44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/7/23 10:32:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.
In Quebec, we heat and light our homes with hydroelectric power, a clean and renewable energy. In your measures, how did you distinguish between the provinces that use less clean forms of energy and those, like Quebec, that use renewable, more environmentally friendly energies?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 10:33:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a fair question. The answer is that we would take the GST off all forms of home heating. Of course, for electricity, people receive only one bill. There is only one power meter on their house, and, essentially, the measure would take the GST off all electricity used domestically. Domestic electricity use is also an essential, and it is a cost that Canadians face. This would be a way to make life more affordable for them. For people in Quebec, in my colleague's province, who use electricity for home heating, this would make a substantial difference in terms of affordability.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 10:44:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the issue of people who heat with electricity, over 80% of Quebec heats with electricity.
My first question was whether this covered electricity. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said yes. My next question was how we would differentiate between heating with electricity versus playing with a PlayStation, which uses electricity. The member said that it included all of it. How is that fair to people who live in Manitoba who heat with propane, but also have electrical bills? They do not get the GST off their electrical bills, because their home heating is not part of that electrical bill.
Could the member explain to me how the NDP has crafted this motion in such a way that it would make things even more unfair? My question comes from a sincere place. I want to understand why the GST would be removed from their entire electrical bill if people happened to heat with electricity. However, if they heat with propane, they would still have to pay GST on their electrical bills.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 10:47:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we will agree on one thing: The Liberal government is currently in chaos on these issues, like a chicken with its head cut off that has no idea where it is going.
However, I disagree with my colleague. There are fundamental differences between us and the Liberals. We want to remove the GST on all forms or types of heating to help all Quebec and Canadian families.
I am not sure my colleague is aware, but there is no carbon tax in Quebec. Their solution is therefore unfair. It will not help Quebeckers. Furthermore, the Conservative Party does not even think there is a climate change problem. They think everything is fine, and that all we need is more fossil fuels and to pollute even more.
That is the Conservative Party. In the NDP, we are fighting this.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 10:50:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this issue, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I have some things to offer today about some of the flaws I see with this motion.
I first want to correct the record. I have already heard the NDP interventions today by both the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. They indicated that the removal of the carbon tax on home heating oil was regional, and that is 100% incorrect. The way it works is that if people heat with oil and are currently subject to the federal price on pollution, regardless of where they live in the country, they will not pay the carbon tax.
I have some news for the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Skeena—Bulkley Valley. In Ontario, twice as many people heat with oil than in all of Atlantic Canada. On the notion that it is somehow a regional thing, I hate to say it, but the NDP appears to be jumping on the bandwagon of a narrative that the Conservatives are trying to set, and it is factually incorrect. It is very important to point that out.
While I am on this topic, I would like to address the issue of home heating oil and the price on pollution, which some call the carbon tax, that has been removed from home heating oil recently. I want people to appreciate why it was done that way.
We know two things about heating with oil. It is the dirtiest form of heating and it is the most expensive form of heating. So people can understand it from a numbers perspective, in 2023, the annual operating cost in Vancouver, British Columbia for those who heat with natural gas and have a 96%-efficient furnace will be $600 for gas. For those who heat with oil in the same province and have a 94%-efficient furnace it will be $1,800. They will effectively be paying three times the cost if they heat with oil.
In Calgary, Alberta, it is $800 versus $3,200, four times as much. In Regina, Saskatchewan, it is $1,400 versus $4,400. In Toronto, Ontario, it is $900 versus $3,400. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, it is $1,300 versus $4,700. In Montreal, Quebec, it is $1,300 versus $3,400. In Fredericton, New Brunswick, it is $1,600 versus $3,600. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, it is $2,200 versus $3,200. In every example I have given, I have shown that it is significantly more expensive to heat with oil, and it is the dirtiest form of heat.
There is a natural question that environmentalists might have, and it is a very good question because it is a policy that I had to really think about when I heard the announcement. The question would be why the government would remove the price on pollution on the dirtiest form of heating.
If we were to remove it and stop there, that would be bad, because we would accomplish nothing. We would be encouraging people not to heat with oil because of the price difference, unlike what the Leader of the Opposition implied in a question during question period last week, but we certainly would not be pushing forward. Our plan is not to remove the price on pollution; it is to pause it for three years so that people can use the money they otherwise would have been spending on the dirtiest form of fuel to transition to a heat pump.
From an environmentalist perspective, I am not happy with the idea of removing a tax from the dirtiest form of fossil fuel, but I know that in the long run, we will be better off from an environmental perspective because more people will have transitioned to heat pumps.
This brings me to the second policy that was also adopted, which the Conservatives and, quite frankly, the NDP like to conflate. It is the issue of heat pumps not being available throughout the entire country. That is not true. Heat pumps are available through a federal-provincial program to the whole country. It is up to the individual province to sign up for the program.
The province would provide x number of dollars and the federal government would provide x number of dollars. That is the way the program works. It is the way the three Atlantic provinces that have signed up for the program are currently doing it. I want to make something absolutely clear. The program is available throughout the entire country, but it is up to the provinces to decide if they want to come onboard.
Another thing about home heating and oil is that Quebec has actually banned oil heating in new homes, starting on December 31, 2023. Someone cannot build a house in Quebec that has oil as a form of heating.
According to a CBC article from December 31, 2021, “As of Dec. 31, oil-powered heating is banned in all new construction projects across Quebec, part of the province's push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Quebec has always been a leader in this regard. The article continues, “In two years, Quebec will go a step further by making it illegal to replace existing oil furnaces with any sort of heating system powered by fossil fuels after Dec. 31, 2023.”
After December of this year, people have to replace their heating systems with a non-fossil fuel-burning source. Quebec, as a province, is doing the right thing. It is bringing in bold initiatives that are important, that are going to genuinely transform how people heat in the province.
As I indicated in a question earlier, over 80% of Quebec already heats with electricity. This motion is actually unfair to Quebeckers.
The motion says that, “the House call on the government to...remove the GST from all forms of home heating.” That sounds easy. I am sure whoever drafted it thought it made a lot of sense. However, it is forgetting the complexities of how people heat their homes. It is not as cut and dry as somebody has a gas furnace, or an oil boiler or electric baseboard heating.
For example, heating one's home with a heat pump is done by electricity. The question that I had originally when I read the motion was about people who used electricity. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley answered that question by saying the motion would apply to all forms of heating, Therefore, if people heat with electricity, they would not pay the GST on their electrical bill.
When my kids are playing on their PlayStation or Xbox, they are using electricity. We are not going to be paying GST on that if I happen to be one of the people who also has baseboard heaters or an electric forced air furnace. Those are very common too, especially in Quebec. If people use forced air electric furnaces, presumably, according to this motion, all GST would be removed from their electrical bill. How is that fair? The consumption of electricity that is not related to home heating would be something that is not subject to GST anymore.
The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley addressed that point too. He said that they knew about that when they drafted the motion, that they intended for it to be on the entire electrical bill. How is that fair to somebody who heats with gas, but also has an electrical bill? My gas bill would not have the GST on it, but my electrical bill would because I do not happen to heat with electricity.
I think I understand where the New Democrats are coming from, but in my opinion, with all due respect, this is an extremely flawed motion in its wording. It does not achieve what I think they intended when they originally wrote it. That is why I am concerned about supporting it.
However, I agree with a number of things in it. I agree, and have said this in this House, that the oil and gas sector has profited with record profits. I brought to the attention of this House during various debates the fact that for the oil and gas sector, as it relates to the increases when purchasing gasoline at gas stations for our vehicles, the increase is nine times what the carbon tax effectively is. Let me explain that.
In the preceding year, on the average litre of gasoline in Canada, the carbon tax contributed a two-cent increase per litre, but the wholesale profit, the profits made not by the retailer who owns the gas station, but by the oil company selling it to the retailer, was 18¢ more per litre. It is nine times more of an effect from the profits being made versus the carbon tax. The Conservatives are nowhere on that. They are not nine times as outraged with big oil companies. No, not at all. They are picking on the two cents per litre when the bigger fish is the 18¢ per litre, but they are silent on it. I wonder why. I think we all know and I really do not have to say it. My point is I recognize that, and I think it is important to do something with respect to the oil and gas sector.
Will what the New Democrats are proposing solve the problem? They point to record profits. How do we do that? Do we do it the way we did with the banks and insurance companies? That was over a five year period. It was set up with an established base line that if they made anything more than that, they had a separate tax level, but only for five years and only while those profits were high. I understand they would collect the money and then reinvest it into environmentally friendly options, which is what they are proposing, but I do not understand the long-term strategy there. I certainly understand the short-term strategy of penalizing them for gouging the market, and I do not necessarily disagree with that, but there is no long-term strategy there.
A better long-term strategy, quite frankly, when dealing with the oil and gas sector, is to cap the emissions it is allowed to produce. This is a highly effective and established mechanism for doing that. It is nothing new.
That is why we set up strategies, such as Canada's methane strategy, which includes requirements for the oil and gas sector to achieve methane reductions of at least 75% by 2030 from 2012 levels. We have a position paper that was done on it.
I have submitted so many petitions, well over 20 petitions by this point, to this effect. I happen to have another one here. I presented one yesterday and will probably present this one tomorrow. These are from Canadians. This is what they are talking about. They are saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned us repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather. They are concerned and feeling the impacts in Canada today with increased flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures. They want to address climate change and recognize that it requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming to 1.5° Celsius in the oil and gas sector, which is the largest, fastest-growing source of emissions.
In 2021, they knew the federal government committed to cap and cut emissions for the oil and gas sector to achieve net-zero emissions. These petitions, which I have presented on behalf of thousands of Canadians, call on the Government of Canada to immediately move forward with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in nature in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030. I think that is a better strategy.
We really have two forms of pricing pollution. We could do it through a direct price on pollution, what is commonly called a carbon tax, which has been done. People are provided rebates as an incentive to curb their behaviour but still get more money back, which is why 80% or more of the Canadians who are paying it get more money back.
We could do a cap-and-trade model. That is a model the western initiative adopted with a number of states in the United States and a couple of provinces in Canada, including Ontario, although Doug Ford has since backed out of it. Another way we can do it is through cap and trade.
By capping the emissions, we can start to control what we know is the highest emitting sector and the fastest growing. As a matter of fact, it is the only sector that has not started to turn downwards in terms of its graphical representation of its emissions.
I think it is really important that we develop sound policy. I kind of get where the NDP is coming from. I understand their motivation, but I completely disagree with it. Now is the time to be steadfast in our commitment to the environment, but also to find ways to support Canadians.
I do not see how removing the GST from all forms of home heating, notwithstanding the fact that I have already pointed out the flaws in the motion, ends up encouraging people to reduce emissions, which is what the price on pollution is. It is what the Conservatives got the NDP to agree with them to vote on yesterday, and I was really surprised when I saw that. A reporter asked me why the NDP was voting in favour of it. I said that I did not know. I understand that they see people are struggling, because we do too, but we can provide other supports for people. We do not have to rely on the narrative that the Conservative leader has created. There are ways we can deal with helping people that do not have to be at the expense of the environment.
I will conclude by saying that, although I appreciate where the NDP is coming from, I think that the motion is highly flawed. It creates a lot of questions, and those questions create a lot of inequality. We would be much better served to find other ways to support people.
By the way, I just want to throw this out there for my NDP colleagues. The motion is basically calling for Galen Weston not to pay GST on home heating. Are they aware of that? Are they aware of the fact that the motion basically says that Galen Weston would not pay GST on his home heating? I do not think this is what NDP members had in their heads when they created it, but unfortunately, the motion creates a lot of problems. I actually think that nobody knows better than the NDP that we would be better off targeting our supports to those who really need it than to those who do not, such as myself, Galen Weston and other people who are able to afford the cost of heating.
I would encourage my NDP colleagues to really give it some thought. I understand where they are coming from, but unfortunately, I think the motion is extremely flawed in its execution.
2602 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:33:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, all businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, but I will say again that it is hypocritical and contradictory of the Bloc Québécois members to talk about taxes. The irony of the Bloc Québécois, a separatist party in the House of Commons, is that it voted multiple times on a second carbon tax that goes not to Quebec but to Ottawa, 100% of which is being added to the original carbon tax as a second carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois needs to have a caucus meeting and figure out exactly where it stands on tax issues, because folks back home in the province of Quebec are not impressed with the second carbon tax and the Bloc's all-over-the-map approach.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:05:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Bloc member brought up a lot of points that are similar to my points.
Could the member perhaps explain some of the policies currently existing in Quebec that are really encouraging people to move toward cleaner options? We know that Quebec has a long history of this. Quebec recently announced that it is illegal to install forms of oil heating in homes, and soon it will be illegal to even install any new fossil fuel-burning heating options.
Quebec has genuinely been a leader in affordable electricity for the province. What can the member share that the rest of the country could benefit from?
108 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 12:07:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question.
There is a 70-year-old grandmother in Newfoundland who cannot afford to eat or heat her home. She has had to go out and get a second job to support her family. How is the carbon tax going to help this individual?
If seniors matter, why is the Quebec caucus voting with the Liberal government and not with Conservatives for common-sense solutions? Could the member explain this to me?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:08:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this quick. There was a lot to her question.
First of all, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. I have said it many times. I would like her party to get that through their heads. It is an important detail. That is why we voted against the Conservative motion yesterday. We did not want to create an imbalance between people in this country. There are ways to help people.
Second, my colleague is talking to me about a 70-year-old woman. I just spoke about old age pensions starting at age 65. Her party always used to express support for our idea of increasing the old age pension starting at age 65, but since the arrival of the new leader, we are no longer hearing any support from them. Now, this member has the nerve to talk to me about a 70-year-old woman who is struggling to make ends meet. I am trying not to get angry, but sometimes it is difficult.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:02:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, are deeply committed to their children's future and to environmental responsibility.
The fact remains that 450,000 households in Quebec are still heating with oil, an expensive method that is harmful to the environment. The cost of acquiring and installing heat pumps, which are cleaner and more cost-effective, is a barrier for many Quebeckers, especially in rural and remote communities. Although the $10,000 in direct assistance provided by the oil to heat pump program is commendable, it is clear that additional assistance is needed.
I applaud the government's commitment to increasing its assistance and to working with Quebec to provide the additional support our families need for sustainable heating solutions. Unlike the Conservatives, who have no plan to protect us from the climate crisis, we are committed to making the transition to a clean economy in a way that leaves no one behind.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, families in Châteauguay—Lacolle are very aware of the climate crisis and they want to act responsibly to protect the environment. We know that one good option is to use heat pumps rather than oil for home heating because they are greener and more cost-effective.
However, the cost of a heat pump may stop some households, particularly those with lower incomes, from making the switch. I therefore commend the federal government for the direct assistance it is providing to help people switch from oil to heat pumps. This program has already proven to be effective in my riding.
I am pleased to learn that Quebec is continuing to work with our government to provide the additional support that families need to transition to sustainable heating solutions. Unlike the Conservatives, who have no plan to protect us from the climate crisis, we are committed to making a responsible and just transition to a clean economy that supports all Canadians.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:12:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec, in collaboration with all the provincial premiers in Canada, supported a joint statement sent to the Prime Minister calling for a pause on the carbon tax on home heating.
Although the Bloc Québécois claims to work in the interests of Quebec and in collaboration with the Quebec government, it opted to turn against the Premier of Quebec, who supported the Council of the Federation. Instead, the Bloc Québécois decided to support this Liberal Prime Minister. Imagine, a separatist party working hand in hand with the Liberal Party of Canada. I could not make this up.
It is strange, though, considering that in 2021, the Bloc Québécois was calling on the Prime Minister to resign. Today, it wants to be his best friend and dance partner. The Bloc Québécois does not represent the interests of Quebeckers. It has its own agenda. The leader of the Bloc Québécois has formed a coalition with the Prime Minister that will keep the worst government in history in power for another two years. For a separatist party, that makes no sense.
It would be interesting to know what the Prime Minister offered the Bloc Québécois to let him hold onto power, because right now, a vote for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
238 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:27:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the call that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about never happened, and the only true thing he said is that we are separatists.
Speaking of the opposition leader, he spent $3,300 on 14 Facebook ads between August 1 and November 1. The Conservative Party spent another $80,000, the Liberal Party spent $8,500 and the Prime Minister spent $20,000 on Facebook at a time when social media players are bullying the media in Canada and Quebec.
Why?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:44:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports successful immigration. We are saying it loud and clear. That is why we want immigrants to be able to find housing. We want them to have access to a family doctor. We want their children to go to school in nice classrooms, with all the professional support they need. We want them to be able to learn French, because that is the key to flourishing in Quebec. That is what integration capacity is all about, all of that.
Will the Liberals finally understand that they are jeopardizing all that by setting immigration targets that are in no way in line with our integration capacity?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:46:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have no idea what Quebec's integration capacity is. Why is that? For one thing, they did not consult the Government of Quebec before coming up with their immigration targets. For another, because of the Canada-Quebec accord, they are refusing to consult any Quebec organization that does not have a Canada-wide mandate.
As a result, only 6% of the groups that were consulted were from Quebec. The Liberals refuse to talk to Quebec and Quebeckers, so it should come as no surprise that their immigration targets are out of sync with our integration capacity. Will the minister go back and do his homework?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:47:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not only is the member out of touch with Quebeckers, but he is out of touch with the news. Today we learned that Quebec is in need of workers. How can we address the labour shortage? Immigration. It is not the only solution, and I agree with the member that it needs to be successful immigration, but according to today's news, Quebec's GDP is lower than expected because of the worker shortage. The solution to the labour shortage is immigration, which will most certainly by successful.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
