SoVote

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Nov/7/23 12:10:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by extending my heartfelt greetings to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who often contact me about the precarious state of the French language and about immigration. It cannot be said often enough that the latest Official Languages Act is nothing but a bilingualism legislation that is not in Quebec's favour. We need to remember that. Today's debate is on an NDP motion to remove the GST from home heating. Let us analyze the motion a little deeper. It states that “2023 saw a record fire season due to climate change”. That is a fact, sadly. The motion also mentions that “Canadians continue to struggle with dramatic increases to the cost of living while Canada’s biggest corporations, including oil and gas corporations, post record profits”. That is also a fact. However, the NDP mentions neither banks, who are in the same situation, nor their hobby horse, grocery stores. The motion also mentions “federal government programs aimed at supporting energy efficient retrofits” that are “hard to access”. That part of the motion is somewhat interpretive. I will go through the motion item by item. At first glance, the motion seems to be talking about social justice and equity. It seems as though the intention of this motion is to provide help to those who need it most, which is keeping with the NDP's usual stance. However, sometimes we need to pay closer attention to determine whether the measures that are actually going to be implemented are consistent with the stated intention. Let me explain. I will give an example from the business world, because that is what I am familiar with. Over the past 20 years, in the business community, we have been hearing a lot of managerial discourse designed to motivate employees or take advantage of them, as the case may be. Employers have been talking about responsibility when what they mean is accountability. Everyone has been talking about kindness, but it does not mean anything to anyone. Employers have been talking about team work, when employees are actually in competition. People often use big words—and the Leader of the Opposition is an expert in that area—without any real understanding of what those words actually mean. I would remind my colleagues, who are always happy to hear it, that a word is a construct of sound and meaning. Sometimes the sound changes the meaning, and we can be misled by that. As the saying goes, the end justifies the means. In recent years, we have noticed that people have often been confusing the ends and the means. They think that the means are the ends, which is an error of judgment. When members say that the carbon tax is an end, that is an error of judgment. The carbon tax is simply a means. Getting back to the NDP motion, it seems noble on the surface. Who would not want to help the least fortunate? Is that really what this is about, though? I was surprised to see a motion like this up for debate this week at this point in the session. For some time now, we have been witnessing the Liberal government in turmoil. It does not know if it is coming or going with its flagship carbon tax initiative. First it says it will apply the tax. Then it says it will not. Then it says it will apply it on some things, but not on others. As the classic song goes, the Liberal government's internal dialogue is basically, “Should I stay or should I go?” I would even go so far as to say that, in its confusion, the government is dragging its confidence and supply agreement partner down with it. I can see how desperately the NDP is trying to distinguish itself from the Liberals. Removing the GST from heating is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax. Measures already exist for heat pumps and alternative heating systems. Quebec talks about energy equity. There are actually numerous other options. At the end of the day, who is going to pay for heat pumps? It is typical of the NDP to continually ask for measures without concerning themselves with how they will be financed. Funding programs requires revenue, and that revenue usually comes from taxes. We have to be careful. I know that the New Democrats are in favour of taxing oil companies, but let us not confuse reality with obsession. Who will pay for heat pumps? The oil companies, of course. That will mean more investments in oil so that oil companies can finance the heat pumps in question. This seems to me to be the antithesis of the NDP's usual position. The NDP likes to say it will tax profits. I am not against that. However, profits exist for a reason. Take a risk and sometimes that risk is rewarded. Taxing excess profits is fine, but we need a definition of “excess”. Basically, when we talk about helping the most disadvantaged, we are talking about equity. Equity, when defined, is a fair assessment of what each person is entitled to. What are lower-income families entitled to? What are the people entitled to when they benefit from the GST credit because heating is included in the rent? That could be troublesome. I would like to propose that we act according to what is right, or social justice, in other words, that we do the right thing at the right time, in the right way and for the right reasons. I do not think that is what is happening here. Honestly, I believe that the stated intention of helping the less fortunate is nothing more than a smokescreen for the NDP's veiled attempt to hold on to votes or win votes as it goes through challenging times. Passing the NDP motion would be a mistake, if not a failure. For the NDP, it would amount to a subtle betrayal of its own principles. In light of the various arguments and given my conviction that its purported purpose is not directly related to its concealed aim or stated intention, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the NDP motion.

1070 words

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

Nov/7/23 12:17:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to yesterday's motion. I think today's motion reflects, in good part, what took place with the vote yesterday. One thing that is getting lost in this debate is the issue of the environment and the valuable role that heat pumps will play going forward. It is easy to say that we should get rid of this tax or that tax and so forth, but it overshadows the importance of good, solid government policy on heat pumps. Could the member share his thoughts on that?

93 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/7/23 12:18:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, the question from my colleague opposite is relevant. I have not taken a position against the tax. I do not want to leave any room for confusion here. I also did not say that heat pumps are useless. I said that heat pumps still need financing and that the tax, in its current form, will not be affected by a goods and services tax reduction. I therefore did not take a position on whether the tax is relevant or not, but rather on the measure used to mitigate its impact. I do not believe it will achieve the desired effect.

104 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Nov/7/23 12:19:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused by the member's speech, and I hope I can get some clarity. The member talked a lot about social justice and its impact. From his speech, I wonder if he understands the correlation between economic justice and social justice and how, so often, the lowest-income people are the ones working the hardest to make ends meet while the very wealthy CEOs are making money off their backs. Does he think those two things need to be dealt with if we are going to be proud of this country we call Canada?

100 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/7/23 12:20:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will be happy to hear that I completely agree with her on that. However, I do not believe that the proposed measures will achieve the desired outcome or stated intent. I agree with the purpose, but I do not believe that these measures are the best way to achieve it.

54 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/7/23 12:20:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech. I am going to do something I do not normally do and talk about a family member. In a few minutes, my sister-in-law Carole will be going to an extremely important medical appointment. I want her to know that she has always been there for me and I will always be there for her. She can count on my support. My question for my colleague relates to what I just said. It is about being there for others. Could my colleague explain what the role of a member of Parliament is? It is about being there for our constituents. Is it to move motions that we know will not be adopted, simply to score political points, or is it something else? I would like him to explain what “something else” might mean.

146 words

Mr. René Villemure

Nov/7/23 12:21:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his always relevant questions. I will keep his sister-in-law Carole in my thoughts. Being there for people is a good thing. It is the essence of an MP's job. Our constituents delegated responsibility to us so that we could act for them in Parliament. We have to be there for our constituents. We have to be there for the public. Electoral considerations will never be entirely absent, of course. However, electoral considerations should be front and centre during election campaigns, not during a session, when we should be there to help the less fortunate and, as my colleague who spoke before me was saying, to reconcile social and economic justice.

126 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Nov/7/23 12:22:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre. Just a few minutes ago, I saw a headline saying “Liberal government set to miss 2030 emissions targets, says environment commissioner audit”. I found the article interesting. It reads: The audit said it had expected to find specific targets for how much each of the measures it implemented would cut emissions, but found there were no targets for 95 per cent of those measures. “Without expected emission reductions transparently available in the plan, it is not possible to know which of the mitigation measures to reduce emissions were key,” the audit said.... We are in a climate emergency. Every day we are seeing the change of our environment. This summer, I watched as many communities across my province of British Columbia were on fire. People were fleeing in circumstances I cannot even begin to imagine. In this province, we have seen communities destroyed by a river that literally fell out of the sky. This is happening, and the expenses of it are phenomenal. Here we are today. We have an actual motion that would address some of these issues. It understands the seriousness of what is happening in our climate; it has gone beyond the pale, and we are in an existential crisis that we need to make right. We need that action. We also know that, in this circumstance, we are seeing Canadians struggle with the cost of living. I talk to everyday Canadians across my region, who are trying so hard to keep up with costs. At the same time, Canada's biggest corporations, including the oil and gas sector, have record profits unlike anything they have seen for about 30 years. We need to address the climate and what is happening; we also need to acknowledge that our society is becoming one that is simply, in my opinion, unfair. Everyday people are working so hard, but they are not getting ahead because the ultrawealthy are scooping up the excess and leaving ordinary Canadians behind. This motion asks this place to remove the GST from all forms of home heating. This is something the NDP has been working on for a very long—

374 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/7/23 12:25:15 p.m.
Watch

I believe we have a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

17 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/7/23 12:25:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a quorum call. And the count having been taken:

15 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/7/23 12:26:48 p.m.
Watch

We now have quorum; we may continue. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River has the floor.

19 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 12:26:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear we have quorum in the House. I will go back to the fact the NDP has been fighting for a long time to have GST removed from all forms of home heating. In fact, there have been multiple motions that the Conservatives have made in the House that we have tried to amend to make sure we could see the GST included in these—

72 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/7/23 12:27:17 p.m.
Watch

We have another point of order. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

14 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 12:27:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, is there a quorum requirement for one member of the Conservative Party to be in the chamber?

19 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/7/23 12:27:28 p.m.
Watch

We cannot say whether someone is here or not. The hon. member is fully aware of that. I apologize to the hon. member for North Island—Powell River for being interrupted so many times. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

44 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 12:27:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have been interrupted so many times and that people do not want to hear the reality of so many Canadians in the riding of North Island—Powell River. Hopefully, people will be listening from here on in. We have also done a lot of work on trying to get this place to understand that one thing we need to do is to finance the changes that are greatly needed across the country by placing a tax on excess profits of oil and gas corporations and holding to account, of course, places such as grocery stores, which are making an incredible amount of profit off the backs of everyday Canadians. We know that Canadians across the country and in North Island—Powell River are scraping by and cutting back. They are trying to make ends meet, but it feels absolutely impossible. They deserve a break on their heating bills, wherever they live across this country, not just in particular parts of the country. Here we are in this reality, and we need to see action taken. I want to come back to the fact that the NDP has called on the Liberals and, in fact, the Conservatives to remove the GST from home heating. We did that in multiple amendments that we offered to the Conservatives when they had motions before the House. For me, one reason that this is incredibly important is that, as a British Columbian, I know that the so-called solutions that the Conservatives are offering leave B.C. out. The reality is, and it is common knowledge, that there is a provincial process for carbon pricing here in B.C. and not a federal one. If federal carbon pricing were removed, this actually would not have an impact in British Columbia. That really concerns me, because the people in my riding are struggling. They need a bit of a break, and the GST would actually offer them one, one that was consistent and reliable, that people could have some faith in. Here we are in this situation, and I do not know why. I do not know why the Conservatives keep leaving B.C., Quebec and the Northwest Territories out. I find that confusing; hopefully, we will figure that out. I think about not only the huge cost of dealing with climate change across the country but also the human cost. In my riding, during the summer when we saw a lot of those significant forest fires, volunteer firefighters, firefighters from my riding, from communities such as Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Campbell River, Comox, Powell River and probably more, all went out to help. They took time, went out there and fought the fires, because there is just not enough people to do that work. These people are making significant sacrifices away from their families, and to their health and well-being, and they are doing it because this is what is happening. Their health and well-being matter to me, as do the future of this planet and the health and well-being of our children. Here we are in this climate emergency. People cannot afford the basic necessities, and it is only going to get worse if we do not see some significant work done on both sides of this. We know that, if people in small communities have to face a forest fire or some sort of natural disaster that is due to climate change, especially in my riding, they often have one road out of the community, or they have the ocean. We are living in a rainforest with drought again and again, year after year. It is very concerning. This Liberal government keeps saying that it is going to do things. We talked about that at the beginning, when we saw the commissioner saying that there are no real targets we can follow that are actually going to show a consistent movement toward meeting those goals. We know that this has to be dealt with quickly. Home heating helps with that. Canada, in fact, has committed to more than 10% of home heating to be provided by heat pumps by 2030, in order to achieve the commitments for the emissions reduction plan. Right now, we are only at 6%. To get to that 10% by 2030, about 560,000 heat pumps have to be installed across the country. That is about 70,000 a year. I believe that, this year, we are at just over 400. We are nowhere near where we need to get to. This is a motion about fairness and making sure that everybody gets a little bit of help during this time of profound financial challenges. It means having stability. It is time for us to see that action. We know that what the Liberals have announced is a temporary pausing of the tax for heating oil in all provinces for three years, but it does not look at it across the country and what we could do. The heat pump program needs to be a lot more resilient. It needs to be affordable for everyday Canadians. I heard a member talking earlier about it going out to the middle class. With respect to the increasing costs right now, the middle class is hurting profoundly and the class below that is struggling in ways that we cannot even imagine. If we are going to take this seriously, we need to be addressing both things at the same time. We need to ensure there is a bar of dignity that people do not fall below and we need to ensure we address the climate crisis at a rate that will get those emissions down and see us progress. We are not seeing that. We are not seeing the federal government commit to this, and we need to get it done. It is time for the ultrarich to start paying their fair share. Therefore, we are going to fight hard and we are going to continue to do that. The oil and gas industry is making huge profits, while gas prices are going so high. We need to make it right. I hope people will reconsider and vote for this motion.

1041 words

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

Nov/7/23 12:34:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is saying, in essence, that for all forms of heating, people would not have to pay GST. There is a considerable amount of confusion on this. If they say that electricity, natural gas, propane and heating oil will be exempt from the GST, two issues come to mind. One is in regard to the fact that a lot of those products are used to do more than just provide home heating. Therefore, is there a way that the NDP would compensate or take that into consideration? The second issue is whether this would be of a permanent nature. Is it something that would be for six months? During the summer, for example, would the GST still be taken off?

123 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 12:35:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Seth Klein said this, “The fed NDP have a motion coming forward Tuesday trying to shift the debate caused by the Lib's boneheaded carbon tax carve-out. This motion lays out a far better approach. This alternate motion calls on government to eliminate the GST for all forms of home heating, including electric, offer free heat pumps and energy retrofits for low and middle-income households and pay for it with revenues from a windfall profit tax on oil and gas companies.” I will be listening to Seth, and I thank him.

97 words

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Nov/7/23 12:36:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that yesterday the NDP voted with Conservatives on our common-sense motion to remove the carbon tax from all forms of home heating for all Canadians, instead of just singling out the 3% of Canadians who use heating oil for their homes. The New Democrats are neglecting the 97% of Canadians who use other forms, such as natural gas or propane, for their home heating. Winter is here. It is going to be -20°C. Why then did the member today decline our leader's common-sense amendment to the NDP motion today to exclude the carbon tax on all forms of home heating for all Canadians? They could do that today by accepting the Conservative amendment.

125 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 12:36:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that I was very clear in my speech that we offered amendments more than once for the Conservative motions around their carbon-taxing concerns. We have pointed out that B.C., Quebec and the Northwest Territories are not included. Why are the Conservatives leaving those provinces and territories out of something so that those folks do not get the support they need during this time of huge inequality in income?

77 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248