OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 248 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 7, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 7, 2023 DEBATES No. 248 No. 248 N o 248 Volume 151 248 07 11 2023 2023/11/07 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

(1000) [ Translation ] Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

The Speaker :

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, the fall 2023 reports of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), these reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

[ English ] Committees of the House Status of Women

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Let's Talk About it, Period: Achieving Menstrual Equity in Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[ Translation ] Public Accounts

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 30th report entitled “Systemic Barriers—Correctional Service Canada” and the 31st report entitled “Chronic Homelessness”. [ English ] Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present our dissenting opinion. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canada has been plunged into a never-before-seen housing hell. Forty-eight per cent of Canadians have given up the hope of ever owning their own home, mortgages have doubled, rents have doubled and Canada is in a housing crisis. To address this, Conservative members of the committee recommend the immediate implementation of Bill C-356 , the building homes not bureaucracy act, which includes seven recommendations:

(

a) establish a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target;

(

b) provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets;

(

c) require that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects’ stations; and

(

d) make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure and transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing.

It also amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to

(

a) eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met and to reduce executive compensation if applications for funding for new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days; and

(

b) provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate.

It would also require “the Minister of Public Works to table a report on the inventory of federal buildings and land, to identify land suitable for housing construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and all land that would be appropriate for housing construction”.

(1005) Science and Research

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, entitled “The Role and Contribution of Citizen Scientists”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Petitions Natural Health Products

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Regina—Lewvan. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the notion that freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further threatened by the legislation and statutory regulations of the Government of Canada. They say it is a fundamental right for individuals to choose how to prevent illness or how to address illness or injury in their own bodies.

They state that Canadians want the freedom to decide how they will prevent illness or how they will address illness or injury in their own bodies, and that Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without state interference. The petitioners call upon Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom, drafted for the Natural Health Products Protection Association on September 4, 2008. I have many constituents who are concerned with the changes to the natural health product regulations, and I present this on their behalf.

Rare Diseases

Mr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning to present, on behalf of petitioners, petition e-4414. The petitioners state that one in 10 Canadians has a rare disease and faces immense challenges in getting the appropriate care to survive and get better, that one in 15 babies in Canada is born with a rare disease and that the Government of Canada announced an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years as part of its national strategy.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to implement the national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, work with the provinces to ensure immediate access to rare disease medicine, extend the funding for rare disease medicine, ensure that CORD and the Regroupement québécois des maladies orphelines are key partners in discussions, and finally, build out the NSDRD to include centres of expertise.

Pakistan

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this place and once again present a petition. This one has particular relevance, as I have heard from a number of constituents on this issue, including some heartbreaking personal stories of individuals who have been caught up in the circumstances that are taking place in Pakistan.

The petitioners state that the people of Pakistan and Pakistani Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about reports of political turmoil and uncertainty in that country, and that the restoration of democracy in Pakistan is in the best interests of Canada, Pakistan and the international community. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to use all reasonable avenues of diplomacy to influence the Government of Pakistan to respect fundamental elements of democracy, including free and fair elections, freedom of the press and judicial independence.

I have heard from a number of constituents on this issue. I have heard heartbreaking stories of people who have been persecuted for trying to do what is best for their own country. With those close connections and many Pakistani Canadians being impacted by this, it is an honour to table this petition in the House today.

(1010) Work Permits

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, in the petition I am tabling today, the petitioners note that in 2009, the immigration committee report on temporary foreign workers and non-status workers recommended that the government discontinue employer-specific work permits. They also note that in 2016, the HUMA committee report on the temporary foreign workers program found that “employer-specific work permits can place migrant workers in a vulnerable position with negative implications for their physical and mental well-being.” It recommended that immediate steps be taken to eliminate employer-specific work permits.

In 2019, Canada acknowledged that employer-specific work permits create a power imbalance that “favours the employer and can result in a migrant worker enduring situations of misconduct, abuse or other forms of employer retribution” when it implemented the open work permit for vulnerable workers, OWP-V, policy. Since then, numerous regulatory reforms attempting to improve the protection of temporary foreign workers, including the OWP-V policy, have failed to meaningfully counteract the high risk of abuse imposed on workers by employer-specific work permits.

The petitioners are calling for a just and equitable immigration system that provides full and permanent status to all workers coming to Canada, and regularization programs for those currently without status. In the interim, the petitioners are calling on the government to eliminate, without delay, the employer-specific work permit and adopt a work authorization regime that permits temporary foreign workers to freely change employers while in the country regardless of their occupation or national origin.

Climate Change

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present yet another petition on behalf of constituents calling to the attention of the government the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which indicates that Canada will continue to see, in addition to what we are already experiencing, increased flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures. The petitioners highlight that addressing the climate crisis requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and note that the oil and gas sector is the largest and fastest-growing source of emissions.

The petitioners indicate that in 2021, the federal government committed to cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector to achieve net zero by 2050. The petitioners are calling on the government to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.

Natural Health Products

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present three more petitions from citizens in the North Okanagan—Shuswap who are concerned about the NDP-Liberal government's overreach into their lives, especially when it comes to natural health products. The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to work with the natural health products industry and adjust Health Canada's cost recovery rates to accurately reflect the size and scope of the industry, and to only implement changes once the self-care framework is adjusted, backlogs are cleared, operations run efficiently and there are policies and procedures in place to ensure that stable operations continue.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. In the first petition, the petitioners draw the attention of the House to the Liberals' imposed carbon tax, saying it will continue to drive up the cost of home heating for Canadians. They say that in Canada, heating one's home in the winter is not a luxury; it is a necessity, and that after eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians now must decide whether to heat their home or put food on their table.

The petitioners also say that never before in Canadian history have Canadians paid more in tax than under the Liberal government, and that inflation has caused massive increases to costs faced by non-profits and registered charities and is further compounded by the carbon tax. The petitioners call on the House to cancel the tripling of the carbon tax on home heating, ensure no new taxes on Canadians and ensure that Canadians are put first: their family, their paycheques, their home and their future.

(1015) Freedom of Political Expression

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in support of Bill C-257 . This is a private member's bill I have put forward that would add political belief and activity to prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The petitioners say that it is in the best interests of Canadian democracy to have a free public exchange of ideas, to protect the political speech of those with different points of view and to protect them from the possibility of discrimination or punishment for their perspectives. The petitioners ask the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

Children and Families

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the final petition I will table today raises concerns about the Liberal government involving itself in decisions that should be made by parents and provinces. They highlight the circumstances of the Prime Minister 's attempt to interfere in New Brunswick politics in relation to policy 713. The petitioners note that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them more than any state-run institution. They say the role of government is to support families and respect parents, not to dictate how they should make decisions. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let parents raise their own children.

Seniors

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

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.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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.

Government Orders Business of Supply

[ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

moved: Motion

That, given that,

(i) 2023 saw a record fire season due to climate change, in which the area burned was double that of the historic record, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians were evacuated from their homes,

(ii) Canadians continue to struggle with dramatic increases to the cost of living while Canada’s biggest corporations, including oil and gas corporations, post record profits,

(iii) federal government programs aimed at supporting energy efficient retrofits such as heat pumps are hard to access, especially for low-income Canadians,

(iv) effective climate action must also address the very real affordability concerns of ordinary Canadians,

the House call on the government to:

(

a) remove the GST from all forms of home heating;

(

b) make eco-energy retrofits and heat pumps free and easy to access for low-income and middle-class Canadians, regardless of their initial home heating energy source; and

(

c) finance these changes by putting in place a tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas corporations.

He said: Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie . Canadians right across this country are struggling with the cost of living, including food, housing and home heating. In every province and territory, Canadians also want to see action on climate change. It is the challenge of our time, an existential challenge that affects all of us, our kids and future generations. It is not only that we can address these two urgent issues of affordability and the climate crisis at the same time; it is that we must address these emergencies at the same time.

That is why New Democrats brought forward this motion today. The motion would do three things. The first is that it would remove the GST from all forms of home heating. The GST, after all, is a Conservative tax that was brought in by a former Conservative government and is being applied to something that, as we have heard many times in this place, is an essential. The Liberals surprised everyone with their nakedly political decision last week to give some people a break in some parts of Canada where Liberals seem to be facing tough polls.

Unlike that decision, this motion would give a break to everyone in every province and territory, for all forms of home heating. This is a pretty simple policy proposal. It is one that the NDP has put forward again and again, going back to the time of the late Jack Layton. The other thing this motion would do is make it easier for Canadians to choose clean forms of home heating that save them money on their heating bills, especially heat pumps, which, right now, are transforming the home heating of millions of people around the world.

We have seen double-digit increases in the number of people using heat pumps to heat their homes; here in Canada, we have a lot of work to do. The Liberals' current approach to helping Canadians install heat pumps or do eco-energy retrofits of their homes, particularly for low-income people but for all Canadians, including middle-class Canadians, is deeply flawed. Last week, they made changes for people mostly in Atlantic Canada who heat with home heating oil.

These changes make it dramatically easier to afford these kinds of changes to improve their housing envelope, insulate their homes, add weather sealing and install heat pumps. Those are the changes we need right across this country for people in every province and on all forms of home heating. Where are we when it comes to achieving the government's stated ambition on reducing climate pollution from home heating sources? We are far behind. Canada's commitment is that heat pumps must be used for more than 10% of home heating by 2030 in order to achieve what is in the emissions reduction plan.

Right now, we are at 6%. By 2030, we need to get to that 10%, and that equates to about 560,000 heat pumps installed across the country. That is 70,000 heat pumps per year. New Democrats had an Order Paper question, in which we asked the government how many heat pumps it has incentivized under its greener homes program since 2021, when it was brought in. We got the numbers back this past March. What was the number? It was not 70,000, but 438 heat pumps.

Granted, heat pumps are being installed for reasons other than the greener homes incentive program, but what this shows is that this commitment on heat pumps is being broken. It is like the promise for two billion trees to be planted; the environment commission just told us it is not going to meet its goal and has become a tree-counting program instead of a tree-planting program. Canada is far behind meeting its ambition and realizing the pace of change that we need if we are going to tackle this existential crisis.

(1020) The government's heat pump program is far too difficult for people to access. I want to tell the story of Perry, one of my neighbours in Smithers, B.C. Last June, his natural gas furnace was at the end of its life, and he wanted to do the right thing. He wanted to put in a clean heat pump system that was going to run on clean B.C. electricity, save his household money and reduce climate pollution. He learned about the greener homes program and had an energy adviser do an audit of his house. He found an installer who was skilled and able to install a heat pump system.

He went through all these steps, and it is not a simple procedure. The installer installed the heat pump system. He looked through all the rules and specifications and put in two units. He submitted the paperwork to Natural Resources Canada, to the greener homes program. After months of waiting, he received the answer that although the outside unit that was installed was on the approved list of equipment, it was not approved if used with the inside unit that had been chosen. The inside unit was also on the list of approved equipment, but not in conjunction with the outside unit. One cannot make this stuff up.

There have been months of frustration and appeals to the program to use some common sense. He put in a heat pump that uses electricity and cuts his climate pollution down. This is the goal of the program, and he has done it; however, the program refused all his appeals and said he was not getting his $5,000 rebate. What happened then? The installer went back, tore out one of the units and put it another unit the installer felt was inferior, but now both were definitely on the list and should be approved. He resubmitted the paperwork. Another energy audit was done.

After six months, he received an email from the program saying that his account had been closed. It has been a year and a half, and Perry still has not received his $5,000 rebate. He has put so much time into fighting with the government program that, if he paid himself minimum wage, he would have over $5,000. This just points out how ridiculous the government's approach is to getting people these systems that are going to save them money. We are going to change that. How are we going to pay for this program? How are we going to put heat pumps in low- and modest-income houses across the country?

How are we going to help people on low incomes to afford insulation and weather sealing so they can drive down their bill and have a cost of living that is easier to afford? The answer is very simple. We are calling for the imposition of a tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas companies, which are making obscene profits and are making money hand over fist during a climate emergency. These companies are fuelling the climate crisis and making life more unaffordable for Canadians in every province and territory. This is hardly a radical idea.

This is exactly what the Conservative government in the U.K. did during the pandemic. It imposed a 25% profits tax on the oil and gas industry in the U.K. They took those revenues and drove them into affordability measures for ordinary people. Not only that, but the tax was then increased to 35%. The time for this idea has come. Last week we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that if we were only, as a country, to extend the very modest excess profits tax the government has placed on banks and insurance companies of 15% to the oil and gas industry, it would generate $4 billion in revenue.

That could go into such programs as the one we are putting forward today to get heat pumps into the homes of low-income Canadians and help them make their homes more energy-efficient, with a proper low-income energy efficiency program. That is going to go a long way. These companies can afford it; right now the profits the oil and gas industry is making are eyewatering. I am going to provide some of the numbers. In 2022, Canadian Natural Resources had $11 billion in profits. For Suncor, it was $9 billion.

I will add that Rich Kruger, the CEO, has said that the company is going to move away from climate ambition toward making even more money. Cenovus had $6.45 billion in profit in 2022. The total for Canadian oil and gas companies is $38.3 billion. This corporate profit-taking is driving inflation, making life less affordable and fuelling the climate crisis. It is time they paid for the solutions Canadians need.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

(1030) Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. It would be taken off all forms of home heating, including electricity. This would make a substantial difference. It would add up to at least what the government has done for people in Atlantic Canada and provide cost savings for people right across the country. That is the goal of this measure. I would add that I hope the parliamentary secretary can help Perry from Smithers get his $5,000.

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it was difficult to see the way the Liberal-NDP government decided to separate Canadians, initially, in this program. The member claims that the motion would provide equal benefit to all types of heating fuel. However, I question why he and his NDP colleagues continue to prop up the corrupt, divisive and unaccountable Liberal government time after time. They bring forward a motion like this, on a day like today, when they say they are an opposition party yet never oppose the government when it comes to things that really matter.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed my time working with my Conservative colleague in this place. We have put forward a motion today that would make life more affordable for Canadians right across the country and that would have a measurable impact in Canada's fight against climate change. I believe that all of us as opposition parties should be not only in opposition but also in proposition, that we should push for the ideas that make this country better, that help Canadians in their daily lives.

That is what we would be doing with the motion: taking the GST off all forms of home heating, making it easier to install heat pumps in homes across the country and putting an excess profits tax on the oil and gas industry at a time when it is making record profits.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. In Quebec, we heat and light our homes with hydroelectric power, a clean and renewable energy. In your measures, how did you distinguish between the provinces that use less clean forms of energy and those, like Quebec, that use renewable, more environmentally friendly energies?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I would ask the member to make sure she addresses her questions through the Chair and not directly to members.

[ English ]

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

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.

(1035) 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.

(1040) [ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

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!

Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I am being heckled.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. 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.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

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.

(1045) [ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice :

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.

[ English ]

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice :

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.

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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?

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice :

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.

(1050) [ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

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.

(1055) 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.

(1100) 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.

(1105) 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.

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP) :

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?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

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.

(1110) Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC) :

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.

Mr. Warren Steinley :

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?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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.

[ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

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.

(1115) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

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.

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

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?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

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.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, he asked a really good question and I want to answer it, if they can stop heckling me. The answer to the question is because we understand oil is the dirtiest form, we understand it is three to four times more expensive for Canadians across the country and we want to provide relief to people so they can transition away and toward heat pumps. By the way, the member brought up heat pumps. I am very glad to hear Manitoba is currently sitting down with the federal government to work out a program where Manitoba can get on board with that same program being used in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House again to keep the pressure on our common-sense Conservative plan. Sadly, yesterday, the Liberals rejected fairness for all Canadians in our Conservative motion to take the tax off so Canadians could keep the heat on. I am honoured to be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition . There is one party in the House of Commons that is fighting every single day to lower taxes for all Canadians.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are hurting badly in every part of this country, whether it is housing, where housing costs have doubled, whether it is inflation that is hitting the pocketbooks of every family in Canada, or whether it is food inflation that is still stubbornly way too high, with an average family in this country paying $1,000 more this year on their grocery bills than they did just last year alone. After eight years, it is time to stop taxing every part of this country and instead provide some much-needed relief.

Heating a home in this country, our cold Canada that we live in, is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Again, the problem we hear over and over again in every single part of this country is that Canadians are struggling to pay the bills. They are having to choose between heating and eating. It is heartbreaking, and we continue to see an NDP-Liberal coalition vote, time and time again, to make matters worse. What we have here now, and why I think this debate has exploded in the last couple of weeks, is Conservatives talking about axing the tax entirely, not just on home heating but the carbon tax entirely.

It is not an environmental plan. It is a tax plan. Breaking news this morning, the independent environment commissioner and the Office of the Auditor General, and the work that they do on the audits, confirmed once again that the carbon tax is a tax plan, not an environmental plan. The government is not even going to meet the very targets it is claiming a carbon tax would solve. It is failing by every measure possible.

What has really amplified this conversation and provided an opportunity for our Conservative motion that was sadly defeated yesterday and the one from the NDP today is the Prime Minister 's desperation. He made a desperate, last-minute, panicked announcement a floor above here. He scrambled on a Thursday afternoon when his itinerary was updated and grabbed all of his Atlantic caucus members, because they were in full revolt as a caucus.

They were hearing what the Leader of the Opposition was doing in Nova Scotia, in a long-time Liberal riding, where an electric rally of 1,000-plus people in the riding of Kings—Hants was about to get under way. Atlantic Canadian MPs panicked and basically forced the Prime Minister to carve out a deal for 3% of Canadians. What the Prime Minister announced has backfired. The NDP and Liberal MPs and their costly coalition know it. What the Prime Minister is doing is what he does best, and that is not leading, it is dividing. He is pitting one region against the other.

He is only carving out certain exemptions for certain types of home heating that impact certain parts of the country. If the Prime Minister was not divisive enough in that announcement and in how hasty it was, it was the Liberal rural economic development minister from Newfoundland who came out and said that if other regions wanted to get the benefit and get some sort of pause from the pain of the carbon tax, they should have voted in more Liberals.

An hon. member: Shameful.

Mr. Eric Duncan: Madam Speaker, shameful is absolutely right. Tone-deaf and out of touch. In the last few months, I have had the honour and privilege of travelling to many parts of this country, including Atlantic Canada, to hear about the pain the carbon tax is causing.

(1120) The food bank in Fredericton, New Brunswick, has seen a 35% increase in usage in the last year. We heard in Nova Scotia from the president of the Nova Scotia Community College, who said that they have students who are granted admission and they are calling the school to ask if they can live in their pickup trucks on campus because they cannot afford to live, rent, heat and eat.

We are hearing that, in Newfoundland and Labrador, trucking companies are saying it is adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to their transportation bills to get groceries and reefer trucks from across the country to that province. We talk about the Prime Minister , the Liberals, the NDP and their budgetary plan that the NDP will prop up and go along with, like they always do. Let us think about northern Ontario. In eastern Ontario, which is my neck of my woods as well as that of the member for Carleton , the leader of our party, they deserve that same pause from the pain as anybody else in the country.

People on natural gas and propane heating are hurting too. They are struggling to pay the bills just as badly as anybody else and anywhere else in the country, but I am thinking of northern Ontario where I have had the honour of travelling and hearing directly from Canadians there, in North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins and Thunder Bay. Let me tell colleagues that the landscape there is changing. After eight years of NDP and Liberal government, they have had enough. They are behind our plan for tax fairness. They are disgusted.

They are furious with the fact that the government will not treat them with the same respect it is offering other Canadians. The Prime Minister admitted that his carbon tax was punishing families and their budgets at home. It was causing a burden on them being able to heat their homes and pay the bills, yet what do we have here now? Time and time again, they ignored the concern. Every single Liberal MP yesterday voted against the same pause on the pain of the carbon tax that some of the other colleagues got in other regions. The situation is just as bad.

In Thunder Bay, the regional food bank said their usage is skyrocketing. They cannot keep up with the number of people looking for assistance with their groceries. There are 12,000 people in Thunder Bay and the region and they have had to sadly admit they cannot even service far north communities anymore because they do not have the funds and they do not have the food. What we have at the end of the day is the same division. The NDP proposed their motion here today.

One thing to note that is a little curious, as it is absent from their motion, is that the NDP have talked about removing the GST from all forms of home heating. Maybe that is a clerical error. Maybe they could take the opportunity to fix this. They just voted yesterday with us to take all taxes off all forms of home heating for all Canadians. That is the right approach to what they need to do. Here we are, not even 24 hours later, and they are only saying we should take the GST off. Here is the thing about the NDP. They can propose any motion they want here on their opposition day motion.

The Liberals will not go for it. What the NDP will go for, like they have done every single time in their coalition deal is to talk a big game. They will talk tough. They will ask those questions, but when the time comes to vote on the actual budget, they prop up the Liberals every single step of the way and they are going to continue to do that. The reality is that at the end of the day, the NDP are going to continue their plan. The Prime Minister is putting a pause on until the next election. Bring it on. Conservatives will axe the tax.

The Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP will quadruple the carbon tax in the coming years after the next election. Their plan is still in place. It will cause great pain to this country and to millions and millions of families and small businesses struggling to survive. The carbon tax is going to be 61¢ a litre on the price of fuel. This country is struggling. Canadians are struggling. They need relief. What I think they need is for the NDP to finally stand up against their costly coalition, and take all taxes off all forms of home heating for all Canadians in this country.

(1125) Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member that I really want him to answer instead of going off on a tangent. When talking about the carbon tax relief on home heating oil, the member specifically said it affects “certain parts of the country”. That is not true. If people heat with oil and they happen to be subject to the carbon price backstop by the federal government, it is eliminated throughout the country. As a matter of fact, in the province of Ontario, there are twice as many people who heat with oil as there are in Atlantic Canada. Therefore, what he is saying is not true.

Will the member stand up and answer my question, rather than pivot somewhere else like he is really good at doing? Does he not agree that twice as many people will benefit from this in our province as in Atlantic Canada?

(1130) Mr. Eric Duncan :

Madam Speaker, I love that comment because the member for Kingston and the Islands has the same desperation the Prime Minister has. Liberals are in full panic mode. The folks in Kingston and the rest of Ontario are saying that Conservatives acknowledge that those who heat with propane and natural gas are hurting. The carbon tax is causing pain. There are tens of thousands of Canadians residing in the member's riding who do not get the same deal. The Prime Minister is dividing people by giving exemptions only on certain forms of home heating.

Conservatives acknowledge the pain that anybody in this country heating with natural gas and propane is suffering. We acknowledge that the Liberals' plan is going to quadruple the carbon tax. The member is the one who is dividing. Conservatives are saying we need to take the tax off all forms of home heating for all Canadians and stop pitting regions and certain types of home heating against each other.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I was a bit surprised by my colleague's speech. Generally, Conservatives are not too fond of taxes that apply across the board. In his speech, the member said we need to take taxes off all forms of home heating, yet he says he is going to vote against the NDP motion to remove the GST from all forms of home heating. Why does he want to maintain the GST? Why is the Conservative Party in favour of maintaining the GST for all Quebeckers and Canadians?

[ English ]

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Madam Speaker, New Democrats continue to contradict themselves. Just yesterday, they voted for our Conservative motion to take the tax off all forms of home heating for all Canadians. In their motion today, they are talking about only the GST portion. Let me make it clear again. New Democrats tabled this motion, but what will happen when the next budgetary measure comes forward? The Liberal plan is still in place, and they will vote for it at the end of the day. They talk a big game in every part of this country, but when it comes to their voting record, they will prop up the government.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, they cannot afford it, and Canadians know they are going to prop up the same failed plan of the Liberals and the NDP once again.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we often hear the Conservatives say they want to help ordinary folks and put money back in their pockets. The huge profits oil companies are making were mentioned a number of times today. Could we not take the $83 billion that has been earmarked to subsidize oil and gas companies between now and 2035 and instead use it to increase old age pensions for seniors aged 65 and older? We had the oral agreement of several Conservatives on this point before the party leader changed.

Since then, we have not heard them say that they still agree with the idea of increasing old age pensions for seniors starting at age 65. This is a Bloc Québécois battle. I would like my colleague to clearly state his position on this issue.

[ English ]

Mr. Eric Duncan :

Madam Speaker, all businesses should pay their fair share of taxes, but I will say again that it is hypocritical and contradictory of the Bloc Québécois members to talk about taxes. The irony of the Bloc Québécois, a separatist party in the House of Commons, is that it voted multiple times on a second carbon tax that goes not to Quebec but to Ottawa, 100% of which is being added to the original carbon tax as a second carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois needs to have a caucus meeting and figure out exactly where it stands on tax issues, because folks back home in the province of Quebec are not impressed with the second carbon tax and the Bloc's all-over-the-map approach.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister 's desperation reached new levels. He teamed up with the separatists in order to tax Canadians' home heat. He is more concerned about staying in power and keeping his hands in the pockets of hard-working people than he is about representing the interests of this country. Let us take a quick trip down the Prime Minister 's division, starting with the carbon tax on home heat. Originally, the Prime Minister said he would quadruple the tax on all Canadians, everywhere in the country, no matter how they heated their homes.

Then, after I launched a relentless campaign to axe the tax, and moments before I was to rise before 1,000 common-sense Nova Scotians in a gigantic rally to keep the heat on and take the tax off, he scurried into the House of Commons foyer with Atlantic Canadian MPs, all of whom were terrified to lose their jobs, and said that he would bring in a three-year pause for their home heating. We later found out that only 3% of Canadians would get the pause; the other 97% would be left out in the cold.

Therefore, I put forward a motion to treat every Canadian equally, because, as the Prime Minister said, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. My motion reinforced that exact same principle. Because of a vigorous axe-the-tax campaign in NDP ridings, the NDP was forced to flip-flop. After having voted 16 times for the carbon tax, the NDP leader caved. He admitted he was wrong all along, and he voted for my common-sense motion, leaving the Prime Minister without a coalition partner. The Prime Minister then signed a new coalition deal to keep the tax on and throw Canadians out in the cold.

This time, though, he signed the carbon tax coalition with the Bloc separatists. In so doing, the Liberals have given the finger to Canadians. They gave the finger to Canadians literally while they were voting to raise taxes on the people of this country. They gave the finger to the elderly woman who cannot keep her heating bill—

(1135) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I just want to remind members to be careful with the words they are using. If it is causing disorder in the House, then it becomes a problem. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, I agree that giving the finger is unparliamentary, but it was caught on tape. While the Liberals were voting to quadruple the tax on home heating, they were literally giving the finger to Canadians. It was to the same Canadians who will choose between eating and heating. It was to the single mother who is skipping meals so her children do not have to and to the two million Canadians who are going to a food bank, which is a record-smashing number of people.

The Liberals gave the finger to the working-class people in Nova Scotia who are now living in campgrounds after eight years of the Prime Minister because they cannot afford housing. They gave the finger to the countless young people who are stuck living in their parents' basement because housing—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on another point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Again, this is becoming a point of debate. I want to remind the members that there was an issue raised yesterday. The Speaker at the time indicated that he would come back to the House if need be. I would just ask the hon. leader of the official opposition to please continue. As he has seen that there is some disorder happening in the House, I would ask him to be careful in how he words his speech. The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I am seeking clarification on this because I will be addressing the opposition motion.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1140) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

One moment, please. I am hearing some comments that are not very respectful. I have the floor right now, and when I give the floor to somebody else, it is their right to speak without being disrupted. I will tell someone when their time is up. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Again, I just want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. leader of the official opposition that this issue was raised yesterday. There was not a determination as to whether that was substantiated. As I have indicated, the Speaker did indicate that he would come back to the House if need be. I am not sure where that work is at this point, but I would just ask everyone to please be respectful in the House. The hon. leader of the official opposition.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, we agree that it is absolutely unparliamentary for someone to give the finger on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why we have called on the entire Liberal caucus to apologize for the conduct of one of its MPs. By the way, the Speaker did not say we were not allowed to address the incident. He did say he would come back, but we are free to speak, and we will not be censured. We know that the Prime Minister now has a carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois. We know that he did this because he could not maintain his existing coalition.

The pressure the Conservatives mounted on the NDP forced the NDP to collapse and admit that it had been wrong all along. I remind the House that there has been only one party that has been consistent throughout and will be consistent forever. We are the only common-sense party that would axe the tax for everything, for everybody and everywhere, forever. I note that the NDP today has now performed yet another flip-flop. Originally, the New Democrats wanted to quadruple the tax. Yesterday, they said they wanted to pause the tax.

Today, they will not take a position, because they have omitted mention of the Prime Minister 's quadrupling of the carbon tax in the motion. They do not want to stick by their position. They think they will quietly sneak back into the carbon tax coalition and have nobody notice. Well, their constituents are noticing, and that is why working-class people across the country are abandoning the NDP in droves. Even the NDP Premier of Manitoba has now said that the carbon tax represents an attack on working-class people and therefore cannot work as climate change policy.

I will note that we are getting all pain and no gain from the Prime Minister on the carbon tax, because his own environment commissioner came out just today and confirmed that under the current policies, including the carbon tax, he will miss his 2030 climate targets. He has missed his Paris accord climate targets again and again. Emissions continue to rise under his leadership, which proves that the carbon tax was never an environmental policy. It was a tax policy designed to pick the pockets of people and put more money in the hands of politicians to spend. This is political and governmental greed at its worst.

It is no wonder Canadians have never been worse off than they are after eight years of the Prime Minister. [ Translation ] What I find interesting is that the Bloc Québécois has announced a costly coalition with the Prime Minister . This was confirmed in an

article in La Presse, where the Liberal ministers said they had an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to keep this Prime Minister in power for another two years. Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois saved the Prime Minister. We were going to adopt a motion to reduce the cost of heating for everyone, but the Bloc Québécois was there to prevent the motion from being adopted, to vote against working-class people who want to heat their homes, to vote against seniors, to vote against people who cannot pay their bills, and to prop up the Prime Minister.

The funny thing is that the Bloc Québécois is going against Quebec's position. The Quebec government joined the other provinces in opposing a federal carbon tax as part of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-69 and as part of the lawsuit against the carbon tax. The Quebec government wanted to curb federal taxation powers, but the Bloc Québécois is on the federal government's side. This is a centralizing Bloc Québécois. Each time the federal government decides to impose a tax on Quebeckers, we can expect the Bloc Québécois to say yes.

It said yes to bigger government in Ottawa, and no to Quebeckers. That is the Bloc Québécois's real record. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is afraid of an election. He wants to hang onto his position as leader so he can go on big trips to Europe. He wants to fly there on a plane that burns fuel so he can talk about the sovereignty of various overseas groups that are far removed from with the concerns of Quebeckers. I doubt the people of Beloeil—Chambly who are struggling to pay the bills are all that interested in the European separatist causes that the Bloc Québécois is obsessed with.

The Bloc Québécois has no common sense. It is not working for Quebeckers. Only the Conservative Party has the common sense to take the second carbon tax off the backs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers do not want to pay the taxes that the Bloc and Liberals are imposing on their gas and food anymore. Quebeckers want lower taxes so that work pays again. Quebeckers want the federal government to encourage municipalities to cut the red tape so more affordable housing can be built. Only the Conservative Party can get those things done. In the next election, Quebeckers will have two choices.

The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc coalition that raises taxes, takes their money, sets criminals free and doubles the cost of housing.

The second is the common-sense Conservative Party, which will bring home lower taxes and bigger paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and housing in safe communities. (1145) [ English ] The choice is between either the costly coalition that takes one's money, taxes one's food, doubles one's housing cost, punishes one's work and frees criminals into the street or the common-sense Conservatives who free one to bring home powerful paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and groceries in affordable communities. That is why I move the following amendment to the motion, which would add

section (d): “Extend the temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil to all forms of home heating.”

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion or, in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Madam Speaker, we do not accept it.

[ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

[ English ]

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the corporate champion of Carleton for his comments. The Conservative government in the U.K. has put in place a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Will the Leader of the Opposition support our plan for a windfall tax so that we can invest that money to give working people a break on their energy bills, or is he too afraid to axe the profits of his oil and gas buddies, and CEOs?

(1150) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, first of all, let us just acknowledge what happened here. The NDP has flip-flopped again. For the last eight years, its members have supported the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the tax on home heating and then, under relentless pressure from common-sense Conservatives, yesterday, they flip-flopped and admitted they were wrong all along. Then today, they flip-flopped again and said that they now support a carbon tax on home heating for some. The coalition is reunited, and all three of them are together now: the separatists, the socialists and the Prime Minister .

The costly coalition is bankrupting the people. The only solution is a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, when it comes to flip-flopping in the House, the Leader of the Opposition should feel right at home. He has been here since God knows when, but in 2008, he ran under Stephen Harper and promised to put a price on pollution. In 2019 and 2021, he ran under Erin O'Toole and swore to his constituents that he would put a price on carbon. All the Conservatives did. Say what we like about flip-flopping, but the opposition leader has done his share. When did he change his mind? Was he misleading people back then, or is he misleading them now?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, I have always opposed the carbon tax. When I began my career, Liberal lobbyists were all over Parliament Hill, asking for more taxes and other benefits for Liberal friends. That member is an example of the lobbying industry that exists on the Hill, one that favours the Prime Minister's pals and is costly to ordinary Canadians. After eight years of this Prime Minister , he is not worth the cost. He acknowledged this by giving some people a break on the carbon tax, in ridings where he is slumping in the polls and where Liberal members were rebelling.

Now we are simply saying that everyone should get a break. [ English ] It is just until the next election at which time we can have a carbon tax election to choose between the Liberal-NDP-Bloc plan to quadruple the tax and my common-sense plan to axe the tax and bring home lower prices.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the member for Gatineau as a former lobbyist. He has never been a lobbyist. Maybe the member wants to retract that.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

That is a point of debate. Questions and comments, the member for Trois-Rivières.

[ Translation ]

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his insults. I do not know what he read in La Presse recently. He and I must have read different things. Earlier I heard all kinds of falsehoods, jokes, smears, deceptions, hypocrisies, fantasies, inventions, fabrications and trickery. In all of this, I heard nothing about what was in the La Presse

article he referred to. I wonder if he could enlighten me on that first. Second, I would like him to define “common sense” for me. Rather than turning it into an empty slogan, I would like him to explain what he really means, philosophically, when he says “common sense”.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Madam Speaker, common sense is getting rid of the carbon tax to lower prices. Common sense is lowering taxes to make work pay again. Common sense is cutting red tape to make it possible to build more affordable housing for Canadians. Common sense is balancing the budget to reduce inflation and interest rates. Common sense means that Quebeckers are free to earn large paycheques to be able to buy food, fuel and affordable homes in safe communities. That is common sense.

(1155) Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, there is a strange atmosphere in here. There are two extremes in the House, both of which are panicking over the polls. In fact, I could even say there are three extremes. The government is starting to make last-minute decisions in a panic. If there is one point on which I could agree with the Conservatives, it is that panic has gripped the government, spurring it to make poor decisions, such as last week's announcement. The parties are caught in what I will call populism, meaning that they propose any old thing and toss slogans around. The Bloc Québécois just saw the proof once again.

We asked for an explanation, but we received a string of slogans by way of an answer. No doubt they will make great sound bites, but they ring hollow. I will talk about the absence of truth, the trick that certain political parties have of proposing any old thing to the House, not for the purpose of benefiting the common good or helping the citizens of Quebec and Canada, but for the purpose of scoring points. How do they score these political points? They move a motion that they know the other political parties cannot support because it contains measures that are unreasonable.

Then they can reproach the other parties for not adopting the motion. I will therefore continue my speech along this emotional path, especially since it threw me earlier, Madam Speaker, when you confused my riding with that of another member. My colleague from Trois-Rivières is very smart, likeable and charismatic, so I will take this as a compliment. However, I do not think he is quite as handsome as me, so I am a little irked.

All joking aside, I should clarify, since I forgot to do it earlier, that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Trois-Rivières , for whom I have the utmost affection, of course. Once again, the motion presented to the House does not make sense. The basic idea is not bad. However, as is often the case with measures proposed by the NDP, either the math does not add up or Quebec's jurisdictions are disrespected. It is always one or the other. One need only consider the pan-Canadian pharmacare plan. The Bloc agrees with it in principle. We are not here to harm Canada.

However, when we ask them to put in writing that Quebec would have the right to opt out, they refuse to do so. We are therefore forced to vote against the pharmacare plan, because we want to protect Quebec. Then we are accused of not wanting pharmacare. It is the same thing with the Conservatives. They are accusing us—oh, the irony—of having voted for a second carbon tax. I heard it yesterday and again today from the Leader of the Opposition . That was never put to a vote, however.

Their so-called second carbon tax, this falsehood that Conservatives like to repeat all over the media and every other forum, is a regulation that was adopted by the government. We never voted on this regulation which, just like the first carbon tax, does not apply in Quebec because Quebec already has an equivalent regulation in place. Quebec's regulation is actually more stringent. This regulation has no effect on Quebec, but Conservatives repeat all day long that it does and that the Bloc Québécois voted for it. If that is not lying, I do not know what is. I want to come back to the NDP's motion.

They are talking about giving people a chance. We are on board with that. However, the Bloc Québécois believes in energy equity, or in other words, we believe that efforts must be made to prevent global warming while helping low-income people. That is what we should be doing, but it is not what the NDP is proposing in its motion. I hope that the NDP's intentions are nobler than the Conservatives'. I hope that the NPD does not intend to simply say tomorrow that the Bloc voted against their motion, because that would be very disappointing. That may happen. We will see.

We will then know what to expect in the future. The big problem with the NDP's motion is that it does not look at how much this measure will cost or fully consider where the money for implementing it will come from. Putting a tax on the excessive profits of oil companies seems like a good idea. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, that would generate about $1 billion per year. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie even pointed that out earlier. However, the proposed measures would cost $4.5 billion per year for the GST and even more for the heat pumps.

The NPD wants to give everyone a free heat pump.

(1200) See how sensitive, tricky and also a little dishonest that is? They are nice; they want to help Canadians. They want to give everyone heat pumps, but that is not realistic. I, too, would love to give everyone a heat pump. I would like that. Earlier, my colleague was more reasonable than I was. She tried to temper things by saying that various factors could lower the price tag and it might be about $77 billion. However, according to the figures I have, it could be closer to $100 billion. That is significant. That is a major measure.

It is not that we are against heat pumps, but this just does not make sense. That is the sad thing about all this. I dream of a time when MPs will work together, presenting reasonable measures for the common good. We are presented with measures that make no sense, and then, tomorrow, we will be criticized for voting against them. I find it very difficult to deal with this kind of populist dishonesty on a daily basis in the House. It is all about scoring points and making a good impression.

The motion we are considering seems to indicate that the NDP is seeing that the polls are changing and they are in a bit of a panic. They want to show that they, too, want to eliminate taxes. That is what we are seeing today. I will go over the proposal briefly, starting with removing the GST from residential heating. I am not saying that is a bad idea or one not worth looking at, but how do we distinguish electricity used for heating from that used for everything else in Quebec when more than 80% of Quebeckers have electric heat?

How is that going to be adjusted with respect to people in western Canada and the Atlantic provinces who heat with oil? They use electricity too, but their power bills will not be adjusted, while their heating oil cost will. That means rewarding fossil fuel use. Do people still want to promote fossil fuels? Some things do not work. As I said, this measure would be very expensive. The funniest, most bizarre measure—I am not sure how else to describe it—is giving everyone a free heat pump, including people in the middle class. It looks like they want to give free heat pumps to a whole lot of people.

What is the plan for compensating people who are already installing one? What is the plan for making sure that businesses that do this kind of work can keep up with demand? I predict the price of heat pumps will skyrocket in the next two months. That is pretty clear. How is the government going to balance the books then? We often hear people say that we have to balance the budget. A measure that costs about $100 billion is huge. With that kind of measure, how are we helping people living on low and modest incomes?

As someone mentioned earlier, does that mean that people whose heating costs are included in their rent get nothing? Will landlords already charging high rents receive a tax credit? Will people living in 28-room luxury homes be exempt from paying tax on the heating for their huge mansions? Parties have to think before proposing measures. I want to stress that I am a moderate and reasonable person. I understand the basic intention. The parties want to do something, but they are coming up with wild solutions knowing full well that almost no one will vote for them because nothing balances at the end of the month.

Then they will call us out for refusing to help people. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois is looking for support regarding subsidies for oil companies, for example. We have been talking a lot about how much they are making, because their profits are ridiculous. Not only are they making profits, but by 2035, it is expected that the Canadian government will have given them $83 billion in subsidies. That is a lot of money that could go toward heat pumps. Could those subsidies be eliminated so old age pensions could be increased starting at age 65 for people who need them to buy groceries and pay their bills?

Could we be reasonable and sit down to talk about how we could establish credits to help low-income people, people who need support or who need assistance because they have a large family so it is hard to put food on the table? We should be focusing on things like this, in other words, specific, concrete things that affect people's daily lives, without resorting to disgusting populism and creating sound bites to smear other political parties.

(1205) I am sick of that. I want to work on behalf of Quebeckers.

[ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Bloc member brought up a lot of points that are similar to my points. Could the member perhaps explain some of the policies currently existing in Quebec that are really encouraging people to move toward cleaner options? We know that Quebec has a long history of this. Quebec recently announced that it is illegal to install forms of oil heating in homes, and soon it will be illegal to even install any new fossil fuel-burning heating options. Quebec has genuinely been a leader in affordable electricity for the province. What can the member share that the rest of the country could benefit from?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Perron :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generous question and for helping me answer it, because he supplied half the response before giving me the floor. Indeed, Quebec has always been a leader. We saw that with child care. It took 25 years for Canada to get on board. I hope that Canada will get on board when it comes to energy as well. Quebec helps people install more efficient heating systems, such as heat pumps, through the Rénoclimat program. A preliminary assessment is done of the homes. It is all well regulated. The program is geared to people who need help the most.

What could Canada recognize about Quebec? It could recognize the way we want to live and run our own affairs. Maybe it should just let us be. It may have better luck that way, if it wants to keep us. For now, what we want is to run our own affairs.

[ English ]

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. There is a 70-year-old grandmother in Newfoundland who cannot afford to eat or heat her home. She has had to go out and get a second job to support her family. How is the carbon tax going to help this individual? If seniors matter, why is the Quebec caucus voting with the Liberal government and not with Conservatives for common-sense solutions? Could the member explain this to me?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Perron :

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this quick. There was a lot to her question. First of all, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. I have said it many times. I would like her party to get that through their heads. It is an important detail. That is why we voted against the Conservative motion yesterday. We did not want to create an imbalance between people in this country. There are ways to help people. Second, my colleague is talking to me about a 70-year-old woman. I just spoke about old age pensions starting at age 65.

Her party always used to express support for our idea of increasing the old age pension starting at age 65, but since the arrival of the new leader, we are no longer hearing any support from them. Now, this member has the nerve to talk to me about a 70-year-old woman who is struggling to make ends meet. I am trying not to get angry, but sometimes it is difficult.

[ English ]

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Bloc member's comments. I thought I heard a couple of red herrings in there. One concern that the Liberals also raised is about how there might be some wealthy person in Canada who would benefit from having GST removed from their home heating. I am not really concerned about that, as long as they pay their taxes. The other one is the high cost of these programs. Would the member support an excess profit tax on the oil and gas companies to help pay for things so that others can afford their heating and get off fossil fuels?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Perron :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his smart, well-articulated question. How refreshing. We could study his proposal. I said earlier that there is a major issue with the oil companies. Essentially, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been very vocal in every one of its speeches in the House about starting by ending the subsidies for the oil companies. They will have gotten $83 billion by 2035. It makes no sense. Yes, we can look at the proposal. We are open to all proposals. We will study all of them. However, we have to be smart about imposing taxes. We need to avoid price increases.

Unfortunately and far too often, the oil industry passes the cost on to the consumer, who is trapped, while the industry continues to make record profits. I think the government needs to stop subsidizing the industry.

(1210) Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by extending my heartfelt greetings to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who often contact me about the precarious state of the French language and about immigration. It cannot be said often enough that the latest Official Languages Act is nothing but a bilingualism legislation that is not in Quebec's favour. We need to remember that. Today's debate is on an NDP motion to remove the GST from home heating. Let us analyze the motion a little deeper. It states that “2023 saw a record fire season due to climate change”. That is a fact, sadly.

The motion also mentions that “Canadians continue to struggle with dramatic increases to the cost of living while Canada’s biggest corporations, including oil and gas corporations, post record profits”. That is also a fact. However, the NDP mentions neither banks, who are in the same situation, nor their hobby horse, grocery stores. The motion also mentions “federal government programs aimed at supporting energy efficient retrofits” that are “hard to access”. That part of the motion is somewhat interpretive. I will go through the motion item by item.

At first glance, the motion seems to be talking about social justice and equity. It seems as though the intention of this motion is to provide help to those who need it most, which is keeping with the NDP's usual stance. However, sometimes we need to pay closer attention to determine whether the measures that are actually going to be implemented are consistent with the stated intention. Let me explain. I will give an example from the business world, because that is what I am familiar with.

Over the past 20 years, in the business community, we have been hearing a lot of managerial discourse designed to motivate employees or take advantage of them, as the case may be. Employers have been talking about responsibility when what they mean is accountability. Everyone has been talking about kindness, but it does not mean anything to anyone. Employers have been talking about team work, when employees are actually in competition. People often use big words—and the Leader of the Opposition is an expert in that area—without any real understanding of what those words actually mean.

I would remind my colleagues, who are always happy to hear it, that a word is a construct of sound and meaning. Sometimes the sound changes the meaning, and we can be misled by that. As the saying goes, the end justifies the means. In recent years, we have noticed that people have often been confusing the ends and the means. They think that the means are the ends, which is an error of judgment. When members say that the carbon tax is an end, that is an error of judgment. The carbon tax is simply a means. Getting back to the NDP motion, it seems noble on the surface. Who would not want to help the least fortunate?

Is that really what this is about, though? I was surprised to see a motion like this up for debate this week at this point in the session. For some time now, we have been witnessing the Liberal government in turmoil. It does not know if it is coming or going with its flagship carbon tax initiative. First it says it will apply the tax. Then it says it will not. Then it says it will apply it on some things, but not on others.

As the classic song goes, the Liberal government's internal dialogue is basically, “Should I stay or should I go?” I would even go so far as to say that, in its confusion, the government is dragging its confidence and supply agreement partner down with it. I can see how desperately the NDP is trying to distinguish itself from the Liberals. Removing the GST from heating is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax. Measures already exist for heat pumps and alternative heating systems. Quebec talks about energy equity. There are actually numerous other options.

At the end of the day, who is going to pay for heat pumps? It is typical of the NDP to continually ask for measures without concerning themselves with how they will be financed. Funding programs requires revenue, and that revenue usually comes from taxes. We have to be careful. I know that the New Democrats are in favour of taxing oil companies, but let us not confuse reality with obsession. Who will pay for heat pumps? The oil companies, of course.

(1215) That will mean more investments in oil so that oil companies can finance the heat pumps in question. This seems to me to be the antithesis of the NDP's usual position. The NDP likes to say it will tax profits. I am not against that. However, profits exist for a reason. Take a risk and sometimes that risk is rewarded. Taxing excess profits is fine, but we need a definition of “excess”. Basically, when we talk about helping the most disadvantaged, we are talking about equity. Equity, when defined, is a fair assessment of what each person is entitled to. What are lower-income families entitled to?

What are the people entitled to when they benefit from the GST credit because heating is included in the rent? That could be troublesome. I would like to propose that we act according to what is right, or social justice, in other words, that we do the right thing at the right time, in the right way and for the right reasons. I do not think that is what is happening here. Honestly, I believe that the stated intention of helping the less fortunate is nothing more than a smokescreen for the NDP's veiled attempt to hold on to votes or win votes as it goes through challenging times.

Passing the NDP motion would be a mistake, if not a failure. For the NDP, it would amount to a subtle betrayal of its own principles. In light of the various arguments and given my conviction that its purported purpose is not directly related to its concealed aim or stated intention, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the NDP motion.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. René Villemure :

Mr. Speaker, as always, the question from my colleague opposite is relevant. I have not taken a position against the tax. I do not want to leave any room for confusion here. I also did not say that heat pumps are useless. I said that heat pumps still need financing and that the tax, in its current form, will not be affected by a goods and services tax reduction. I therefore did not take a position on whether the tax is relevant or not, but rather on the measure used to mitigate its impact. I do not believe it will achieve the desired effect.

[ English ]

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused by the member's speech, and I hope I can get some clarity. The member talked a lot about social justice and its impact. From his speech, I wonder if he understands the correlation between economic justice and social justice and how, so often, the lowest-income people are the ones working the hardest to make ends meet while the very wealthy CEOs are making money off their backs. Does he think those two things need to be dealt with if we are going to be proud of this country we call Canada?

(1220) [ Translation ]

Mr. René Villemure :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will be happy to hear that I completely agree with her on that. However, I do not believe that the proposed measures will achieve the desired outcome or stated intent. I agree with the purpose, but I do not believe that these measures are the best way to achieve it.

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech. I am going to do something I do not normally do and talk about a family member. In a few minutes, my sister-in-law Carole will be going to an extremely important medical appointment. I want her to know that she has always been there for me and I will always be there for her. She can count on my support. My question for my colleague relates to what I just said. It is about being there for others. Could my colleague explain what the role of a member of Parliament is? It is about being there for our constituents.

Is it to move motions that we know will not be adopted, simply to score political points, or is it something else? I would like him to explain what “something else” might mean.

Mr. René Villemure :

Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his always relevant questions. I will keep his sister-in-law Carole in my thoughts. Being there for people is a good thing. It is the essence of an MP's job. Our constituents delegated responsibility to u