SoVote

Nov/2/23 1:02:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do feel for that member, who has to go back to his constituents to tell them why he has not advocated for them in the same way that the Atlantic caucus advocated for their constituents and why he continues to vote to increase the carbon tax. He has to explain that to his constituents. It is a difficult situation, and I feel for him.

67 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Nov/2/23 1:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member across the way a question. Canada's five biggest oil and gas companies had $38 billion in profits alone last year, but when the NDP called for big oil to pay what it owed to get more help to the families she is talking about trying to defend, Conservatives voted no. Why do the Conservatives always prioritize protecting those giant corporate profits over actually protecting the people they say they are trying to defend?

83 words

All Topics

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Nov/2/23 1:03:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have consistently in the House advocated to axe the carbon tax because everyday Canadians are struggling. Everyday Canadians are struggling in my region. They are struggling in Atlantic Canada. They are struggling out west, and they are struggling in that member's very own riding. To pretend she does not vote to up the carbon tax at every given opportunity and put more struggle on her constituents is disingenuous. Frankly, she used to in opposition, and I think she should be ashamed of herself.

87 words

All Topics

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

Nov/2/23 1:04:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask our hon. colleague from Thornhill why she thinks the NDP continues to prop up the Liberal government. Its members propped it up through the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE scandal and now the arrive scam scandal. They continue to vote in favour of the carbon tax. What are members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay, going to say to their constituents who are being left out in the cold through the Prime Minister's current lockdown on the carbon tax?

89 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Nov/2/23 1:05:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have no idea what the member for Timmins—James Bay is going to say to his constituents, but he does have the opportunity to vote against the Prime Minister and vote with his constituents on Monday. We have consistently advocated to make sure people can buy groceries, buy gas and heat their homes by axing the carbon tax once and for all. We have put this reasonable motion forward, which would put the same pause right across the country that the Prime Minister has done for Atlantic Canadians on home heating oil, and we expect that members in the House, no matter how much they prop up the government, will vote with their constituents and not with the Prime Minister.

124 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:05:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member if she has also advised that constituent of hers that the rebate would not be coming. If we take off the carbon price, the $720 a year a family makes in many jurisdictions would also go away. Are constituents being reminded that 90% or 80% of families are actually getting more than what they pay, but if we remove a carbon price on something, they would also not be getting those other funds? Where would the Conservatives compensate and help that constituent with that shortcoming in their pocketbook?

96 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Nov/2/23 1:06:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians know already that, when we collect a tax, more does not come back. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said so. This is the Parliamentary Budget Officer the Liberals appointed. I do not know how many times the member opposite needs to hear it. I can provide him with the report. I can table it, but 80% of Canadians get less back than they give. We cannot get more back on a tax we pay the government, which, by the way, has not reached a single environmental target. He is going to have to explain that to his constituents. That is not going to be my job.

110 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Nov/2/23 1:07:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, “given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” This is a reasonable, common-sense and fair-minded motion. Again, “given that the government has announced a 'temporary, three-year pause' to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” That is what Conservatives are asking for today and with the vote on Monday. The Prime Minister gave to some; now he needs to give to all. Poll after poll has shown that the affordability crisis, aided by the government's poor fiscal mismanagement, is top of mind for all Canadians. Conversations I am having with the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington are consistent, that the high price of food, fuel, rent and interest on mortgages is staggering. We realize that the relief from the cost of living is what Canadians not only want but need, and the quickest and most effective way to do that is to roll back the Liberals' burdensome carbon tax plan that is closer to a revenue-raising measure than an actual carbon reduction plan. When I say that scrapping the Liberal carbon tax will have immediate positive results for struggling Canadians, I do not say that without backing. Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem told parliamentarians that removing the carbon tax would result in an immediate drop in inflation, helping to ease the financial burden weighing down Canadian families. The Conservative opposition has tried numerous times, through opposition day motions in this place, to stem the increasing tide of the affordability, and every time the Liberal-NDP government voted against them. On September 28, we moved a motion to introduce legislation to repeal the carbon tax, and the government voted against it. On June 1, we moved a motion to cancel the second carbon tax, and the government voted against it. On December 8, 2022, we moved a motion to eliminate the carbon tax on food, and the government voted against it. It is extremely clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the government has historically had a deep loathing to alter its carbon scheme in any way. Suffice to say, when the Prime Minister announced a temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, many of us wondered why now. Why has the government taken this small step in the right direction after years of dogged ideological refusal to support common-sense motions proposed by the official opposition? The answer can be found splashed across the newspapers of the nation, but allow me to cite everyone's favourite pollster, Mr. Fournier, who said that if there was an election held today, according to 338, the Liberal Party under the Prime Minister would win a staggering 80 seats. One out of every two sitting members of the government would not be coming back. The only reason that the government is starting to break away from its near cult-like devotion to the Prime Minister's carbon tax is because it is now politically expedient to do so. It is doing it now because it knows, and always knew, it was what Canadians wanted and what Canadians needed, but Canadians had a problem because it was not what the Prime Minister wanted, until now. With what I am sure was much gnashing of teeth at the cabinet table, the Liberals' free fall in the polls has forced them to make a political calculus, a bend in their deeply unpopular urban-centred climate change policy in exchange for at least some public support come election time, particularly in Liberal seat-rich Atlantic Canada where the majority of heating oil is used. I would like to applaud the Atlantic Liberal caucus for what I am sure was a spirited effort to secure even this small concession from the leadership. I find it curious why those same concessions were not given to other areas heated by different methods. For instance, why did the Prime Minister fail to include electric heating from these measures, which is the most popular source of heating in British Columbia, where Mr. Fournier predicts only four of 11 members of his caucus would return, or natural gas for Ontarians, where only 30 members are slated to see the 45th Parliament? However, I have good news for my Liberal colleagues across the way. The member for Carleton just tabled a motion that would directly help the other 97% of Canadians who are struggling to pay their heating bills, like those using propane, natural gas, electric or wood stoves, which are especially frequent in rural communities. This is not to say that a federal government does not have a role to play in combatting climate change and that industry and Canadians should do their very best to lower their carbon emissions. The federal government absolutely has a role to play as measured environmental stewards, but having the government take the wallets of Canadians hostage to do this is a terrible way to go about it. Once again, Tiff Macklem reiterated that the carbon tax disproportionately hurt the lower class, the poor, the infirm and those on social assistance. They cannot undertake the extreme lifestyle changes necessary to have any measurable effect. Not everyone is an investment banker or a lobbyist. The vast majority of Canadians are struggling, and the Liberal-NDP government needs to open its eyes and realize this. I would like to take an opportunity to quickly highlight another time tested and true Liberal Party method of raising money, which the government has borrowed from its Chrétien era ancestors, and that is raiding and pillaging from the budget and pockets of the Canadian Armed Forces. At a time when CAF members are using food banks and begging for donations to pay rent, resulting in morale, recruitment and retention dipping to an all-time low, what does the government do? It slashes their benefits and cuts a billion dollars from the defence budget, something it specifically said it would not do in the 2023 budget. This does not even touch on the billions of lapsed spending this Parliament approved, which was never used on the CAF, but rather was skimmed off into some other project. It is shameful and it is the exact opposite of what needs to be done to address the numerous severe crises facing our armed forces. My riding is immense, stretching from Amherst Island, where Lake Ontario meets the St. Lawrence River, along the shores of the Bay of Quinte to Belleville and northward to the Hastings Highlands at the edge of Algonquin Park. Whenever I get a chance, I love to travel through the riding to meet the awesome and amazing people we have there. During my conversations with my constituents, what I find, as I am sure many others in this place find, is that despite inflation, despite high taxes and despite rising interest rates, our people are resilient and determined to carry forward and make better lives for themselves and their families. However, its getting harder. Whether it is at local fall fairs or celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Lennox & Addington County General Hospital volunteer auxiliary, it is our people who make us strong. We cannot lose sight of the fact that it is these people who sent us here to do our jobs. It is our role to advocate for them. My constituents are overwhelmingly hard-working farmers, forestry workers, tradesmen, seniors, small business owners and young families juggling the chaos of life. They pay their federal taxes, their provincial taxes and their municipal and education taxes. However, after eight years, they need a break from a government and a finance minister who believe big bureaucracy can spend us into prosperity using their hard tax dollars. After eight years, they need a break from a Prime Minister who thinks he deserves over $600,000 for three vacations on the backs of taxpayers. After eight years, they need a break from the free spending finance minister and her jet-setting boss, who travels around the world preaching virtues and values that he and his government fail to uphold. Will the members opposite find it in their hearts to rein in the runaway spending of their leadership and give my constituents, their constituents and all Canadians a break? If not, will they please step aside and let a common-sense Conservative government show them how to balance a budget and tackle climate change and still deliver services effectively and efficiently to Canadians who so desperately need it to.

1471 words

All Topics

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

Nov/2/23 1:16:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier today, when the leader of the Conservative Party addressed the House, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party, when its members voted no for an NDP motion that would have removed the GST on home heating. I thought that was somewhat contradictory to what he was saying. There was no answer. Now the NDP have moved another proposal that would see the GST once again dropped. What is more ironic is the fact that, in a reckless fashion, when I posed the question for the member, ultimately he said that they would get rid of that too. It is like policy on the fly, that he would get rid of the GST. However, when Conservatives were now provided the opportunity to do it again, what did the member for Battle River—Crowfoot do? He said no, that they did not want the amendment to the resolution. Why is the Conservative Party recklessly flip-flopping all over the bloody place on this issue? It does not seem to have a direction regarding the environment.

179 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Nov/2/23 1:18:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats and the Liberals are deliberately spreading outright falsehoods. There was no such motion from the NDP to take the GST off home heating. In my opinion, the Liberals and their NDP dance partners need to wake up ahead of Monday's vote and, hopefully, understand that when something does not work, it is time to try a different approach. This is not about environmental science; this is about political science. The Liberal-NDP agenda is only about holding onto power.

85 words

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

Nov/2/23 1:18:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot that is fascinating, but I am really shocked to hear the Conservatives mention science, from their leader who is running on an anti-vax platform to members of a party who are climate change deniers. The Conservatives have no plan. They are making it up. They claim that we will have technology, but yet while we have EV investments in Canada, $7 billion in Volkswagen, the member for Sarnia—Lambton said that all those cars would catch fire if we invested in them. With respect to heat pumps, people in my region would die to get a heat pump, but they cannot get them through the useless Liberal program. We have the Conservatives who say that heat pumps do not work. That is a party that while Kelowna was burning, its MP was out there saying they loved burning carbon for free. Her community was burning. The Conservatives have no climate plan. They are climate deniers. At least they should be truthful and stop pretending they know anything about science.

178 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Nov/2/23 1:19:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do have a plan and when we face the electorate, people will see that. The carbon tax is an abject failure of the government. This is not a revenue-neutral plan. This is a Liberal plan that is incoherent, inconsistent and completely ridiculous across the entire country. Our policy will be clear: We will take the carbon tax off, no matter where people live, and we will work to make green energy more affordable, not traditional energy more expensive.

83 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/2/23 1:20:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I come from Winnipeg. In the winter, it is one of the coldest cities on the planet. Imagine how much energy it takes to heat a home when it is -30°C or -40°C at night. In the midst of an affordability crisis, how dare the government give a break to one part of the country and not to Manitobans? I wonder if my colleague could comment on the inherent unfairness of that.

78 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Nov/2/23 1:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have to recognize that, after almost a decade of Liberal rule, the Prime Minister has undermined the economy, our national unity, security, sovereignty, safety from crime, trust in public institutions and any sense of patriotism, pride or optimism, everything a Prime Minister has a responsibility to protect. Affordability is a huge issue facing all Canadians. I encourage and implore all members to listen to their constituents with an open ear to what their concerns are and come to this place and advocate on their behalf, which we are attempting to do through this motion.

97 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:21:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a wonderful opportunity for me to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport in the debate we have before us today. The debate is on an opposition motion, which I will read out so people who watch this will know what I am talking about. It reads: “given that the government has announced a ‘temporary, three-year pause’ to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” I do not think members will be surprised when I say that the government will not be supporting the motion, and I am very happy to explain why. I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Today's motion from the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not provide context on what is happening in Canada today around home heating, inflation and the federal government's aggressive plan to decarbonize and to meet both our 2030 and 2050 targets. Indeed, the way the motion is phrased, it is easy for any Canadian who is reading it to misunderstand what the federal government's actions are. In today's case, the motion is based on the misconception that all forms of home heating have the same cost to the consumer, which is not the case. Late last week, the government took action to temporarily pause the application of the federal fuel charge to heating oil, not because it is a source of home heating but because it is the most expensive form of home heating. It is important to note that the vast majority of those who use heating oil are among the lowest-income Canadians today. We know that lower-income Canadians face particular hardship, particularly with the high cost of inflation today, and we know that there is little to no money for anything extra beyond the basic living costs. Low-income and rural residents have been trapped in a vicious cycle where they are stuck having to pay for the most expensive form of home heating, the cost of which is preventing them from investing in cleaner, more affordable forms of home heating. I am pleased to let members know that, last week, the Prime Minister made an announcement on our new energy affordability package. I will go through some of the basics, because I think it is very relevant to the debate we are having today. The government is moving ahead with doubling the pollution price rebate, or what we call the “climate action incentive payment”, to our rural community, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount, starting in April 2024. We know that people who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside large urban cities. The federal government is also moving ahead with a temporary, three-year pause to the federal price on pollution on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. It is important for me to stress that this would be applied right across Canada. This pause would begin in less than two weeks. While the fuel charge is already returned to consumers through the pollution price rebate, this temporary pause would save a household that uses heating oil $250 at the current rate, on average, while the federal government works with provinces to roll out heat pumps and phase out oil for heating over the longer term. A final part of the announcement is that the federal government has said it will work with provinces and territories to help Canadians save money over the long term by making it easier to switch to an electric heat pump to heat their home. We announced a number of measures that will be piloted first in Atlantic Canada, and we truly hope that other provinces and territories will sign on moving forward. The targeted action we are taking with our new energy affordability package will break that vicious cycle and save rural Canadians thousands of dollars a year over the long term while allowing us to continue to move as aggressively as possible towards our climate action targets and decarbonizing our economy. The pause on the fuel charge on heating oil, in concert with our strengthened oil-to-heat-pump affordability program, will create a window of opportunity for people to make the switch to cheaper, cleaner heat. With our strengthened oil-to-heat-pump affordability program, we are partnering with provinces and territories to increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump, from $10,000 to $15,000, adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via codelivery arrangements. This would make the average heat pump and installation free for low- to medium-income households as we continue to minimize upfront costs and make federal programs even easier to access for all households. On average, homeowners who switch from oil to cold-climate heat pumps in order to heat and cool their homes save up to $2,500 per year on home energy bills. I think that is a very important point to keep stressing, because heating oil is one of the most polluting forms of home heat. Making this switch will not only help protect Canadians from the costs associated with climate change over the long term but also help to reduce emissions, which is what we are trying to do as we move toward our climate targets. Make no mistake: these costs are real. As confirmed by science and research, the costs of anthropogenic climate change, which is primarily driven by carbon pollution, will be devastating. The Canadian Climate Institute concluded that climate change is already costing Canadian households billions of dollars, and that these costs are just the tip of the iceberg. In its 2020 report on climate risks and their implications for the insurance industry in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada concluded that the average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1 billion a year to $5 billion a year, and must be accompanied by an increase in premiums. These are billions of dollars in costs that will need to be borne by Canadians. That is why the government has put a price on carbon pollution since 2019 to ensure that polluting is no longer free. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages innovation. It encourages reductions across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian businesses to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services. To ensure that the system is both effective and affordable, the bulk of proceeds from the price on carbon pollution go straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 Canadians in these provinces continuing to get more money back through the climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of the carbon price. In provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can now receive up to $1,500 a year under our plan. This means that our climate plan is both effective and affordable. Our new energy affordability package will make it even more so by supporting the transition to cleaner and cheaper forms of home heating. I believe it is important to say that making it free to pollute will not save Canadians money. It will cost them money in the long run, while endangering Canadians and jeopardizing the natural environment we all depend on. There are better ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, without destroying the environment and incurring more devastating costs farther down the road. We can do so by delivering support where it is most effective and to those who need it most. This has guided our actions from day one. This includes supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child under the age of six and up to $6,275 per child aged six to 17. It includes increasing old age security benefits for seniors age 75 and older by 10% as of July 2022, which is providing more than $800 in additional support to full pensioners. It also includes reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that will cost an average of just $10-a-day by 2026. These are the right ways to make life more affordable. Extending the fuel charge pause to sources that are far cheaper and less polluting than fuel oil, as proposed by today’s motion, is not the right way to make life affordable. I therefore call on the House to reject today’s motion, as the government continues working with its partners in all provinces and territories to explore further options to lower the cost of energy bills for all Canadians while also lowering emissions and fighting climate change.

1575 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Nov/2/23 1:31:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today. In Saskatchewan, in 2021, total GHG emissions were 67.1 million tonnes. Saskatchewan's GHG emission intensity dropped 18% from 2005 to 2021 because of innovations like carbon capture and sequestration. We have stored over five million tonnes of carbon in carbon capture over the last five years. My question for the hon. member is this. Seeing that Premier Moe has come out and said that Saskatchewan residents are not being treated fairly, obviously the expression “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” is not true for the Liberals anymore. What is her response to Premier Moe's statement that he will not collect carbon tax anymore, and to the fact that Saskatchewan has lowered emissions per capita more than any other province over the last five years?

143 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Nov/2/23 1:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say a couple of things. The new affordability package we announced late last week really talks about ensuring that we provide more supports to rural Canadians, because we know that transitioning is costing them more money to reduce their costs. It is also an affordability plan that makes sure we are providing supports for those who have the highest-polluting type of energy, who tend to be our most vulnerable Canadians in society, as we are transitioning and decarbonizing our economy. What I would say about new technologies is that they would encourage more investments by companies and provinces in new technologies so that we can continue to move as aggressively as possible to decarbonize and meet our 2030 and 2050 targets.

126 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/2/23 1:33:11 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, Nunavut relies completely on diesel for energy for home heating and for everything, basically. All of its oil and gas is from the south; we do not have any that we extract on our own. Therefore, when we get that oil and gas, it is from companies in Canada. Canada's five biggest oil and gas companies made $38.3 billion in combined profits last year alone. Does the member agree that there needs to be a windfall profits tax on oil and gas so those funds can then be diverted to renewable energy that needs to be supported, such as Hydro-Québec's fibre-optic link project?

111 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Nov/2/23 1:34:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been very disturbing to see that our oil and gas companies over the last few years, particularly during the years of the pandemic, have accumulated record profits, much of which went back to the U.S., and then have come back to Canada to ask for subsidies to decarbonize their production. What I would say to the member is that I agree this is something we should look at. I am very disappointed with our oil and gas companies for not stepping up and doing their share.

91 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:34:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am from a different part of Ontario, northern Ontario, where I think the carbon tax is very different. Can the member tell us what the carbon tax exemptions coming out of the Atlantic mean to people in Toronto, and how they see this?

46 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245