SoVote

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

Mr. Scot Davidson

Nov/2/23 12:29:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today there was a speech. The member for Kings—Hants disclosed and misrepresented a personal conversation I had with him. I want to correct the record. The conversation I had was that the Liberal carbon tax plan was not working for the people of York—Simcoe. York—Simcoe is now considered urban, of all things, and included with the city of Toronto. As I explained, the residents will not be getting the rural top-up. This plan is not working for the residents of York—Simcoe—

101 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Based on the information that the hon. member provided, it seems to be more of a point of debate. I will just double-check the record on that and come back to the House, if need be. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

47 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Nov/2/23 12:30:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for York—Simcoe rose on that, because I was in the House when the member for Kings—Hants said that. I know the hon. member for York—Simcoe, and I know how he feels about this carbon tax and that he wants to see it scrapped across the country. I sat in the House, as I said, for the debate this morning. I listened to the NDP and the Liberals. For lack of a better term, there is a falsehood that is being spread in the House. The NDP is saying that they had a motion to remove the GST off home heating, when in fact it was a Conservative motion to scrap the carbon tax. The NDP actually tried to amend the motion. That is really where this misrepresentation is being spread. My question to the hon. member is this: Is that not factually what happened in the House a year ago?

164 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:31:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems that my hon. colleague wants to split hairs. If there was an amendment, it was an amendment that his party rejected, which means that Conservatives do not support it. The idea of taking the GST off all forms of home heat has been around since Jack Layton's time. New Democrats have consistently called for the GST to be taken off home heating as an affordability measure for all Canadians, and we are going to continue to do so until we get the support of the House.

91 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Nov/2/23 12:32:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about the facts. One fact is that the motion the Conservatives have put forward today would help four provinces and three territories; it would not help people who live in British Columbia. Another fact is that removing the GST on all home heating would help all Canadians in all 10 provinces and three territories. Could my colleague talk about the fact that the Conservatives have not supported removing the GST on home heating, something that was in their 2019 platform?

85 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:32:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a fact. My hon. colleague made the point very clearly. What is really concerning with the inherent mendacity of the motion before us is that the Conservatives are claiming to help all Canadians when, indeed, this motion would only help Canadians in provinces covered by the federal price on carbon. The plan that New Democrats have put forward would help people in all parts of the country with all forms of home heating. We need to do that; at the same time, we need to fix the broken programs that the Liberal government has put forward, particularly to help low-income homeowners transition from fossil fuel heat to renewable alternatives. We could then finally tackle the climate crisis with the seriousness it deserves.

127 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Nov/2/23 12:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened intently to the hon. colleague's intervention from the lobby. In his intervention, he named me, said I was heckling him and then went on to say that I was feeling the pressure. I would ask for the member to stand and apologize for that. I was not in the House, nor did I heckle him or would I have done so.

73 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:34:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to my friend from Cariboo—Prince George, I apologize. I am a lifelong resident of northern British Columbia, and I know the difference between Cariboo—Prince George and Cariboo—Peace River. I hope he will accept my humble and sincere apology.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:34:35 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member mixed up a couple of the riding names. I appreciate the apology; I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George appreciates it as well. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

42 words

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

Nov/2/23 12:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay at a time when public confidence in public institutions and democracy is at an all-time low. We certainly know that trust in democracy is under very frightening pressures all over the world. In Canada, recent polls show that over 75% of the Canadian people believe that Parliament and the behaviour of parliamentarians have become “dishonest” and “useless.” At a time of growing difficulty in our country and growing difficulty and very dark times around the world, it is incumbent upon us to be able to show that democracy can work and that parliamentarians can work together. That is why I am very concerned about today's debate, which seems to be one between an absolute failure of vision on the one hand and an absolute failure of leadership on the other. What we are debating really reflects a political race to the bottom that is leading and feeding this growing public alienation and rage farming. As elected representatives, we all have a sacred duty to adjudicate the very difficult economic, environmental, political and international issues that confront us as a nation. This means that we must occasionally climb out of our partisan trenches and put forward a bigger vision for the nation. Doing this means that sometimes we are going to need to stand up on unpopular issues. If we are going to build a long-term future for our children, sometimes it is incumbent upon the leadership of this generation to say that tough choices have to be made. However, that is not what we are debating here. We are debating the realm of gotcha politics and rage-farm politics in response to a very desperate and cynical gerrymandering of public policy that was clearly seen, in the public's eyes, as a desperate attempt to shore up Liberal MPs in certain parts of the country. The result was to pit region against region and to raise fundamental questions about a signature piece of the government's climate action plan, which is carbon pricing. It has now been thrown into doubt. We need to find a way, as Canadians, to address this. It would have been very fair in the fall economic statement, for example, for the Prime Minister to step forward and say that we are dealing with two very major crises in our country right now. We have an unprecedented climate catastrophe unfolding, which is something the Conservatives pretend does not exist. This climate catastrophe dislocated over 200,000 people this summer alone. It is a climate catastrophe that has now impacted over 60% of Canadian small businesses. People are frightened about what the future holds, and they want to know that a burning planet can be addressed through policies that force down the use of fossil fuel emissions. They expect that from us. Instead, from the Conservatives, they get a party platform of climate denial. They are told not to worry that the planet is burning; Conservatives are going to make fossil fuel burning free for everybody. As the city of Kelowna was burning, we had the MP for that region not standing up for the people but standing up for this myth that burning carbon fuels was somehow going to be good for everybody. That is a failure of leadership and of our responsibility to tell people the truth of what we are facing right now in an unprecedented climate catastrophe. It is also a failure to the planet. It could have been perfectly fair, in the fall economic statement, for the Prime Minister to say that we are dealing with an unprecedented climate catastrophe, and we need to make sure the policies we have in place work. One of the policies Liberals sold the country is carbon pricing. It would have been equally fair for the Prime Minister to say that we are dealing with an unprecedented crisis. Liberals call it “affordability”, but as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out, it is a much deeper and more troubling crisis, a crisis of people unable to heat their homes and feed their families. The Prime Minister could have said that we are going to find a way across this country to take some pressure off. To do that, it would have been a reasonable suggestion to say that we are going to take the GST-HST off home heating. Why? It is not a luxury to heat one's home in Canada, particularly in regions like mine that go to -45°C and sometimes -50°C. It is not a luxury. This is not wasteful spending on behalf of citizens. This is about keeping families alive. To take the GST off would have affected people across the country and it would have been fair, but the Liberal government did not do that. It opted to focus on home heating oil, which certainly is a very problematic fuel that we need to address. It also is a fuel that tends to be used by people in more rural and poor regions who cannot afford to switch. The way it was laid out was so cynical. It was about defending beleaguered Liberal MPs in Atlantic Canada. It sent a very clear message that the Prime Minister's focus was on keeping his MPs above the water line and not responding to the needs of Canadians, so it was not a credible plan. It has pitted region against region. It has raised serious questions about whether the Prime Minister has an environmental plan to deal with the climate crisis. It also raises questions about the whole pitch of carbon pricing. Canadians were told that this was going to be a fundamental feature. New Democrats have argued with the government on carbon pricing over the years. We have said that we need to make the big polluters pay, the people who are actually damaging the planet and destroying our kids' future. They are the ones who should be paying. Senior citizens who have to heat their homes in rural northern Ontario are not responsible for the climate crisis. There needs to be a balance. The across-the-board imposition raised real questions about fairness. What we ended up having in this situation is that one group of people is being exempted. We are hearing all kinds of positive reasons for it, but the fundamental issue it is coming down to is they were being exempted because they are in regions represented by Liberals who are afraid about their future. That is not good enough. We have said all along that it should have been the GST from the get-go. We know the Conservatives voted against our attempt to take off the GST from heating because that would have covered people across the country. What the Conservatives have brought to us today is another way of dividing region against region, because they know that if we just take the carbon tax off, it is not going to mean anything for people in British Columbia who are still paying heating bills. They are not covered by the carbon tax because they are under cap and trade, and neither are people in Quebec because Quebec is under cap and trade. One part of the country will have taxes taken off their heating and another part of the country will not. If we are going to talk about the climate crisis and affordability, we have to put in place measures that are not ad hoc or gotcha moments, but measures that address the difficulties we are facing across the board. To that, New Democrats have said time and time again that the people who are making the pollution have to be the ones paying. Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, said there is a sense of urgency right now, as our planet is burning, for the big oil industry to make as much money as possible, as they are firing workers, as they are moving to automation and as they are doing stock buybacks. They could be paying the greater share for carbon pricing. We can take efforts to make sure that this is across the board and fair. If we are going to stop pitting region against region, I would like to move the following amendment: “That, the motion be amended by adding after the words 'all forms of home heating', the following: 'and to eliminate the GST on home heating in provinces where no federal carbon tax is in place'.” That would be fair across the board.

1455 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:44:29 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the acting opposition whip if he consents to this amendment being moved.

87 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/2/23 12:45:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no.

3 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:45:09 p.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Halifax.

26 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245