44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/7/23 10:16:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition on behalf of a constituent who has been a very strong advocate for seniors and people 55 and over who get exploited through fraudulent means such that their life savings are often taken away.
The petitioners are looking for more stringent rules to be put in place. In particular, they ask us to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system for Canadian citizens' money in this country, with the aim of putting more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect seniors, in particular from losing their lifetime savings and wealth to manipulation and fraud.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 10:17:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 10:29:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is on how the NDP sees the GST as something that is going to be applied for, let us say, such things as hydro versus gas versus propane. Is it going to be spread across all things that are classified as heating?
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:15:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could continue to provide some thoughts in regard to how this is being compared to a motion that we previously debated and voted on yesterday.
For me, one of the issues that seems to be getting lost is the environment and the benefits of heat pumps and the policy toward the environment. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts in regard to that.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:37:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not believe that anyone standing up and suggesting that any member of the House is giving the finger to Canadians is appropriate. I would suggest to you that what the member has stated is unparliamentary.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:38:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe I am explaining it wrong. I do not believe it is appropriate for a member to be able to stand in their place and talk about giving the finger to someone. It is the context.
If you look at Beauchesne, 6th edition, you will find what matters is the context in which one says something. Telling the Parliament of Canada that so-and-so is giving the finger to Canadians on this point and on that point would be the equivalent of my saying that the Leader of the Conservative Party is giving Canadians the finger—
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:39:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am seeking clarification on this because I will be addressing the opposition motion.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:40:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, purely for clarification purposes, if I am speaking in the chamber and I say that so-and-so across the way is giving the finger toward Canadians about the environment, would it be parliamentary for me to say that?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:17:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to yesterday's motion. I think today's motion reflects, in good part, what took place with the vote yesterday.
One thing that is getting lost in this debate is the issue of the environment and the valuable role that heat pumps will play going forward. It is easy to say that we should get rid of this tax or that tax and so forth, but it overshadows the importance of good, solid government policy on heat pumps. Could the member share his thoughts on that?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:27:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, is there a quorum requirement for one member of the Conservative Party to be in the chamber?
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:34:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the NDP is saying, in essence, that for all forms of heating, people would not have to pay GST. There is a considerable amount of confusion on this. If they say that electricity, natural gas, propane and heating oil will be exempt from the GST, two issues come to mind.
One is in regard to the fact that a lot of those products are used to do more than just provide home heating. Therefore, is there a way that the NDP would compensate or take that into consideration?
The second issue is whether this would be of a permanent nature. Is it something that would be for six months? During the summer, for example, would the GST still be taken off?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 1:34:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member could provide some clear indication of what the NDP policy actually is. Is the NDP proposing to get rid of the GST on all aspects of home heating, everything from electricity to oil, propane and natural gas, permanently and even during the summertime? Is that the intent?
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 1:51:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in looking at the NDP motion, one of the first things that comes to my mind is that the biggest benefactor of the motion is actually Canada's wealthiest 1%. When we think about what they are proposing, we would be giving the biggest break on GST to Canada's 1% wealthiest.
Would my New Democratic friends recognize that as being factual? The government has demonstrated, through the grocery rebates, that there are other ways we could support Canada's middle class. Why would the New Democrats want a permanent disposal of the GST on home heating when the biggest benefactor would be Canada's wealthiest 1%?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 2:18:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a reality check for the leader of the Conservative Party today. Climate change is real; it is actually happening. As I have pointed out, the Conservatives like to flip-flop all over the place on the issue.
I want to emphasize a point here for the member across the way. When it comes to the financing of oil, electricity and natural gas, which one does he think is the most costly for Canadians? It is oil. One of the ways we can make a good difference is by getting Canadians to look at heat pumps. With the greener homes program, tens of thousands of Canadians are now using heat pumps.
My question for their leader is this. When will the Conservatives wake up, listen to Canadians and realize they need to care about the environment?
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 3:58:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does there have to be a Conservative member in the House to have quorum?
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion in regard to the positioning that the NDP had taken in regard to the vote from yesterday. When we take a look at the move towards trying to reduce the reliance on oil in order to heat homes, the national program that was announced by the federal government would, in fact, incentivize people to move away from oil to heat their homes.
I am wondering if the member could explain why the NDP does not seem to recognize the true value of encouraging people to convert to home heating pumps.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:01:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to address today's NDP motion in a couple of ways.
One thing that is overlooked and underestimated, in terms of the damage, is a concern related to the environment. This is the case whether it is this particular opposition day motion or the previous one that the Conservatives brought forward last week, which we actually voted on yesterday.
When I think of the environment, it really highlights an area where the Conservative Party leadership is missing the point. When people say there are climate deniers in society, I look across the way and see that in the lack of action and policy enunciations coming from the Conservative Party. Those things could provide assurances to Canadians that Conservatives, as a political entity in the House, take the environment seriously. I believe there are indeed climate deniers within the Conservative caucus. They seem to be winning the day. It is unfortunate.
I believe that the Conservative Party is being very irresponsible. When we think about their policies regarding the environment, if people hunt and find something, they will find that it is exceptionally reckless, and nothing more so than the price on pollution. To demonstrate just how reckless the Conservative Party is on this issue, all one needs to do is look at the history inside the chamber and the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Stephen Harper was saying one thing on one day, but then the Conservatives changed their position, and a new Conservative leader came in and took a totally different position. In fact, that position was incorporated into the election platform of the Conservative Party in the last election, just two years ago.
As all members would know, because I have talked about it and other members have talked about it in the past, at that time, the Conservatives talked about the importance of a price on pollution. That is when every political party inside the House of Commons seemed to recognize that what had taken place in Paris in 2015 made a whole lot of sense. A big part of that, coming out of the Paris conference, was that the countries around the world, and many of their provincial or state entities, started to adopt a price on pollution.
At one time, it was actually very encouraging. We had all political entities in the House recognizing that. How far we have fallen from a time in which we had 338 Conservative candidates going out with an election platform and saying that they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have a shiny new leader who says that Conservatives do not believe in a price on pollution anymore; instead, they are taking the bumper sticker policy of axing the carbon tax. That is what the Conservative Party of today is saying.
That is what I mean by reckless. To get a sense of the degree to which the Conservatives are reckless, and taking a heck of a risk, people should just look at the environment and what the Conservatives are saying or not saying in regard to it. I would like to think that the Conservative Party would be a little more reflective, in terms of what everyone else is talking about in regard to the environment. There is an expectation.
I am disappointed, and I think many Canadians are disappointed, in the huge vacuum in the Conservative Party today in regard to the environment.
Yesterday, we had a vote, about which the Conservative Party is trying to portray a false narrative. Its members are actually spreading misinformation in order to justify that false information and manipulation of a particular vote. I will expand on that.
Members can think about a time when people would heat their homes with coal. In fact, in many of those wartime houses, we can see steel plates where the coal would go into the home. Many years ago, people realized that there were alternatives to coal and started to gravitate toward them.
We can fast-forward to today, and we have heating oil, propane, natural gas and electricity. These are the options we have to heat 99% of homes. Where does heating oil fit in? Heating oil is exceptionally more costly as a way to heat one's home. Natural gas and propane would probably be next in line in terms of cost. What has been clearly established is that using electricity and heat pumps is far more energy-efficient and better for the environment. Thousands of Canadians have recognized that.
Members will remember the false information I spoke about. I have heard members opposite say that, as a government, we saw maybe a couple of hundred people changing over to heat pumps. As with many other things, this is misinformation; it is just not accurate. Through the greener homes program, we have seen tens of thousands of people take advantage of the program and convert to alternatives in terms of replacing heating oil, for example, with heat pumps. However, Conservative members, in one swoop, just kind of wave that aside, because it does not fit their narrative.
If we look at the policy announcement, it is a national announcement. The Conservatives, even today during question period, try to regionalize it, as if it were there for one region of the country. That is just not true. They can read into it all they want and try to spread misinformation. However, the bottom line is that, much like the greener homes program, it is a national program. Every region of the country is going to be affected by that program.
It is important to recognize that the province that has the biggest potential to benefit from this is the province of Ontario, which has a quarter of a million households that are actually heating their homes via oil. Therefore, when the Conservatives try to give misleading and false information to Canadians in order to cause division, I find that somewhat regrettable.
I believe that the program is sound from an environmental perspective. That is why I have expressed disappointment with my New Democratic friends because I think they are sending a mixed message. We can look at the heating pump policy that has been established. Putting a pause on the tax and making heating pumps virtually free anywhere in Canada where provinces are participating in the program will cause more people to look at this program as a national program. We will continue to see Canadians buying in and recognizing that changing over is a smart thing to do. The math says that, if someone invests in heating pumps, the cost is substantially less, and over time they will actually save considerably more money than the cost of putting in a heat pump. That is very clear. We have demonstrated that in the past.
We know that there is a high level of interest from Canadians because they have looked to programs, such as the greener homes program, as a mechanism. We know that today other provinces are now looking at ways they can get on board. I hope the Province of Ontario, through Premier Doug Ford, will realize the benefits of encouraging that conversion by participating in it.
Getting back to the reckless attitudes of the Conservative Party, the other day, when the leader of the Conservative Party was addressing the House, I posed a question on the issue of taxes. He had indicated to the House that we should get rid of all taxes on home heating, implying that it is not just the carbon tax he was referring to, but all taxes, including the GST. It was members of the Conservative Party who put the GST on home heating.
Now the refreshed far right elements of today's Conservative Party are changing, again in that reckless fashion. Conservatives are not necessarily concerned about sound policy that is in the best interests of Canadians, whether it concerns the environment or the issue of taxation. That is an important issue. After all, that is the way we finance and fund the many different programs that are out there. They are more concerned about that bumper sticker. That is where their concern is. They want to make sure that they can fit something on a bumper sticker. They go around saying they are going to do this or that, throwing in common sense and then talking about bringing it home. That is what the Conservative Party today is all about. It is all a game; it is all manipulation.
I think they underestimate the importance of when it is time to present something. I do not know how long we have been waiting for the Conservative Party to come to the table and share with Canadians through the House, or in a meeting, what they are going to do on the environment. We are all waiting to see something come from the Conservative Party of Canada on the issue.
When we look at the policy, and combine the issue of affordability with the issue of supporting the purchasing, acquiring and installing of heat pumps, we see that it is a sound policy. As I indicated in the question that I put to my New Democratic friends, how do the Conservatives justify not supporting that particular policy? It sends a mixed message.
Earlier today, I posed a question on the GST. Today, the New Democrats are kind of buying in to some of the things the Conservatives have been saying. They just want to get rid of the GST on home heating. Let us think about what that actually means. They say the purpose of getting rid of the GST on electricity and on natural gas is so there can be more money for individuals who want to be able to heat their homes. The problem is that, when people purchase their electricity, it is fro more than just heating homes.
In the summer in Winnipeg, we do not need to heat our homes. When it is 35°C outside, I do not think there are any furnaces, electric or natural gas, that are being used to heat homes. We have all kinds of items that use utilities in a house, such as a PlayStation, a toaster and lights, and those are not used to heat homes. Are we saying that, for example, if people consume natural gas and electricity, and they have a propane tank, all of those would be exempt for that one household? That is in essence what the New Democrats are saying.
Who would be the biggest benefactors of that policy? I would suggest it would not be the middle class. Do members remember that, in the last budget, we brought in the grocery rebate? Where did the money come from to support that? It was through the GST. That is what allowed us to provide that particular support. By doing that, whom did we help the most? We helped 11 million-plus Canadians, including the middle class and those with lower-end incomes, to get money directly into their pockets so that they would be in a better position to have a higher disposable income to purchase groceries.
What is the NDP proposing today? Someone pointed out that Mr. Weston would be one of the biggest benefactors. He has a fairly big house, not to mention other luxury items. The 1% of the wealthiest in Canada would probably get the biggest reward on the motion the NDP has brought forward. Let us think about a senior on a fixed income living in an apartment versus the 1% wealthiest and where they might be living and the type of resources that they would be spending in consuming electricity, propane and natural gas.
What about pointing out how this policy would help? I would suggest that there is a better way to support Canada's working class and those aspiring to be a part of it. They are those whom we want to help in a more direct way. We have seen a national government over the years lift children and seniors and people with disabilities out of poverty because of targets.
I would suggest that this is irresponsible of the New Democrats, and I think it is, unfortunately, because they are being heavily influenced by the Conservative Party. They need to get a bit more distance from the Conservative Party to have a healthier party in the future.
2075 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:22:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want the member to think about what he just said.
If that is the case, if he truly believes that, then why would the NDP support the GST? What the member is saying is that he wants to see the GST taken off home heating. If he really believed what he just said, he would be articulating that we should be getting rid of the GST, period.
However, what he just finished saying is not true. If we factor in the GST rebates, it is a progressive form of taxation because of the rebates. I do not think that was explained to the member, or maybe he believes that all GST should be taken away, period. Would he apply that to the provincial sales tax, which many New Democratic governments have put in place, supported and increased? At least we provide a rebate that makes it progressive.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 5:24:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member started off by talking about Lake Simcoe and concerns for the lakes in his community.
I know when I was in opposition, I had a great deal of concern for lakes around the world. Stephen Harper then cut funding to the Experimental Lakes project, which had a profound, negative impact in the area of science and research on the health of lakes, not only in small communities, but also in communities throughout the world.
I am glad to say that it is one of the things we quickly did after forming government. We re-established the importance of lakes in Canada. Today, the Experimental Lakes project is doing exceptionally well, and the government has taken a very proactive approach to protecting ocean waters and doing what we can to support municipalities in making sure that we have good, quality water.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
