a citizens assembly. He knows, like I do, that we are going to need a lot more support across all sides, including from the governing party.
Can I hear more about what he is going to do to build that kind of support?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:50:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think most members of the House of Commons have their own strong views on this. This really comes down to how we arrive in our current place of work. Every community is very different. I think of, given the diversity of Canada's landscape, how different a riding like Kitchener Centre is from the the Assistant Deputy Speaker's riding on Manitoulin Island, a place that I love to visit, which I did not make it to this summer but I hope to next year. Those two ridings are really different. The systems by which one does one's work in those two communities are very different.
To answer the question clearly, how am I going to encourage more discussion? I am going to stay open and honest on the subject. I am going to meet with my constituents and talk to my colleagues here in the House of Commons about how we can create a more robust democratic institution here in Canada.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/4/23 6:51:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I hope you will not mind indulging me for one quick moment. On Monday, my oma, at 96 years of age, passed away. She left an amazing legacy: 14 grandchildren and 25 great-grandchildren. She was a constant in my life and just an absolutely wonderful human being.
In May, I highlighted how the NDP-Liberal government has failed to uphold its duty to protect children in the agreement signed with the Province of British Columbia to decriminalize possession of illicit drugs. I asked the former minister of mental health and addictions why her government had not done more to protect children. Countless times, needles and other drug paraphernalia have been found on school grounds and in other areas frequented by children, like parks, and specifically Mill Lake in Abbotsford.
Earlier that same day, during debate on an opposition motion related to the opioids crisis, I told this House about the time my son's day care had to be closed because paraphernalia had been left behind on the property in front of its entrance way. What was the minister's response to me in question period that day? She stated, and I quote, “The exemption we have approved in British Columbia specifically states that playgrounds and areas attached to schools and day cares are not exempt and must be enforced.”
Unfortunately, while true, this ignores the fact that the current government provided no resources for local health authorities and law enforcement to contain these dangerous drugs and protect communities. While the government did amend its agreement with B.C. last month to broaden the scope of areas where these substances are banned, it begs the question of whether these rules will actually be enforced.
In 2022, a record 2,383 British Columbians needlessly died from an illicit drug overdose. In 2023, we are on pace to surpass that figure. Those British Columbians and the thousands more like them across Canada deserve timely access to treatment and recovery services. Instead, the government has focused on making access to dangerous drugs easier without addressing treatment.
The tragic story of Kamilah Sword from Coquitlam highlights how easy these drugs are to access for children. She was 14 when she died of an overdose of the very drug the current government encourages to be dispersed. Students in the area told the National Post at the time that some as young as 11 were abusing this drug, hydromorphone, and that a tablet could be bought for just $5 to $10 in their community. The reckless and irresponsible implementation of the current government's drug handout program has had tragic and deadly consequences for many Canadian youth.
Therefore, will the government finally uphold its obligation to protect children under the agreement with the Province of B.C. and will it finally deliver the treatment and recovery services that are so desperately needed in my province and should be tied to any such agreement in the first place?
499 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
