Debates of Nov. 7th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a fair question. The answer is that we would take the GST off all forms of home heating. Of course, for electricity, people receive only one bill. There is only one power meter on their house, and, essentially, the measure would take the GST off all electricity used domestically. Domestic electricity use is also an essential, and it is a cost that Canadians face. This would be a way to make life more affordable for them. For people in Quebec, in my colleague's province, who use electricity for home heating, this would make a substantial difference in terms of affordability.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his initiative on this issue, which is so important to so many people. I also want to thank him for his leadership in the House.

My speech will focus on two main points: what is essential and what is existential.

Many things are essential to life. These are basic needs such as being safe, fed, housed and warm, to name a few. For a person to live comfortably and with dignity, those needs must be met. Everyone understands that. However, in our society right now, people are struggling to fill almost all of those needs. We can see it with the rising cost of groceries, which is reaching record levels. People are being forced to make absolutely heartbreaking choices. They have to cut back on food, they have to go without to feed their children, and they have to go without basic food items themselves.

Meanwhile, the price of groceries is through the roof and the CEOs of these major grocery chains are lining their pockets, giving themselves obscene bonuses and ending the year with incomes of eight, 10 or 12 million dollars a year. Meanwhile, people are struggling and having trouble buying enough food to eat. The price of food is rising faster than inflation, which is already rising faster than average wages.

People are also struggling because of the housing crisis. They are having a hard time finding a decent home for a reasonable rent. Everywhere, in Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, Montreal and throughout Quebec, this is a major crisis. The Liberal government of the 1990s, which was followed by the Conservatives, failed to invest adequately in affordable housing, social housing and co-operative housing. This is why so many people are struggling with housing today. They are having a hard time making ends meet. They are forced to move into apartments that are inadequate, that are too small for them. They are badly housed.

The cost of heating is also skyrocketing in many regions. The cost of fuel oil and natural gas is climbing, and that is another bill people have to pay. Things are really tough. The NDP has already taken action to help people and put forward solutions that have improved the situation. We increased the Canada housing benefit by $500 for those most in need. Twice, we doubled the GST tax credit to help people who are really struggling to pay their bills. We have a dental care program that is already accessible for children aged 12 and under and that will soon be available to youth, seniors aged 65 and over, and people with disabilities. This is going to improve people’s living conditions. It will save them hundreds of dollars a year.

We have other proposals. The NDP leader’s bill would increase competition in the grocery sector and cut prices. We propose creating a universal public pharmacare program that would reduce the cost of medications. We also propose investing in social housing and housing co-operatives.

In today's motion, we are putting forward two new solutions that we think everyone in the House should get on board with.

We want to remove the GST from all forms of home heating. This measure would apply to all Quebeckers and all Canadians. It would include Canadians in all regions. Unlike the Liberals, we are not trying to divide the regions. Like the Conservatives, we are conscious of the fact that people need a break on home heating costs.

Not only do we want to remove the GST from all forms of heating, but we also want a real home eco-energy retrofit program that includes making heat pumps easy to access for the lowest-income and middle-class families. Heat pumps will help families reduce their electricity and heating costs and will save them money in the long term, because they are excellent not only for heating, but also for cooling homes in the summer. That is one way to adapt to global warming and climate change. It is equitable and effective.

How will the government pay for this? My NDP colleague explained this earlier. Last year, big oil corporations made $38 billion in profit. That is twice as much as they made the year before. They went from $19 billion to $38 billion in profit. I think there might be an opportunity to go get some of that money.

Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that by taxing oil and gas companies a little more, we could easily find $4 billion a year. That is not nothing; $4 billion would make it possible to invest in people and reduce their heating bills by giving them quick access to heat pumps. That would greatly improve things.

I will now move on to the existential part of my speech; existential as in “existential threat”. The planet is burning. We all remember the forest fires last summer. They were burning everywhere. Cities and towns had to be evacuated. There was smoke everywhere and we could smell it across Quebec and in several regions in Ontario and British Columbia. It is not just the forest fires; it is a rising number of natural disasters that are happening more and more often, right before our eyes, and will continue to happen if we do not effectively combat climate change and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

If the temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius, certain areas of the planet will become uninhabitable for human beings. That means we will see massive population displacement, hundreds of millions of climate refugees, crumbling economies and wars as well. People say that two degrees does not change much and that in any one day we often go from 10 degrees in the morning to 18 degrees in the afternoon. However, what we need to understand is the global average. Many years ago, the planet was four degrees cooler. What does four degrees cooler mean? It means that there would be three kilometres of ice above our heads right now. Let us imagine if it were four degrees warmer. The planet would become an oven.

That is not the legacy we want to leave our children. There is an urgent need for action, but the Liberals are dragging their feet. We can see it. They still do not have a cap on greenhouse gas emissions for the oil and gas sector. We are still waiting. They still do not have regulations for clean and net-zero electricity for 2050. We are still waiting for those regulations. Those are two major elements that would make a difference. Right now, the Liberal government is headed straight for disaster on this issue. I am not the one saying that; it is in the commissioner of the environment's most recent report, submitted this morning, which clearly states that the government is failing on the environment front and in the fight against climate change.

Today the NDP is coming forward with a real plan. Having an energy-efficient retrofit program and free access to heat pumps to reduce greenhouse gases in the home heating sector means this is a real energy transition plan. Of course, home or residential heating is not the only sector that will allow us to reach our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is an important one. We cannot afford not to take action in all sectors of our economy and society. We must not only intervene in the energy, transportation and agricultural sectors, but also take action when it comes to our homes and residential heating.

Experts tell us this motion is a step in the right direction. We have received the support of several experts and environmental groups who are telling us this is what needs to be done. Tom Green, a senior climate policy adviser with the David Suzuki Foundation, tells us it is a good thing. Alex Cool-Fergus, the national policy manager at the Climate Action Network, supports this motion. Catherine Abreu, who speaks on behalf of Quebeckers and Canadians at all the COPs, tells us it is a good thing. Caroline Brouillette says so too, as does Brendan Haley of Efficiency Canada. They are all telling us that the motion we are moving today is a concrete solution that is fair for all regions and effective for families and that it will have an impact on people’s ability to get food, housing and heat. It will also make a real difference in our energy transition.

If we are serious about combatting climate change, this is the type of measure we need to support and implement as quickly as possible. The Liberal plan is not working. The Conservatives could not care less. We, in the NDP, take this seriously. We want to help the least fortunate, the middle class and families, and we are going to do so while helping save our planet by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I urge all members in the House, if they are serious about these two issues, to vote in favour of the NDP motion.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that this motion is extremely ill thought out, and some of the answers that were provided by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley have only further contributed to that problem.

The question of electricity—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am being heckled.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that if they have not been recognized to ask questions and make comments, or to make a speech, they should not be speaking out of turn at this point.

The hon. government deputy House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of people who heat with electricity, over 80% of Quebec heats with electricity.

My first question was whether this covered electricity. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said yes. My next question was how we would differentiate between heating with electricity versus playing with a PlayStation, which uses electricity. The member said that it included all of it. How is that fair to people who live in Manitoba who heat with propane, but also have electrical bills? They do not get the GST off their electrical bills, because their home heating is not part of that electrical bill.

Could the member explain to me how the NDP has crafted this motion in such a way that it would make things even more unfair? My question comes from a sincere place. I want to understand why the GST would be removed from their entire electrical bill if people happened to heat with electricity. However, if they heat with propane, they would still have to pay GST on their electrical bills.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer this rather simple question. We have a measure that will help everyone, unlike the Liberals, who only help some families in some regions. The NDP wants to help everyone, including Quebeckers who heat with hydroelectricity.

Furthermore, the Liberals are in no position to lecture, since their minister has said that people outside the Maritimes would have access to a discount on heating if they had voted correctly, meaning if they had voted Liberal. It is the same old Liberal recipe: We help our friends and those who vote for us, and we ignore the rest. The NDP wants to help everyone.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find this really tragic. After the coalition's poll numbers have fallen, those members have become so desperate that now all of a sudden, because of the carbon tax chaos brought forward by the Liberals, the NDP is now trying to justify an argument for affordability on home heating.

If we go back to February of 2022, that party voted against a break on home heating. In April, June, October and December of 2022, that party voted against a break on home heating. In February of this year, that party voted against a break on home heating. On June 6, that party voted against a break on home heating and did so again in October. Then, yesterday, the NDP finally figured out that Canadians were struggling.

My question for that member is simple. When will those members vote to actually axe the tax to give all Canadians a break so Canadians can afford to keep the heat on?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will agree on one thing: The Liberal government is currently in chaos on these issues, like a chicken with its head cut off that has no idea where it is going.

However, I disagree with my colleague. There are fundamental differences between us and the Liberals. We want to remove the GST on all forms or types of heating to help all Quebec and Canadian families.

I am not sure my colleague is aware, but there is no carbon tax in Quebec. Their solution is therefore unfair. It will not help Quebeckers. Furthermore, the Conservative Party does not even think there is a climate change problem. They think everything is fine, and that all we need is more fossil fuels and to pollute even more.

That is the Conservative Party. In the NDP, we are fighting this.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned that, according to the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, taxing large profits would bring in $4.2 billion, but for 2023 to 2028, a five-year period, it is roughly $1.5 billion yearly.

Heat pumps also require ventilation ducts. In Quebec, people will also need a furnace, because a heat pump will not work when it is colder than -12°C. This amounts to between $8,000 and $20,000 per installation. There are 11 million low-income people in Canada, and even more middle-income earners.

Averaging out the cost, for the free heat pump alone, we get $77 billion for this measure, along with one to pay for it that would cost $1 billion yearly. How does that work?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is worried that we cannot tax multi-millionaires, big companies, oil companies, banks, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies in order to give people practical help.

I already have a heat pump at home. It works very well and is very efficient. The Liberal program has provided 438 heat pumps nationwide in two years. It is completely ineffective.

We are going to have a real program that will be financed by seeking money where it is found, so that we can help Quebeckers.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this issue, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I have some things to offer today about some of the flaws I see with this motion.

I first want to correct the record. I have already heard the NDP interventions today by both the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. They indicated that the removal of the carbon tax on home heating oil was regional, and that is 100% incorrect. The way it works is that if people heat with oil and are currently subject to the federal price on pollution, regardless of where they live in the country, they will not pay the carbon tax.

I have some news for the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Skeena—Bulkley Valley. In Ontario, twice as many people heat with oil than in all of Atlantic Canada. On the notion that it is somehow a regional thing, I hate to say it, but the NDP appears to be jumping on the bandwagon of a narrative that the Conservatives are trying to set, and it is factually incorrect. It is very important to point that out.

While I am on this topic, I would like to address the issue of home heating oil and the price on pollution, which some call the carbon tax, that has been removed from home heating oil recently. I want people to appreciate why it was done that way.

We know two things about heating with oil. It is the dirtiest form of heating and it is the most expensive form of heating. So people can understand it from a numbers perspective, in 2023, the annual operating cost in Vancouver, British Columbia for those who heat with natural gas and have a 96%-efficient furnace will be $600 for gas. For those who heat with oil in the same province and have a 94%-efficient furnace it will be $1,800. They will effectively be paying three times the cost if they heat with oil.

In Calgary, Alberta, it is $800 versus $3,200, four times as much. In Regina, Saskatchewan, it is $1,400 versus $4,400. In Toronto, Ontario, it is $900 versus $3,400. In Winnipeg, Manitoba, it is $1,300 versus $4,700. In Montreal, Quebec, it is $1,300 versus $3,400. In Fredericton, New Brunswick, it is $1,600 versus $3,600. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, it is $2,200 versus $3,200. In every example I have given, I have shown that it is significantly more expensive to heat with oil, and it is the dirtiest form of heat.

There is a natural question that environmentalists might have, and it is a very good question because it is a policy that I had to really think about when I heard the announcement. The question would be why the government would remove the price on pollution on the dirtiest form of heating.

If we were to remove it and stop there, that would be bad, because we would accomplish nothing. We would be encouraging people not to heat with oil because of the price difference, unlike what the Leader of the Opposition implied in a question during question period last week, but we certainly would not be pushing forward. Our plan is not to remove the price on pollution; it is to pause it for three years so that people can use the money they otherwise would have been spending on the dirtiest form of fuel to transition to a heat pump.

From an environmentalist perspective, I am not happy with the idea of removing a tax from the dirtiest form of fossil fuel, but I know that in the long run, we will be better off from an environmental perspective because more people will have transitioned to heat pumps.

This brings me to the second policy that was also adopted, which the Conservatives and, quite frankly, the NDP like to conflate. It is the issue of heat pumps not being available throughout the entire country. That is not true. Heat pumps are available through a federal-provincial program to the whole country. It is up to the individual province to sign up for the program.

The province would provide x number of dollars and the federal government would provide x number of dollars. That is the way the program works. It is the way the three Atlantic provinces that have signed up for the program are currently doing it. I want to make something absolutely clear. The program is available throughout the entire country, but it is up to the provinces to decide if they want to come onboard.

Another thing about home heating and oil is that Quebec has actually banned oil heating in new homes, starting on December 31, 2023. Someone cannot build a house in Quebec that has oil as a form of heating.

According to a CBC article from December 31, 2021, “As of Dec. 31, oil-powered heating is banned in all new construction projects across Quebec, part of the province's push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Quebec has always been a leader in this regard. The article continues, “In two years, Quebec will go a step further by making it illegal to replace existing oil furnaces with any sort of heating system powered by fossil fuels after Dec. 31, 2023.”

After December of this year, people have to replace their heating systems with a non-fossil fuel-burning source. Quebec, as a province, is doing the right thing. It is bringing in bold initiatives that are important, that are going to genuinely transform how people heat in the province.

As I indicated in a question earlier, over 80% of Quebec already heats with electricity. This motion is actually unfair to Quebeckers.

The motion says that, “the House call on the government to...remove the GST from all forms of home heating.” That sounds easy. I am sure whoever drafted it thought it made a lot of sense. However, it is forgetting the complexities of how people heat their homes. It is not as cut and dry as somebody has a gas furnace, or an oil boiler or electric baseboard heating.

For example, heating one's home with a heat pump is done by electricity. The question that I had originally when I read the motion was about people who used electricity. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley answered that question by saying the motion would apply to all forms of heating, Therefore, if people heat with electricity, they would not pay the GST on their electrical bill.

When my kids are playing on their PlayStation or Xbox, they are using electricity. We are not going to be paying GST on that if I happen to be one of the people who also has baseboard heaters or an electric forced air furnace. Those are very common too, especially in Quebec. If people use forced air electric furnaces, presumably, according to this motion, all GST would be removed from their electrical bill. How is that fair? The consumption of electricity that is not related to home heating would be something that is not subject to GST anymore.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley addressed that point too. He said that they knew about that when they drafted the motion, that they intended for it to be on the entire electrical bill. How is that fair to somebody who heats with gas, but also has an electrical bill? My gas bill would not have the GST on it, but my electrical bill would because I do not happen to heat with electricity.

I think I understand where the New Democrats are coming from, but in my opinion, with all due respect, this is an extremely flawed motion in its wording. It does not achieve what I think they intended when they originally wrote it. That is why I am concerned about supporting it.

However, I agree with a number of things in it. I agree, and have said this in this House, that the oil and gas sector has profited with record profits. I brought to the attention of this House during various debates the fact that for the oil and gas sector, as it relates to the increases when purchasing gasoline at gas stations for our vehicles, the increase is nine times what the carbon tax effectively is. Let me explain that.

In the preceding year, on the average litre of gasoline in Canada, the carbon tax contributed a two-cent increase per litre, but the wholesale profit, the profits made not by the retailer who owns the gas station, but by the oil company selling it to the retailer, was 18¢ more per litre. It is nine times more of an effect from the profits being made versus the carbon tax. The Conservatives are nowhere on that. They are not nine times as outraged with big oil companies. No, not at all. They are picking on the two cents per litre when the bigger fish is the 18¢ per litre, but they are silent on it. I wonder why. I think we all know and I really do not have to say it. My point is I recognize that, and I think it is important to do something with respect to the oil and gas sector.

Will what the New Democrats are proposing solve the problem? They point to record profits. How do we do that? Do we do it the way we did with the banks and insurance companies? That was over a five year period. It was set up with an established base line that if they made anything more than that, they had a separate tax level, but only for five years and only while those profits were high. I understand they would collect the money and then reinvest it into environmentally friendly options, which is what they are proposing, but I do not understand the long-term strategy there. I certainly understand the short-term strategy of penalizing them for gouging the market, and I do not necessarily disagree with that, but there is no long-term strategy there.

A better long-term strategy, quite frankly, when dealing with the oil and gas sector, is to cap the emissions it is allowed to produce. This is a highly effective and established mechanism for doing that. It is nothing new.

That is why we set up strategies, such as Canada's methane strategy, which includes requirements for the oil and gas sector to achieve methane reductions of at least 75% by 2030 from 2012 levels. We have a position paper that was done on it.

I have submitted so many petitions, well over 20 petitions by this point, to this effect. I happen to have another one here. I presented one yesterday and will probably present this one tomorrow. These are from Canadians. This is what they are talking about. They are saying that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned us repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather. They are concerned and feeling the impacts in Canada today with increased flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures. They want to address climate change and recognize that it requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to limit warming to 1.5° Celsius in the oil and gas sector, which is the largest, fastest-growing source of emissions.

In 2021, they knew the federal government committed to cap and cut emissions for the oil and gas sector to achieve net-zero emissions. These petitions, which I have presented on behalf of thousands of Canadians, call on the Government of Canada to immediately move forward with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in nature in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030. I think that is a better strategy.

We really have two forms of pricing pollution. We could do it through a direct price on pollution, what is commonly called a carbon tax, which has been done. People are provided rebates as an incentive to curb their behaviour but still get more money back, which is why 80% or more of the Canadians who are paying it get more money back.

We could do a cap-and-trade model. That is a model the western initiative adopted with a number of states in the United States and a couple of provinces in Canada, including Ontario, although Doug Ford has since backed out of it. Another way we can do it is through cap and trade.

By capping the emissions, we can start to control what we know is the highest emitting sector and the fastest growing. As a matter of fact, it is the only sector that has not started to turn downwards in terms of its graphical representation of its emissions.

I think it is really important that we develop sound policy. I kind of get where the NDP is coming from. I understand their motivation, but I completely disagree with it. Now is the time to be steadfast in our commitment to the environment, but also to find ways to support Canadians.

I do not see how removing the GST from all forms of home heating, notwithstanding the fact that I have already pointed out the flaws in the motion, ends up encouraging people to reduce emissions, which is what the price on pollution is. It is what the Conservatives got the NDP to agree with them to vote on yesterday, and I was really surprised when I saw that. A reporter asked me why the NDP was voting in favour of it. I said that I did not know. I understand that they see people are struggling, because we do too, but we can provide other supports for people. We do not have to rely on the narrative that the Conservative leader has created. There are ways we can deal with helping people that do not have to be at the expense of the environment.

I will conclude by saying that, although I appreciate where the NDP is coming from, I think that the motion is highly flawed. It creates a lot of questions, and those questions create a lot of inequality. We would be much better served to find other ways to support people.

By the way, I just want to throw this out there for my NDP colleagues. The motion is basically calling for Galen Weston not to pay GST on home heating. Are they aware of that? Are they aware of the fact that the motion basically says that Galen Weston would not pay GST on his home heating? I do not think this is what NDP members had in their heads when they created it, but unfortunately, the motion creates a lot of problems. I actually think that nobody knows better than the NDP that we would be better off targeting our supports to those who really need it than to those who do not, such as myself, Galen Weston and other people who are able to afford the cost of heating.

I would encourage my NDP colleagues to really give it some thought. I understand where they are coming from, but unfortunately, I think the motion is extremely flawed in its execution.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with care. He noted that the impact of excess profits is nine times that of the carbon tax. I wonder why he is not nine times as outraged himself about the excess profits that are being raked in while contributing to the climate crisis.

Why will the government not support an excess profit tax on oil and gas, which was even imposed in the U.K. by Conservatives?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, Hansard has this really good search feature where we can put in a couple of key words and it will pull out results for us. If the member put in the key words “oil and gas sector profits” and my name, it is going to pop up a lot.

I have actually raised this point a lot in this House. I have been asked this question a number of times by my NDP colleagues, and I have raised it. I have also raised it on the grocery chains.

I will not shy away from bringing to the attention of this House where I see gouging, as we have seen in grocery chains and as we have seen in the oil and gas sector. Referencing specifically 18¢ wholesale profits to two cents carbon tax, I have said that at least 20 times in this House. It is something that I am routinely bringing up in my party, and it is something that I am routinely bringing up through petitions. This is not an issue that I shy away from, nor have I in the past.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member actually mentioned Regina and home heating oil, and there are not a lot of people who heat their homes with heating oil. They do not get any of the divisive carbon tax exemption that was brought forward.

[An hon. member]

Yes, they do.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

No, they do not.

Madam Speaker, the Liberal minister from Newfoundland and Labrador said that if one wants exemptions and to be treated fairly, then please vote Liberal.

The Liberal member did not bring home the tax exemption for his people and there are more people who use home heating oil in northern Ontario than in Saskatchewan. There are quite a few Liberal members in northern Ontario. Why are they so incompetent that they could not get the tax exemption for their constituents and the people who live in their communities, when they are the ones, after eight long years, who created this affordability crisis in the first place?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, either the member does not know the policy or the member is providing the wrong information in this House, because I started off my speech by saying that it does not matter what region one lives in. This is the policy. If people live in Canada and heat with oil and they are in a province that is subject to the price on pollution, they will not be paying the carbon tax on that oil, full stop.

Conservatives want us to think that this is a policy just for Atlantic Canada, and I deeply regret that the members from the NDP, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, have indicated the exact same thing. This is not a regional thing.

The member is right, actually, about one thing. Twice as many people in Ontario heat with oil than in Atlantic Canada. I did bring it home for my constituents who heat with home heating oil. We are bringing home reducing the price for home heating oil, so we can help people transition to heat pumps.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motion at hand implies that people who consume more energy will save more on GST than on their heating bill. This means a person would not benefit if they live in an apartment where heat is included in the rent. It also means someone who rents would not be able to get a heat pump because they do not own the home.

I would like to ask my colleague a question, or rather offer him some suggestions. Why not expand energy efficiency programs to include low-income families, and maybe even give them preferential access? Why not also expand the programs to renters as well? These would be effective measures for the whole population.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member brought up an excellent point which, quite frankly, I had not even thought of until she said it. Not only does this motion call on Galen Weston to not pay GST on his home heating, but for those who live in an apartment where one's heating is included in the rent, they are not benefiting from this either. It is an excellent point.

The NDP members are going to have to come to terms with the fact that when they crafted this motion, it was not well thought out. I understand what their intentions were, but the way they crafted this motion just did not work. They would be much better off calling on the government to bring in programs to support lower-income Canadians, not to support Galen Weston, but to support people who could genuinely benefit from this.

I really think that this motion needs a do-over.

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

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I intentionally shied away from going heavily into this area because I think the NDP have provided good and meaningful contributions in this Parliament, so I did not want to pick on its members too much. However, the member has a really good point. How does this tie back to yesterday's motion? From my perspective, NDP members are trying to cover the fact that they voted with Conservatives yesterday. They are trying to hastily bring something forward to show constituents they are trying to play both sides of this. I just think there would have been another way they could have done that. They could have done it through a way that targets supports to Canadians who really need it.

To his question specifically about the environmental impact of this, I want to reiterate this, because it bears repeating. Everywhere in Canada if people heat with oil, they are subject to the federal backstop on the carbon tax; they do not pay a carbon tax on that. The whole point of that is to provide relief for people so they can make the transition to heat pumps. Three provinces have signed up with the federal government to make that transition. We need more, so I encourage more provinces to step up and get together with the feds so we can help provide more people with heat pumps.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. We all know that primarily the biggest beneficiaries of this carbon tax pause on home heating fuel are those from Atlantic Canada. In fact, the minister from Newfoundland and Labrador clearly said that other areas of the country could have had the same exemption had they voted more Liberals in. I am sure the constituents in Liberal-held ridings in Atlantic Canada said, “Oh, goody, we get a tax break.” I am sure they were excited.

Why would the Liberals have given a pause on the dirtiest, the most carbon-intensive home heating fuel there is, and given a break on the carbon tax? Why not the other cleaner-burning fuels?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact the premise of the question is flawed again because it is this pitting regions against each other, this is not the case and something I have addressed many times, I do want to address his question.