SoVote

Nov/2/23 11:47:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière. Today is a bit like Groundhog Day. For a while now, it feels like the same day keeps coming back. Once again, we must highlight a very simple fact about the Conservative motion: it does not apply in Quebec. This was already true for the dozens of other motions the Conservatives have presented about the carbon tax. They do not apply in Quebec. We understand that the Conservative Party is a federalist party, a Canada-wide party. Sometimes, the Conservatives want to look after Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, the Atlantic provinces. In a way, that is their job, since they are a Canada-wide party. Nonetheless, since I was elected in 2021, this has bothered me. It bothers me because I have not yet had the opportunity I so desire, which is to rise to speak on a Conservative opposition day and believe that they are looking out for or thinking about Quebec, that their proposal applies to Quebec, that it is something of interest to Quebeckers. The first time, we thought they were looking out for their voting base in oil country. The second time, we thought they were looking out for their voters elsewhere. Today, we see the consistent truth: Quebec is of no interest to them. What interests them is the oil sector. Just this week, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said as much, in somewhat fancier terms, on a CPAC panel. The Conservative plan to fight climate change consists of three things their leader stated at their convention: subsidize the oil sector, subsidize the oil sector and subsidize the oil sector with Quebeckers’ money. I am concerned that the Quebec Conservative caucus does not seem to have any influence. They do not seem to be heard, or to stand up for Quebeckers. If they stood up for Quebec, if it were worthwhile for Quebeckers to vote Conservative, we would be talking here about Quebec once in a while. What is interesting about these Conservative caucus members is that they are among those who joined forces to ensure carbon taxes did not apply in Quebec. They were players. They were Jean Charest’s gang. With one exception, they were his cronies. The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis supported Quebec's emissions trading system and Quebec's environmental sovereignty in cabinet in Quebec City. She's a friend of Jean Charest, a good friend. She was part of that. When the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was in Quebec City, he said he was in favour of Quebec's autonomy in the realm of environmental policy. That is what the Bloc Québécois is fighting for. Once he landed in Ottawa, his values evaporated. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable was one of Jean Charest's underlings in Quebec City. He was part of that gang. As one of Jean Charest's minions, he worked to defend our environmental sovereignty, but now it is radio silence. The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord campaigned in support of Jean Charest's leadership bid. They were so joined at the hip, it was a wonder Mr. Charest did not have to get bigger pants so the member could fit in there with him. Now, there is nothing. Nobody is standing up for Quebec. There is no more defending Quebec because with the Conservatives, under the current Conservative leader, it is a purity test for a Quebecker to deny the interests of Quebec, to lie to Quebec and defend the Conservative lines which are deeply flawed. Some days I tell myself I am happy there is a gym in Parliament. Members of Quebec's Conservative caucus do not get in their squats and their exercise by standing up for Quebeckers in the House. If they want to firm their thighs here, they do not do so by standing up for Quebec, because they never stand up for Quebec. They are going to get bedsores remaining seated for Quebec. They do not even ask for health transfers for them, which is what the provinces and Quebec are asking. This worries me because there are Quebeckers who, at one time, trusted these people. They were wrong. On Bloc opposition days, which are focused on the needs of Quebec, these same Conservatives have the nerve to tell us what we should have done. They tell us we should have chosen topics that matter to Quebeckers. Yesterday, Parliament voted unanimously in favour of a motion from the Bloc Québécois asking the federal government to consult Quebec before announcing its new immigration targets. During the vote, all Quebec members, Conservatives and Liberals alike, voted in favour of consulting Quebec. That same day, the federal government adopted and announced targets unilaterally. It did so without consulting Quebec, as was confirmed to us by the Quebec minister. Today is an opposition day and it would have been a good topic to address. The Conservatives had the opportunity to think of Quebec for the first time in years. They did not do it because a Quebecker in the Conservative Party is useless. It would have had direct consequences on the lives of Quebeckers, on the capacity to integrate, on French language training, on togetherness. Actions count. I will speak of the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA. The Conservatives, who form the current opposition, have the opportunity to ask tons of questions during oral question period. Right now, tens of thousands of businesses are headed for bankruptcy and we are asking for a CEBA loan repayment extension. That is what chambers of commerce are asking for. We can agree that they are not part of the radical left. However, never has a Quebec Conservative stood in the House to defend our businesses, our entrepreneurial base or the investments people have made. These people have never stood up for Quebec. Quebec has its own housing model. The Conservatives say that they favour decentralization and acknowledge that the provinces have jurisdictions. When Quebec tries to exercise its power in its areas of jurisdiction, it gets no money from Ottawa. How many times have we seen a Conservative from Quebec rise in the House to ask the government to give Quebec the $900 million it was due from income tax paid by Quebeckers? There are over 10,000 homeless people in Quebec, and the cost of housing continues to rise. It is a national crisis. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is working full time on this, but no Conservative has ever spoken on the topic. The Conservatives have never asked for an increase in health transfers. They bowed to their leader. The Quebec Conservatives claim to be progressive conservatives. They say this until they look at their values, then their pay, then their values again, then the money they make in Ottawa with their nice Conservative seats. That is where it stops. Suddenly, they are progressive only on statutory holidays and weekends. When the Conservatives helped to ensure the carbon tax did not apply in Quebec, they were players. They are now on the sidelines and are trying all kinds of tricks to say that it applies in Quebec. They wanted to play wedge politics and say that the tax applies across Canada, but they did a poor job of it, as is so often the case. They were caught misleading the House. In response, they fooled around with motions and conjured all kinds of convoluted nonsense to say that there was a second carbon tax. This second carbon tax is a regulation that will not apply until 2030. They did not know this because they did not do their homework, because the Conservatives do not listen to Quebeckers. They realized that the Quebec regulation is more restrictive and that this had no effect. They are now bending over backwards to try to explain that it is coming in through the back door or whatever. The truth is that Alberta made $24 billion this year on oil royalties. Alberta taxes compulsively and is dependent on oil. Per person, for every dollar Quebec makes on hydroelectricity, Alberta makes 13 on oil. Furthermore, this government has no modern sales tax or personal income tax. This is the system Quebec Conservatives defend in their caucus. They are kowtowing to keep their seat. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier promised to resign if the current Conservative leader was elected. Today, we are not hearing the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier defend the decentralization of Quebec's environmental policy or Quebec's jurisdictions. My political commitment is to Quebec and it is profound. We are standing up for Quebec and we are standing up for the truth. I appeal to the statesmanship of the Conservative members from Quebec. I hope that at some point they will reflect deeply on what their commitment means to them, and that one day we will be able to discuss a motion that applies to Quebec. However, that is not the case today.

1537 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Nov/2/23 11:57:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was fascinated that we had the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River asking questions earlier. I wanted to respond to his question. I was interested to see that, when the Prime Minister made the announcement on the pause on the home heating fuel carbon tax in Atlantic Canada, only Atlantic MPs were standing behind him. Could the member speculate on why the member for Thunder Bay or the member for Sault Ste. Marie was not in that picture?

82 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Nov/2/23 11:58:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows that we in the Bloc Québécois defend Quebec's jurisdictions and Quebec's independence when it comes to environmental policy. He asked me why this or that member from this or that province, members who are not in my party, supported this or that measure. What I find unfortunate is that, here in the House, not every single member from Quebec is standing up for Quebec's autonomy when it comes to environmental policy. On top of that, those folks are being paid by the federal government to misinform Quebeckers. I hope the member will ask our Conservative colleagues from Quebec that question at some point.

115 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/2/23 11:59:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what was really shocking about the Liberal announcement was that it seemed to be so much about keeping their MPs in Atlantic Canada alive. Conservatives are now saying that the Liberals are dividing the country, but the Conservative motion is actually dividing the country. Quebec and British Columbia do not pay carbon tax. Residents in British Columbia and Quebec would not get any benefit from this. It would have been more reasonable, as New Democrats have pushed for, if we took off the GST and the HST. This would ensure that, if we are going to have a pause, it would be fair across the country. However, what we are seeing now is that the Liberals have actually just undermined the whole principle of carbon pricing that they have been promoting.

133 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Nov/2/23 11:59:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague understands what kind of situation we are in. When I was elected to federal Parliament, I knew that Ottawa does not really care about Quebec very much. I knew that, but I never thought it was this bad. I never imagined that they would never talk about Quebec, about Quebec's interests, about respecting Quebec's environmental policy. My NDP colleague is talking to me about the GST and the QST. Let Quebec take care of its own environmental policy. I repeat: Let Quebec take care of its own environmental policy. It is not only Quebec's jurisdiction, but Quebec is also much better at this than the federal government.

114 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/2/23 12:00:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the debate on home heating, sometimes people express a belief that natural gas is more environmentally friendly than heating oil. That is not true. For the most part, natural gas is shale gas. The method for producing shale gas leaves a bigger carbon footprint than heating oil. It is not a good choice for our climate. Can my colleague comment on the issue of the carbon footprint of shale gas?

73 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Nov/2/23 12:01:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am able to talk about the ecological footprint of hydroelectricity because that is what we chose. When we decided to branch out into this sector, it was not an easy choice. Everyone said that Quebec was crazy. Some places were turning to nuclear energy, while others were opting for fossil fuels. Quebec chose hydroelectricity because we believed in the transition. More than that, we believed that it would pay off to invest in technologies that make Quebec unique, technologies that we can export and that make a name for us around the world, as we have done and continue to do today. In Quebec, we are proud to heat our homes with green, renewable electricity. If anyone would like to talk about the carbon footprint of our hydroelectricity, I would be happy to talk about it for hours.

152 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Nov/2/23 12:02:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, members will notice that my speech is similar to that of my colleague from Mirabel. The thing I have learned in politics is that we need to repeat ourselves often so that our messages are heard. It feels like Groundhog Day, as my colleague from Mirabel said, or like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. The Conservative Party has plenty to say about the carbon tax. There is something essential that I need to clarify: Today's motion will have no impact on Quebec. It does not concern Quebec. The only good thing about this motion is that it clearly demonstrates that everything the Conservative Party said when it was talking about the two carbon taxes does not apply to Quebec. That is crystal clear. If the government reduces the carbon tax on home heating in Canada, Quebec will never see the effects of that because it does not apply to Quebec. The carbon tax does not apply to Quebec. What we get from this motion is that the Conservative Party is completely out of touch with Quebec's reality. As my colleague said, the Conservative members from Quebec do not carry enough weight in their caucus to push the issues facing the only francophone nation in North America. The representatives of the only francophone nation in North America are unable to carry Quebec's messages to the House. The Conservative members are failing to be a voice for Quebec, but it gets worse. This week, the leader of the Conservative Party made it clear that the carbon tax would become the main electoral or ballot-box issue. The leader of the Conservative Party believes that the ballot-box issue of the next general election is one that does not involve Quebec. At no point has it ever involved Quebec. This is unprecedented. It is a fundamental rejection of the Quebec nation. I would like to clarify something. The Conservatives constantly refer to two carbon taxes. The first tax applies to Canada, whereas Quebec has a carbon exchange. Some Conservatives have actually started to adjust their language. They know very well that lying will not help them win. Whenever they talk about the other carbon tax, calling it the regulations, they are referring to the clean fuel regulations. These regulations were the logical continuation of regulations put in place by one Stephen Harper. I am not sure if my colleagues are aware of this, but he was a Conservative. These regulations will not take full effect until 2030. Now we are being asked to look into the future. They want to fight inflation now, but the effects will not be felt until 2030. Furthermore, there are already parallel regulations in Quebec that are in force today, in 2023. Quebec's clean fuel regulation are already in effect. Will the Conservatives trample on Quebec's regulatory independence by saying that it should repeal its clean fuel regulations? Worse yet, we are collectively subsidizing oil companies so they can introduce low-carbon fuel. We are all paying for this. The Conservatives are also asking why we could not stick consumers with the bill. Where I come from, that is called double-dipping, like when someone takes a potato chip and sticks it into the dip twice. That is not allowed. When it comes to oil, the Conservatives no longer see clearly. This is quite obvious to me. As my colleague said earlier, we are wasting a ridiculous amount of time talking about the carbon tax. Meanwhile, not one Conservative member from Quebec is talking about the issues that affect us all. I have not heard one Conservative member talk about the CEBA loans, even though the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion calling for the December 31 deadline to be significantly extended. I have not heard a single Conservative talk about that. Regarding immigration, they voted in favour of our motion, but I never hear a Conservative member argue that Quebec is losing all of its weight within the Canadian federation. The Quebec minister said it again this morning: One of the effects of uncontrolled immigration is reduced political weight for Quebec. I do not hear any Conservatives talking about that. If we are serious about fighting inflation, then the first thing that we should probably be doing is taking care of the most vulnerable. Among the most vulnerable are seniors struggling to afford housing, clothing and food because their pensions are so meagre. If the Conservatives were serious, they would support increasing old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. That is not all. Since 2015, the Liberals have been talking about reviewing the Employment Insurance Act. Who is more vulnerable than an unemployed worker unable to access benefits? I have never heard a Conservative say that because of inflation, perhaps we should review the Employment Insurance Act. All they talk about is the carbon tax. An important test is coming up in the next few months or next year, especially for Quebec. It is about Bill 21 and Bill 96, which will be challenged in court. I am eager to see how the Quebec Conservatives will react. Today I want reach out to them, because I know we will need them as well. Perhaps one way to do this is by showing them reality. That is why I want to return to the Conservative Party leadership race. However, before that, I want to return to some rather hare-brained remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton. For instance, there was the time he offered his unconditional support to the trucker convoy, including its illegal behaviour. The Leader of the Opposition also had the oh-so-brilliant idea of firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada because he did not agree with him. He took quite a beating for that one. He even touted cryptocurrency, saying it could help Canadians opt out of inflation. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but the majority of the people I know are aware that cryptocurrency is not the way to ensure the well-being of the middle class. Cryptocurrency does not reduce inflation. It does not help with the price of gas or turkey, which was another of the Leader of the Opposition's obsessions. Lastly, it certainly does not help people find housing and put clothes on their backs. There are also all the misleading advertisements. I do not know if my colleagues saw the ad that used an image of a Quebec family and said they were struggling to pay their mortgage. The people in this family then came forward, saying that it was a stock image, but that the ad was associating them with a reality that did not in the least reflect their own and that it was making them look stupid. The Conservative Party is unscrupulous. It uses images like that one and claims that these people are struggling to pay their mortgage, when that is completely false. Worst of all was hearing the member for Carleton, the leader of the official opposition, say on numerous occasions in the House that there were people who could not afford food and were asking for medical assistance in dying. How can we trust someone who makes such asinine statements? I am saying these things because it just goes on and on, and the Conservative Party leader's vision is catching. When people from Suncor came to committee, some members tried to prevent me from asking the Suncor CEO questions. They did not want me to make him uncomfortable, like he was royalty. What is more, I heard a Conservative apologize to the Suncor reps on behalf of all Canadians. I could not even make this stuff up. I will wrap up quickly with one final thought. Members may recall that, during the last leadership race, only two Quebec MPs did not take sides, but seven MPs were against the current opposition leader. Let me point out that one of them was the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He supported Jean Charest, the very same Jean Charest whom he had clumsily accused of being the godfather of the Liberal family 10 years before. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent chose to support Mr. Charest despite his questionable ethics in Quebec, rather than the man who is now opposition leader. I would encourage my Conservative colleagues from Quebec to get back in touch with reality. There are going to be some interesting debates happening in Quebec. If they do get back in touch with reality, we will be happy to try to help them out.

1439 words

All Topics

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Nov/2/23 12:12:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, wow, that was a lot of something. It is interesting that the hon. colleague from Quebec focused all of his attention on the Conservatives. Why is that? It is because he is feeling the heat in his own riding. It is interesting that this member of Parliament voted twice to impose an Ottawa-knows-best carbon tax on Quebeckers. I would like to ask why the member, who stood up and railed against the Conservatives, who have been fighting for over a year to axe the tax, voted twice in favour of this Ottawa-knows-best carbon tax.

100 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Nov/2/23 12:13:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague obviously was not listening to what the member for Mirabel and I said. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Anyone can prove that. The other thing I want to point out is that we do not vote on regulations. During the debate on the Conservatives' last fallacious motion on the carbon tax, I asked one of his colleagues how he voted on the clean fuel regulations. He told me that he voted against them. I challenge my Conservative colleague to show me where in the blues it says he voted against the regulations. I challenge any Conservative to show me where it says they voted against the clean fuel regulations. I would advise them to look up who put the regulations in place. It was a fellow named Stephen Harper.

136 words

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

Nov/2/23 12:14:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering where my colleague from the Bloc stands on our proposal to cut the GST on all forms of home heating so that affordability measures like the ones that have been proposed can truly benefit people right across this country, regardless of how they heat their homes. Could he speak a bit to that?

58 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Nov/2/23 12:14:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the best solution is to come up with incentives to transition to a less carbon-intensive heating system, and that is electrification. Right now, instead of taking money and investing it in electrification, the government is funnelling it to the oil companies. They are paying the oil companies $83 billion until 2035 for the pipe dream of low-carbon oil. This is completely unheard of. The best solution is to come up with what all other countries have, which is the polluter-pays principle, not a polluter-paid principle. Canada is doing the reverse. It is rewarding oil companies with $83 billion and investing nothing in clean energy.

112 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 12:15:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague speak in this House. It was a really good intervention and good speech related to all the fantastic work that Quebec is doing to address the very real situation of climate change that we are all facing. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the motion brought forward by the Conservatives today is very divisive. Speaking of division, we have seen at our natural resources committee a huge example of the obstruction the Conservatives are willing to do to prevent us from moving forward with climate change legislation. I would welcome my colleague's thoughts on how we can move beyond division and do some great work to address climate change. We have had nine hours of filibuster, which has prevented us from dealing with this very real issue. I would appreciate the member's thoughts on that. Perhaps he can also reflect on how this legislation is not helping the discussion and is actually a hindrance to addressing climate change in Canada.

172 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Nov/2/23 12:16:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources has become a circus where the Conservatives insist on wasting our time. Not only that, yesterday some Conservatives fancied themselves YouTubers. After succeeding in wasting our time, they started filming live videos. I am sorry, but I am not an influencer. I am a legislator. If someone lacks the gravitas to debate issues we disagree on in committee, I do not think they deserve to form a government.

81 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:16:54 p.m.
Watch

Before I resume debate, I just want to remind members that if they are going to be asking questions or making speeches, they should make sure their phones are away from the microphones. During the last question, I could hear some vibrations, which affect the interpreters. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

56 words

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

Nov/2/23 12:17:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, “Humanity has opened the gates of hell.” Those are the words of António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, from last month. Of course, he was talking about the spiralling climate emergency that around the world is wreaking such havoc, with the hurricanes, flooding, heat waves and wildfires that are costing lives, costing billions of dollars and getting worse every single year. Our country is warming at twice the global average, with Canada's Arctic at four times the global average. Last summer, we saw the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. We saw an unprecedented wildfire season. The 16.5 million hectares that burned across our country were double the historic record from 1989. In northwest B.C., we saw communities evacuated. Across Canada, we saw hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. Of course, we also saw severe drought, class 5 drought, which, in the region where I live, led to farmers not getting their hay crops. They could not feed their animals, and many farmers had to sell off their herds. Every year, we are seeing these impacts grow worse, yet in the face of this dire climate crisis, the Conservative Party of Canada and my Conservative colleagues are nowhere. I listen every day in the House for some semblance of recognition of the severity of this crisis that threatens our children's futures, yet it is crickets. I have thought a lot about this and how cynical it is to be debating a motion to tear apart climate policy, notwithstanding the lack of merits of that policy, without proposing any semblance of a plan themselves. I will add that I am very pleased to share my time today with my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay. There is no plan from the Conservative Party on climate, and this is a feature, not a bug. We might wonder why that is. Why would a party deny the most severe crisis of our time, an existential threat to humanity? I think we can go back to a couple of things. First is the fact that the Conservatives are in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. However, also, a group of people they care a whole awful lot about, members of the Conservative Party, have voted as such. It is official policy that climate change is not an issue. I find that deeply cynical. An hon. member: It's baloney. You know it's baloney. Mr. Taylor Bachrach: Madam Speaker, I hear the member for Cariboo—Prince George heckling me. I think that might have gotten to him. It is deeply concerning— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

450 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:20:36 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members that there will be five minutes of questions and comments. I would ask members to hold their thoughts until then. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

34 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:20:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is deeply concerning because, of course, protecting the environment and our children's futures is really a Conservative idea. This is about conserving what we have enjoyed and benefited from for so many years. The climate crisis is a pressing concern for many people, and certainly for many people I represent. However, there is another great challenge plaguing our country, and people refer to it as the affordability crisis. I do not think that language really gets to the heart of what is happening, because what is happening is much more systemic and structural. Not everyone in our country is struggling. Some people are getting fantastically rich and accumulating tremendous wealth while the vast majority of Canadians struggle to pay bills. We have people sleeping on our streets and record food bank visitation, and all the while, the big corporations of this country are making out like bandits. On the issue of economic inequality, the Liberal Party is missing in action. Despite ample opportunity to stand up to these big corporations and drive affordability for Canadians who are struggling, the Liberals have completely abdicated that responsibility. They have not stood up to the big banks. They have not stood up to the big telcos. They have not stood up to the Rich Krugers of the world, who are amassing massive profits and polluting all the while. They have not stood up to the grocery giants. They have not stood up to the big airlines, such as Air Canada, which is once again seeing its profits soar. However, people are struggling in this country. People are having a hard time putting food on the table. People are having a hard time affording transportation and home heat. This brings me to the topic of the motion, and I think most Canadians see it quite clearly for what it is: a cynical attempt by a flailing government to save its political hide in the only part of rural Canada where it has any. Among the values we share as Canadians, one of the greatest ones is a sense of fairness. Certainly, when I talk to people, they want the policy we create in this place to be fair. However, they see a great and profound unfairness when the government, for political reasons, because it is struggling in a certain part of the country, makes changes to help some people in Canada but not others. That is not fair, and I think it is eminently reasonable for people in other provinces and other parts of this country who have been overlooked by the government when it comes to the affordability of home heating to want the same. That is what we are debating today. We have heard from the government, of course, that Canadians in all parts of the country can access its programs, so I will take a bit time to talk about how deeply flawed the government's program for home energy efficiency and heat pumps is in the rest of the country. The government has made changes for people who heat with home heating oil, but for people who heat with natural gas, the process is impossible. I will tell a story about Perry, my neighbour in Smithers. His gas furnace went, and he wanted to do the right thing and get a low-emissions heating system. He learned about this great program the federal government had and went through all the steps. He had to get a home energy audit, of course, and then he had to find a contractor, who had to work through the program. However, the contractor installed a heat pump that worked in the northern community, only to discover after it was installed that, while the indoor unit was on the government's approved list for equipment, the outdoor unit, which was also on the list, was not listed in conjunction with the indoor unit. This was maddening. Of course, Perry is someone who wants to shift his home off of fossil fuel heat and onto a clean alternative, so the contractor, who was incredibly frustrated and at that point did not want to have anything to do with the government's greener homes program, ripped out the heat pump and put in a different one that was on the list. However, a year and a half later, my neighbour is still waiting for the greener homes rebate of $5,000. I would bet that he and the contractor have spent more than 5,000 dollars' worth of time just dealing with the brutal bureaucracy of a program that does not work for any Canadians but, most of all, does not work for low-income Canadians. They are the ones who deserve the help the most. The fact is that these heat pumps work, and they can reduce people's bills dramatically. People deserve the help that they provide. What we want to see is the same kind of help provided to people in Atlantic Canada to be extended to people across the country, especially low-income people, people who heat with gas and people who heat with electricity. That is why we have brought forward a proposal to remove the GST on all forms of home heating. Not only that, but we want the government to improve its heat pump program so that every single Canadian has access to the financial resources they need at the front end, with no massive bureaucracy, no waiting a year and a half, no need for assessments and all that stuff. If it is good enough for people in Atlantic Canada, it is good enough for people in northwest British Columbia: people in Smithers, in Terrace, in Kitimat, in Prince Rupert, in Burns Lake and all the other communities that I am so proud to represent. How are we going to pay to put heat pumps in the homes of every low-income homeowner in this country? We are going to do it by putting an excess profits tax on the oil and gas companies, which continue to make off like bandits while fuelling the climate crisis that threatens our children's future. That is a plan, and that is something we are going to get behind.

1041 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 12:27:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from my perspective, the way I look at it is that the government has focused on getting and encouraging people to change from oil to heat pumps. Given that oil costs are so much higher compared with other sources, it is a good way to encourage that transition. In the longer run, people will save more money, and the environment will be better for it. The member highlights the issue of bureaucracy. The program that is there is a coast-to-coast program. Manitoba has thousands of people who heat their homes with oil. Would he not agree that it will be very helpful to move forward and get provincial jurisdictions, in particular, involved in this?

118 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:28:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that may very well be how the parliamentary secretary sees the issue. I will tell the House how Canadians see it. Canadians see the issue as being one of a government that is flailing in the polls, that is particularly struggling in the Maritimes, in Atlantic Canada; without doing any detailed planning, it has just pulled this idea out of a hat overnight. It has given a sweetheart deal to people who live in one part of the country, while ignoring the affordability needs of people who live elsewhere. Everyone in this country deserves help to get their homes off fossil fuel heat. They deserve help with the affordability of home heating and, yet, low-income Canadians have largely been ignored in this country's programming.

128 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245