44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 3, 2024 11:00AM
- Jun/3/24 2:17:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our community sport for all initiative has delivered accessible, affordable, inclusive and life-changing sport, physical activity and recreational opportunities to Canadians. Today, I met with the leaders who made it all happen at an impact summit here on Parliament Hill.
We partnered with national sport organizations, such as Wheelchair Basketball and Nordiq Canada; networks, such as PHE Canada, the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, and ParticipACTION; and charities, such as Spirit North, Right to Play and Jumpstart. Together, we have helped Canadians try new sports and activities.
There are too many barriers between people and physical activity. Whether it is the cost, the anxiety about trying something new or simply not having transportation, the community sport for all initiative has successfully lowered those barriers for over one million participants. That is one million Canadians who have enhanced their physical literacy, met new friends, set some goals and had a lot of fun doing it.
June is also national health and fitness month in Canada, which is a great opportunity for people to try a new activity or get back into one they have not done in a little while.
Once again, I want to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the sport leaders from across this country who deliver sport programming to Canadians of all ages, backgrounds and abilities. I thank them for keeping us all happy, moving and healthy.
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to discuss the bill before us, Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare. We can all agree, or I hope we can all agree, that Canadians should have access to the right medicines at an affordable price regardless of where they live in our country. That is precisely what Bill C-64 would do. It represents the first phase toward a national pharmacare plan, starting with the provision of universal single-payer coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. This legislation is an important step forward to improve health equity, affordability and outcomes and has the potential of long-term savings to the health care system and for all Canadians who use it.
In budget 2024, we announced $1.5 billion over five years to support the launch of national pharmacare and coverage for contraception and diabetes medications. The single most important barrier to access to contraception in Canada is cost. For example, the typical cost for select contraceptives in our country for an uninsured Canadian woman is up to $25 per unit, or $300 per year, for oral birth control pills and up to $500 per unit for a hormonal IUD, which is effective for five years.
It occurs to me that if oil and gas companies were going to start selling diabetes medications, insulin or contraceptives, the Conservatives might be all for it. It seems like they are the only group, the only organization, and the only affordability measures the Conservatives can come up with are supports for oil and gas.
However, Canadians have lots of expenses, and one of the main expenses associated with inequality and inequities in our society is their medications. We are here to help. Some populations are disproportionately affected by the lack of coverage. Women, people with low incomes and young people, all of whom are more likely to work in part-time or contract positions and thereby not have access to a drug plan, often lack access to private coverage. One study found that women from lower-income households are more likely to use less effective contraceptive methods or no contraceptive method at all as a result of their lower-income situation.
Bill C-64 would ensure that Canadians have access to a comprehensive suite of options when it comes to contraceptive drugs and devices, because improved access to contraception improves equality. This means that every woman in Canada would have the ability to choose the contraceptive that is best for her, regardless of her ability to pay. This would contribute to her right to have bodily autonomy, which is what this government fully supports.
Sexual and reproductive health is a priority for this government. This is reflected in Bill C-64, as I have mentioned, but it goes beyond that in other significant federal initiatives. Our government is committed to improving the sexual and reproductive health outcomes for all Canadians, and this includes helping to ensure access to a comprehensive suite of contraceptive drugs and devices for everyone. By working with provinces and territories and guided by the principles within Bill C-64, we can make this a reality.
The proposed Bill C-64 lays the groundwork for that process, and through it, with collaboration with provinces and territories, we are helping to fight for affordability for all Canadians. By passing this legislation, collectively, we can all continue to build on the momentum we have already achieved.
I looked into this. Pharmacare in Canada is deeply popular with people who vote for all parties. It is almost 90%, in fact. This is something I expect all members of Parliament to get behind. It is something a lot of Canadians support, regardless of party.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Adam van Koeverden: Madam Speaker, there are a lot of reasons to heckle in this House. Perhaps the Conservatives disagree with me on some key issues, but I find it really remarkable that they want to heckle and tell me that we should not be fighting for Canadians to have access to the drugs they need in order to live healthy and fulfilling lives. It really is remarkable and just re-emphasizes that if oil and gas was selling insulin and IUDs, the Conservatives would be the first ones to line up and say that we need to support these companies. It does not seem like they are really in it for Canadians, particularly lower-income Canadians, who are struggling with their bills. It is clear to me that the Conservatives only care about the oil and gas lobby. In fact, I think they are trying to put the oil and gas lobby out of business.
With the time remaining, I would like to—
792 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is not only heckling but also unnecessary interruption.
I will use my remaining time to talk about diabetes and those living with diabetes. Diabetes is a disease with no cure. There is a treatment, and it is thanks to Canadian science, which is something that our government supports. Canadian scientist Frederick Banting and his team came up with an interim solution, I suppose we could call it; it is a treatment for diabetes that allows diabetics to live. Without it, diabetics would not have the opportunity to live fulfilling lives, but we still need to fight for a cure. Before we get there, we should also ensure that we reduce inequality and inequities in the populations impacted by diabetes.
There is a really interesting infographic from the Public Health Agency of Canada. Anybody who is watching this debate might be interested in how diabetes and inequality intersect in Canada. I was actually very surprised to learn that diabetes and employment status are related; there is a positive correlation between them. When people are employed, they are less likely to suffer from diabetes and live with diabetes. When people are permanently unable to work, they are more likely to have diabetes, which means that they naturally have a lower income. It is the same for education level, surprisingly. Almost 10% of those individuals with less than a high school education will have diabetes or prediabetes throughout their life; for university graduates, that goes down to between 3.5% and 6.1%. There is also a positive relationship within income quintiles. All five income quintiles are associated with a positive relationship. As income goes up, people are less likely to have diabetes. Therefore, providing folks living with diabetes with free access to medication, to insulin and to supports for managing their illness is also an affordability measure that would make a difference for a lot of Canadians.
Diabetes also affects people disproportionately in different categories. There are complex social and environmental behavioural factors that result in inequalities in the burden of diabetes between certain populations in Canada. The prevalence of diabetes is 2.3% higher among South Asian Canadians, and it is 2.1% higher among Black adults.
For indigenous adults, the prevalence of diabetes is similarly staggering, at 1.9% higher for first nations Canadians living off reserve. Inequities experienced by first nations, Inuit and Métis populations are a direct result of colonial policies and practices that included massive forced relocation, loss of lands, creation of the reserve system, banning of indigenous languages and cultural practices, and the creation of the harmful residential school system. Unaddressed intergenerational trauma adds to the ongoing challenges faced by indigenous peoples, and providing them with a reliable and affordable treatment for diabetes would support affordability.
This would also reduce the number of times people with diabetes have to access health care as a result of their illness. People with diabetes are more at risk of all sorts of life-changing health crises, such as a heart attack or stroke, kidney failure, blindness and amputation. At this very moment, there are about 3.7 million Canadians, or 9.4% of our population, who have been diagnosed and have to manage their condition for their entire life. If members can believe it, in 2015, 25% of Canadians with diabetes indicated that they followed their treatments to a T, but they were affected by cost; in some cases, those Canadians were rationing medications to save money. Therefore, a quarter of the people who are following their treatments are affected by cost. There are other Canadians who are undiagnosed, and there are Canadians who are not following their treatments. We need to make sure that they live a healthy and fulfilled life, and one way to do that is to ensure that they have access to this vital medication.
About one out of three people is living with diabetes or prediabetes today in Canada, and rates of diabetes are ever rising. It is estimated that, by 2028, over 13 million Canadians, or 32% of the population, will have diabetes or prediabetes. Through Bill C-64 and the work of the national framework for diabetes, we can improve aspects of preventative care as well. We can do this through information sharing and knowledge transfer, while also ensuring that those living with diabetes have access to insulin and other diabetes medications.
This is a cost-saving endeavour. The Conservatives have continually referred to this as a spending program, as if it would not be invested directly in the health of Canadians. Not only would it be invested in their long-term health outcomes, but it would also be invested directly in their affordability. It would support affordability, and, as I pointed out, that is something that is positively correlated with other risk factors.
We introduced the national framework for diabetes in 2022 to align multisectoral efforts to reduce the impact of diabetes in Canada. The framework comprises about six interdependent and interconnected components that represent the range of areas where opportunities to advance efforts on diabetes could and will be beneficial.
Bill C-64 would support people living with diabetes, whether through improving access to the medications they need or giving them the tools they need to have a better quality of life in Canada. We are here for Canadians. Our plan to provide universal coverage for contraception and diabetes medications would be transformative, and I still have faith that the Conservatives will see the light and recognize that this is a very popular and worthwhile endeavour.
We should all get behind national pharmacare for Canadians.
942 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:19:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is beyond the pale that Conservatives continue to refer to a national pharmacare plan as an expenditure that we just cannot afford. It is so unfortunate.
This is an affordability measure. It is a way to support Canadians who are vulnerable. It is a proven method to ensure that vulnerable, lower-income and disproportionately impacted Canadians will receive the financial support they need. There are Canadians living in period poverty, who cannot access contraception and who just simply do not have regular access to diabetes medications.
A government is required to be able to do many complicated things simultaneously. We need to address the doctor shortage. We need to meet Canadians where they are and ensure they have the medications that they deserve and that they need in order to live full and fulfilled lives.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:21:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but it is always the same story with the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc members always say that in Canada, the provincial government, in this case Quebec, is wholly responsible for the health care system. In actual fact, that is the case until the bill arrives and it is time to pay for the health care system.
Canada's health care system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. We need only think of the health care provided at the regional level in my riding. It is so important that we find solutions together.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 6:23:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. This is not only a cost-savings measure for the government, the health care system or people who live with diabetes or require contraception, but it is also a way to save money within the system. When Canadians stick to their regimen and take their diabetes medication, they will visit the hospital less often. We want to make sure not only that they live healthy and fulfilled lives but also that we save money in the health care system. However, it is the case again that Conservatives are really only here for the lobbyists and never for everyday people—
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 8:57:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is nice to join the debate this evening on an issue that is affecting so many Canadians, I would say every Canadian, because everybody needs to eat. Our groceries just cost too much these days. Everybody is frustrated, and I understand why.
Food is an essential item. It is not as though people can just decide to take a couple of weeks off. Groceries are probably the third or fourth-most expensive thing that a household has to purchase every month, after paying rent or a mortgage and after paying for a vehicle. Food is expensive, and there are a lot of reasons for the fact that food is expensive. This evening, I was hoping I could unpack a few of those root causes a little and could get to some questions. With some colleagues, the art of thoughtful conversation and a little debate sometimes feels like it has lost its touch around here.
What can we do as a government? People ask us all the time. We knock on their doors or we answer the phone at the office, and people say, “Lettuce is $3.50 again. What the heck?” I do not blame people for being frustrated. I am frustrated too. One of the chief complaints I hear is that people are frustrated because they hear that grocery executives are being paid millions of dollars and that the people who work in those stores are still earning minimum wage. It does not seem fair, and it is not, quite frankly.
However, it is clear to me that regardless of who works for lobbying firms, and I will not argue about who works where; everybody deserves honest work. The reality is that these big companies can afford lobbyists and that they can afford lobbyists because they make a lot of money. Whether we are talking about private utility companies, oil and gas companies, grocery chains or big banks, for that matter, those companies can afford to spend a lot of that money on government relations and on PR.
Those who cannot are Food Banks Canada, teachers, nurses, parents and people who are struggling to pay their bills. There is no public lobbyist who says that their neighbours are really struggling. In fact, that is us. We need to have our ears to the ground. We need to be there for our neighbours. We need to listen to their issues, and then do a little bit of research.
I often talk, probably not enough in this place, about the Library of Parliament, which is such a wonderful resource that we all have access to. They do great work. They do excellent research. It is completely non-partisan, and it is extraordinary. The people who work over there, the researchers, the clerks and the librarians, are amazing.
I am going to commit to work with the Library of Parliament for the remainder of this session to try to dive into precisely why some grocery prices are so high. I have done a little research, which was very preliminary. I will say it is not research because when we Google something, that is not research. Research is actually meant to have some rigour, and a Google search does not. It is just a little reading.
I have done some light reading on why grocery prices are expensive. Climate change is the number one reason. Disruptions, extreme weather, floods and droughts, all of those things are costing food production and farmers a lot of money. That needs to be addressed, and we know that we cannot just switch climate change on or off like a light switch, despite the Conservatives talking about carbon pricing. They ask if we pay a carbon price, will it stop a hurricane or will it stop a wildfire? It is absurd.
It is an absolutely absurd question or statement, but it does not stop the Conservatives from making that sort of comparison; if we pay the price on pollution, then it will just stop the crazy weather. That is not the way it works. The crazy weather that we are experiencing is a result of an excessive amount of greenhouse gases in our environment and in our atmosphere. Just like a greenhouse that has a lot of CO2 inside because there are a lot of plants in there, it heats up. Our planet has been heating up, not in a uniform way, but one that contributes to a lot of extreme weather, and it disrupts agriculture.
Another significant cause of disruption of the agriculture sector is conflict. We know that around the world, there is a lot of fighting. Some of those countries that are fighting produce a heck of a lot of food. When they are at war, they are not able to ship their raw goods, and that increases the cost of food.
Then there are some more localized issues here at home. I remember, probably a decade ago, getting a weird little $25 gift card in the mail, which was unmarked. It was because the price of bread was fixed by some of the largest grocery chains. They were colluding with each other. It was due to unfair practices and really bad corporate behaviour. They settled out of court, and asked if they sent $25 to everybody who asked for it, would that be enough? Somebody, in their infinite wisdom, said that it ought to do.
I do not think any laws were changed. An ombudsman was not put in place to make sure that grocery prices did not just fly off the shelf, literally. That continues to happen. There has to be a way, with a little more scrutiny.
My community members, over the month of May, decided not to shop at Loblaws stores, and there was a big boycott. I do not know if it was across Ontario or Canada, but I saw a lot of people online talking about how they were not shopping at Loblaws. One does not need to do research, but just a cursory Google search on all the stores that the Loblaw company owns, to see that it is a lot of places. It is actually hard in many communities to avoid shopping at Loblaws.
Something I have noticed is that Loblaws owns Shoppers Drug Mart and, not that recently, Shoppers Drug Mart started to sell more and more produce and fresh food in addition to shelved items, like cereal and canned soups. My example is about canned soup, because when I go to that aisle in Shoppers Drug Mart, I can find a can of tomato soup priced at $2.49, $2.69, $2.79, but if I go to No Frills, which is owned by the exact same company, I will see exactly the same soup in a can for 99¢ or $1.29. The issue I have with that is not so much that we can say that Shoppers is maybe a little more of a convenience store, but that people who live close to a Shoppers oftentimes do not have a car. The stores are in strip malls, and the one on Main Street in Milton is right next to a bunch of apartment buildings where people do not all have vehicles, which means they cannot drive to No Frills. It means that there is an environmental barrier to shopping at lower prices.
That is an unfair practice that I strongly believe an excess profits tax on grocery stores would penalize, but not necessarily fix. I will say that I am in favour of an excess profits tax on groceries, because I think the behaviour is bad. We are seeing inflated grocery prices between stores where there ought not to be. However, I also think that there needs to be some scrutiny, and an ombudsperson in the grocery sector could achieve that. I would like to address the issue of excess profits, not just tax the people who are applying them on customers.
The other thing that I think could achieve that is a grocery code of conduct. We have seen it spoken about a lot since last September. I will not say that it was a coincidence, but the same month that Loblaws was being boycotted by so many members of my community, Loblaws said it was willing to sign the grocery code of conduct, as long as some of its competition did, and I think they said Metro and Walmart.
The other issue is that there are only five or six big grocery companies in Canada, just like there are only four or five big oil and gas companies, and there are also only four or five banks in Canada, which means that the market is kind of closed. There is a little bit of an oligopoly, not quite a monopoly but something similar to that, and it is also clear that a lot of these companies kind of keep an eye on each other's prices, whether it is a service fee or a can of tomato soup. They like making money and, hey, we live in a capitalist environment, where everybody wants to make money, whether one is a lobbyist for a grocery store or the CEO of a big multinational company. Their job is to make money.
However, in this House, our job is to promote fairness, and I believe that budget 2024 does find fairness in the market, and it does demand better from big grocery and big oil and gas. It does ask those companies to find a way to have fairer practices so that they do not get caught up in a situation like they did 10 years ago when they had to mail hundreds of thousands of Canadian households a funny little blank $25 gift card to make up for the fact that they cheated them.
I will say it again: Food is an essential item. It is not as though Canadians can just choose not to go to the grocery store. Certainly, they can choose to go to a less expensive one, or they can choose to shop local or at the farmers' market, but that does not fix the problem. Fixing the problem is going to take a combination of solutions.
I am in support of an excess profit tax on grocery stores, and also oil and gas, I would add, but that does not necessarily address the issue that they are allowed to get away with it. I would like to see fairness built into the system and an ombudsperson who oversees a lot of these prices so that we can see more fairness, and I know that competition will also achieve that.
1787 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 9:07:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be totally frank: I am no expert on what thresholds of corporate profit should be deemed reasonable. I would leave that up to experts to determine. I would like some public input on that. I think everybody would agree that companies ought to be able to earn a profit.
I grew up in non-profit housing, so nobody made any money when my mom paid the rent. I would like to see that same system applied more broadly across our economy, because with essentials, whether it is shelter, medicine or food, there should be a way to pay a farmer directly for their work and not be facilitating the enormous profits of billionaire grocery execs. However, that is tough to find. There are stores called co-ops out there, a chain of stores, which I am not sure who owns, but I do not think they are actually co-operatives and non-profits. I would love to see more non-profit-style shopping in the grocery space.
While I am on this topic, I also know that a lot of seniors, particularly single seniors, shop for previously prepared items. They might get spaghetti and meatballs or a soup, which is not in a can and might be in a jar or a takeaway container, and HST is applied to that food. That is something that is not in our control, but I would consider looking at taking off the HST on prepared food at grocery stores. This would not be at a convenience store or for a sandwich at Subway or something like that. I am not suggesting there should not be HST on that food, but finding ways to meet Canadians where they are and lower their food costs would be a priority for me. Any good idea that somebody comes forward with is worthy of consideration and debate.
314 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 9:10:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I tend to agree with him whether we are on committee or just going for a walk down Wellington. We are both very pressed with the issue of trying to find solutions to affordability in Canada. I have noticed the same thing. For months now, a head of lettuce has been $3.49 where I shop, and I do not think it is as a result of a drought. It is because the price went up, people became used to it and the prices just kind of sat there; stores said that people were now used to paying $3.50 for lettuce. That is too expensive, and there needs to be a little more accountability.
If a price shock occurs because of any number of factors, then we understand that people need to be made whole. We can choose something else in many cases. I feel the same way about shopping seasonally. There was a big thing on Facebook a couple of weeks ago about watermelon, and everybody was freaking out about the price of watermelon, but watermelon was wildly out of season at the time. It is also appropriate that we consider the time of year when we are shopping for certain items. I enjoy the convenience of having watermelon all year, but it is also true that we can shop seasonally to save a bit of money.
The other thing I wanted to discuss is something I am not sure will come up. Most people in the House are my age, a little older or close to it. I am 42 years old. In my first job, I was working for about eight dollars an hour. These days, that is absolutely not okay, and nobody works for eight dollars an hour in Canada; however, one of the reasons things have become more expensive is that we are starting to pay people closer to a minimum livable income.
I am not saying we are there just yet. People who are working in grocery stores now are not being paid enough, but perhaps they are being paid $16 or $17 an hour; that is almost nine dollars more than we were paid 15 years or 20 years back. This is another concern that we need to feed into the system. I believe in a living wage being paid to the people who are ringing our groceries through and stocking the shelves. If that could normalize a little and balance out against the billion-dollar CEO profits and bonuses we are seeing, that would also be fair.
442 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 9:17:22 p.m.
- Watch
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.
553 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 9:22:05 p.m.
- Watch
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.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 9:36:25 p.m.
- Watch
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.
620 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 9:41:38 p.m.
- Watch
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.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
