SoVote

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

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/7/23 5:47:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was a little reluctant to participate in this debate because, as we find ourselves saying over and over to make sure our Conservative colleagues from Quebec remember and understand, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has its own carbon exchange. That option is available to all the provinces. Any of them can set up a carbon pricing system like Quebec and British Columbia have done in partnership with California and other U.S. states that are in the process of joining. Earlier, my colleague from York—Simcoe talked about his region's unique circumstances. That is the case everywhere in Canada. I wonder if my Liberal colleague thinks things would be a lot simpler and we could avoid a lot of dissent in the House if every province adopted a carbon pricing system that suits its own circumstances rather than having to accept the federal government's carbon tax. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

167 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Nov/7/23 5:48:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Every province and territory can come up with a system that suits its circumstances. They can develop a system that defines rural regions differently. I think that, if this is a problem, we should talk to the provinces about it. Every part of the country is different, and it is hard to come up with a system that works for everyone. That is why we set it up this way.

77 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 5:49:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to this opposition day motion today. As the opposition notes, Canadians across the country are facing more and more dramatic impacts from climate change. They are also struggling with the sharp increases in the cost of living. That is why we have put in place a comprehensive emissions reduction plan, which is the most comprehensive national climate plan ever implemented not just here in Canada but anywhere. It is very ambitious, and its aim is threefold: to reduce carbon pollution, to stop climate change, and to grow our economy and to position Canada to be a leader on the clean technology front as well as keeping life affordable for all Canadians. My riding, as one of the previous speakers noted, is a semi-rural riding. I have hundreds of neighbours who use home heating oil. These recent measures take that into consideration, recognizing that home heating oil is by far the most expensive way to heat one's home, and it is also the most emissions-intensive way to heat one's home. We are going to get people off home heating oil. We are going to get them the heat pumps that their systems need. We have highly polluting oil heat that we want to phase out, just like our efforts to phase out coal-fired energy, and we are going to do that in favour of clean and efficient cold-climate-adapted heat pumps. I am a big proponent of heat pumps because I have one myself. That means that I am currently heating my house with electricity and not with natural gas. If it gets very cold, I can turn on my natural gas system. It is important that this is about lowering emissions at this stage and not about completely eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels. I would like to talk a little about carbon pollution pricing because it seems like, in the House, we spend a lot of time debating whether we fight climate change not how we fight climate change, and that is truly unfortunate.

351 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:50:55 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:51 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair

99 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Nov/7/23 5:52:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on this important NDP action plan, we would like a recorded vote.

14 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:52:43 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

24 words

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

Nov/7/23 5:52:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 9, 2023, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 20, 2023, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, November 10, 2023; (b) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on Friday, November 10, 2023; and (c) on Friday, November 10, 2023, a minister of the Crown may transmit to the Speaker a message from Her Excellency the Governor General recommending Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, provided that (i) the Speaker shall inform the House of the receipt of such message and the tabling of the estimates thereon by causing them to be published in the Journals, and the said estimates shall be for all purposes deemed tabled before the House, (ii) the votes therein shall be referred to a relevant standing committee or committees.

208 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 5:54:17 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 5:54:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:06 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

39 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248