Evidence of meeting #82 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was infrastructure.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Full Professor, Polytechnique Montréal, As an Individual
Yes. The Netherlands and Australia. The multi-barrier approach was approved by the World Health Organization. In the water industry, there is currently consensus on it.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Thank you, Mr. Barbeau.
Mr. Haller, I have another question for you now. In your opening address, you said that the industry was unable to self-regulate because there was a lot of latitude, and that a standard was required. Can you tell us more about that, please?
Liberal
Executive Director, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association
Thank you.
The one we've worked on the most is on flushable wipes and any products that are flushed and labelled “flushable”. Today, my phone is flushable. This plate is flushable. I could put that term on anything because there's no legal definition.
We made a charge, along with our friends at Friends of the Earth. We put a complaint in to the Competition Bureau that they were improperly labelled and that it was false advertising. Unfortunately, after two years it was rejected. They said there were just too many standards. There aren't. There are only two. There's one the industry made up itself, and there's one the waste-water professionals around the world created with the international water services flushability standard. We're trying to get that accepted.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, with apologies, I've returned to your esteemed committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Then thank you for joining us, Ms. Idlout, and for your questions.
Mr. Bachrach, welcome back.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses.
My apologies for interrupting the flow of questioning.
There is a motion that was put on notice, which I would like to take the opportunity at this time to move:
That, given that:
Canadians across the country are struggling with the cost of home heating; The oil to heat pump incentive was recently increased to up to $15,000 for low- and median-income families in Atlantic Canada; The federal heat pump rebate available to Canadians in the rest of the country is only $5,000, and involves a complex, bureaucratic application process; and, Uptake for the Greener Homes program has not been adequate to meet the government’s stated greenhouse gas emission reduction ambitions; The committee report to the House that it urges the government to increase and streamline heat pump incentives for all Canadians, eliminate GST on home heating across the country, and make big oil and gas companies pay for those measures with an excess profits tax.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
You're moving that. Okay.
I apologize to witnesses. Please stay with us just in case this is resolved rather quickly.
I must say to all of you that your testimony so far in the limited period has been very useful for this committee's study.
Mr. Bachrach, would you like to speak to the motion?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I think the motion is rather self-explanatory. I would add that this meeting is scheduled to end at one o'clock. I'm moving this at the end of the meeting so as to minimize the disruption to the committee. You're welcome.
This motion speaks to the debate that's going on in the chamber today. This is an issue that is of interest to so many Canadians who are struggling with the cost of home heating. Unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues have put forward a motion that helps parts of the country but not other parts.
We very much want to address the serious affordability crisis that's facing Canadians right across the country in every province and territory. That is why taking the GST off home heating, something we have long advocated for since the time of Jack Layton, we believe, is a solid policy offering that should be endorsed by all parties.
Also, the Liberal government's decision last Friday to significantly sweeten the program for heat pumps for those Canadians who heat with heating oil is something that all Canadians deserve. They deserve cash up front, and they deserve an incentive that is adequate to account for the cost of switching from fossil fuel heat to heat pumps.
This motion speaks to all those things. How do we pay to put a heat pump in every home in Canada that currently heats with fossil fuel? We pay for that by putting an excess profit tax on the big oil and gas companies that continue to profit off fuelling the climate crisis.
In 2022, the profits of oil and gas companies in Canada were astounding, in the tens of billions of dollars. Even a small portion of that money would go a long way toward ensuring that low-income Canadians and modest-income Canadians could afford the cost of putting those miraculous units in their homes, cutting their greenhouse gas emissions and cutting their home heating expenses very significantly.
I will leave it at that. Thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for bearing with me.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
Thank you for waiting until the end of the meeting, because we are at the end of the meeting, and our resources only allow us to go to, basically, one o'clock.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, could I offer a motion to postpone until the next meeting of the environment committee? I see the clerk nodding that it's in order.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's just to be specific and to give direction to you and the clerk that we intend to pick up this debate at the beginning of the next meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes. That's good enough. You have a right to move it at the next meeting.
We can't continue, so I would ask for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Longfield.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, if I may, on a point of order, a motion to postpone to a specific time is an interrupting motion and must be voted on immediately without debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let me double check on that. You seem to know the rules pretty well.
That's a dilatory motion. Let's vote on it. At the next meeting we will do Mr. Bachrach's....
In other words, we can adjourn now, but first we have to pass his motion or defeat his motion to take this up at the next meeting, but it's a bit moot, as I understand, because he can introduce it at the next meeting, period.
Anyway, let's vote on Mr. Bachrach's motion. Let's do a roll call vote.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Chair, as I couldn't hear the interpreters, I can't be sure that I've understood what we are voting on. We're voting on a motion to postpone the discussion of the motion to the next meeting. Is that right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That's right. I don't think it's necessary, because Mr. Bachrach can present it at the start of the next meeting. However, we're going to vote on the motion because he suggested postponing the discussion.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Is the minister coming to the next meeting or...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Regarding the minister, we're trying to organize it so that he comes for the estimates, which have not been tabled, but they will be shortly. That's what we're working on.
Thank you to the witnesses. It was very powerful in a brief period of time, and we got a lot of input for the study's report and recommendations.
The meeting is adjourned.
