SoVote

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

Nov/7/23 5:21:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I tried to follow that stream of consciousness, and I was struggling. At one point, I believe the parliamentary secretary was trying to make the case that somehow the GST is a progressive tax, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The GST, as a consumption tax, imposes a higher burden on low-income people as a percentage of their income. Does he not agree, or would he like to take his two-minute response time to talk about how he does not understand what a progressive tax versus a regressive tax is as a concept?

99 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:22:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want the member to think about what he just said. If that is the case, if he truly believes that, then why would the NDP support the GST? What the member is saying is that he wants to see the GST taken off home heating. If he really believed what he just said, he would be articulating that we should be getting rid of the GST, period. However, what he just finished saying is not true. If we factor in the GST rebates, it is a progressive form of taxation because of the rebates. I do not think that was explained to the member, or maybe he believes that all GST should be taken away, period. Would he apply that to the provincial sales tax, which many New Democratic governments have put in place, supported and increased? At least we provide a rebate that makes it progressive.

150 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Nov/7/23 5:23:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member for Winnipeg North. From a York—Simcoe perspective, since 2018, we are still waiting for the $40-million commitment for the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. We still do not have it. We are still waiting on the freshwater action plan. Municipalities are calling me about that money. We are still waiting for our trees to be planted. In York—Simcoe, and I am proud of this, we have planted more than 5,000 trees at Canada Day barbecues right across the riding. We know that rural Canadians are disproportionately affected by the carbon tax. The people of York—Simcoe were shocked to learn that we are now considered as part of Toronto. We are the soup and salad bowl of Canada, the ice fishing capital of Canada. I know I have invited the member to come ice fishing, and he has not taken me up on that. We have all that, and all the rural farms in Pefferlaw, but we are not going to get the rural top-up, the meagre rural top-up. Could the member comment on how he thinks that is fair for the residents of York—Simcoe?

204 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:24:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about Lake Simcoe and concerns for the lakes in his community. I know when I was in opposition, I had a great deal of concern for lakes around the world. Stephen Harper then cut funding to the Experimental Lakes project, which had a profound, negative impact in the area of science and research on the health of lakes, not only in small communities, but also in communities throughout the world. I am glad to say that it is one of the things we quickly did after forming government. We re-established the importance of lakes in Canada. Today, the Experimental Lakes project is doing exceptionally well, and the government has taken a very proactive approach to protecting ocean waters and doing what we can to support municipalities in making sure that we have good, quality water.

144 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/7/23 5:25:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I would like to bring the debate back to help for households with the lowest incomes. I have here a letter from Efficiency Canada that proves that federal environmental programs overlook the fact that Quebec mainly uses electricity, a cleaner form of energy. I am wondering whether the same problem exists with the green fund. Let me explain. The executive director of the Centre d'action bénévole de Farnham, which serves Ange‑Gardien and other communities in my riding of Shefford, would have liked to be able to get money from the green fund to do some renovations. The city had given the organization a nice building, but it needed some TLC. These people did their research into whether they could apply to the green fund. From what they saw, this funding is being distributed in other places, but not in Quebec. Why not have a program that will really help households and organizations in Quebec? Why not have an environmental program to help make buildings more energy efficient, a program that takes into account other factors besides the fact that the building is heated with electricity? The whole building envelope could be included in programs to really help organizations and individuals in Quebec.

219 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:26:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am afraid my colleague is underestimating the commitment that comes from the people of Quebec in terms of conversions. Quebec is leading the country in taking up the greener homes program, which is a wonderful program going to thousands of people in Quebec who have recognized the value of heat pumps. I see that as a very strong thing. The Government of Canada is providing good, sound national programs to encourage people to take conversion very seriously. With the national program, I would encourage people to look at Quebec and the people taking the province up on the program. The number of people in Quebec is far higher than any other province in Canada, including Ontario, from what I understand, under that program.

126 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Nov/7/23 5:27:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one aspect of the speech by the member for Winnipeg North that I really appreciated was helping to articulate, to my surprise as well, that when we talk about removing GST from home heating, there is nothing about income-testing on it in today's motion. I was surprised to see that. I am unsure why that was the case. It makes it more difficult for me to consider supporting it. My question to the member is specifically on the third part of the motion with respect to a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies. As he knows, the carbon tax went up only two cents a litre last year and there are rebates attached to that expense. When it comes to the profits of oil and gas companies, though, the carbon tax went up 18¢ a litre and there are no rebates attached. It is part of why oil and gas companies are making record-breaking profits, and a windfall profits tax could generate $4.2 billion for climate solutions. Does the member support a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies' excess profits?

191 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:28:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to be completely honest, I am not too sure of the details in what the member is referencing. I do know that we believe in fair taxation and people should be expected to pay their fair share of taxes. For example, in the budget, we brought in the temporary Canada recovery dividend, which applied to banks and insurance companies, that will generate several billions of additional dollars from excess profits. We are looking at caps regarding emissions, oil and so forth. I just do not know the details to the degree that I can confidently comment on it.

100 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Nov/7/23 5:29:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I find very interesting is when we unpack a bit of what the member said. I suggest that maybe the Liberals should stop handing out tinfoil hats in the Liberal lobby because there are conspiracies that abound when it comes to what they are accusing Conservatives of. The fact is that the environment commissioner recently released a report that definitively said, and could not have been clearer, that the Liberals are failing. The member made some pretty significant accusations about members of the Conservative Party. I wonder if he would be willing to name any so-called climate deniers within our caucus. If he is going to throw out accusations like that, I would ask that he name them to stand behind his words or is he just fearmongering like the rest of them?

137 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:31:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are five political parties in the chamber. There is only one political party that continues to deny climate change. The member referred to tinfoil hats. Really? It is the Conservative Party— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

40 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:31:31 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member had an opportunity to ask a question and other members seems to want to either answer or comment. I would ask them to please wait until the appropriate time to do so.

35 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/7/23 5:31:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is very specifically demeaning the integrity of others in this place, and I believe if you would—

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:31:52 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. The hon. member will please sit down. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:32:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the other thing I have to respond to is that the member made reference to tinfoil hats. Well, there is a monopoly on tinfoil hats, and it is on that side of the House in the left corner, better known as the Conservative Party, where they take this and that point, bring it all together and somehow it is something really bad. It is called fake news, false facts or whatever members want to to call it. However, the tinfoil hats are always on sale at Amazon, and I recommend that is where the member should look for his.

101 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:32:40 p.m.
Watch

Order. If hon. members want to have conversations, they should take them outside this chamber. The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

29 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 5:32:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in the House. I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton. It is a little frustrating that again we have a motion where we are debating the carbon tax in this place. As I suggested in a speech last Thursday, when we keep talking about the carbon price in this way, it gives the false impression that it is the price on pollution that is actually leading to the large increases we are seeing on home heating fuels across the country. Today, we are debating an opposition day motion that has been put forward by the NDP. What I do appreciate about the motion is that it actually does identify what is causing the record increases in fuels that we are seeing within Canada. By way of example, since 2020, we know that with the increase in the price of home heating oil in Atlantic Canada, only 12¢ of that is from the price on pollution and actually 63¢ is because of the massive excess profits that are being made by the fossil fuel sector. However, it is important that we recognize why that is happening. Of course, with natural gas and oil, these are global markets, and what we are seeing right now is instability throughout the world, particularly with the illegal and unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has caused significant disruption to the global energy market. We are also seeing the actions of OPEC, which is constricting the supply of energy across the world. We are seeing massive increases in the cost of energy in Canada as a result. Just since 2022, the oil and gas sector in Canada has made a $30-billion increase in profits, which is a 1,000% increase since 2019. At the same time we are seeing these record profits take place, we are seeing thousands of jobs being cut right across the country. I do appreciate that the motion that the NDP put forward looks at this as the problem. Unfortunately, it goes beyond this. While I think there is a very good discussion to be had about putting in an excess profits tax on oil and gas companies and being able to use the profits from that to invest in the transition that is taking place, it is very important that as part of the motion there is discussion on ensuring that this financing goes to support things like heat pumps and other ways of reducing home heating bills for Canadians. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there are issues with how the motion has articulated scrapping the GST on home heating fuels, given that actually might not assist the most vulnerable in Canadian society right now. However, what I really find frustrating is that, just yesterday, the mover of the motion, the NDP, in fact voted for scrapping the price on pollution for all home heating fuels right now. Again, I think this sends the wrong message right now. It focuses on the price on pollution as a problem when really it is such a small portion of that. We know that having a price on pollution is the most efficient way of reducing emissions and the most cost-effective way. The province I come from, British Columbia, has had one for over 15 years. Of course, this was a price on pollution that was brought in by the right-of-centre government at the time. While the federal system does not apply in British Columbia, the federal system that we have put forward actually provides rebates that are sent out quarterly to Canadians so that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay into it. Importantly, when we are talking about cutting the price on pollution for these fuels, it is actually going to reduce the rebates that people are getting and so in many ways it actually undermines the affordability measure that is there. It is through measures like this that Canada has been able to make significant progress in recent years on reducing emissions. In fact, from 2019 to 2021, emissions in Canada have gone down more than in any other G7 country. Obviously, we have a lot more to do, but our price on pollution is a very important part of Canada's emissions reduction plan to make sure that we get there. It is fundamental that we do not do things that undermine the price on pollution. For this mechanism to be effective, Canadians need to know that it is going to be in place for the long term and that it will be increasing over time as well. Without it, individuals will not make the investments in measures to reduce emissions and, at the same time, save on their pocketbooks. Similarly, it is incredibly important that we not only have certainty with the price on pollution for individual consumers, but also at the industrial level. In that regard, we are moving forward with the Canada growth fund, which among other things will be able to bring in carbon contracts for differences that will provide the certainty for industry so even if there is a change in the carbon price over time they will have that security in making those investments. It is incredibly important that we have this because we are not seeing the type of investment at the business level in abatement of emissions. Last month, at the finance committee, we heard from witnesses that over the last two years, while the oil sands have been making record profits, there has been zero new investment in mitigation of emissions. Therefore, it is critically important that the private sector and industry play their part, so we need to make sure we have the system in place to ensure they are able to do that and are pushed to do that. Another measure that we are in the process of developing right now is a regulation that will cap emissions from the oil and gas sector. Again, this is critically important so that those companies that are making record profits right now while cutting jobs invest in measures to reduce emissions. I am having a bit of déjà vu here with the provincial NDP. I remember back in 2009, when the provincial NDP ran its entire campaign on axing the carbon tax. Therefore, I think it is critically important that we focus at this point on reducing emissions while we are there to support affordability for Canadians. I am heartened that we are having the type of conversation we are having about heat pumps. We know they are an incredibly good way of reducing our emissions at the household level. That is why we have announced a new program that is going to provide free heat pumps for people in the three provinces that have already signed up for it so they can move from the highest-emitting fuels, which are also up to four times more expensive than natural gas, to heat pumps. I have seen in an analysis that a family in Halifax can save over $1,400 a year by doing this. We are putting the call out to all provinces for this program so they can work with us on being able to provide heat pumps for people to transition from home heating oil. Just yesterday, I was very proud to see my premier, David Eby, wearing an “I love heat pumps” shirt, so I know there is buy-in at the provincial level in British Columbia. We need to work together so we can save Canadians money, as well as reduce emissions at the same time. It is not just about reducing our emissions at the household level and saving Canadians money that way; we also need to assist Canadians with solutions in decarbonizing across the board. A key measure we have been working on for several years now is ensuring that we are decarbonizing transportation in Canada. As part of this, we are now providing a $5,000 incentive for people to switch to electric vehicles. Just last week, I was very pleased to be able to take advantage of that program as well. I am part of the 18% of new vehicle purchasers in British Columbia who have moved forward with an electric vehicle. Whether it is with respect to decarbonizing transportation or home heating, we need to do all we can to support Canadians to make greener choices while having an effective price signal in place. I think it is critically important that we do both those things at the same time. What is imperative in that is ensuring that we have a robust carbon price so Canadians know that it is going to be there in the future.

1475 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Nov/7/23 5:43:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would just like to make one quick comment to my colleague on his speech. It was very interesting. When he talks about the wrong messages being sent, I have to say that, as an Albertan, hearing a minister from the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces, say that if they would elect more Liberals they would get more support was very painful for my constituents. It was very difficult for Albertans to hear. I wanted to ask him about this. We are looking for ways to deal with the climate crisis. We know that people across the country want to deal with the climate crisis, aside from the Conservative Party, of course. However, we are also seeing this across the country, and in my province of Alberta, for example, the premier has chased away $33 billion of investment in renewable energy that could be used. Alberta should be a leader in the world in renewable energy, yet we have a Conservative government that has chased away $33 billion worth of investment that will not come back. Therefore, I am curious as to what the member has to say about that, and perhaps what we could do to help places like Alberta when we have such backward Conservative governments.

209 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Nov/7/23 5:44:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, frankly, moves like that give new meaning to the term “cancel culture”. It is just incredible to see a government that prides itself on being pro-business introduce that type of uncertainty to a sector that has so much promise in Alberta. Alberta has the greatest potential for solar energy and for wind energy of any province in the country. To see those types of measures literally put a moratorium on bringing in that type of electricity while at the same time saying that Alberta cannot meet the clean electricity standard is just incredible. Frankly, it really undermines any credibility in that statement that Premier Smith made.

111 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

Nov/7/23 5:45:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax, we know, disproportionately affects rural Canadians. I think we can all agree with that. I think even the member for Milton would agree with that. The government has come up with a meagre top-up. My riding of York—Simcoe includes all the farms and small communities like Pefferlaw, which is very north of Toronto, and we are not included now in that rural top-up. We have no choice but to drive to hospitals. We do not have a subway. We have very limited public transit. We do not have any streetcars, so we do not have those choices. I have a first nation in my riding where people have to get back and forth from home, and the choices are limited. How does my colleague think that it is fair for us to be excluded?

143 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Nov/7/23 5:46:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly folks who live in rural areas have challenges that people who live in urban areas do not when it comes to decarbonizing their lifestyles. I represent a semi-rural riding as well, and people do not have access to the same types of public transit opportunities. That is why we increased the rural top-up. I cannot speak to the specifics of the member's riding, but it is something that we need to look at on the supply side to make sure those options are there. It could be through transit, particularly regional transit where there are large gaps in the country. We need to make sure that we work with provinces, municipalities and other organizations as well to deploy things like electric vehicle charging stations, and others, so that people have the opportunity to make those changes.

142 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248