44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/7/23 11:13:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion at hand implies that people who consume more energy will save more on GST than on their heating bill. This means a person would not benefit if they live in an apartment where heat is included in the rent. It also means someone who rents would not be able to get a heat pump because they do not own the home.
I would like to ask my colleague a question, or rather offer him some suggestions. Why not expand energy efficiency programs to include low-income families, and maybe even give them preferential access? Why not also expand the programs to renters as well? These would be effective measures for the whole population.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:06:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generous question and for helping me answer it, because he supplied half the response before giving me the floor.
Indeed, Quebec has always been a leader. We saw that with child care. It took 25 years for Canada to get on board. I hope that Canada will get on board when it comes to energy as well.
Quebec helps people install more efficient heating systems, such as heat pumps, through the Rénoclimat program. A preliminary assessment is done of the homes. It is all well regulated. The program is geared to people who need help the most.
What could Canada recognize about Quebec? It could recognize the way we want to live and run our own affairs. Maybe it should just let us be. It may have better luck that way, if it wants to keep us. For now, what we want is to run our own affairs.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:37:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw my colleague's attention to something important. At the beginning of her speech, she focused on the climate crisis and the fact that we must take action in light of that crisis. In the measures that the NDP is proposing, however, no distinction is made between different sources of energy.
Does my colleague not believe that her party could have proposed something better crafted and more structured to encourage people to move away from fossil fuels and switch to cleaner energy?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:38:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important part of what we need to be talking about, moving forward to energy that is more economic and more environmentally friendly. However, what this motion is really addressing, though, is the fact that we need fairness for all people across the country, for people who are dealing with an economic crisis that is stressing them out and making it harder for them to decide on whether to pay for food, or heat or medication. The motion specifically focuses on this.
We have offered other ideas and motions that deal with those broader conversation, but we did not want to put all of that into a big motion, because it gets harder for people. This is what we are focusing on today. I look forward to continuing to work with every member in this place to move toward a greener economy that has environmental friendliness at the heart of it.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 1:24:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that extreme cold climate heat pumps work in Canada. There are examples of them working all the way up as far north as one can get.
They are actually very effective, far more efficient in terms of the use of energy. Really, I cannot think of a better solution for wider adoption that Canadians can take advantage of to get those cost savings on their energy bill.
The member opposite does not seem to understand the technology. Maybe he should do his homework.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 1:35:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is kind of obvious. Yes, that is what the New Democrats are proposing. I said in my speech that the GST was never meant to be charged on the necessities of life. We do not pay GST when we go to grocery stores and buy food.
However we heat our homes in Canada, and we have to do so, we pay energy bills, whether to electricity companies, natural gas companies or oil companies. We pay GST on that, and we should not. Yes, the NDP is asking that we take the GST off our home heating costs, even in the summer. Maybe in Winnipeg, people have to heat their homes in the summer. I do not usually in British Columbia. That is what we are proposing.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:13:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, we announced that for rural Canadians we doubled the quarterly carbon pricing rebate, and we are in discussions with provinces to make heat pumps essentially free for low and middle-income households.
On average, homeowners who switch from oil to heat pumps to heat and cool their homes can save up to $2,500 per year on their energy bills. This is good for families facing affordability challenges.
It is important to have a clear plan toward clean energy that will protect Canadians from the devastating impacts of climate change and ensures that farmers and fishers can continue to produce the food to feed Canadians and the world.
We are committed to transitioning to a clean economy in a way that ensures no one is left behind.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 3:18:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, 85,000 British Columbians still rely on oil to heat their homes, an extremely polluting fuel that is up to four times as expensive as natural gas.
Recently, the Government of Canada announced a new affordability package that would help Canadians ditch expensive and polluting oil furnaces for heat pumps. This would save them money on their home heating bills and fight climate change.
The Premier of British Columbia, David Eby, was seen at the premiers meeting, proudly donning an “I love heat pumps” shirt.
Can the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources provide an update to the House on the progress being made to bring this important affordability measure to British Columbians?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:31:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.
It is really problematic, what our country is doing. We continue to subsidize oil and gas companies with public money. That is unacceptable. What we need to do is use that money to invest more in clean energy, in opportunities to create the economy of the future in order to create good jobs and reduce our emissions.
That is why today's motion includes the idea of making oil companies pay their fair share to fund measures that help people reduce their emissions—
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, none of my YouTube videos were taken down. That is more misinformation from the Liberals.
After eight years, Canadians know the truth. Higher prices are the official government policy for the NDP-Liberal government. The goal of the carbon tax is to make energy unaffordable.
The environment minister says they have to make energy more expensive so they can reach net zero by 2050. It is the same minister who says that we need a mandatory target of cutting 30% of nitrogen emissions from fertilizer by 2030. It is the same minister who worked with the Communists to control China by setting a land grab target of 30% by 2030. It is the same minister who set an electric vehicle sales target of 30% by 2030.
He wants energy to be more expensive. He wants food to be more expensive. He wants land to be more expensive. He wants cars to be more expensive. The Prime Minister who appointed the Liberal minister is just not worth the cost.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:12:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in and try to get some answers for the question I asked the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources last week. I am happy that the parliamentary secretary is here because he has said a few things tonight that I would really like to delve into. We will do just the facts if he is okay with that, and if he can manage to answer some things straightforwardly.
One is that they have always said that the carbon tax, after eight long years of this NDP-Liberal government, was an environmental plan. They have also said that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. They have also said that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not true. He said that 60% of Canadians get less money back after they pay the carbon tax. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said about their carbon tax plan.
If the carbon tax was revenue-neutral and was an environmental plan, why was there the flip-flop last week? Why do they now say that they had to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax as an affordability measure?
Both of those statements cannot be true. It is impossible. The carbon tax cannot be revenue-neutral and eight of out of 10 Canadians, as they falsely claim, get more money back if they have to flip-flop with what they say is a nationwide program to say, with their NDP colleagues, that they need to do this as an affordability measure. I would love to hear from the parliamentary secretary if he can square the circle that this is an affordability measure now. It is actually impossible. Everyone across Canada knows this, and 3% of Canadians now get an exemption from the carbon tax, while 97% do not.
They have said, all week, that this is a nationwide exemption. It is not true. Most of these exemptions are where the Prime Minister was getting decimated in the polls, in Atlantic Canada, and the Liberals are desperate to stop the bleeding in their polling numbers. This flip-flop had nothing to do with environmental science and everything to do with political science. I am excited to hear the answers to a few of these questions.
While I am on the topic, he is talking about the carbon tax being an environmental policy, which we all know is not true, as it is a tax policy, because, today, the environment commissioner said that, with their carbon tax as their flagship policy, they will not meet one environmental target they have made. They will not make their emissions target by 2030.
His good friend, the member for Whitby, said that Canadians will feel pain because of this carbon tax. They were exactly right. They felt the pain with zero environmental gain, and two million people in this country line up at a food bank every month. That is their record. I would love to see how the carbon tax can be an environmental plan when it is actually a tax plan, which is revenue-neutral, but they had to flip-flop to make sure it is now an affordability measure. Could he please explain that to Canadians because I cannot?
554 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
