Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2023

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Pause on Home Heating

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this opposition day motion. I want to break it into two parts. One is the issue of affordability and the other is the issue of oil-generated heat.

When I think of the issue of affordability, it is important to recognize that the Government of Canada, over the last number of years, in the many different programs that we have brought forward, has very much demonstrated its support for Canadians, whether they are in the middle class, those aspiring to be part of it or those who are disadvantaged.

We can take a look at some of those programs. We can talk about the grocery rebate program. We can talk about the dental program for seniors and children, people with disabilities, or we can talk about the rental support program. Now, I would like to suggest we can also talk about the home heating pump program and, in fact, the pause that is being put on for heating homes with oil. These are all programs that have been very supportive in making sure that Canadians can get through a time when they are experiencing inflation, among other issues.

When I think of the affordability issue, we have been a government that has been very much focused on supporting Canadians. All those programs I just listed, the Conservative Party actually voted against every one of them.

It is somewhat disheartening and disappointing. Conservatives seem to want to focus on one issue, and we see that time and time again, when it comes to the carbon tax.

They are just taking a piece of their policy and saying that they want to add on to the pause that we have put on with regard to home heating oil.

When they talk about the price on pollution, I think that Canadians need to be reminded of two things. When Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party and campaigned in the last election, along with 337 other Conservative candidates, they all campaigned in favour of a price on pollution.

Whether we like it or not, or try to figure out why it is, the Conservatives changed their minds. They no longer support a price on pollution. They say they are going to get rid of that price, and they classify it as the carbon tax. They say they are going to “axe the tax”. It is a great bumper sticker, I must say, even though, I would suggest that it is very deceiving.

It is deceiving, because I put forward a question earlier to a member about why it is the Conservatives are being very one-sided in their messaging. Conservatives are trying to give an impression, for the more than 95,000 people who I represent in Winnipeg North, that if they form government, they are going to get rid of the carbon tax.

A vast majority of the constituents that I represent, over 80%, actually get a net benefit from the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as the Conservatives refer to it.

What the Conservatives have been quiet on is the question of what they are going to do with the rebate portion. That rebate portion is put into place as a result of the carbon tax being collected. If they get rid of the carbon tax, they are getting rid of the rebate also.

The member opposite, when I posed the question to him, said that if one does not collect the tax, then one does not have to worry about giving money back.

The Conservatives do not understand that the price on pollution, which was something that was adopted in the Paris conference back in 2015, was to provide incentive for people to think of the environment in terms of the choices they make. It is based on a rebate. Most Canadians will actually receive more money back than they paid for the carbon tax. When the Conservatives put on their bumper stickers that they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, what they are really saying is that for more than 80% of the constituents, some of whom I represent, they want to take more money out of their pockets. That is the reality, but they do not talk about that. That idea has been amplified.

Earlier today, the leader of the Conservative Party, who raised the issue we are debating today, said the Conservatives are going to get rid of the carbon tax for all Canadians on all home fuels. That is what he said. I asked him why the Conservatives opposed a motion that the NDP proposed which would get rid of all the GST on home heating.

We have heard a leader recklessly make a policy statement on the floor of the chamber. He proclaimed that the Conservatives are going to get rid of all taxes on home heating. He actually said that, even though a couple of hours later, his party denied the opportunity to actually say yes to what it was he had just finished saying.

Talk about reckless. Canadians need to know and understand just how risky it is to consider the Conservative Party of Canada, because it does flip-flop all over the place. Conservatives are more focused on bumper-sticker politics, the far right and populist attitudes than they are on the general welfare and well-being of Canadians. We see that in the debate.

Let us think about it. Coal used to warm up homes during wartime. They would put coal in little steel boxes in many wartime houses. That coal would be used to heat homes. It was not very good for the environment. A lot of that coal was converted into natural gas. Some of it was converted into heating oil. It is good to transition out of coal.

What we are talking about today, and what the government is talking about, is a policy for all Canadians, even though the Conservatives will try to say that it is divisive. It is not divisive. In their own minds, possibly it is, but I have news for them. Canadians from coast to coast to coast use oil to heat their homes. Canadians in all regions will benefit. What we will see with this policy is a greater emphasis for people to convert, with incentives, to home heat pumps. By doing that they will save thousands of dollars every year. We do not hear people saying that is not the case.

A simple search on Google or Yahoo will show there are significant cost savings in converting from oil to a heat pump. It is a good policy idea, but the Conservatives are not concerned about that. They are concerned about bumper stickers. For them, it is about the simplicity of the message, even if it means they have to flip-flop and turn into pretzels here, based on voting patterns and what they have told people at the polls.

The Conservatives will continue to do the twisting and turning. We will continue to be there to ensure affordability for Canadians and to be there for the environment.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member was one of the 50 species of fish that swim in the Red River, he would certainly be swimming upstream on this issue.

In late September, there was a Postmedia-Leger poll that found a clear majority of 55% of Canadians want the carbon tax reduced or eliminated entirely and that everyone thinks the federal plan to get to net zero is unrealistic. Of the respondents, 18% wanted the carbon tax reduced, 37% wanted it abolished, and 27% were fine to keep it as is.

One thing I have never been able to understand and explain to the residents of Barrie—Innisfil is this: The government talks about them getting more money than what they pay into it, which the PBO has said is not the case. If I take a dollar from somebody and give that person their dollar back, how are they ahead? I would love to hear an explanation on that one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to fish in the Red River. I could have used the analogy of the Conservative Party being like a fish on the dock at The Forks flipping and flopping all over the place. That is what I mean by risky and reckless policy.

We do not hear an environmental policy coming from the Conservative Party. We just do not see it. It is more interested in trying to fool Canadians on issues by simply saying it is going to axe the tax because that sure does sound good.

The member wants to go by polls. If we were to canvass a poll asking if we should decrease the pay of members of Parliament by 30%, I guarantee that 95% of Canadians, or a very high majority, would say yes. Does that mean we are going to see the Conservative Party say it would slash MPs' salaries by 50%? After all, that might make for a good bumper sticker too.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, something is fishy in here today. One thing that is fishy is the hon. member talking about how the Liberals have done a great job on affordability.

We had a debate in here last night about the school meal programs, something they promised in 2019 and still have not delivered on. If we are talking about costs and people struggling, certainly in his riding of Winnipeg North, where children are living in some of the highest levels of poverty, families could benefit from this program.

Although the Liberals and Conservatives banter back and forth about who is more in line with affordability, both of them continue to prop up their corporate friends and not go after the big grocery chains for gouging families.

I would like to ask the hon. member across the way if he agrees that the Liberals have haphazardly put this forward because they really do not know how to make things more affordable for Canadians and are really not committed to doing so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is just wrong on so many accounts.

Does she not realize that the Canada child benefit program generated, in Winnipeg North alone, over $9 million a month to support children? Thousands of children, hundreds from Winnipeg North, were lifted out of poverty because of that one measure.

Does the member not realize we now have $10-a-day child care across Canada? This federal Liberal government ensured we could lower the price of child care, which provides many benefits to women and many others, as a direct result of this policy.

We have made affordability an issue on many different fronts. I would hope the NDP would see through the Conservative con job on this motion and do the right thing, which is to stand up for the environment and ensure that we continue with affordability for Canadians.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I rise to correct the record on something we hear quite consistently from the Conservative side, which is that eight out of 10 families in Canada do not get more back from the carbon pricing system that we have put in place. It is in fact the case that many families do get more money back.

Also, I want to address one thing that we never really talk about, which is who those families are. They are the least fortunate families in Canada, who heat smaller homes and do not drive to work but take public transit. Those are the families this helps the most, and I would like that to be on the record.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has made it very clear that it is 80%, and the biggest benefactors are seniors, many children and those in smaller homes.

However, this is something that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to take away. It is something they do not talk about, but that is the reality. Whenever we hear a member from the Conservative Party say that they are going to axe the tax, we need to realize that they would be taking money out of the pockets of 80% of homes, and I can guarantee that in the riding of Winnipeg North.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again today, but it does feel like Groundhog Day. It must be a dozen times that we have had this same debate on the carbon tax since the member for Carleton became the leader of the Conservative Party. It is ironic because the same party ran on putting a price on pollution in the last election, and now, for probably the twelfth time, we are having this debate about cutting it.

The Conservatives are masquerading about this being an affordability measure and the reason that the cost of living challenges are high right now. However, earlier this week on the finance committee, we heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said that the price on pollution was only responsible for one-sixth of one per cent of the inflation that we are seeing right now in Canada. Also, since 2020, the carbon price on home heating oil has only increased by 12¢ a litre to a total of 14¢ a litre, while the average price for home heating oil is now 75¢ higher.

Canadians are overwhelmingly feeling the impacts of geopolitics and fossil fuel inflation, but this is not because of climate policy. What is boosting the price of fossil fuels in Canada? What is responsible for that other 63¢ a litre, which is five times more than the price on pollution?

That, of course, would be the illegal and unjustified war of aggression that Russia is waging in Ukraine right now and what that has done to global energy markets. It is sad we are not hearing the leader of the Conservatives stand up for Ukraine or in support of the people of Ukraine in repelling this unjustified invasion.

Also, OPEC is taking on measures that are constricting the supply of oil. However, rather than criticizing these measures, the Conservative government in Alberta rolled out the red carpet for Saudi Arabia and, indeed, said that we should follow the advice and projections that Aramco has for fossil fuel use in the future.

Obviously, the Conservatives say nothing about the record profits of the fossil fuel sector, which is soaking up that extra 63¢ a litre, and it is gobbling that up at the expense of everyday Canadians. We know that, since 2022, the oil and gas sector in Canada has made a $30-billion increase in profits, or a 1,000% increase since 2019.

We know that putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way of reducing emissions. It is why the right-of-centre government in British Columbia, the former B.C. Liberals, brought this measure in and, of course, the current Conservative MP for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge was part of that team. The economy of B.C. has been one of the strongest in the country ever since.

While B.C. has its own system, the federal system is set up in a way that offsets the costs such that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay. This is not just a measure of influencing behaviour and a climate measure. It is an affordability measure. This, of course, is one of the reasons Canada's current emissions reduction plan has allowed Canada to reduce emissions by more than any other G7 country since 2019. Obviously, we have a long to go after the Conservatives did absolutely nothing for a decade. They not only did nothing, but also caused embarrassment to Canada around the world by undermining climate policy globally.

Members know the saying, “If you tell a lie enough times, eventually even you will believe it.” The Conservatives live in a post-truth world, and they must think that, by repeating this, they can eventually convince Canadians of the same as well. Not only is the argument they make on carbon pricing factually incorrect, but the Conservatives will also say that we have not met a single climate target, which is disingenuous because our targets on reducing emissions have always been 2030 and 2050, and we are making significant progress in getting there.

The Conservatives say that we have not reduced emissions, but by the measures we brought in, we have done the equivalent of taking 11 million cars off the road annually. They do not actually want people to have lower heating bills. They want them to be strapped in to ride the roller coaster of volatile fossil fuel prices.

In contrast, we know that we need to decarbonize how we heat our homes and how we transport ourselves. Studies have shown that a Halifax resident can save over $1,400 a year by switching from oil heating to a heat pump. Just yesterday, I spoke to a fellow British Columbian who was able to get over $20,000 in grants from the federal government, from the B.C. government and from Vancity to be able to purchase and install a heat pump in B.C., so there is already a lot of support for these types of measures. Together with switching to an electric vehicle, we know that families can save as much as $10,000 a year.

Our government is intent on making sure this happens with a series of incentives and programs. It is working. We know that just last year in British Columbia over 18% of new vehicles sold were zero-emissions vehicles.

Unfortunately, the only climate plan we are hearing from the Conservatives is that we need to burn more fossil fuels. Yes, it is hard to believe that we need to increase our production of natural gas as a way of reducing emissions. They say to use technology, but what technology would that be? Is it any technology that is actually available today?

They are not going to talk about any of that technology. They are going to talk about technology that is unproven and that maybe a decade from now we will be able to use. The Conservatives talk about things such as small module reactors and carbon capture, which have not been proven and are not ready to use today. This is what we call greenwashing.

Instead, we see the Conservatives giving new meaning to cancel culture. We have seen the Government of Alberta very recently put a six-month moratorium on the renewable energy industry, which has been growing rapidly in the province and represents a $33-billion economic opportunity. We have seen, in this very House, the Conservatives filibuster and oppose the changes to the Atlantic accords that would create the foundation for a vibrant green-energy future, including with offshore winds in Atlantic Canada.

I will say that this is because the Conservatives do not actually believe that climate change is real. In fact, this is exactly how they voted at their policy convention just two years ago. I would also posit that they do not actually care about affordability because, if they did, they would be saying something about the record profits that are being made, and they would be standing right here with us on measures that would ensure that people can get off the use of fossil fuels for home heating and for transportation.

Rather, this motion and the dozen motions that we have debated in the House on the carbon tax are just a distraction from the real reason that the cost of energy is high in Canada. The Conservatives would rather keep Canadians strapped into the volatile roller coaster that global energy prices are right now. We know that they are going to be a challenge as we live in a very uncertain world.

We are focused on reducing emissions. That is why we are rolling out this heat pump program and why we have been implementing all these different measures as part of our emissions-reductions plan. It is also why I will be voting against this measure.

We need to make sure that we utilize the most efficient program that we have at our disposal for reducing emissions, which is, of course, having a price on pollution. This is a measure that Conservatives used to believe in. We know the government of Stephen Harper was on board with this idea, and the Conservative Party ran on this in the last election. In my home province of B.C., we had a right-of-centre government that brought this in, and none of the doom and gloom that some people said would happen ended up happening.

With that, I look forward to some questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it seems even the Conservatives are not interested in their own motion. I would like to call a quorum count.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We now have enough members to continue.

We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has the floor.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, earlier this week—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Excuse me for a moment. I would like the attention of the House. I would ask members, instead of having conversations in the chamber, to take them out. We are still doing business here.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about efficiencies in terms of the fight against climate change. I am going to quote from an Edmonton Sun article. It says, “Answering in question period Wednesday on behalf of an absent Prime Minister...[the member for Edmonton Centre] suggested unhappy Albertans and other Canadians could always switch their natural gas furnaces for heat pumps”.

The article goes on to say that this would cost $20 billion or more if this was to be implemented across the country.

How is that efficient?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to the numbers that are behind that. What we do know is that heat pumps save people, as I mentioned before, $1,400 a year if they switch from home heating oil to heat pumps. That is why we have had programs in place for multiple years now, like the greener homes grant, which is a $5,000 grant. We also have the greener homes loan, which people can access.

I mentioned in my speech that we are already seeing this take-up right across the country, including in my province of British Columbia where we have a province that has similarly seized the importance not only of climate action but also of people saving money on home heating bills. It saves money for people, fights climate change and actually creates local jobs in Canada. We need to have more measures like this, so we can tackle all those things together.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is my neighbour, so it is always good to see neighbours get up and do work in this place.

I recognize that we are in a climate crisis. I know that if we look across B.C., we are seeing terrible forest fires and whole communities are being washed out by rivers literally falling from the sky, and people are becoming increasingly concerned. We know this is having a huge impact on insurance costs, and things like that, as we are dealing with those significant challenges. I also recognize that people are struggling profoundly right now with trying to make ends meet, and it is getting increasingly scarier.

This motion really does not address a key factor, which is that B.C., Quebec and the Northwest Territories have their own carbon pricing process. That means if this is voted on in a positive way, then it would not have an impact on those communities. The NDP offered an amendment to the motion to save GST in those provinces and territories so that they could see results as well.

Can the member speak to that and to why the Conservatives did not take that opportunity?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my neighbour and colleague from North Island—Powell River for the question.

Indeed, we are seeing the impacts of the climate crisis right across the country this year, particularly with record wildfires. It has caused untold economic and human harm. It is incredibly tragic to see. That is why it is so important not only that we do everything we can to mitigate emissions, and the carbon price is a key part of that, but also that we make sure we continue to adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

As we do that, we need to make sure that we keep affordability front and centre, and that is why we are offering a rebate, so that eight out of 10 Canadians will get back more than they pay. At the same time, it is very much up to the provinces and territories that have their own systems as to how they want to operate carbon pricing in their jurisdictions.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and implore colleagues to support the common-sense and fair-minded motion before us today. For those watching at home, the motion reads:

That, 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.

The motion is about the carbon tax, but it is ultimately also about being fair to all Canadians, regardless of region and home heating source. That is what this motion is asking for: fairness.

It also acknowledges something else, in direct response to the assertion made this morning by the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. He asserted that the carbon tax is working and that it is worth the immense cost to the constituents in his expansive riding, many of whom pay a lot to do things such as heating their homes and getting around.

I want to lay out for the House that the carbon tax is not working and is not worth the cost. In the heart of this motion is the fact that, after eight years of Liberal government, not only is the carbon tax not working, but it is also exacerbating the inflationary crisis and financial hardship for Canadians. This is another reason Conservatives have put the motion forward today.

Ahead of our Wednesday morning caucus meeting and as winter temperatures began to set in across the country, the Leader of the Opposition announced that Conservatives would in fact force a vote in the House of Commons on Monday to extend a three-year carbon tax exemption to all forms of home heating in every part of Canada. The exemption was announced by the Prime Minister last week for Atlantic Canadian home heating oil.

I know that the temptation for Liberal and perhaps NDP colleagues will be to continue to toe the line the Prime Minister took this week and vote against this motion. Perhaps the Bloc will as well. This line was that no additional carve-outs on the carbon tax would be forthcoming.

However, that position would be a mistake, both morally and politically. If anybody in this chamber cares about public support for climate action, the inflation crisis and, frankly, keeping their jobs, they should vote in favour of this motion. Here is why: While inflation and the cost of living remain the top electoral concerns for Canadians, a very recent survey by Leger suggested that about 70% of Canadians are worried about climate change. However, support for keeping the Liberal signature climate policy, the carbon tax, only registers with the support of 18% of Canadians.

The reason for the vast delta, that gap between public concern for addressing climate change and support for the climate tax, is something that few NDP, Liberal or Bloc intelligentsia appear to have considered. This blind spot is now both biting them in the rear politically and preventing Canada from meeting its emissions targets.

What is the reason behind that gap? It is that the carbon tax is failing to move consumer preferences away from high-carbon products and practices in the way Liberals promised it would, and Canadians know it. In the middle of a generationally high cost of living crisis, all Canadians, even those very concerned about climate change, are unwilling to pay for a policy they know to be ineffectual. Put differently, people will only choose alternatives to things such as driving carbon-powered vehicles and heating their homes with carbon-based fuels if other options exist and if those options are readily available and affordable.

Those circumstances may be partially available in more temperate and highly populated regions of the world, but that is not so much the case across the rest of our country. Even though the Liberals, the NDP and, frankly, the Bloc, seem to be content with keeping the tax in this scenario, Canadians are not choosing to purchase alternatives; in most parts of Canada, they do not widely exist and are completely unaffordable.

If one is ever in the beautiful riding of Calgary Nose Hill, I encourage them to come and drive up a piece of road called Centre Street, which turns into Harvest Hills Boulevard. There is a beautiful laneway along a big chunk of that for a light rapid transit. For 10 years, I have been imploring different levels of government to build out light rapid transit in that corridor. That would pull 50,000 cars off the road every day. Yet, we do not see leadership from the Liberal government on building out this type of critical infrastructure that would actually deliver social inclusion for my community, and could materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, we see this dogmatic adherence to a policy that does not work. This concept is simple to grasp for even the most politically disconnected Canadians, particularly when they fill up their car and pay a carbon tax, but have no public transit alternatives and pay a carbon-based home heating bill for six months of brutal cold with no other option.

There are LRT debacles in Ottawa. I encourage everybody to try to take the LRT to their place here in Ottawa tonight. I wish them good luck. Edmonton, Calgary and the greater Toronto area are perfect examples of this situation.

Another good example is that after nearly a decade of wasted time, greenhouse gas emissions and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the administration of the carbon tax, the Liberals have not managed to deliver alternatives to things like heating oil. The measures the Prime Minister announced this week, a decade late and thousands of dollars short, would not even pay for a Big Mac value meal for rural Canadians each month. Earlier today, the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay said as much in the debate when he said that in Canada, heating homes is not a luxury. He is right. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity. If people cannot heat their home, they freeze.

The Liberal member for Kings—Hants also said something similar when he said that if Canadians do not have the money to make a change to a different form of heating, then they are stuck. Stuck is a great way to describe the situation many Canadians find themselves in right now.

The question Canadians now want answered is how the Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP plan to get them financially unstuck after a decade of failure. A decade of Liberal rule has also shown people that the federal government is not, putting it mildly, particularly good at building out the infrastructure, like public transit, beefed-up electrical grids or a national system of EV charging stations needed to do things like pull gas-powered cars off the road.

The Liberals expect people to pay a carbon tax, with no alternative. They expect people to pay a carbon tax on home heating, with no alternative. That is the record of eight years of Liberal government. The carbon tax is not working and yet the Liberals expect people to pay for it in the middle of winter, on their heating bill.

However, the Liberal government does seem to be good at one thing, blowing a lot of tax dollars and political attention on waste and scandal, like the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the WE charity scandal, the ArriveCAN scandal and the foreign interference crisis. None of those things would bring inflation under control or address climate change.

The Liberal government's record on both fronts is abysmal, and it does not want to be held to account on that front. The government is not meeting its climate targets. It is just taxing Canadians with a policy that does not work.

Further to this point, this week's serious whistle-blower allegations regarding allegations of gross misappropriation at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, an agency that is supposed to spur the development and deployment of emissions reductions technology, will undoubtedly further erode public trust in the Liberal government's capacity to provide lower-cost alternatives to carbon fuels.

I want to read from this article, because I do not think people at home have heard much about this scandal. It just broke this week. Somebody named Doug McConnachie, assistant deputy minister at Innovation, has been working with whistle-blowers on this file, and they recorded him. This is what came out of the recordings when they were looking at the misappropriation of funds in this giant slush fund that is supposed deliver low-cost alternatives and combat climate change.

This is from a CBC article:

By late July, McConnachie was convinced certain spending decisions were badly handled, including the payments of nearly $40 million during the pandemic that was not based on precise needs and did not require follow-ups.

“It was free money,” he said....

I know there are a lot of people in my community who would like free money. This was free money designed to combat climate change that went to some Liberal cronies. We do not even know how, and the people who made these decisions still have jobs. The government has known about this for months or years. Those people still have jobs, and the Liberals expect us to believe that they care about getting inflation under control or that they care about climate change.

The article goes on: “‘It was free money,’ he said, before making an analogy with the controversy that affected Jean Chrétien's Liberal government in the early 2000s.” “Affected” is putting it nicely. It was brought down. “‘That is almost a sponsorship-scandal level kind of giveaway.’”

This is a fund that was supposed to address climate change in Canada, and it turned into, as everything else has with the government, a slush fund for Liberal cronies. People who care about climate action and care about getting inflation under control should not look at the Liberal government, because it does not care. Its members just virtue signal on these things and give away tax dollars to their friends while people are expected to pay tax on home heating in the middle of a Canadian winter. That it disgusting. That has an impact on climate change. Again, how do those people still have jobs?

Members do not have to take my word for all of these facts, because the results are laid bare in recent government reports that show that even with the carbon tax, Canada will still miss its 2030 emissions targets by close to 50%. I have heard so many Liberals get up today and talk about forest fires and the impacts of climate change, yet they are dogmatically supporting a policy that does not work and that, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada at the finance committee, is affecting inflation in a major way. Tiff Macklem said this at committee yesterday. The Liberals are dogmatically adhering to a policy that does not work when they know that Canada is on track to missing its emissions targets by 50%. Canadians know this. They know the carbon tax is not working.

There is proof of these facts in recent political trends too. The Liberals' capitulation on the tax on home heating oil should have been viewed as an inevitability for even the most lay observer. The signs have been present for months. For example, in August, a Nova Scotia provincial riding that had been a safe Liberal hold from time immemorial was flipped by provincial Conservatives due in part to the unpopularity of the federal Liberal carbon tax.

Within the federal Liberal backbench there has also been extreme dissent over this issue, likely due to the sustained precipitous drop in polls that the party has seen. These incidents have followed nearly a year of high-profile campaigning by the leader of the Conservative Party against the tax. I have heard colleagues in the Liberal Party complain that we have brought motion after motion in this House to fight the tax. They are absolutely right. We are going to keep doing it, because it does not work and it is costing Canadians.

Now that same crisis has overlaid the tax and it means millions of Canadians are facing the prospect of choosing between heating and eating, never mind considering, as some of my colleagues are talking about, buying expensive alternatives that might not even exist in their regions. That is the most bourgeois concept I have ever heard. It is much like when the member for Edmonton Centre said that everybody can buy a heating pump. Does he not know that people in his own community cannot even afford their rent?

The Prime Minister's late-stage partial capitulation on removing the tax for heating oil but not other carbon heating fuels also risks creating perverse incentives, like the one mentioned by Rural Municipalities of Alberta, which suggested that the Liberals' partial tax exemption may generate higher demand for higher-emitting heating oil in certain circumstances. Keeping the tax's regional inequities will also further divide our country at a time when we need to unify. The world has changed, and those in our country need to be strong, not pitted against each other by inequitable policies that do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our country.

Contrary to the opinions of many left-leaning pundits, after eight years of climate failure and the creation of an inflationary crisis, no one here should continue to lean into this tax. It needs to go.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

It being 5:43 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, November 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:58 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that Bill S-242, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.