SoVote

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/2/23 1:18:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot that is fascinating, but I am really shocked to hear the Conservatives mention science, from their leader who is running on an anti-vax platform to members of a party who are climate change deniers. The Conservatives have no plan. They are making it up. They claim that we will have technology, but yet while we have EV investments in Canada, $7 billion in Volkswagen, the member for Sarnia—Lambton said that all those cars would catch fire if we invested in them. With respect to heat pumps, people in my region would die to get a heat pump, but they cannot get them through the useless Liberal program. We have the Conservatives who say that heat pumps do not work. That is a party that while Kelowna was burning, its MP was out there saying they loved burning carbon for free. Her community was burning. The Conservatives have no climate plan. They are climate deniers. At least they should be truthful and stop pretending they know anything about science.

178 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Nov/2/23 1:19:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives do have a plan and when we face the electorate, people will see that. The carbon tax is an abject failure of the government. This is not a revenue-neutral plan. This is a Liberal plan that is incoherent, inconsistent and completely ridiculous across the entire country. Our policy will be clear: We will take the carbon tax off, no matter where people live, and we will work to make green energy more affordable, not traditional energy more expensive.

83 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Nov/2/23 1:20:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I come from Winnipeg. In the winter, it is one of the coldest cities on the planet. Imagine how much energy it takes to heat a home when it is -30°C or -40°C at night. In the midst of an affordability crisis, how dare the government give a break to one part of the country and not to Manitobans? I wonder if my colleague could comment on the inherent unfairness of that.

78 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman

Nov/2/23 1:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have to recognize that, after almost a decade of Liberal rule, the Prime Minister has undermined the economy, our national unity, security, sovereignty, safety from crime, trust in public institutions and any sense of patriotism, pride or optimism, everything a Prime Minister has a responsibility to protect. Affordability is a huge issue facing all Canadians. I encourage and implore all members to listen to their constituents with an open ear to what their concerns are and come to this place and advocate on their behalf, which we are attempting to do through this motion.

97 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:21:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a wonderful opportunity for me to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport in the debate we have before us today. The debate is on an opposition motion, which I will read out so people who watch this will know what I am talking about. It reads: “given that the government has announced a ‘temporary, three-year pause’ to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” I do not think members will be surprised when I say that the government will not be supporting the motion, and I am very happy to explain why. I will be sharing my time with the very hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Today's motion from the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not provide context on what is happening in Canada today around home heating, inflation and the federal government's aggressive plan to decarbonize and to meet both our 2030 and 2050 targets. Indeed, the way the motion is phrased, it is easy for any Canadian who is reading it to misunderstand what the federal government's actions are. In today's case, the motion is based on the misconception that all forms of home heating have the same cost to the consumer, which is not the case. Late last week, the government took action to temporarily pause the application of the federal fuel charge to heating oil, not because it is a source of home heating but because it is the most expensive form of home heating. It is important to note that the vast majority of those who use heating oil are among the lowest-income Canadians today. We know that lower-income Canadians face particular hardship, particularly with the high cost of inflation today, and we know that there is little to no money for anything extra beyond the basic living costs. Low-income and rural residents have been trapped in a vicious cycle where they are stuck having to pay for the most expensive form of home heating, the cost of which is preventing them from investing in cleaner, more affordable forms of home heating. I am pleased to let members know that, last week, the Prime Minister made an announcement on our new energy affordability package. I will go through some of the basics, because I think it is very relevant to the debate we are having today. The government is moving ahead with doubling the pollution price rebate, or what we call the “climate action incentive payment”, to our rural community, increasing it from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount, starting in April 2024. We know that people who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside large urban cities. The federal government is also moving ahead with a temporary, three-year pause to the federal price on pollution on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. It is important for me to stress that this would be applied right across Canada. This pause would begin in less than two weeks. While the fuel charge is already returned to consumers through the pollution price rebate, this temporary pause would save a household that uses heating oil $250 at the current rate, on average, while the federal government works with provinces to roll out heat pumps and phase out oil for heating over the longer term. A final part of the announcement is that the federal government has said it will work with provinces and territories to help Canadians save money over the long term by making it easier to switch to an electric heat pump to heat their home. We announced a number of measures that will be piloted first in Atlantic Canada, and we truly hope that other provinces and territories will sign on moving forward. The targeted action we are taking with our new energy affordability package will break that vicious cycle and save rural Canadians thousands of dollars a year over the long term while allowing us to continue to move as aggressively as possible towards our climate action targets and decarbonizing our economy. The pause on the fuel charge on heating oil, in concert with our strengthened oil-to-heat-pump affordability program, will create a window of opportunity for people to make the switch to cheaper, cleaner heat. With our strengthened oil-to-heat-pump affordability program, we are partnering with provinces and territories to increase the amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump, from $10,000 to $15,000, adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via codelivery arrangements. This would make the average heat pump and installation free for low- to medium-income households as we continue to minimize upfront costs and make federal programs even easier to access for all households. On average, homeowners who switch from oil to cold-climate heat pumps in order to heat and cool their homes save up to $2,500 per year on home energy bills. I think that is a very important point to keep stressing, because heating oil is one of the most polluting forms of home heat. Making this switch will not only help protect Canadians from the costs associated with climate change over the long term but also help to reduce emissions, which is what we are trying to do as we move toward our climate targets. Make no mistake: these costs are real. As confirmed by science and research, the costs of anthropogenic climate change, which is primarily driven by carbon pollution, will be devastating. The Canadian Climate Institute concluded that climate change is already costing Canadian households billions of dollars, and that these costs are just the tip of the iceberg. In its 2020 report on climate risks and their implications for the insurance industry in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada concluded that the average annual severe weather claims paid by insurers in Canada could more than double over the next 10 years, increasing from $2.1 billion a year to $5 billion a year, and must be accompanied by an increase in premiums. These are billions of dollars in costs that will need to be borne by Canadians. That is why the government has put a price on carbon pollution since 2019 to ensure that polluting is no longer free. Putting a price on carbon pollution reduces emissions and encourages innovation. It encourages reductions across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian businesses to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services. To ensure that the system is both effective and affordable, the bulk of proceeds from the price on carbon pollution go straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 Canadians in these provinces continuing to get more money back through the climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of the carbon price. In provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can now receive up to $1,500 a year under our plan. This means that our climate plan is both effective and affordable. Our new energy affordability package will make it even more so by supporting the transition to cleaner and cheaper forms of home heating. I believe it is important to say that making it free to pollute will not save Canadians money. It will cost them money in the long run, while endangering Canadians and jeopardizing the natural environment we all depend on. There are better ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, without destroying the environment and incurring more devastating costs farther down the road. We can do so by delivering support where it is most effective and to those who need it most. This has guided our actions from day one. This includes supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child under the age of six and up to $6,275 per child aged six to 17. It includes increasing old age security benefits for seniors age 75 and older by 10% as of July 2022, which is providing more than $800 in additional support to full pensioners. It also includes reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that will cost an average of just $10-a-day by 2026. These are the right ways to make life more affordable. Extending the fuel charge pause to sources that are far cheaper and less polluting than fuel oil, as proposed by today’s motion, is not the right way to make life affordable. I therefore call on the House to reject today’s motion, as the government continues working with its partners in all provinces and territories to explore further options to lower the cost of energy bills for all Canadians while also lowering emissions and fighting climate change.

1575 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Nov/2/23 1:31:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today. In Saskatchewan, in 2021, total GHG emissions were 67.1 million tonnes. Saskatchewan's GHG emission intensity dropped 18% from 2005 to 2021 because of innovations like carbon capture and sequestration. We have stored over five million tonnes of carbon in carbon capture over the last five years. My question for the hon. member is this. Seeing that Premier Moe has come out and said that Saskatchewan residents are not being treated fairly, obviously the expression “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” is not true for the Liberals anymore. What is her response to Premier Moe's statement that he will not collect carbon tax anymore, and to the fact that Saskatchewan has lowered emissions per capita more than any other province over the last five years?

143 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Nov/2/23 1:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say a couple of things. The new affordability package we announced late last week really talks about ensuring that we provide more supports to rural Canadians, because we know that transitioning is costing them more money to reduce their costs. It is also an affordability plan that makes sure we are providing supports for those who have the highest-polluting type of energy, who tend to be our most vulnerable Canadians in society, as we are transitioning and decarbonizing our economy. What I would say about new technologies is that they would encourage more investments by companies and provinces in new technologies so that we can continue to move as aggressively as possible to decarbonize and meet our 2030 and 2050 targets.

126 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/2/23 1:33:11 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, Nunavut relies completely on diesel for energy for home heating and for everything, basically. All of its oil and gas is from the south; we do not have any that we extract on our own. Therefore, when we get that oil and gas, it is from companies in Canada. Canada's five biggest oil and gas companies made $38.3 billion in combined profits last year alone. Does the member agree that there needs to be a windfall profits tax on oil and gas so those funds can then be diverted to renewable energy that needs to be supported, such as Hydro-Québec's fibre-optic link project?

111 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Nov/2/23 1:34:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been very disturbing to see that our oil and gas companies over the last few years, particularly during the years of the pandemic, have accumulated record profits, much of which went back to the U.S., and then have come back to Canada to ask for subsidies to decarbonize their production. What I would say to the member is that I agree this is something we should look at. I am very disappointed with our oil and gas companies for not stepping up and doing their share.

91 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:34:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am from a different part of Ontario, northern Ontario, where I think the carbon tax is very different. Can the member tell us what the carbon tax exemptions coming out of the Atlantic mean to people in Toronto, and how they see this?

46 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Nov/2/23 1:35:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is what I would say to the hon. member. I live in downtown west Toronto. That is where my riding of Davenport is. My constituents want the federal government to keep moving as aggressively and urgently as possible to reduce our emissions to meet our targets. I think they understand that the transition costs money. I think that they are very pleased with our plan for a price on pollution and that anything else we can do to continue to provide support to Canadians as we transition to meet our 2030 and 2050 targets would be supported.

100 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:36:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the CPC motion is to drop the carbon tax not only on oil temporarily but also on all heating fuels temporarily. Believe it or not, I actually have friends in the Conservative Party, who I think like me through my sometimes philandering political ways. My friends in the Conservative Party may be surprised to hear I actually approve of the carbon tax, and I am in favour of the announced Maritime exemptions. The Leader of the Opposition took the rather unusual step of appearing on Thunder Bay TV a few days ago in order to tell the people of Thunder Bay that the members of Parliament for Thunder Bay are basically useless because we did not get the same kind of exemption for natural gas and propane as the people in the Maritimes got for oil. Now, people all across Canada get the exemption for oil. In response to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say to this motion, let me start off by saying, and I think this is really important, most people know that 80% of people actually get back as much as, or more than, they pay in carbon tax. In addition, people in rural areas get 10% on top of that. Now, because of this announcement, that will be going up to 20%, including in northern Ontario. That is certainly justified because people in rural areas are often dependent on fossil fuels. They have further to commute, and they cannot resort to using mass transit. I am in favour of all those things. Why is the present plan withholding carbon tax on only oil and not on other fuels? There are good reasons for that, and I am going to talk about four reasons. First, the cost of heating one's house with oil is more expensive than with other fuels, particularly in the Maritimes. I want to mention some figures from a recent CBC report on the subject. Home heating oil in P.E.I., with the carbon tax, costs $47.87 per gigajoule of heat energy. Propane in Ontario costs $39.33 with the carbon tax. Natural gas in Saskatchewan is $12.09. To reiterate, that is a total of $48 for oil and down to $43 if we do not include the carbon tax, which we are removing. Propane is around $39, and natural gas is around $12. The bottom line is that people who heat with oil have to pay a lot more to heat their homes than people who heat with other fuels. Second, there are other differences with oil. One is the fact that oil produces more greenhouse gases than other fuels. The best is natural gas, and the second best is propane. In terms of low-hanging fruit, the best bang for one's buck is to get people off oil and into a green transition. Third, because the carbon tax is based on tonnes of CO2 produced, and oil produces the most CO2, the amount of carbon tax paid on oil is higher than on the other fuels. Lastly, and this is an important one, when a lot of older homes were built, they had oil furnaces in them. As I grew up in Kaministiquia, outside of Thunder Bay, we had an oil furnace. In the years since the 1960s and 1970s, a lot of people have transitioned to cheaper forms of fuel. The people who have not are often the people who could not afford to transition, and that leaves us in the ironic situation that the people who are least able to afford the fuel will have to pay the most. Both my party and I are not unsympathetic to such people, and that is why we are dropping the carbon tax for a limited period of time for those people. In terms of a long-term solution for people on oil, certainly heat pumps are part of the solution. As oil is dirtier, getting those people to transition to green sources of heating is certainly something that is desirable from an environmental perspective. We already have a program that offers $10,000 for low- and middle-income families in order to buy heat pumps. In addition to that, and this is the one difference in what people in the Maritimes are getting that we are not getting in Ontario, they are also getting an additional $10,000, which is $5,000 from the province and $5,000 from the federal government, if they want to put in a heat pump. That is because those provinces agreed to do it. If Ontario wanted to do it, I am told we, too, in Ontario could. I think this is important: The Conservative Party is not just suggesting a temporary pause on the carbon tax on heating fuels. It wants to get rid of the carbon tax altogether. It wants to axe the tax. Frankly, I do not agree with that, and I find it a little difficult to believe. Why does it want to get rid of the carbon tax when, in fact, a lot of Conservative economists actually think the carbon tax is one of the most efficient ways, if not the most efficient way, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Furthermore, a lot of Conservative economists like it because it is a market-based intervention rather than a regulatory intervention. Some of the many, perhaps they are not Conservative, but they are not really left-leaning, institutions that approve of carbon tax and carbon pricing include the American Enterprise Institute, a centre-right American think tank. In 2009, in response to the question, “[What is] the better approach to climate change?” Its answer was, “A direct tax placed on emissions of greenhouse gases. The tax would create a market price for carbon emissions and lead to emissions reductions or new technologies that cut greenhouse gases.” Of note, in 2023, like some other Conservatives, it seems to have changed its position. Some other groups, again, not exactly left-leaning institutions, that support carbon tax are the World Bank in 2023, the Business Council of Canada in 2019 and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in 2021. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a 2018 endorsement, said, “Carbon pricing is probably the most effective mechanism of emissions reduction.” Subsequent to this, it emphasized that the carbon tax should be flexible and competitive. Certainly with this, we are seeing some flexibility. Even the Conservative Party, in the last election, ran on a platform that included a carbon tax. I know that members of the Conservative Party deeply believe in their convictions, but it appears that when the political winds blow another way, their convictions seem to blow away, too, and they have to come up with new convictions. Now, they actually oppose it. I am somewhat shocked by the Conservative opposition to the carbon tax, particularly given what would seem to be the almost daily climate-related calamities we hear about, both in Canada and around the world. For example, a heat dome in B.C. recently killed over 600 people, mostly elderly people. Wildfires burned down the town of Lytton, B.C. and forced the evacuation of people in Alberta, Northwest Territories and—

1215 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 1:44:04 p.m.
Watch

There are continuous comments and responses coming from someone who has not been recognized to speak at this time, because it is not time. I would ask that member to please hold his thoughts and comments. He could write them down, and then once it is appropriate for questions and comments, he can attempt to stand up and to be recognized. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has two and a half minutes left.

77 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Nov/2/23 1:44:30 p.m.
Watch

We all remember, in the spring, when the smoke was so thick in Ottawa that we could not see more than a couple of blocks away. In other areas, flooding is a problem. Flooding has been a problem in B.C. West of my riding, we had record flooding at the Lake of the Woods and Rainy Lake areas last year. The list goes on. The polar ice caps are melting. Permafrost is melting. Island states in the South Pacific risk disappearing forever because of rising sea levels. What is the Conservative Party's reply to all this? It wants to get rid of one of the government's best and most effective tools for dealing with climate change. I do not know about the opposition, but I feel a sense of duty to future generations, to my kids. I have tons of kids. One of them is Miko. Miko is only three years old. Miko has done absolutely nothing to contribute to climate change, yet he and his generation are the ones who are going to be asked to pay the price of climate change, rather than our generation or the generation before, if we do things like axing the carbon tax. What do the Conservatives want to do? They seem to want to do basically whatever it is going to take in order to get them elected the next time around. The Conservatives, in their 2021 convention, did not even want to agree to a statement saying they believed climate change existed. I do not like the tax. Nobody likes taxes. However, the reality is most people get the tax back in terms of the rebate, and it does motivate people to change over to green sources of energy. Most Canadians do believe in climate change and want to do what is best for their kids and for future generations. I, like most Canadians, perhaps begrudgingly, believe the carbon tax is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore, I disagree with this motion.

335 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Nov/2/23 1:46:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a lot of stuff in my hon. colleague's intervention. There were a lot of falsehoods. I sit on the health committee with him, and I have a lot of respect for him as he is a family physician and offers a lot of great insight in our health committee. It is one thing for this colleague to stand up and read the talking points of the Liberal Party very well, but he is an educated man, and I expect him to do better, not just to read the talking points like a clapping seal. He knows that the carbon tax is wrong and that it punishes Canadians. It raises the cost of growing food. It raises the cost of shipping food and, ultimately, it is Canadians who pay the price. There is no greater evidence to that than when the Prime Minister walked back his carbon tax on Atlantic Canadians. Why are they punishing the rest of Canada for the Atlantic Canadian MPs' failures?

169 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Nov/2/23 1:48:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend in the opposition on a lot of things, but I do disagree on this point. In terms of talking points, I refuse to use the party's talking points. I write all my speeches myself. I do believe in the carbon tax. I believe that by not continuing this carbon tax, which has been shown to be one of the most effective ways of dealing with climate change, the Canadian people and the people of the world would be punished. The opposition would be punishing them. They would continue to suffer because of climate change and because they are being denied one of the most useful and efficient tools to deal with climate change. Yes, there is some short-term pain but for the long-term gain.

134 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Nov/2/23 1:48:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we also believe that there should be a price on carbon and that we need to take climate action seriously, to take real action and to move rapidly. The Liberals decided to do a carve-out that is only going to take pressure off Canadians in terms of home heating. We hear the Conservatives say they are bringing forward a motion to help all Canadians. In B.C., that motion the Conservatives are bringing forward will not help British Columbians. It will not take any taxes off their home heating. We put forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating for all Canadians. It was in the Conservative 2019 platform. They rejected our amendment to apply the GST removal to provinces that were not going to be impacted by their motion today. Does my colleague believe it was either a) because it was not their idea that they rejected it, or was it b) because they actually do not believe in taking action on climate change, and that is why they brought forward this motion today that does not really help all Canadians?

187 words

Mr. Marcus Powlowski

Nov/2/23 1:49:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am assuming that he is asking me to interpret the motivation of the Conservative Party in bringing forward this motion. I cannot really comment on their motivation. As to removing the carbon tax on the GST, I do not really have much comment on that. As for who is going to benefit from this, and why we removed the carbon tax on oil, we clearly did it because the people who pay the highest price for oil and who are the least able to afford it are people with oil furnaces. The NDP should appreciate that we are targeting people who are the most adversely affected while maintaining our position that the carbon tax is, again, one of the most effective ways of dealing with climate change and of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

136 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 1:50:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we continue to see one party in the House spread misinformation. I heard a “falsehood” earlier, and that term is used in response to my colleague. Whether it is the member for Sarnia—Lambton talking about battery fires with EVs, the member for Niagara West talking about ivermectin being used to combat COVID-19 or the suggestion by the member for Saskatoon—University, who discouraged Canadians from using heat pumps because they would not get home insurance, this misinformation, I think, does a lot of damage to discussions in the House. I wonder if my colleague can speak to the whole issue of relying on science to adopt a climate policy.

117 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 1:51:34 p.m.
Watch

There are still individuals who are trying to contribute to the discussion, and they are not the ones who have the floor, so I would ask those members to please hold off. The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

41 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245