44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
- 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 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
- 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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 6:16:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to participate in the debate on Motion No. 86, which would create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. I am one of the 20 members who has seconded this motion. I would note that members of all parties, with the exception of the Bloc, have seconded it. I want to commend the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for putting this forward, as well as the member for Kitchener Centre, who put forward a motion that was nearly identical to this previously. In fact, more than three-quarters of Canadians support having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Importantly, 69% of the voters of every single party in Canada, any party, support this type of measure.
What is a citizens' assembly? It is a non-partisan, independent and trusted group of citizens who are selected at random. It is a group of Canadians who are broadly representative of the diversity of the population, who are given the opportunity to learn from experts on a particular topic, thoughtfully consider the options, and issue and make recommendations based on their work. This motion would task creating a citizens' assembly to review our electoral system; to investigate how it could be improved, if it could be improved at all; and then to make recommendations based on their work.
On an issue that is as fundamental as how we constitute who represents us and who gets to govern our country, it is essential that this process be free from politics and any partisan influence and interests. Political parties will be biased in any recommendation they offer. Parties such as the Conservatives, which have shown that they cannot work with other parties, will want to keep the first-past-the-post system so that they can shoot for a majority and impose their minority will on Canadians. Big tent parties such as the Liberal Party would seek some sort of a ranked ballot, so parties that appeal broadly get rewarded. Single-issue parties such as the Greens will want proportional representation, so a smaller vote share in many ridings across the country will lead to their having greater representation. We know that the NDP is in favour of mixed member proportionality, where it would be able to leverage some single-issue, single-stakeholder matters, as well as taking advantage of some regional strengths. Of course, the Bloc would likely prefer to keep the system as it is right now, as they have much greater representation than their vote share at this point.
Quite frankly, that is why none of us here are trustworthy on this matter. We would all be blindly self-interested in choosing a system that would work best for our given party. Even after a system is chosen by a citizens' assembly, it is absolutely critical that the public have the opportunity to vote for or against it in a referendum. Just as democracies have the right to vote for who represents us, we especially should have the right to vote for or against any system that would completely change this process. Otherwise, the system will not be seen to have any legitimacy. Therefore, I suggest that this be included in this motion; perhaps it can be included if this motion gets debated at committee.
Like the member who proposed this motion, I am a British Columbian who has experienced what a citizens' assembly can look like. The province launched a citizens' assembly in response to a provincial NDP victory in the 1996 election, where the NDP formed government but only had a minority of the vote, at under 40%. In the subsequent election, the B.C. Liberals ended up winning a huge majority based on the first-past-the-post system; however, to their credit, they proceeded with moving forward on a citizens' assembly for electoral reform in 2004, despite having gotten that huge majority. I think there is much that we could learn from this process. Unfortunately, there was a citizens' assembly on electoral reform that chose a system, but when they put it to a referendum, they chose a threshold of 60% to reach, before any change could be made.
In this referendum, 57% ended up voting in favour of choosing single transferable votes as the new system for British Columbia, which is very significant, given that this was not a system that many Canadians or many British Columbians knew at that time.
We see similar examples at the federal level in Canada, where majority governments are delivered with about 40% of the vote. This is especially the case when we see poor voter turnout. This leaves much of the country feeling disenfranchised. It has contributed to dramatic policy shifts that we see in our country, which cause vast uncertainty and impede progress on some critical things, like on climate change. It also brings in some political risk that actually impedes business investment.
I think we can do better than this with our democracy. In fact, we must do everything we can to revitalize democracy in this country. As we see, it is under threat from foreign interference, from disinformation both foreign and domestic and also from the tactics of the Conservatives who are seen to make democracy look so ugly that people lose confidence, stay home and do not vote.
I want to recognize the work of so many advocates on this matter. In fact, I hear from my constituents frequently about electoral reform. As my constituent Eric tells me, the current voting system is “pushing people away from participating in elections. It's very unhealthy for our democracy and, I dare say, even dangerous in this day and age of disinformation.”
Theodora says, “We need this advanced so that all people and their ideas are well included and given respect for their ideas and new beneficial approaches.”
That is why many Canadians, including so many I have met in my riding, were swayed by the promise made in 2015, that it would be the last election held under the first-past-the-post system.
In fact, I participated in a consultation that was coordinated by the current Minister of Health, who, at the time, was the parliamentary secretary for democratic reform. I remember the consultation being robust and it definitely touched on the different positives and negatives of different political systems. I thought it was very well done.
While the government of the day made some very important advances in improving our democracy, particularly with delivering an independent Senate, I was disappointed that the decision to pursue electoral reform was not followed through because there was not consensus at the time.
I do believe that the system was, in fact, doomed to failure from the beginning. Frankly, we should be grateful that the decision to move ahead with a system like ranked ballot was not chosen by the government and instituted before the next election. It would not have allowed for an unbiased decision and it would not have given the choice for people to choose one political system or another for elections. I believe that campaign promise was actually the wrong one.
It is not just me. The Prime Minister, in a question and answer period in my riding earlier this year, said that not acting on electoral reform was one of the things that he regretted most.
This represents an opportunity to change that. My hope is that this motion will pass and that a citizens' assembly would be launched as soon as possible. Frankly, it would not likely be able to be launched before the spring of next year. I would like to see a citizens' assembly be formed and for it to have a mandate to undertake a study and deliver it by early 2025.
Assuming that there is an election in September 2025, it would be possible to align the election vote with the referendum vote on any change that is recommended by such a body, to change the electoral system.
That way, with regard to the 2025 electoral votes, parties would have the opportunity to decide whether they commit to change the electoral system for the following election.
I believe that setting it up in this timeline would allow enough time for Canadians to learn about the changes that are proposed. The government should also provide resources for third parties to educate Canadians about the chosen system so that they are properly informed.
Importantly, I believe that a referendum on any change that is proposed should be set at a threshold of 50% plus one vote.
1441 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
