SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

Oct/20/22 10:30:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the NDP member is so unhappy with the way things are going in Canada, why is he supporting the Liberal government that is making it so? He and his costly coalition have supported the government greed that has hoovered up the money that Canadians worked so hard to earn. That costly coalition has caused today's inflation. That costly coalition will make it worse by tripling the tax. If he is not happy with how badly his people are suffering, then why does he stay part of that coalition?

92 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 10:31:00 a.m.
Watch

I understand and respect that there are differing views on this. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question and if he has other questions, he should get up at the appropriate time and not yell back and forth when someone is trying to answer the question. I also saw members of the official opposition trying to help out. If a member has not been recognized, please do not yell across the way and do not participate in the debate until it is the member's time to do so. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

101 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Oct/20/22 10:31:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to add my voice in support of fighting to exempt all forms of home heating fuel from the carbon tax for all Canadians. This week, we have heard a lot from all sides about the pain Canadians suffer as unjust inflation and the cost-of-living crisis make life absolutely unaffordable in Canada. From a single mother skipping meals just to be able to feed her kids to a tradesman renting an apartment with his parents and still not being able to afford gas for his truck to seniors living on a fixed income and staring down the triple carbon tax, people are not sure if they can heat their homes or even keep them. We hear from the Liberals and the NDP that Canada is in a much better position than the rest of the G7, yet the Bank of Canada is tied with the U.S. for the highest interest rates today. What is worse is that it is widely expected that the bank will raise the key interest rate by another 75 basis points. That means we are looking at the interest rate being 4%. That is a 4% increase Canadians are forced to pay to borrow money or get a mortgage. Why are there higher interest rates? To combat the unjust inflation created by the government's out-of-control spending. After an over $300-billion deficit in the fiscal year 2020-21 and an almost $100-billion deficit last year, the Liberals have been spending non-stop. In 2021, the Conservative leader warned the government that its spending would cause inflation. Instead of heeding his warning, the finance minister claimed that Canada would actually see deflation. When inflation started spiking, she said it would be transitory. Boy, was she wrong. The Toronto Star is now reporting that she has started to see the light. The finance minister told colleagues that in order to fund the Prime Minister's additional spending, cuts to other areas of government spending were needed. Spending is not the only issue though. Yesterday, the finance minister admitted that with more stimulus money in circulation, there would be more demand for a limited supply of goods and services. In short, too many dollars chasing too few goods. In the context of today's motion, the supply of LNG and other heating fuels are very relevant examples. When the government was elected in 2015, there were 15 LNG projects. Now, seven years later, none have been completed. The same can be said for the Teck mine in Fort McMurray, the TMX pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline, energy east pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline. On this side, we all know the value of Canadian gas. The world needs more Canadian oil and gas. Alberta has some of the most responsibly developed, produced and transported energy products. The oil and gas companies operating in Canada are the most significant contributors and developers of new clean technology to decrease their emissions. Their innovation and use of green technology make Canadian oil and gas far more responsible than the dictator oil that the Liberals would instead bring in. Instead of Canadian energy being produced, refined and consumed in Canada, tankers of dirty Saudi oil are flowing down the St. Lawrence. The government's dependence on foreign oil means that we send our dollars to the very OPEC-plus cartel that colludes with Russia to reduce the production of their energy products to drive down supply. At the same time, demand increases, causing record profits for countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela. It is not like Canada does not have other countries needing our oil and gas. For example, just this summer, when the Prime Minister made excuses for not having a business case to ship Canadian LNG to Germany, the German chancellor asked our country to increase shipments. The Liberals did not even show the chancellor any Canadian LNG projects. Instead, they talked about hydrogen. Hydrogen is a clean and practical option in which Canada needs to continue to invest. However, replacing LNG with hydrogen is years away and currently impossible. Instead of capitalizing on economic opportunities to increase the production of Canadian energy and fight the OPEC-plus cartel, the government sided with the “leave it in the ground” left and backed Canada into a corner. Instead of lowering energy costs for Canadians, we are at the mercy of Liberal-made inflation, reduced supply and foreign dictators dictating oil and gas prices. The cost of groceries, gas and home heating are skyrocketing because the government has created an environment where prices are out of control, supply is lacking and taxes keep climbing. As the current government prepares to triple its carbon tax, Canadians continue to get hit with numbers like 37% inflation on natural gas and 48.7% on other fuels; 11.4% on groceries; 13.2% on gasoline; and an 8.3% increase in mortgage interest costs. In a recent report, RBC is expecting that, “Rising inflation and higher borrowing and debt servicing costs are expected to shave almost $3,000 from average purchasing power in 2023.” Let us suppose families are paying more for utilities, groceries, gas and mortgages. In this case, a $3,000 hit to their pocketbooks is absolutely devastating, especially with almost half of Canadians being $200 away from insolvency. Therefore, as we turn to the winter months when Canadians need to heat their homes, people are starting to make tough choices. Do they pay for gas or electricity bills to get heat, or pay for groceries, or even cover their mortgage payments. The fact that people in our country have to make that decision is a disgrace. That is why the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote to the government last month, asking for a carbon tax exemption on home heating fuels. Right now, inflated home heating bills are made up of roughly 20% of just carbon tax. After this year of inflation and the tripling of the carbon tax, that portion could increase to almost 60% of home heating costs per month. That is especially scary for Atlantic Canada, as fuel oils in Newfoundland are already up by 52.8%. According to yesterday's inflation numbers, in P.E.I. it is up 37.2%; 52% in Nova Scotia; and 45.4% in New Brunswick. Analysts are predicting that home heating bills could increase this winter from anywhere from 50% to 100%, and in some cases around the country even 300%. The Ontario Energy Board also indicated that Ontario natural gas prices could increase by more than 150% this month. Other Canadian premiers are also calling for the Liberals to cancel their tripling of the carbon tax as provinces fight for a better way to deal with climate change and lower prices for Canadians. This summer, Nova Scotia submitted a provincial plan to get out of the federal carbon tax, but the federal government outright rejected it. In Alberta, the province created the technology innovation and emissions reduction program. It puts a price on carbon for heavy emitters and the collected funds get reinvested in advancing technology and innovation to reduce omissions, such as carbon capture and sequestration. These are the types of advancements that Canada needs to replace the out-of-touch carbon tax. Punishing Canadians for heating their homes, driving to work or just eating is absolutely wrong. While the government continues to ignore its out-of-control spending and fails to address inflation or the need for development investment in Canadian energy projects, the least it can do is exempt hard-working Canadians from paying the carbon tax to heat their homes. Canadian energy production needs to be increased to grow the supply and lower prices. Winter is coming and the pocketbooks of Canadians are in the red. I ask all members to do the right thing and vote for this motion. I call on the government to have some decency, get off the necks of Canadians and cancel its plans to triple its carbon tax.

1357 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 10:40:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, both speakers from the Conservative Party have referenced the letter from the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not have a perfect memory, but it is a pretty good one. I remember when a Conservative premier in Newfoundland flew the Canadian flag upside down because of the way the province was being treated by a Conservative government in Ottawa. What makes this leader any different?

69 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Oct/20/22 10:41:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me tell the member the difference between the two leaders today. We have one leader, the Prime Minister, who continues to divide and blame Canadians for his failed policies, cancels energy projects that could provide the world with clean, responsible energy, and punishes Canadians because he keeps missing his own targets and fails to keep his own promises. Then we have a new Conservative leader who will stand up for hard-working Canadians, who will cancel the job-killing, crippling carbon tax and get clean Canadian energy to the rest of the world, which it deserves, lowering emissions and ensuring everyone has a job in our country.

110 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Oct/20/22 10:42:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that I truly appreciate my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn. I really enjoy working with him. Now I have an idea for today's opposition day. I think I will ask the same question all day, and since I do not think I will ever get an answer, I will make a little video afterwards and post it on social media. I will therefore ask a very simple question. I have a feeling I will not get an answer, but you never know, I might luck out. When will the Conservatives speak out against the excess profits being made by oil and gas multinationals?

111 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 10:42:57 a.m.
Watch

Again, I have people who are trying to answer questions and it is not their position to do that at this point. If they are not recognized, I would ask them to hold off on their comments and keep them to themselves. The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

49 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Oct/20/22 10:43:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I respect the hon. member and have enjoyed working with him on the immigration committee. It is one thing to keep attacking our energy producers, but where was the government, or anyone else, when they were not making profits? What about when there was a downfall, when Canadian energy was suffering, when it was being replaced by dirty dictator oil? What about all those job losses for the hard-working Canadians who worked in that energy industry, including newcomers to this country, people from the LGBT community and people from BIPOC communities? What about those people? Who was standing up for them? It was the Conservatives and the Conservatives only. That is what we will continue to do.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Oct/20/22 10:44:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn mentioned the northern gateway pipeline, a proposed project that was widely opposed by first nations and municipalities. People from all walks of life— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

37 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 10:44:23 a.m.
Watch

Again, I have mentioned it on a number of occasions this morning. What is going to happen is that, for those who are constant offenders, I will not be recognizing them if they get up for questions and comments if they continue to do this. Please allow the hon. members who are acknowledged to speak, allow those I am recognizing to ask their questions and allow whoever is responsible to answer those questions without being interrupted. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

84 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Oct/20/22 10:44:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn mentioned the northern gateway pipeline, a proposed crude oil pipeline through northwest B.C. that was widely opposed by first nations, municipal governments and people from all walks of life. It would have pushed a crude oil pipeline through wild salmon watersheds and brought crude oil supertankers to the B.C. coast. From his speech, it sounded like it is the Conservative policy to try to reinstate such a project and to bring a crude oil pipeline back to northwest B.C. Could he confirm if that is indeed his party's intention should they be elected?

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Oct/20/22 10:45:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is simply not true. About 80% of first nations along the route wanted the project to take place. I am proud to stand with our new leader, who actually wants to see real reconciliation by partnering with first nation communities and giving them the sovereignty they deserve: economic sovereignty. This is what true reconciliation in this country looks like. I am proud to stand beside a leader who believes in that too.

75 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 10:46:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that I am going to be joining—

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 10:46:13 a.m.
Watch

I am going to get the hon. member for Kings—Hants to restart, given the amount of noise coming from this side of the House. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

33 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/20/22 10:46:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it reminds me of my time playing hockey in loud barns, and I always enjoyed it. I will be splitting my with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth. As the chair of the Atlantic Liberal caucus, I really welcome the opportunity to be here today and to provide some counter-narrative to what I just heard from the member for Carleton and the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. What disappointed me the most was the fact that I listened to those speeches, which was 30 minutes of my life that I am not going to get back, and there were no solutions. The conversation was so broad. There was barely any talk of the actual text of the motion they put forward, and certainly no talk of Atlantic Canadians who actually need help and support. I will use my time here today to do two things. I will critique and offer some comments on the actual text of the motion, which is why we are here today. This is an opposition day motion. It is not binding on the government, but it provides a value proposition for us to debate. Then I am going to talk a little broader about the dynamic between reducing emissions, fighting climate change and supporting affordability, and it is that nuance that I did not hear from the opposition bench a minute ago. The Conservatives do not provide nuance, and they are certainly not providing solutions from what I have heard thus far. The first provision in the text of the motion reads, “one-tenth of Canadians heat their homes during Canada's cold winter months with heating oil or propane heat because there are no alternatives”. Let me say that I reject that premise, not that there is one out of 10 Canadians who use home heating oil or propane to heat their homes, but that there are no alternatives. Where is that suggestion coming from? We, of course, in Atlantic Canada are disproportionally still reliant on home heating fuels of that nature, but I have seen in my own riding where homes have been able to make the transition. They have been able to work with federal programs and some of the provincial energy efficiencies and maybe install a heat pump and take on initiatives, which not only helps to reduce their energy use but reduces emissions and puts more money back in their pockets. Therefore, my question to the official opposition would be this: Where does the narrative come from that there is no alternative, whatsoever? I think that is a false narrative, and it is not very helpful to the constructive conversation that we need to have today. The second provision in the text of the motion reads, “Canada is the only G7 country to have raised fuel taxes during this period of record high global fuel prices”. Again, it is a false narrative that is coming from the opposition benches. Yes, we have maintained a price on carbon. We fought an election just over a year ago with that exact plan of moving the carbon price forward, which is going to help return money, in areas where we have a federal backstop in place, to households and businesses. I reject the idea that a carbon price is a tax. The money and every single proceed that is collected is returned back to Canadians. This is not just simply something that is levied and comes into government revenue to support other types of social spending or programs. This money is returned. It is a price signal and it is a market signal. The ironic piece of all of this is that the Conservatives, just over a year ago, actually ran an election campaign to put a price on carbon, but here these members stand today saying that somehow that is not a good idea. What has changed over the past year? Why the flip-flop? We have seen it, and that is the trouble that I think many Canadians have. They do not really know what this Conservative Party stands for. I know they will have the opportunity over the next couple of months, probably over the next three years, to find out, but again, an important reflection for Canadians is that it was this opposition party that ran on a carbon price last time. The other point that is never reflected in the Conservative narrative is that the money is returned. We know that, where the federal backstop exists, eight out of 10 families are coming out further ahead at a household level. However, let me explain why this was all introduced. We introduced a price on carbon to incentivize behavioural change and to actually drive private sector solutions. The way this government introduced that policy in 2018 was to allow provinces and territories to develop their own plans. If they chose not to be a part of the pan-Canadian effort to reduce emissions in the fight against climate change, then a federal backstop would be imposed. That exists in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and of course we work with the provinces and territories to update plans as we move toward 2030 to meet our international targets. In provinces that have chosen not to participate, that have chosen not to put forward a provincial plan, our plan puts money back into households and businesses accordingly. I think the biggest flaw in the text, standing here as a member from Atlantic Canada, and I will be interested to see how the member from Newfoundland who sits on the opposition benches, as well as some of the other folks, address this, is that there is no application of carbon pricing on home heating fuel in Atlantic Canada. Let me repeat that: There is no carbon price application on home heating fuels in Atlantic Canada this winter. I would not suspect the member for Carleton or the member for Calgary Forest Lawn would be misleading the House, because that is not my job to do and I would never suggest that, but clearly they have not done their homework. The way this works is that provinces are putting forward plans. Those are currently under evaluation right now with the ministry of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and those are ongoing conversations. We do not know the results of those yet. Perhaps, as we have seen in other provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, there might be a provincial plan approved. I do not have all the details and I do not stand here understanding exactly what the outcomes will be. However, even if there is a federal backstop implemented in one of those provinces, it will not start to apply to fuel until April 1. Therefore, for this narrative I suspect I will hear from the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame in Newfoundland, he better rewrite his notes because it will not apply to his residents this winter. Any narrative that somehow the Government of Canada is going to make people not be able to afford to fuel their homes this winter because of a carbon price is a completely false narrative. It is also premature, because we do not know the outcomes of those conversations. As I read the text of this motion perhaps the most disappointing but not surprising part is that there is no vision for transition. Yes, we recognize affordability is a top issue for Canadians right now, but there is no mention of the $250 million the government announced just a couple of weeks ago to help vulnerable Canadians transition off home heating fuel. I guess Conservatives do not believe in that because they think there are simply no alternatives. On this side of the House, we know there are alternatives, but there are some folks who cannot afford to make that transition themselves. That is why $125 million of that $250 million will be going to Atlantic Canada explicitly. Again, if someone is sitting at home right now listening to the opposition, of course, yes, no one in this House disagrees with wanting to support affordability. However, what is the Conservatives' plan for the longer term? What is the Conservatives' plan to help make sure that, in two years or three years if there is another global event that causes prices to rise, they can augment and stop that and help people make a transition? There is not one single word in any of the text. I did not hear anything from the member for Carleton, and I did not hear anything from the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. Hopefully there is more depth in the Conservative benches and we will hear something more of what they are actually going to propose for a solution for Atlantic Canadians, and indeed all Canadians, in the days ahead. Let us remind ourselves why there is a carbon price at all. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because the science is absolutely clear. We have a climate emergency. We need to be able to reduce emissions. In fact, we are a part of international agreements that set Canada's conditions to do so. The OECD says that carbon pricing is the lowest-cost alternative to help incentivize the private sector and households to make changes and to change behaviour to reduce emissions. I know Conservatives are not really fond of global institutions right now, whether it is the World Health Organization or the World Economic Forum. We saw a lot of that during the leadership campaign. It is problematic, frankly, but maybe they believe in the OECD. At the end of the day, Conservatives are not providing alternatives. They can propose amendments to the carbon pricing. I do not suggest it is a silver bullet, but there are no solutions on the other side. I wish I had more time, but I look forward to taking questions momentarily.

1668 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Oct/20/22 10:56:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member from Nova Scotia knows full well that his struggling constituents cannot afford the upfront costs to convert from oil to heat pumps. They have to strip out their oil heating equipment. They have to cut up their oil tanks. It is going to cost them about $10,000, and they have to pay that up front. How can they afford it, with the Liberal-fuelled inflation that these constituents are dealing with? To my hon. colleague from over in the Annapolis Valley, can you explain to your constituents and to the rest of the people in Atlantic Canada the inverse relationship between your carbon tax policy and what we are seeing in the U.S., where they are lowering emissions with no tax policy? It does not make sense. When is it going to work?

139 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/20/22 10:57:38 a.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the hon. member that I am not going to answer that question. He needs to make sure that he directs the questions and comments through the Chair. Using the word “he” as opposed to the word “you” would be much more appropriate. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

58 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/20/22 10:57:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate a couple of things. Carbon pricing is not applying to home heating fuel this winter. We recognize that there are vulnerable households out there, as the member recognized, that need support to be able to make that transition. That is exactly why we put $250 million into provincial programs, to do just that: to support some of the lowest-income, most vulnerable Canadians who would be in his riding and in mine. I believe the number is somewhere around $22 million to Newfoundland and Labrador alone to help support that transition. This member opposite is providing no solutions. We are actually helping residents to make that transition and help reduce emissions at the same time. It is quite simple.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/20/22 10:58:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week in Washington, the Deputy Prime Minister said something a little troubling: “...we must...be prepared to spend some domestic political capital in the name of economic security for our democratic partners.” That is rather surprising. She went on to say, “Canada must...show...generosity [towards its allies] in fast-tracking, for example, the energy and mining projects our allies need...”. She appears to be saying that maybe Canada is preparing to build infrastructures to send natural gas to Europe, for example. It is rather surprising. We know that there is no social licence for this type of project in Quebec. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister's declaration.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/20/22 10:59:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question about the importance of Canada's natural resources sector. I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister. It is important that Canada provide natural resources such as hydrogen, liquefied natural gas and other renewable resources, such as food. Canada is rich in all of these resources. Given the global situation, it is now more important than ever that Canada supply these products to its allies. I therefore agree with our Deputy Prime Minister's remarks.

86 words

All Topics