OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 245 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, November 2, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 2, 2023 DEBATES No. 245 No. 245 N o 245 Volume 151 245 02 11 2023 2023/11/02 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ Translation ] Auditor General of Canada

The Speaker :

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 21(2) of the Export Development Act, a report of the Auditor General of Canada on Export Development Canada's environmental and social review directive. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

[ English ] Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Veterans' Week

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Veterans' Week begins this Sunday, and I wish to encourage all Canadians to participate in activities and ceremonies in honour of those who have served our country and those who continue to serve. [ Translation ] This week, I will be thinking of all of the veterans across the country. We will remember the 1.7 million Canadians and Newfoundlanders who fought in the major conflicts of the 20th century to defend peace, freedom, democracy and human rights. [ English ] We will remember the 12,000 first nations, Métis and Inuit veterans. We will remember the hundreds of Black men who took

part in the No. 2 Construction Battalion. They risked their lives to support Canada's war efforts, even as they faced systemic racism and discrimination at home and abroad. We must remember them and we must honour them. [ Translation ] We will remember the 125,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the over 4,000 civilian police officers who participated in peacekeeping operations around the world. We are grateful to them for that.

We will remember women veterans and the thousands of other veterans and active members who belong to other under-represented groups who had to overcome so many challenges to wear Canada's military uniform. [ English ] We will also remember the 4,200 Canadian Armed Forces members and 450 RCMP members who participated in one of the largest domestic military operations in our country's history: the Swissair flight 111 tragedy in September 1998. [ Translation ] No matter where or how they served, every veteran's experience has been unique. [ English ] This Veterans' Week is a time to reflect on the many ways in which these brave individuals have made a difference both at home and abroad while wearing the uniform. [ Translation ] In times of war, military conflict and peace, our men and women in uniform have performed the difficult and demanding work required of them, often at great personal risk.

At this year's Invictus Games in Germany, I once again saw just how much our veterans have had to overcome. It reminded me that a veteran's support network can change everything. [ English ] I was reminded of how, when veterans serve, their families also serve with them. This week, I hope that all are reminded of these veterans and their families too. I hope everyone is reminded of their service, their sacrifices and the battles they still fight today. [ Translation ] In return, we are committed to providing them with the support and services they need, when and where they need them.

It is the least we can do for those who have given their all for us. [ English ] This Veterans' Week, as we mark 75 years since the first UN peacekeeping mission began and 35 years since the UN peacekeeping forces received the Nobel Peace Prize, we reflect on all that our veterans have sacrificed to uphold peace, democracy and human rights. [ Translation ] We solemnly remember all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and we pay tribute to veterans and active military personnel for their invaluable contribution to peace and security around the world. [ English ] On November 11, we will pause to reflect on the sacrifices they have made and the freedoms we enjoy today as a result.

Lest we forget.

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, “All these were honoured in their generations and were the glory of their times.” For me, that verse from the Book of Ecclesiastes, which is inscribed on the walls of the Veterans Memorial Buildings here in Ottawa, captures the valour of the men and women who have served and continue to serve our country in uniform in our armed forces, who are the greatest of Canadians. [ Translation ] It is an honour today for me to speak on behalf of the leader of the official opposition and all Conservatives as we approach Remembrance Week.

We honour veterans for the great sacrifices they have made in every mission and conflict in Canada's history. [ English ] We owe those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, those who have had their lives forever altered and their families who were left behind a debt that we can never fully repay. The instinct to honour our fallen is evident around our country, from Canada's first road of remembrance, established on Shelbourne Street in Victoria, B.C. in 1920, to the Crow's Nest Officers' Club, which was founded during the Second World War by Captain Rollo Mainguy of the Royal Canadian Navy in St.

John's, Newfoundland. Canadians strive to memorialize our fallen, honour those who fought and returned home and show our support for those who still serve our country in uniform today. Parliament Hill hosts one of the greatest memorials, the Room of Remembrance, which contains the records of Canada's fallen warriors. The names of every man and woman who has laid down their lives in service to Canada are logged in books of remembrance, and each day new pages are turned so Canadians can contemplate the sacrifice of those who gave their lives in service.

Each page is a simple list that nonetheless tells a moving story of individuals from every part of our land who spared nothing to keep our country free and who sacrificed everything in defence of all that we cherish today. (1010) [ Translation ] The name of Sergeant Charles Albani Dominique Parent of Rimouski, Royal 22nd Regiment, appears on page 57 of the Korean War Book of Remembrance . [ English ] Charles Robert Loft of London, Ontario, a flying officer with 419 Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force, is on page 535 of the book that commemorates the Second World War.

Royal Navy Ordinary Seaman Sidney Macdonald Wheeler of Notre Dame Bay is found on page 204 of the Newfoundland Book of Remembrance . Closer to home from me is Captain Nichola Goddard of Calgary, on page 219 of the In the Service of Canada Book of Remembrance .

In Afghanistan, Nichola was the first Canadian female combat soldier since World War II to lay down her life in frontline combat. [ Translation ] Hailing from all regions of Canada and all branches of service, these and other courageous men and women represent only a fraction of the 120,000 Canadians who lost their lives protecting the freedoms they cherished and the country they loved. [ English ] They remind us of the importance of standing up for what is right and just and the need in a dangerous world to defend our values and freedoms.

We must always strive to honour our fallen while showing our support and appreciation for our veterans and our men and women still serving in Canada's armed forces. All of them have served Canada with bravery, dedication and selflessness, and they paved the way for and now protect the peace we enjoy today. Remembrance Day is also a time to reflect on the sacrifices of families who see their loved ones go into service. Many have lost husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters. It is the terrible cost of war.

We must always be mindful of the pain of loss and the need for support endured by the families left behind. I want to read from a letter from the front that was sent by a Canadian soldier, Fred Adams of Ontario, who wrote this letter in May 1915 to his aunt. It reads:

Dear Aunt:

This is the first day they have allowed us to write letters since this battle began and I have no doubt you are anxious to hear from me. Well, we have lost an awful lot of our fellows, and to those of us who are left it seems just a miracle that any of us came through alive.... About two brigades of Canadians held about five times as many Germans. It would have done you good to see the boys. I did not see one show the white feather, but each had a set face and went right at it.... It was just a nightmare, a hell.... We could see the boys falling everywhere, and it was just awful to hear them cry out....

We have lost two of our guns and there are only eleven of us left out of the section. Well all the boys did the best they could and I for one am ready to do it again, only I hope the war will soon end, for the sake of the poor parents, wives and sweethearts of all the soldiers. Still I thank God that I am spared and always pray that He will soon end the war. With Love. FRED.

Sadly, Fred Adams was killed in action just days after this letter was sent to his family. Letters such as Fred's are among the hundreds of thousands that came home from the front to worried loved ones at home. They are vivid reminders of the real people, with their humanity, their courage and their dedication, who are the reasons we enjoy the freedoms we do today. It is a privilege of the generations that have received liberty as our legacy to honour the sacrifices of those who secured it for us at so steep a cost.

It is our duty and their due that we pay tribute to their sacrifice by fixing their service and their sacrifices in our remembrance and by ensuring that we always cherish and uphold the very freedoms they fought for. We will remember them.

(1015) [ Translation ]

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me to speak today in the House. Wearing the poppy during Veterans' Week is a small but powerful symbolic gesture. It is an opportunity for all citizens to show their gratitude to those throughout history who fought for Quebec and for Canada, for freedom and democracy, and who paid the price in body and soul. This ritual dates back to the armistice of 1918, when bugles sounded at 11 a.m. on November 11, ending 1,561 days of war that left nine million people dead or missing, but it has since expanded to encompass all veterans of all wars.

We now remember veterans of the Great War, World War Two, the Korean War, the operations in Cyprus, the conflict in Rwanda, the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the war in Afghanistan. We also remember those who fought at the Somme, Pas-de-Calais, Vimy, Dieppe, Hill 355, Sarajevo and Kabul. In all these battles, Quebec soldiers fought under the Canadian flag and gave us countless reasons to be proud of their acts of bravery and their sacrifice. In recent years, thanks to the Internet, Sergeant Léo Major was elevated from obscurity to iconic status, and with good reason.

The history of this soldier, a veteran of the Second World War, is so impressive that today we wonder why there is no movie recounting his remarkable life and incredible exploits, aside from a very well-made documentary produced by a Quebecker. Major was nicknamed “the one-eyed ghost” after losing an eye to a phosphorus grenade. He refused to return home and continued to fight. As a sniper, he aimed with the one eye that still worked, because nothing was going to stop him.

After surviving the Normandy landing, he carried out numerous amazing feats, single-handedly liberating the city of Zwolle in the Netherlands after the tragic passing of his comrade-in-arms, Willy Arsenault. The man known as the “Québécois Rambo” was one of only three soldiers in the Commonwealth to receive the Distinguished Conduct Medal twice in separate wars. We could also mention the military exploits of the Régiment de la Chaudière, the Royal 22nd Regiment and the 425 Bomber Squadron, nicknamed “Les Alouettes” after the famous song, just like Montreal's football team today.

These French-Canadian units are, quite rightly, a source of pride for all Quebeckers. For a Quebec sovereignist like myself, this commemoration, which unites 54 countries of the British Commonwealth, is an opportunity to remember that our goal of becoming a country builds on the values that these heroes fought for, and maintains unfailing solidarity with our historic allies. However, along with this sense of pride comes the duty to remember all those who have fallen on the battlefield and whose names are lost to history.

We also have a duty to show solidarity with all those who, despite having returned from the front, continued to have the horrors of war play out in their minds and paid the price of this dedication their entire lives. Given the conflicts that we are seeing in the world today, we cannot help but look to these heroes of yesterday and yesteryear, as they confront us with the atrocities of war and the immense amount of courage it takes to face them. From the comfort of our country at peace, may we always maintain this humble deference to those who paid the ultimate price to preserve our freedom.

(1020) Let us wear the poppy next to our hearts. Let us donate to a veterans' organization. Let us talk to a veteran. Let us take a moment to reflect and remember the contributions and sacrifices of these men and women, our veterans, our heroes. Lest we forget.

[ English ]

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues to honour those Canadians who have sacrificed so much for our country. On November 11, we honour those who have given so much and who have dedicated their lives in the service of Canadians. We make our promise to never forget those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. We pay our respects to those who protect our freedoms and our rights by continuing to serve, in war and in peace. On November 8, we remember indigenous veterans, whose history is often forgotten or suppressed.

Indigenous veterans sacrificed not only their lives but also their status and rights, if they returned home. Their stories, courage and experience must be remembered. The poppies that we wear every year are a reminder of not only the sacrifices that generations before ours have made but also those of Canadians who have recently returned from war and those who are currently serving. We remember those veterans who served in the Great War and in World War II, who built the Canada we live in today.

We also remember those Canadians who served in Afghanistan, in the Persian Gulf and in peacekeeping missions across the globe. [ Translation ] The wartime veterans who served during these and many other missions deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. We must keep supporting these veterans, who still need our help. [ English ] Once released from duty, many veterans continue to serve their communities. The skills and expertise learned from military service are brought into other aspects of life. Veterans continue to serve in the public sector, whether they be in uniformed services or other trades and services.

Indeed, service to the public does not end when military service ends. We also use this moment to think about those who are called to serve in today's Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Armed Forces command the respect of our international allies. Though small in number, members of the Canadian Armed Forces are among the best trained in the world. They continue to accomplish feats that many others cannot. Whether it be in modern conflicts, missions for peace or assisting with disaster response in Canada and around the world, our service members are heroes.

Among those highly trained and well-respected members of the Canadian Armed Forces are women, who continue to serve in a field that was designed by men, for men. The decision to enlist requires a courage many of us will never know. It is a courage that is too often overlooked. Women who serve are not invisible. As we rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces to reflect the modern world and its needs, we know that women veterans and those women who currently serve will be a major part of our future.

When the call to service is made, veterans and active service members are not the only ones who answer the call, as we have heard from many colleagues; the sacrifices of military service include those of the spouses, children, siblings and parents of the men and women who serve. When a service member serves, so too does their family. Service members know the risks of leaving their families, and we know that these decisions are not easily made, or made alone.

That is why we must remember those who were left behind and remind ourselves and all Canadians that families of service members are not alone, that we stand with them and support them. The sacrifices that were made by veterans and continue to be made by members of the Canadian Armed Forces cannot be forgotten. The ultimate sacrifice was made by those who lost their lives and the families that loved them. The memory of the person who will never come home breaks our hearts, and we commit to never forgetting the sacrifice they made.

The sacrifices of those who were injured and need the help of a government whose call they answered must not be neglected. We commit to ensuring the services they need will be there, when they need them. The sacrifices of families and friends who give up the most with their loved ones must not be taken for granted. The lives we enjoy would not be possible if not for the moments they have given up. For that, we express our deepest gratitude.

(1025) This Remembrance Day, we ask all Canadians to take a moment from their lives to reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by their fellow citizens, who volunteered in service of something bigger than themselves. They answered a call so few of us have. We thank all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, past and present, and call on Canadians to learn and understand so that their work and service are never forgotten.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the tributes to Veterans' Week and Remembrance Day, and I ask if I have unanimous consent to proceed.

The Deputy Speaker :

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Elizabeth May :

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my colleagues enough for allowing me to rise today with the other parties in the House to pay tribute to our veterans and to take a moment to mark Veterans' Week, from November 5 to 11. [ English ] All of us are, at this moment, thinking of how we will mark Remembrance Day in our own communities and how we will, in the week leading to Remembrance Day, mark and honour veterans' extraordinary contributions.

The lives we lead today in this country, as many members have said, would not be possible without the sacrifices of others and other generations, for the most part, although, as the hon member for Burnaby South just reminded us, we have veterans now and members of our armed forces now who need our support. I am of that generation of baby boomers who were close. My dad and my uncle fought in the Second World War. I even remember as a child meeting my dad's cousin. My dad was British and he lived through the Blitz, but his cousin Victor was in the trenches in the First World War.

We did not have the term “post-traumatic stress disorder” then. Everybody just knew that cousin Victor was not quite right. He never got over the First World War. He once said to the family that, if someone were to tell him they were afraid of teacups, he would understand. There is a trauma that never leaves one from the horrors of war. I particularly want to pay tribute to day to Mary Greyeyes Reid. She was born in Muskeg Lake Cree Nation in Saskatchewan.

Her daughter, Cheryl Greyeyes, is a friend of mine, and that is the only reason I know that Mary Greyeyes Reid was the first indigenous Canadian woman to join the armed forces. On Indigenous Veterans Day, I particularly think of Mary Greyeyes Reid, who faced, at five years old, being seized from her family and taken to residential school. In 1942, she joined the Canadian military and served overseas where, even there in the Canadian military at a time of war, she faced discrimination: both sexism and racism.

She served with such distinction and honour, and we do plan, all of us, to find ways in our own communities to mark Indigenous Veterans Day on September 8. This is the first time in many a year that we have risen in this place to pay tribute to our veterans when we are close to theatres of war in two places: in Europe and in the Middle East. There was that end-of-history moment when we thought the brutality of direct armed conflict, one country against another, belonged in a different time. To our Canadian men and women serving now in our military, I thank them. We will be with them.

We support them, and we must never let our veterans down. We will wear the poppy and buy as many as we can, knowing that the Canadian Legion does such good work in our communities, and I just want to take a moment to pray for the war dead in the most neglected of all Canadian war cemeteries. I only know about it because of the former member for Cumberland—Colchester, Bill Casey.

When a group of us, 18 MPs, toured occupied territories in Palestinian territories and in Israel, Bill Casey spoke to the Canadian government to ask it to please let us go to the Gaza War Cemetery where several thousand Commonwealth war dead, some Canadian, lie buried. Nobody from Parliament had gone to honour them for many years. It was too dangerous then in 2018, and the government would not let us go. In this moment there are some in that cemetery who are marked as never identified, but they are not marked as unknown. Their graves read, “A soldier of the Great War...known unto God”.

No one is unknown, but some are known only to God, and they are lying near another theatre of war, near Gaza, in the Gaza War Cemetery. I will close with taking a moment, and hope all will join me, in a prayer for peace for the whole world, for Ukraine, for Gaza and for Israel. I pray that we will, before the next Veterans' Week, be able to go to the Gaza War Cemetery, that it will be quiet and tranquil, and that we will lay flowers on the graves of those known only to God.

(1030) The Deputy Speaker :

I thank all for their interventions. Lest we forget.

Petitions Food Security

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, too many children across Canada go to school without having a proper meal in their bellies. I am presenting a petition that has been signed by many people across Canada to call upon the Government of Canada to invest, in budget 2024, in a fund negotiated with provinces, territories and indigenous leaders that would help children by developing the food and nutrition habits they need to lead healthy lives and succeed at school. A school food program would be so important as the next step forward to help for healthy families.

Human Rights

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, on this second day of Hindu Heritage Month, I rise to present a petition, important to many Hindu communities across Canada, to fight Hinduphobia. The petition received over 25,000 signatures of Canadians, thanks to the hard work and dedication of Hindu organizations, which have seen an increase in attacks and threats against Hindu people in their places of worship. Everyone in this country deserves a safe place free of intimidation, violence, harassment and vandalism to worship, no matter what that looks like.

Hindu Canadians are facing growing negative stereotypes and prejudice, as well as discrimination at work, in schools and in their communities, while traditions and cultures are misrepresented and misunderstood. I am happy to table this petition, and we look forward to a response from the government about what it is going to do about this.

(1035) Opioids

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to bring forward this petition on behalf of constituents of mine from Cumberland, Courtenay, Parksville, Qualicum Beach and Port Alberni. The petitioners are calling on the government to take action on the toxic drug crisis. They cite that the war on drugs has failed miserably, and this is from family members and community members, people who are connected to people who have died from toxic drugs.

They cite that criminalizing people causes more harm and that the government needs to take on evidence-based policies, which include expunging people's records who have been charged with personal possession of substances; stop criminalizing people who use substances; creating a regulated safer supply of drugs to replace the toxic street drugs; expanding treatment, recovery, prevention and education; and ensuring that people are getting the support in time and that we are meeting people where they are at.

The petitioners are calling for a plan with a timeline and resources to tackle this crisis, which is taking the lives of people in our communities.

Climate Change

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, the petition, signed by residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, starts by recognizing that Canada is legally obligated, under the terms of the Paris Agreement, which was signed and ratified by Canada, to the goal of attempting to hold the global average temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C. We are now at 1.1°C, and we are already seeing dramatic and devastating impacts of the climate crisis. The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to take bold climate action.

They particularly call on the government to do the following things: set ambitious targets for reduction of emissions; set a national price on carbon; arrest growth in oil sands and other fossil fuel production; end the export of thermal coal from Canada, which was a promise made in the 2021 election; and invest in the transition to a carbon-free, decarbonized economy, one with strong and sustainable jobs and a strong postcarbon economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today on behalf of members of my community who indicate that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned us repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next few decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather. They also note that we are certainly feeling the impacts in Canada today, with increased flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures and that addressing this climate crisis requires drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions to limit our global warming to 1.5°C.

The petitioners also indicate that the oil and gas sector is the largest and fastest-growing source of emissions, and 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 call on the Government of Canada 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.

Public Safety

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again on behalf of my constituents to present a petition. I rise for the 22nd time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River have been forgotten by the NDP-Liberal government, and crime is out of control. A recent report from the west district of the Manitoba RCMP showed that, within 18 months, just 15 individuals were responsible for 1,184 calls for service and 703 offences. This is why the petitioners are calling for action. They demand jail, not bail, for violent, repeat offenders.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

(1040) Ocean Ecosystem

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who care deeply about the health of the ocean and understand that we all depend on a thriving ocean ecosystem. The signatories point out that, in 2019, over one million cruise ship passengers travelled off British Columbia on their way to Alaska and these ships generate significant amounts of pollutants that are harmful to human health, aquatic organisms and coastal ecosystems.

Based on this information, the signatories are calling to set standards for cruise ships' sewage and grey water discharges equivalent to, or stronger than, those in Alaska; to designate no discharge zones to stop pollution in marine protected areas, and the entirety of the Salish and Great Bear seas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species; and, finally, to require regular, independent, third-party monitoring while ships are under way to ensure discharge requirements are met.

Climate Change

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from my constituents. They point out that the impacts of climate change are accelerating in Canada and around the world; Canada's current GHG reduction targets are not consistent with our fair share to meet the global goals agreed upon in Paris; subsidizing fossil fuel production is not compatible with the stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and the government's continued support of fossil fuels puts our future in danger.

They, therefore, ask the government and the House of Commons to fulfill Canada's obligations under the Paris Agreement through a just transition off of fossil fuels that leaves no one behind, eliminating federal fossil fuel subsidies and halting the expansion of fossil fuel production in Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 1697, 1700, 1701 and 1708.

[ Text ]

Question No. 1697—

Ms. Leah Gazan :

With regard to the emergency COVID-19 funding to front-line organizations supporting those experiencing gender-based violence provided through Women and Gender Equality Canada: (

a) how many women’s shelters were funded through the program; (

b) how many women’s shelters will lose funding when the funding stream expires in September; (

c) on average, how much did each shelter receive each year under the program; and (

d) will the government extend the funding stream to ensure the continuation of critical and often life-saving services for those experiencing gender-based violence?

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), in response to the unprecedented challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada acted quickly in providing $300 million of emergency funding to over 1,400 organizations, such as women’s shelters, sexual assault centres and other organizations that provide critical supports and services to those experiencing gender-based violence, GBV. Among these, 459 women’s shelters received funding through this initiative.

With regard to part (b), this investment served as a short-term emergency response to the pandemic to enhance the capacity and responsiveness of organizations during the pandemic. With regard to part (c), the amounts received by each women’s shelter varied according to their identified needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For additional information on funding received under this program, please visit the Women and Gender Equality Canada, WAGE, website at https://women-gender-equality.canada.ca/en/funding/supporting-women-children-experiencing-violence-during-covid-19.html With regard to part (d), along with other temporary COVID-19 emergency measures introduced by the federal government since 2020, the funding measure for GBV organizations is coming to an end.

However, WAGE continues to support GBV organizations and their efforts to prevent and address GBV, including through the following investments since 2021-22: $55 million over five years to bolster the capacity of indigenous women and 2SLGBTQI+ organizations to provide GBV programming aimed at addressing the root causes of violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people; $30 million over five years for crisis hotlines to offer more robust services, resources and supports for those experiencing GBV; $105 million over five years to enhance the gender-based violence program, including promising practices to support at-risk populations and survivors; and $11 million over five years for GBV research and knowledge mobilization, including support for community research models.

Building on these investments, budget 2022 provided an additional $539.3 million over five years, starting in 2022-23, to support provinces and territories in their efforts to implement the national action plan to end gender-based violence. Launched on November 9, 2022, by federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women, the national action plan to end gender-based violence is a 10-year plan that sets a framework to have a Canada free of gender-based violence, a Canada that supports victims, survivors and their families from coast to coast to coast.

The national action plan is informed by over 1,000 recommendations from indigenous partners, victims and survivors; frontline organizations; and experts.

Question No. 1700—

Mr. Blake Desjarlais :

With regard to the government forgiving student loans owed since November 4, 2015: (

a) how many student loans have been forgiven through (

i) the Severe Permanent Disability Benefit, (ii) the Canada Student Loan Forgiveness for Family Doctors and Nurses, (iii) forgiveness in cases of death; and (

b) what new criteria has the government established to qualify individuals for student loan forgiveness outside of those listed in (a)?

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a)(i), from November 4, 2015, to July 31, 2023, 3,987 Canada student loan borrowers had their loans forgiven through the severe permanent disability benefit, for a total amount of $61.9 million. With regard to part (a)(ii), from November 4, 2015, to July 31, 2023, 19,412 borrowers received the Canada student loan forgiveness for family doctors and nurses benefit, for a total amount of $178.5 million. With regard to part (a)(iii), from November 4, 2015, to July 31, 2023, a total amount of $92.3 million in Canada student loans was forgiven due to cases of borrower death.

The Canada student financial assistance program, or CSFA, does not track data on the individual number of deceased borrowers. With regard to part (b), there are no new criteria outside of those listed in part (a).

Question No. 1701—

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

With regard to appointments and meetings attended by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs, since January 1, 2021: (

a) what is the total number of meetings held on the subject matter of (

i) women veterans, (ii) Indigenous veterans, (iii) 2SLGBTQ+ veterans, (iv) the table of disabilities, (

v) entitlement eligibility guidelines, (vi) research priorities, and (vii) award funding; and (

b) what are the details of all meetings listed in (a), including the (

i) date, (ii) names and titles of the government representatives in the meeting, (iii) names of the organizations or groups in attendance, (iv) location of the meeting, (

v) length of the meeting?

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada undertook an extensive preliminary search in order to determine the information that would fall within the scope of this question and concluded that a manual search and review would be required. The level of detail requested is not systematically tracked in a centralized database. Veterans Affairs Canada further concluded that producing and validating a comprehensive response to this question could lead to the disclosure of incomplete and misleading information.

Question No. 1708—

Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay :

With regard to the government’s safer supply program: (

a) what were the projections showing a reduction of overdoses that were used to justify implementing the program; (

b) off of what methodology were the projections in (

a) based; (

c) what is the government’s explanation for why the number of overdoses increased following the implementation of the program; and (

d) when did the government first become aware that its projections showing that overdoses would decrease were flawed and inaccurate?

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, since 2017, guided by the Canadian drugs and substances strategy, CDSS, the Government of Canada has taken a comprehensive approach to address substance use issues and the overdose crisis, supported by over $1 billion in spending. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to prevent or reduce overdose deaths; a full range of services and supports are needed. Safer supply sits within a continuum of services where medications are prescribed in the context of a therapeutic relationship between a health care provider and a patient.

Safer supply services are informed by well-established domestic and international evidence from medication-assisted treatment, MAT, services, which are considered the gold standard of treatment for substance use disorder. With regard to questions (

a) and (b), surveillance conducted by the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC, on the overdose crisis shows a significant increase in apparent opioid-toxicity deaths in Canada beginning with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and rates remain elevated today. PHAC also conducts forward modelling to provide estimates of how many opioid-related deaths may occur over the coming months in Canada. Projections are based on assumptions regarding the toxicity of the illegal drug supply and the impact of health interventions.

The model considers all health interventions together and does not report projections for specific interventions, such as safer supply. The model is updated twice a year, in June and December. Health Canada recognizes that additional high-quality evidence is needed that addresses potential benefits and risks of safer supply. To help build this evidence, Health Canada is supporting assessment and evaluation projects related to pilot projects funded by the substance use and addictions program, SUAP.

This includes a preliminary assessment of 10 safer supply pilot projects in Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick. The federal government, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, CIHR, is also supporting a study being conducted by a research team from the Canadian research initiative in substance misuse. This four-year evaluation research project focuses on program implementation and the short-term health outcomes of 11 of the government-funded safer supply pilot projects. The final results of this study are expected in 2025.

Additionally, CIHR has awarded $2 million to the University of Victoria to support a four-year study evaluating the safer supply initiatives in British Columbia in partnership with indigenous leaders, elders and system partners. With regard to questions (

c) and (d), there is no one single intervention alone that will reduce overdose deaths and solve the overdose crisis. This crisis is being driven by a highly toxic illegal drug supply and a number of underlying socio-economic factors. This is why the federal government has taken a broad, comprehensive approach under the CDSS focusing on prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement.

All SUAP-funded safer supply pilot projects are time-limited, innovative interventions designed to evaluate the effectiveness of providing pharmaceutical-grade medications as safer alternatives to the contaminated illegal drug supply in Canada. These pilot projects must have linkages to provincial and/or territorial health systems, involvement of people with lived and living experience of substance use in design and planning and prescriber or health care provider oversight, and must demonstrate commitments to research and evaluation.

Safer supply services exist in a limited number of locations in Canada, and currently serve a relatively small number of clients compared to the total number of people who use drugs and who are at risk of overdose due to the toxic illegal drug supply in Canada. At the federal level, there are 29 funded pilot projects, serving approximately 4,300 clients nationally. The focus of federally funded projects has been on building the evidence around this new practice.

Under the CDSS, the Government of Canada will continue to undertake a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to substance use issues and the overdose crisis, including testing new ideas and approaches to help save lives and reduce harms. We will continue to work with all levels of governments and key stakeholders, who also have critical roles to play.

We will continue to monitor and assess all available evidence regarding our approach, including studying the outcomes of safer supply pilot projects, to inform both current and future actions and make adjustments, including implementing risk mitigation measures as appropriate.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1694 to 1696, 1698, 1699, 1702 to 1707 and 1709 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[ Text ]

Question No. 1694—

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron :

With regard to the Minister for Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard’s decision to extend consultations on the open-net pen aquaculture transition: (

a) what is the new timeline to introduce a plan for workers and coastal communities who will be affected by open-net pen finfish aquaculture closures; (

b) what are the details of consultations leading up to the extension decision, and all consultations scheduled for the summer of 2023, including the (

i) date of the consultation, (ii) organizations or the individuals being consulted; (

c) what resources has the department allocated for the purposes of this consultation, including the (

i) number of staff, (ii) budget, (iii) administrative resources; and (

d) what is the number of full-time staff and budget allocated for the purposes of implementing a timely real-jobs plan for all those impacted?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1695—

Mr. Richard Cannings :

With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Small and Medium Business Enterprises Directorate, broken down by year, from November 2015 to date: (

a) how many audits were completed; (

b) what is the number of auditors; (

c) how many new files were opened; (

d) how many files were closed; (

e) of the files in (d), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (

f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of non-compliance of each file; (

g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (

h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (

i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (

j) how many reassessments were issued; (

k) what is the total net revenue collected; (

l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA’s Criminal Investigations Program; (

m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (

n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1696—

Mr. Richard Cannings :

With regard to the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA), broken down by province or territory: (

a) what is the total number of businesses that received the CEBA loan; (

b) what is the total loan amount provided to small businesses; (

c) what is the total number of CEBA loans that have (

i) been paid back in full, (ii) been paid back in part, (iii) not been paid back at all; (

d) what is the total amount of CEBA loans that have been forgiven based on (

i) repayment based on terms of the loan, (ii) reasons outside of the terms of the loan; and (

e) what is the total number of small businesses that the government expects to miss the deadline for repayment?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1698—

Mr. Scott Reid :

With regard to immigration, asylum, and refugee measures and programs established since September 2001: (

a) what is the number of Afghan nationals that have been admitted to Canada, in total, and broken down by year, month, and program or measure; (

b) what is the total number of Afghan nationals that have been granted permission to travel to or enter Canada by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC); (

c) what is the total number of applications from Afghan nationals that have been accepted by IRCC; (

d) what is the total number of Afghan nationals contained within the applications in (c); (

e) with respect to the applications in (c), what is the number that received a negative decision from IRCC, broken down by year, month, and program or measure; (

f) with respect to the applications in (e), what (

i) is the number of Afghan nationals contained within the applications, broken down by year, month, and program or measure, (ii) were the reasons provided for the negative decisions, (iii) is the number of applications that received each reason, broken down by year, month, and program or measure; (

g) what is the number of Afghan nationals that have been granted permission to travel to or enter Canada by IRCC, broken down by year, month, and program or measure; (

h) what is the number of applications from Afghan nationals that have been accepted by IRCC, broken down by year, month, and program or measure; (

i) what is the date of the establishment of each program or measure; (

j) what is the date of each program or measure’s closing to applications; and (

k) what is the date of each program or measure’s termination?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1699—

Mr. Blake Desjarlais :

With regard to the investments in budget 2023 concerning the implementation of the Canadian Dental Care Plan: (

a) what is the projected number of individuals who would qualify for this plan because they have an annual family income of less than (i) $90,000, (ii) $70,000; (

b) what is the projected number of individuals listed in (

a) who are (

i) seniors over the age of 65, (ii) children under the age of 12, (iii) people living with a disability; (

c) what is the estimated number of individuals, broken down by province or territory; and (

d) what is the total number of individuals eligible for the Canadian Dental Care Plan, broken down by federal electoral district?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1702—

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

With regard to the Veteran and Family Well-Being Fund, broken down by fiscal year and by province or territory: (

a) what are the details of all organizations that have received funding, including (

i) the name of organization, (ii) the amount received, (iii) the type of organization, (iv) the number of veterans and equity-seeking Veterans on the board of the organization, (

v) the number of veterans and equity-seeking Veterans as staff in the organization, including CEO and owners, (vi) the number of veterans and equity-seeking veterans as volunteers in their programs, (vii) the number of veterans and equity-seeking veterans who used the programs and/or services, (viii) whether the organization reported on how the funding was applied and lessons learned; (

b) for organizations listed in (a), which organizations qualified for funding because their application provided curated and specialized programs or services to equity-seeking groups, including (

i) women, (ii) 2SLGBTQ+, (iii) homeless, (iv) Indigenous veterans, and (

v) racialized veterans; (

c) what metrics and analytical tools, including Gender-based Analysis Plus, does the government use to assess applications, and does the government apply considerations based on the (

i) impact on single veterans, (ii) impact on veterans and their families, (iii) innovation to address unmet needs, as defined by research and veterans themselves, (iv) financial risk and ability to administer and deliver services, and (

v) ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for marginalized veterans and equity seeking groups; (

d) what staff level, working groups, panels, or review bodies assess applications for funding, and are veterans represented in these decision making bodies; (

e) what is the total number of applications that were received; and (

f) of the applications in (c), reflected as a number and a percentage, what is the total number of applications that were denied funding?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1703—

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

With regard to the staffing of Canadian Armed Forces clinics: (

a) broken down by each base and location, what is the number of (

i) military psychiatrists, (ii) civilian psychiatrists employed directly by the Department of National Defence (DND), (iii) psychiatrists from Calian Group Ltd, (iv) military psychologists, (

v) civilian psychologists employed directly by the DND, (vi) psychologists from Calian Group Ltd, (vii) military medical doctors, (viii) civilian medical doctors employed directly by the DND, (ix) medical doctors from Calian Group Ltd, (

x) military medical social workers, (xi) civilian medical social workers employed directly by the DND, (xii) medical social workers from Calian Group Ltd, (xiii) military registered nurses specializing in mental health, (xiv) civilian registered nurses specializing in mental health employed directly by the DND, (xv) registered nurses specializing in mental health from Calian Group Ltd, (xvi) military addictions counsellors, (xvii) civilian addictions counsellors employed directly by the DND, (xviii) addiction counsellors from Calian Group Ltd; (

b) for each position listed in (a), what is the (

i) current average full-time equivalent salary, (ii) average number of patients treated per month; and (

c) what are the details of all personnel provided by Calian Group Ltd, specifically the (

i) number of personnel provided broken down by job title, (ii) statements of work by job title, (iii) responsibilities of position, (iv) position or supervisor title to whom they report, (

v) average full-time equivalent salary broken down by job title?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1704—

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

With regard to the government’s purchase of 88 F-35A fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, announced on January 9, 2023: (

a) what studies and reports were completed by the government to determine the lifecycle costs and economic impact of this purchase; (

b) what were the details of each study or report in (a), including the (

i) date of the report, (ii) author, (iii) cost of producing the report, (iv) conclusions concerning the lifecycle cost or economic impact; (

c) what lifespan did the government use to determine its estimates of operation and support costs; and (

d) does the cost modelling done by the government include upgrades and overhaul in its per-unit acquisition cost?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1705—

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

With regard to the real property portfolio of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), broken down by facility or building: (

a) what is the current number of work orders for maintenance; (

b) for each work order in (a), what are the details, including the (

i) type of request, (ii) estimated cost for repair or maintenance, (iii) date the work order was made, (iv) date the work order is expected to be closed; (

c) what reports has the Department of National Defence commissioned regarding the costs of maintenance and repair at CAF facilities; and (

d) what are the details of all reports listed in (c), including the (

i) author of the report, (ii) cost to procure the report, (iii) conclusions of the report, including the estimated deferred maintenance costs?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1706—

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen :

With regard to federal spending in the constituency of London—Fanshawe, in each fiscal year since 2020-21, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1707—

Mr. Dan Muys :

With regard to the Universal Broadband Fund announcement by the government on August 28, 2023, specifically relating funding recipient Rogers – UBF-05530 in the amount of $79,052,000 to bring high speed internet access to 28,269 households: (

a) how many of the 28,269 individual households are each located in (

i) Ancaster, (ii) Binbrook, (iii) Branchton, (iv) Campbellville, (

v) Carlisle, (vi) Copetown, (vii) Dundas, (viii) Freelton, (ix) Grassie, (

x) Jerseyville, (xi) Kilbride, (xii) Lynden, (xiii) Millgrove, (xiv) Mount Hope, (xv) Pleasant View Survey, (xvi) Rockton, (xvii) Sheffield, (xviii) Stoney Creek, (xix) Strabane, (xx) Troy, (xxi) Waterdown; and (

b) how much of the allotted $79,052,000 for this project is allocated to be used in (

i) Ancaster, (ii) Binbrook, (iii) Branchton, (iv) Campbellville, (

v) Carlisle, (vi) Copetown, (vii) Dundas, (viii) Freelton, (ix) Grassie, (

x) Jerseyville, (xi) Kilbride, (xii) Lynden, (xiii) Millgrove, (xiv) Mount Hope, (xv) Pleasant View Survey, (xvi) Rockton, (xvii) Sheffield, (xviii) Stoney Creek, (xix) Strabane, (xx) Troy, (xxi) Waterdown?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1709—

Mr. Gord Johns :

With regard to the President of the Treasury Board's directive to find specific cuts within departments by October 2, 2023, broken down by department: (

a) were any third-party management firms contracted to assist with identifying spending cuts; and (

b) what are the details of all contracts in (a), including the (

i) name of the firm contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) deadline to submit deliverables, (iv) titles of any reports or

summary documents produced?

(Return tabled)

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker :

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by 28 minutes.

Government Orders Business of Supply

[ English ] Business of Supply Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Pause on Home Heating

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

moved: Motion

That, given that the government has announced a “temporary, three-year pause” to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha . “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” Those were the words of the Prime Minister , and that is the principle of my motion today. It reads, “That, given that the government has announced a ‘temporary, three-year pause’ to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.” It is very simple. How does anyone argue with that?

If the Prime Minister has now caved on the carbon tax for those heating with oil, then he ought to be intellectually consistent and do it for all forms of heating for all Canadians. We know that the Prime Minister has decided to create two classes of citizens. He, under pressure and under duress, decided to pause the carbon tax on home heat until after the election, at which point he intends to quadruple it. In the meantime, there will be a temporary carve-out.

Asked why there was a double standard and why this carve-out applied only to about 3% of households, the Minister of Rural Economic Development said that other Canadians could have had the break too, but they did not elect enough Liberals. In addition to that being a bloody-minded, divide-and-conquer approach to politics, it is actually inaccurate, because many did elect Liberal MPs and are still forced to pay the tax on the heat. These are people in Liberal-held ridings who will be excluded and will be forced to pay the higher tax on the heat as the temperatures go down and the snow starts to fall.

Are these citizens less Canadian than those who are getting the pause? Is the malnourished senior in the Liberal riding of Sudbury who heats with gas any less Canadian than those who get the pause? Is the single mom in the Liberal ridings of Thunder Bay any less Canadian as she is forced by the Prime Minister 's tax to skip meals so her kids do not have to? Is the welder in North Bay any less Canadian, as he cannot gas up his truck to go visit his dying relatives in other parts of the province, any less Canadian? Of course they are not, but the Prime Minister thinks they are.

Once again we see his divide-to-distract strategy. He thinks that if people are afraid of their fellow Canadians, they might forget that they cannot afford to gas their car or heat their home. We have seen this divide-and-conquer strategy of the Prime Minister over many years. We saw how he called small businesses “tax cheats”. We saw how he called anyone who disagreed with him a “small fringe minority”, even though he later had to apologize for those comments.

Recently, we saw how he tried to besmirch Muslims, Sikh and Christian parents, calling them “hateful” simply because they wanted to protect their children. We see, again and again, how the Prime Minister tries to demonize hunters, calling them “American” and saying that people who live in Cape Breton and hunt or who live in northern Canada and hunt for sustenance are the reason we have record gang shootings in downtown Toronto. That has become his go-to approach, and here we have it again with a “two classes of citizens” approach to his carbon tax.

Let us not forget that his plan is to quadruple the carbon tax if he is re-elected. My plan is the opposite. I propose, with this motion, a compromise in the meantime. What I propose is that we take the tax off so Canadians could keep the heat on this winter, and then, when Canadians go to the polls, we could have a carbon tax election where people choose between his plan to quadruple the tax on gas, heat and groceries, and my common-sense plan to axe the tax and bring home lower prices.

(1045) The Prime Minister , in his desperation yesterday, would not even show up and defend this approach in the House. He was in Ottawa and he was in the building, and he would not—

The Deputy Speaker :

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party has been told on many occasions that he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I would ask that the member recognize that members on all sides of the House, at times, cannot be in the House for a multitude of different reasons.

The Deputy Speaker :

I will caution the hon. leader about that. The hon. leader of the official opposition.

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's strategy is to hide and divide: to hide from debate and divide the population. That is how he thinks he will cling to power, but here is the problem: He can run away from debating me all he wants, but he cannot run away from his own party. His former environment minister Catherine McKenna said that he had broken her heart.

A Liberal senator, Paula Simons, said that he betrayed her, because he had assured her that the carbon tax was going to make people better off but later admitted that people heating with oil were made far worse off by his carbon tax, thus needing a pause from that tax. Liberal Senator Percy Downe wrote a spectacular piece just yesterday, in which he said:

The opportunity for [the Conservative leader to form] government was created by a lack of fiscal responsibility in the [Liberal] government, and the damage it caused our economy is now showing up in the opinion [polls]. Within the Liberal Party, many members who are in favour of fiscal responsibility...have given up on this current iteration of the Liberal Party.

He goes on:

Originally, these centralist liberals assumed that [the Prime Minister] and his crowd needed to be educated on the economic issues of the day.

That naiveté was replaced with the realization that they were not a serious government when it came to the economy, that they simply didn’t care and would throw money at anything that crossed their mind. The resulting interest rate hikes, increasing cost of living, and huge debt didn’t seem to concern them.

The Liberal senator goes on to say that the Prime Minister should be fired and replaced with a new Liberal leader. Meanwhile, the incoming Liberal leader, Mark Carney, is now firing shots at the Prime Minister, claiming that he would not have allowed two classes of Canadians on the carbon tax question. This is carbon tax chaos. Canadians are paying the price, and all of it proves that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He is not worth the cost of heat. He is not worth the cost of food. He is not worth the cost of housing. However, apparently, he is worth the cost to the NDP.

The NDP was elected by good, solid, decent working-class folks in places like Vancouver Island, Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Timmins. I have met these people, folks who pack their lunch, get out of bed every morning, work hard and build our country. However, they have been betrayed by the NDP, which now works for the Prime Minister and has sold out the working-class rural people of this country who were the foundation of that party. It now has a decision to make. The NDP leader says that he disagrees with the dual-class citizenship approach of the Prime Minister on the carbon tax.

I am giving him a chance to prove it. We have a motion before the House that simply says to give everyone the same tax-free heat this winter. The NDP leader has already stated that he agrees with that point of view, but he has to check with his boss, the leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister of Canada. Everyday people in Timmins, in Kapuskasing, in Smithers, British Columbia, and in countless other NDP communities will be watching on Monday to find out whether the NDP leader votes for them or for the Prime Minister.

If he does not vote for the people he represents, why should they vote for him in the next election? The good news is that the Conservatives do not work for the Prime Minister . We work for the common people and for the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

(1050) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting hearing the leader of the Conservative Party . One can ultimately say he has done a flip-flop. It was not that long ago that the NDP brought forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating. One would think, based on everything he has been blabbing about for the last week or so, that the Conservatives would have voted in favour of getting rid of the GST on home heating. Canadians would be surprised to find out that their leader did not. He looks to his colleagues and wonders if he really did that.

Yes, he really did vote against an amendment that would have removed the GST on home heating oil. Why has there been this change? I think it is a fair assessment. I agreed with him. I too voted against it, but I am curious why the leader of the Conservative Party flip-flopped on this issue.

(1055) Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, we would take all taxes off home heating. That is our view. The NDP did copycat our 2019 election platform commitment to take the GST off home heating; that is true, but then its members flip-flopped, and the NDP is now working for the Prime Minister . It has sold out the people in Kitimat and the people in Penticton, and it has sold out the hard-working miners and loggers in Timmins. Instead, the NDP members decided they would work for the Prime Minister of Canada, that they would speak for the Prime Minister in those communities, rather than speaking for those communities to the Prime Minister.

Conservatives are the exact opposite, and that is why we call for a consistent, “one Canada” approach. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian, and we would take the tax off and keep the heat on for all Canadians everywhere and always.

The Deputy Speaker :

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to table the NDP motion and the results of that vote—

The Deputy Speaker :

I am already hearing members say no. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, with respect to a “one Canada” approach, this motion would apply to only four provinces and three territories. It would not help people in British Columbia. However, New Democrats, a year ago, brought forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating, which would have applied to all Canadians, in all 10 provinces and three territories. While I am getting heckled by the Conservatives, I will try to push through. Mr. Speaker, it was in the Conservatives' platform of 2019 to remove GST on home heating, but what did they do? They voted against it, so let us talk about who is fighting for all Canadians.

The NDP did that by putting forward that motion. Can the member for Carleton explain why his party members voted against the Conservative promise in the 2019 platform? Why did they vote against removing the GST on home heating for all Canadians?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, we can do both. Why do we not take all taxes off home heating? Why do we not do both? It is very easy to do. The NDP has copycatted our 2019 platform commitment to take GST off home heating. The member is now hyperventilating because he is going to lose his seat in the next election because the people on Vancouver Island have seen him betray them again and again, and now he is going to force British Columbians to pay a quadruple carbon tax on their heat, gas and groceries. He is voting in favour of the federal government's forcing the NDP government in his province to quadruple the tax.

We are simply saying to give his constituents the same break that some Atlantic Canadians are getting temporarily. Give them a pause on the carbon tax because a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened to the leader of the official opposition 's speech, and not once did he actually mention the program we have in order to help with the transition. There are a million Canadian households in this country that are extremely vulnerable. They are sometimes paying in excess of double or four times the price of alternatives such as natural gas or electricity. We have built a program. He is talking about removing the carbon price, which we have done on a temporary basis, and we have offered a solution.

Does he believe in what the government is doing to help the most vulnerable people across the country? The Conservatives have not quite picked up that it is across the country. Does he believe in the Government of Canada's helping people in rural Ontario, rural Alberta and rural Saskatchewan to actually make the transition, people who are extremely vulnerable on home heating oil? Does he support the program?

Hon. Pierre Poilievre :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not across the country. It is only available in a few provinces. So far, the uptake has been very low, because we do not have the capacity to switch large numbers of people under the program that he proposes; plus it is just riddled with bureaucracy and paperwork. We can picture elderly grandmothers who are in the freezing cold in Kings—Hants having to fill out all of these forms that he has put in front of them. Finally, let us just point out that the member was in full panic mode last week, because I was holding a monster rally of 1,000 common-sense Nova Scotians.

You were there, Mr. Speaker, and they were rallying to axe the tax, while the member was bawling his eyes out on the phone with the PMO, asking them to save his job, because he knew he was going to be fired by his constituents. That is the only reason he even sought a pause. The member has to tell them the truth: If he is re-elected, people will see that tax go back on their home heat. The only way to axe the tax is by electing a common-sense Conservative MP for Kings—Hants and government for Canada.

(1100) Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, today is an extremely important day. Today, the members of this House, who were elected to serve Canadians, have the opportunity to prove where their priorities are. The Conservative Party of Canada and our leader have put forth an opposition motion on which members will vote on Monday. It reads:

That, given that the government has announced a “temporary, three-year pause” to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.

This is a reasonable, common-sense, fair-minded motion. I want to read it into the record again:

That, given that the government has announced a “temporary, three-year pause” to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil, the House call on the government to extend that pause to all forms of home heating.

After eight years, the question is why we would even have to ask for such a common-sense motion. How did we get here? How did we get to the point that the Liberal-NDP government put in a punitive tax, telling Canadians it was an environment plan? We now know, through expert testimony and the behaviour of this Liberal Prime Minister , that this punitive carbon tax, which is driving up the cost of living, was never about environmental science. It was always about political science.

That is the pattern of behaviour we have seen over and over from the Prime Minister and the NDP, which continues to prop up the government and then practise hypocrisy in this House very single day in the chamber. The NDP prides itself on saying it stands up for the middle class and for the most vulnerable, and yet it props up the Prime Minister , who is making people's lives a living hell. This is not my opinion. These are facts. Last week, Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, testified at the finance committee. I want to read into the record some of this testimony. Mr.

Tiff Macklem said, “First of all, it is the most vulnerable members of society that are suffering the most from high inflation. They are feeling the brunt of affordability more than everybody else. They can't just move down market. They're already at the bottom of the market. Much of their spending is already on necessities, you can't cut back on that. That's why it is so important that we get inflation down.

Inflation is a tax that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable members of society.” Some people may want to argue that the carbon tax is not responsible for inflation, or that it is not contributing to inflation. Let us correct that for the record as well. This Prime Minister has tried to tell Canadians that repeatedly, but again, we know it is not true. Let me read into the record more testimony from the Governor of the Bank of Canada during the finance committee last week. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South said, “Just to reiterate what you said there, it would be 60 basis points, or 0.6%.

Currently the inflation rate is at 3.8%, so that equates to almost 15%, if I can do the math quickly.” Mr. Tiff Macklem said, “It would be 3.2.” This testimony tells the story and the facts and it proves the impact of carbon tax on Canadians. If it were removed today or tomorrow, inflation would go from 3.8% to 3.2%. That is significant. For people at home who do not know, that is 16% overall.

The cost of mortgages and interest rates, the cost of heating and the cost of groceries, which are all the things that people need, the necessities that people need to live that are squeezing them out every month, would go down. That is the impact of the carbon tax. I want to read a couple of comments from constituents who write to me, because that is our job. Our job is to represent the constituents. It is to elevate their voices. When we talk about the most vulnerable, they are often our seniors. Barb wrote to me and said, “We are retired and we heat with propane now.

We changed from oil to propane because of the costs for oil, but propane is just as expensive now with the carbon tax and because the propane has jumped and our groceries, I work part-time to help cover these increases.”

(1105) Seniors worked their entire lives to retire, but they cannot. They are being forced back into the workforce and not at high-paying jobs. They are trying to get into entry-level jobs. They cannot enjoy the fruits of their labour. Some of them are moving in with their children. That is the result of this carbon tax. I want to mention more stories, because they are very important to hear and have on the record. Danny wrote, “My mother is going through this now. She has to make a choice: either heat her place or buy groceries. She layers up in clothing in her apartment. She is 69 years old.

I have never seen this country so bad.” Mike Jessop wrote, “I heat my home with food.” What does that mean? It means he does not have any money left over to pay for his heating. He can only pick one or the other. How sad is that? Elizabeth MacNeil-Young wrote, “I lived through two Trudeau governments.” I am not sure I can say that name. “Back in the eighties, I worried about losing my home. I made it work, though. Now my children are in the same boat.” Carol said, “I changed from an oil-fired boiler to an electric boiler because I couldn't afford the monthly oil bill any longer.

I wish there was a rebate for us homeowners who couldn't afford a heat pump and put in an electric boiler instead.” This brings me to a point I want to bring up. I sit in this House every day and listen to the members opposite in the Liberal Party. Their new argument is that they are giving away free heat pumps. There are two problems with that. Number one is that heat pumps only work to -25°C. We live in Canada. I do not know where the Liberals are talking about, but many areas in Canada go far below -25°C. The second problem is their statement that they are giving away free heat pumps.

That is the essence of the problem we have in this country because of the Liberals. Nothing is free. It is taxpayer money. This is basic fiscal policy. Anyone who manages a household budget understands this. There is monetary policy that is controlled by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It is his or her job to control inflation. Fiscal policy is controlled by the government, which, in this case, are the Liberals and NDP. Fiscal policy is how much they spend.

A basic student going to university right now knows that if people spend more than they make and have to use their credit cards, they will only be paying off interest and that debt will go up and up. That is how we got into this position. When Liberals say they are giving away free heat pumps, that is disgusting, because it is taxpayer money. They should be honest and transparent. They are using taxpayer money. How much is that going to cost? Are they going to pay for the amp service? People are going to need to up their amp service. That is the issue. Liberals do not have their own money.

They have taxpayers' money. Until they figure that out, we are going to keep doing the same thing over and over again. The Liberals' agenda is not about the climate. It is about holding onto power and keeping seats that are slipping from them because Canadians cannot handle this misery any longer. We heard from a Liberal minister on national television say that if people want a break from the carbon tax, they have to vote Liberal. That is shameful. It is awful. Every Canadian deserves the necessities to live. We are Canada. The only party committed to affordability in this House is the Conservative Party.

Today Conservatives challenge this House to prove their service to Canadians and to prove that they will do what they were elected to do, which is make life better, not worse. The most compassionate thing we can do is make life affordable for our children, for our seniors, for the middle class who go to work every day to pay their bills and cannot. Today, Conservatives call on this House to treat all Canadians fairly and to vote in favour of the Conservatives' motion to pause the carbon tax on all home heating for all Canadians.

(1110) Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member say that heat pumps do not work when it is -25°C. I just came back from the western part of my riding, including Emo, which is in northwestern Ontario, where it quite commonly gets much below -25°C, and half the town uses heat pumps. The member is from Peterborough. Even in Peterborough, it gets below -25°C. Does nobody north of Peterborough use heat pumps? Is the member not in favour of heat pumps? It certainly seems like an affordable way to heat houses if people can afford them.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, again, we are hearing an inability to see the point of the motion. Heat pumps are fine. My parents are using a heat pump right now. That is not the issue at hand. The Liberals are not serving 97% of Canadians with what they are doing. They decided to give a break to some Canadians. The reality is that it is not a luxury to heat one's home. The efficiency of the heat pump drastically goes down. It is like using electricity. That is the science of it. It is just common sense. If the government does not pause the carbon tax for everyone, then it is discriminating against 97% of Canadians. That is what we are asking today.

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. We have heard the opposition talk about the fact that the Alberta NDP has been pushing back against what the government has done, yet the Alberta NDP put forward an emergency motion in our legislature that said that the legislative assembly recognized that carbon dioxide emissions contributed to a changing climate. They talked about wildfires, evacuations and extreme weather events. Then they went on to talk about the fact that we needed to apply the same programs across the country for home heating.

However, the Conservatives in Alberta voted against it because it had references to the need for a climate plan. We have not heard this from the Conservatives yet. What is their climate plan? Could the member tell me what they plan to do to deal with the biggest crisis of our time right now, the climate crisis? As far as I could tell from her speech, she does not even admit it is real.

Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, there is so much to unpack in that member's question. First, shame on that member for being a representative of a party that keeps the Prime Minister in power and continues to make Canadians suffer. Second, I would challenge her to check out the recent CBC/Radio Canada article, in which whistle-blowers are saying that they provided secret recordings by Liberal bureaucrats, the outright incompetence of their green fund. That $1-billion green slush fund is a sponsorship scandal-level kind of giveaway. That is not an environmental plan.

That is another scandal, another misuse of taxpayer dollars, propped up by the NDP. Now those members are trying to distract. They are now stating a falsehood. There was no motion from the NDP to take GST off of home heating. The members are distracting from their plan to have a carbon tax.

Mr. Gord Johns :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there was in fact a motion that the Conservatives teamed up with the Liberals to defeat—

The Deputy Speaker :

That is a point of clarification and debate. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the Prime Minister has said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” In reality what he has done is to pit a Canadian against a Canadian against a Canadian. The member talked about how it was not equal across the country and about the big challenges. I would like to hear more from her on those issues.

(1115) Ms. Michelle Ferreri :

Mr. Speaker, we see it every day in the House. Canadians at home see it. They see who he really is. This is the reality of what we are dealing with. This is an ideological government that believes it is going to save us. It is going to create the problem, make life unaffordable, drive up inflation, give punitive taxes and then come back and offer a little rebate from a scandal-level slush fund. Its moral integrity is gone, the agenda, everything. Divide, distract and power is the agenda of the Prime Minister , propped up by the NDP.

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate an opposition day motion from the Conservative Party. As I read the text of the motion, and this is a common occurrence, I find the need to clarify and provide more context to what the Conservatives are calling for. This follows a very important government announcement last week. If we look at the text of the motion, it provides no clarity, no context and no actual solution for how the Conservative Party would deal with a very acute national issue, about which I look forward to talking to with all my colleagues today.

Before I start talking about what the government announced last week, it is important to talk about why there is a carbon price system at all. We are here because we are experiencing more and more dramatic and extreme weather as a result of climate change. Colleagues across the country will have experienced this as well. My home province has had the worst forest fires in its history. Indeed, that was a reality across the country. We had hurricane Fiona. I have talked to constituents about this. Hurricanes used to happen maybe once a decade on the Atlantic coast and in Nova Scotia.

They are happening every year now. In some cases, they are subject to having two storms. The science is clear. Generally, most parliamentarians in this place believe in the importance of moving forward. Carbon pricing is an effective way to do that. Seventy-seven jurisdictions around the world have a form of carbon pricing. Last election, the Conservative Party ran on a carbon price. Canada is not alone in this regard. It is an important tool to being sure we can drive forward. The way that the government introduced the system was to be very mindful of balancing affordability.

I just listened to the member for Peterborough—Kawartha . She is not entitled to her own facts. The facts are that the Parliamentary Budget Office has consistently shown that eight out of 10 families receive more money back from the climate action incentive payments than what they pay in any form of carbon pricing. That is not my fact. That is not the member for Peterborough—Kawartha 's fact. That is from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent member of this Parliament, who provides that reality. Carbon pricing in our environmental strategy is working.

Notwithstanding that we never hear comments or concerns from the Conservative Party about environmental concerns or a plan, we are the only government in the history of our country that has actually reduced GHG emissions and grown the economy at the same time. Again, that is a fact. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, but I am proud of being part of a government caucus and a government that has been focused on that number one question. I cannot say the same for the official opposition. That is the contrast.

As I have said before, I am not seeing any plan, any vision or any desire to want to jointly address the questions, right now, of affordability and environment. As I have said publicly, those two things have to go hand in hand. The Conservatives do not seem to understand that we have to tackle these issues at the same time. They cannot be independent. Last week, the government made a really important announcement. As a rural member of Parliament, I am proud to see the adjustments that were made.

At the end of the day, not all Canadians have the same access to change behaviour and to benefit from the climate action incentive payment program. Not all Canadians have the same tools in the fight of climate change, particularly the further we go outside major urban areas. You represent West Nova in Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, and I represent Kings—Hants. I think it is fair to say that we both have the types of constituencies where there is some basic form of public transit, but it is not available to all our constituents.

There are many instances were the people we represent have to drive longer distances and do not have the same tools as people living in major cities, like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. The government did recognize that in what it originally introduced as a climate program under the national carbon pricing plan. There is a 10% supplement available to Canadians who live outside of a census metropolitan area. However, what the government announced last week was that this increase would go from 10% to 20%. I applaud the government for doing this.

That makes a difference for rural Canadians in the federal backstop jurisdictions across the country.

(1120) It means that rural Ontarians have more money in their pockets. It means that individuals living in Saskatchewan and Alberta outside of major cities have more money to help support and recognize the lived differences between them and Canadians who live in major urban areas. It is equity in ensuring that this is in place, and the government was smart and mindful to make that change. One million Canadians use home heating oil across the country: 286,000 in Atlantic Canada; 465,000 in Quebec; 266,000 in Ontario; approximately 30,000 in the Prairie provinces; and 88,000 in British Columbia.

I do not have the statistics for northern Canada in front of me, but I know many northerners use heating oil as well. This is an acute issue, because the reality is that heating oil is two to four times more expensive than other conventional means to heating homes. There is a clear economic incentive to change from a home heating oil furnace.

If people at home right now have a furnace that uses oil to heat their home and if they have some money in their bank account, I would humbly suggest they look at finding ways to get off heating oil, because it is vastly more expensive and it is also terrible in an environmental sense. We do not hold Canadians responsible for the fact that they have certain living circumstances and use oil to heat their homes. There are vulnerable Canadians across the country, in the ridings of the official opposition, in the ridings of the government caucus.

I would hazard a guess that every member in this place has some people in their riding who use heating oil. However, we have an interest, as a government, to help those people who may not have the means to change their behaviour themselves. If people do not actually have the money to take on a project to reduce their reliance on heating oil, then they are stuck. That is exactly why the government launched a program in the fall of 2022 specific to those Canadians, to help them try to make a transition. There is a $10,000 federal grant available to any Canadian who wants to make a transition.

The $10,000 grant is available to those of low and medium income. The government has a program that is more loans-based, with zero interest, for those of higher income. However, there are federal resources available across the country. I will read some statistics, as they inform the debate and the conversation we are having about equity. The equity has been framed around one source of heating oil with no context about the price differential. For members living in Ontario, I want them to know that if they have people using home heating oil, they are paying, on average, $3,400 a year on that oil.

For those on natural gas, it is $900 a year. Therefore, oil is almost four times the amount. If people do not have the money, how do they get off of it? They are in a vicious cycle, using the most expensive fuel to heat their home, and they do not have the money to get off the source they are using. In Regina and Saskatchewan, it is the same thing, $1,400 for natural gas on a yearly basis compared $4,500 for heating oil. In Vancouver, it is $600 for natural gas and $1,800 for heating oil. Also, the prices have gone up 73% over the last two years.

I hear the member for Perth—Wellington saying, “I wonder why.” It is not because of carbon pricing. It is that the level of rhetoric from the other side that shows those members do not understand the fundamental market difficulties of Canadians who are in this situation. That is why we have launched a national program, which was $250 million. It was available and remains available to all Canadians. However, what the Prime Minister announced last week was balancing affordability and environmental progress together.

He announced that we would augment that plan and temporarily pause carbon pricing on home heating oil. Let us remember that there are a million Canadians who are vulnerable and are paying in excess of anywhere between two to four times the amount that other Canadians are paying on their heating bills.

(1125) We launched a program in partnership with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador to increase the support for Canadians who are in difficult situations. People who are below the provincial median income in my riding and your riding, Mr. Speaker, are going to benefit from a federal grant of up to $15,000 with the Province of Nova Scotia supporting the remaining $5,000. There is a $250 incentive to join the program. We are going to help people actually make a transition off heating oil.

It is good for the environment, it is good for affordability and it matters to the most vulnerable Canadians. I want to give members an example from my riding. Mr. Speaker, you have been there. It was out in rural Hants County, on the Hants shore in Walton. I talked to a woman named Doris. It was about this time last year when we launched some of the programs. She said she was glad to see there was a $10,000 grant she could access, but she was on a senior's pension and the guaranteed income supplement. She did not have a lot of extra money at the end of the month; things were tight.

She said she would love to take on the program, but she was quoted $17,000 to $18,000 for the project. She cannot, even though the government is there trying to help, access the program. Now, Doris in Walton is going to be able to benefit from a program of cost delivery between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. Not only is that good for the environment, but more importantly, in the affordability context, it is good for Doris. It is going to save her thousands of dollars a year. I do not hear any solutions from the official opposition of what it is going to do long term.

Yes, it would remove approximately 20¢ from Doris's bill each year. We have done that. We have paused the carbon price because we recognize there is a group of Canadians who simply cannot make the transition. Why would we have a carbon price when we are literally launching a national program to help them out? We have gotten rid of the carbon price. We have done what the Conservatives would do, but we have gone a step further. We have offered Doris a long-term solution to help her make that transition. I do not hear the Conservatives even talking about that program.

Great, the Conservatives' plan on affordability is to offer Doris 20¢ off per litre, on average, from her home heating bill, which runs about $1.88 per litre right now. It would be down to $1.68; well done, Conservatives. Guess what we are going to offer Doris? We are going to offer Doris $2,500 a year in cost savings that she can then use to support herself in other ways. That is a good program. That is actually having a vision to focus on the transition and helping people out, and I do not hear that. Again, I have touched a bit on the exemption. This is a conversation.

At the end of the day, we have seen some pundits here in Ottawa. Some say we are undermining the carbon system. No, we are not. We are tying a specific pause to a carbon price with a program for people who are too vulnerable to make the transition, and who have all the economic incentive to change because they are paying four times the energy bill. If they had the money, they would have already transitioned. These people exist across the country. Is it acute in Atlantic Canada? Absolutely. I am proud of the fact that the government has addressed this.

I am proud to be able to go home and tell my constituents we have a solution for them. I am proud that, whether I go to northern Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, I will be able to tell people in the same situation that we have a solution for them too. The way the Conservative Party has framed this is that somehow this is just for one region, but it is not. It is available for the whole country. The 30,000 households in the prairie provinces that use heating oil, that are vulnerable, that cannot make a transition and are paying four times the price of natural gas, do they not deserve a break too?

Do they not deserve a government that is focused on meeting their needs? I have not heard one word from the Conservatives on that whatsoever. At the end of the day, that is exactly what we have done. What we announced last week is good news for the entire country. It is particularly good news for rural and regional Canada. I am proud, as a member of Parliament representing a rural riding, to have offered thoughtful solutions and adjustments to a national policy, instead of a tear-it-down approach on the other side. Remember that the Conservatives are offering to remove approximately 20¢ off home heating bills.

We are offering long-term solutions to actually help people make a transition. That is the difference and Canadians will take notice about what we are doing.

(1130) We are focused on vulnerable households. I listened to the leader of the official opposition, and there was not one word about the one million Canadians who are in a very difficult position in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, with 465,000 households in Quebec. It is very difficult situation that they are in. Again, I want to highlight there is federal support across the board. We have launched a specific project to augment the national program.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, instead of just standing across the way and yelling and offering simplistic solutions, I would encourage the member from Prince George to reach out to Premier Eby, because I can promise some people in Prince George right now use heating oil and are in a difficult situation. He should direct them to the $10,000 grant that exists right now for his constituents. I hope he has. Maybe we should get some household material about whether he has actually talked about the programs the government is announcing. He should call Premier Eby and ask the premier to work together with him.

He should ask him to reach out to the Government of Canada and work for the 88,000 households in British Columbia that use home heating oil. What about the people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Yes, they are smaller communities, but these people still matter, these people who are in rural, northern communities and need help. I want to tell the story of why we are focused and why this matters, because it has been vandalized by the Conservatives to suggest that this is only from one part of the country. It is not. It is a national question of a million households across the country.

Instead of offering simplistic solutions to save people at home very minimal amounts of money, because the actual market cost to heat their home is frankly extortionate, it is so expensive, we are not only temporarily pausing in direct correlation to a program to help people make a transition but are giving them the money to help make the transition so they are not stuck in a cycle. That is climate action. There are some people in this country, and I have seen it, who see it as a climate step-down. No, not at all. In fact, I would point to an agency back home in my province, the Ecology Action Centre.

It is saying that this is an example of action on climate and affordability at the same time. It is the pre-eminent environmental organization in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, because it understands the unique regional challenges that exist not only in the Atlantic but indeed in rural Ontario, northern Ontario. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , instead of actually talking about what the Conservatives do to help people in northern Ontario, is calling a press conference. I can only imagine what elements he would be talking about.

He will probably not be talking about the fact there are 266,000 households in Ontario who would benefit from this. No, he is going to stage a press conference in front of the office of the member of Parliament for Sudbury . It is disgusting; it is sick. Why do the Conservatives not step up with a plan? Again, they ran on carbon pricing in the last election. If they do not want to run on it this election, fine, but show Canadians an iota of evidence that they actually have a plan not only on the environment but on affordability.

I have already talked to many constituents at home, and they appreciate what the government did this week. They appreciate the fact that this matters. I have talked to some of our members on this side and indeed other members in the House. I talked to the member for York—Simcoe last night. He said, “You know, there are a lot of people in my riding who use heating oil.” He said that what was announced was going to make a difference. That is a Conservative-held riding. There is a national program. I am proud of what the government has done.

We have made sure rural Canadians are better protected and better supported under the national pricing strategy, particularly those who do not have the same ability to change behaviour. We have taken a specific look at a million Canadian households that are in a very vulnerable situation, that are paying some of the highest costs in the country to heat their homes and do not have an ability to transition. We have built and augmented a national plan. I hope to get some questions, particularly from my NDP colleagues. Again, this was framed very quickly as an Atlantic Canada exercise. It is a national question.

I know some of my NDP colleagues represent rural areas, and hopefully they will be able to opine on the importance of this project and what else we might be able to do to help those people. We are going to be focused on solutions, not rhetoric.

(1135) I am proud to stand with this government, and I look forward to answering further questions.

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the member made our case for technology and not taxes. The carbon tax only makes everybody poorer and then does not allow them to have the funds to buy new technology that often is more efficient and better for the environment and all of these things. We have been making this case for a very long time. I do not know if the hon. member has heard our “technology, not taxes” line we have been saying for a very long time around these things.

The other thing I would point out is that this is an Atlantic-heavy policy, in the fact that the heat pump program he is talking about is not available in Alberta. The fact is that most Albertans would like to buy more efficient products and things like that but are unable to because the carbon tax is being placed on them for no value at all to the average person who is paying the carbon tax in Alberta and the average business that is paying carbon tax in Alberta. A sawmill in my area pays $140,000 of carbon tax every year. How does that allow them to invest in better technology?

Mr. Kody Blois :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps the member was not in the chamber when I made my remarks specific to the fact that this program is available across the country. There is a $10,000 federal grant to vulnerable Albertan households that are still using heating oil. He should help his constituents find that program. Maybe he has not; maybe he did not know about it. I am happy to share the information after the remarks here today. This is a national program; when he stands up and says that there is not something for Alberta, it is just simply not the case.

Specific to home heating oil, it is unique, because it is highly carbon intensive. In fact, it is the worst for the environment, but it is also the highest cost for what it actually takes. That is unique. Usually there are higher intensities of carbon in more affordable fuels, and we are trying to put a carbon price to make a change in behaviour. That is not the case here.

There is no sense in putting a carbon price on someone who is already vulnerable and paying the highest costs, but under the climate action incentive payments, the rebates that go, every other source of heating actually gets more money back than people pay in, but heating oil was the exception, and that is why we have moved on an exception on the carbon price specific to that. Yes, it is an Atlantic-acute issue that I am proud to have helped champion, but it matters in his riding too. I am proud to have made a difference for his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just reading a news

article that quotes the member for Kings—Hants . He is quoted as saying, “I will tell my folks at home in Nova Scotia that are using natural gas... that at the end of the day there is other federal programs should they choose to want to help make a transition or reduce their reliance on natural gas”, yet every single organization I talked to that works in the energy space says that the federal government's greener homes program and the heat pump rebate that it provides are deeply flawed and do not work for low-income homeowners.

Will the member for Kings—Hants admit to this House that the program is broken and that it does not work for low-income Canadians, and will he commit to fixing it so that low-income homeowners get cash up front and get as much cash back as he is willing to provide for people who heat with home-heating oil?

(1140) Mr. Kody Blois :

Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia people using natural gas would be using a heating source that is probably one of the lowest cost in the province, and my remarks reflect the fact that there is a series of programs. With the Canada greener homes grant there is a $5,000 grant available to people. I take notice that the member is talking about how we can make sure we front-load more money for people who are vulnerable and not specifically on heating oil.

I think that is a valid conversation, but I would direct him to the fact that there is a plethora of federal programs that are available to help people regardless of the heating source they use. Heating oil in particular is a very specific chronic challenge for a vulnerable group of Canadians. That is why the government has tackled it. We started with coal-fired electricity. We are moving to heating oil, in terms of that being a challenge, but on natural gas, if people want to look at energy efficiency programs, they do exist across the country, and they are available. Can improve them?

I am happy to take some of his suggestions.

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, as we get into this debate again, I am seeing the same omission we always see, and I will note it is particularly from our Conservative colleagues. Yes, the price on pollution, the carbon tax, went up 2¢ a litre in the last year, but it is corporate profits of the oil and gas industry that went up 18¢ a litre. There is never a word about those. In fact, when we talk about inflation, 47¢ of every dollar of inflation is directly attributed to massive increases in corporate profits.

If we are going to have an honest conversation in this place about addressing affordability for Canadians, we need to talk about where inflation is directly coming from. We have had a number of conversations over the past week on this topic. I would be curious to hear more from the member for Kings—Hants on his view on addressing this by putting in place a windfall profit tax on these excess profits of the oil and gas industry that are gouging Canadians at the pumps in the midst of a climate crisis.

Mr. Kody Blois :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a really important point that, particularly on heating oil, it is the market that is driving the price. It has nothing to do with the carbon price, but it has to do with the cost of the heating oil itself, which is anywhere from two to four times the price of alternatives. That is exactly why the government has been laser-focused on that question with affordability programs to support it. To answer the hon. member's question on the windfall profits, I recognize that other jurisdictions in the world have considered it and have moved forward.

I said to him this week that, because the oil and gas industry is primarily located in western Canada, we have to be careful about the concept of introducing something like that, not only because there could be a capital flight of really important jobs and industries that may not necessarily invest in the country as a result, but also because the money collected under such a program should stay within the regional context. That is the suggestion I gave him. Whether or not the government moves forward on it, I do not know. It is a careful balance because there are a lot of considerations there.

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Halifax, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kings—Hants stays up to date on the news. He reads it every day, so he knows that this week Nova Scotia Power, our provincial power utility provider, announced that the budget it had set aside for responding to dramatic weather events was around $3.5 million, and what it ended up spending in the past year was, in fact, well over $100 million on those responses. That is about a 3,000% overage on what it budgeted. All members in the House have seen their insurance premiums go up, as have the people they represent. Members and their constituents have seen their municipal taxes go up.

Both of those increases have to do with insurance companies and municipalities covering the costs of damages to infrastructure and other things from extreme storm events. We are offering between $10,000 and $20,000 to Canadians to switch from home heating oil, which is four times as expensive as natural gas and two times as polluting, yet the Conservatives are focused on using sophistry and social media shenanigans to sow discord among Canadians over a few pennies a litre. Would the member care to offer a reason that the Conservatives are showing such disdain not only for the environment but also for Canadians?

Mr. Kody Blois :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax packed a lot in that because he is an intellectual guy and wanted to get all of that in within a minute. There are a couple of things I would say. Let us remember why we have introduced our national programs on climate. It is that we see it every day outside our door. We saw it this summer in our neighbourhoods. He gave statistics for Nova Scotia Power with respect to the cost associated with cleaning up after storms. It is significant. He mentioned of course the importance of being focused on concrete solutions to help people. I totally agree.

Conservatives are offering that people in Nova Scotia could save somewhere between, as I understand it, 20¢ to 30¢ a litre on home heating oil, which is at $1.88 right now. We are offering that people could save thousands of dollars not only by temporarily pausing the carbon tax for the next three years but also by offering concrete solutions to reduce their reliance on a really expensive source of fuel that is not necessarily that great for the environment. As it relates to the Conservatives' policy regarding the environment, the member will know that I feel they have very little, if any.

I think that will be a question they are going to have to address as we contrast our different styles in the coming years.

(1145) Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the member for Halifax and the member for Kings—Hants think that 20¢ to 30¢ a litre on home heating oil is pennies. That is $200 to $300 a tank, times four tanks a year, which is $1,000 for people in carbon tax, and they are dismissing it. The great promise the member for Kings—Hants is so proud of is that the government will delay that to a 61¢ increase after the election. Can he tell me why he thinks that is better than axing the carbon tax altogether for all home heating oil to give everyone an equal chance at saving money in this expensive, inflationary period the government has caused?

Mr. Kody Blois :

Mr. Speaker, we are not only offering people $300 in savings, on average, because we are removing the carbon price on heating oil, but also offering people the ability to transition and to save thousands of dollars a year. The Conservatives are offering short-term solutions. However, $300 is extremely important. People in my riding have come to me to thank me for pushing for those changes and to say that it matters. At the end of the day, we want to make sure there is a long-term solution so that they are not paying extortionate bills over the years to come.

I do not hear any of that same vision from the Conservative Party as to whether or not it even supports the idea of helping people make a transition. That is what I would say to the hon. member.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière . Today is a bit like Groundhog Day. For a while now, it feels like the same day keeps coming back. Once again, we must highlight a very simple fact about the Conservative motion: it does not apply in Quebec. This was already true for the dozens of other motions the Conservatives have presented about the carbon tax. They do not apply in Quebec. We understand that the Conservative Party is a federalist party, a Canada-wide party.

Sometimes, the Conservatives want to look after Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, the Atlantic provinces. In a way, that is their job, since they are a Canada-wide party. Nonetheless, since I was elected in 2021, this has bothered me. It bothers me because I have not yet had the opportunity I so desire, which is to rise to speak on a Conservative opposition day and believe that they are looking out for or thinking about Quebec, that their proposal applies to Quebec, that it is something of interest to Quebeckers. The first time, we thought they were looking out for their voting base in oil country.

The second time, we thought they were looking out for their voters elsewhere. Today, we see the consistent truth: Quebec is of no interest to them. What interests them is the oil sector. Just this week, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said as much, in somewhat fancier terms, on a CPAC panel. The Conservative plan to fight climate change consists of three things their leader stated at their convention: subsidize the oil sector, subsidize the oil sector and subsidize the oil sector with Quebeckers’ money. I am concerned that the Quebec Conservative caucus does not seem to have any influence.

They do not seem to be heard, or to stand up for Quebeckers. If they stood up for Quebec, if it were worthwhile for Quebeckers to vote Conservative, we would be talking here about Quebec once in a while. What is interesting about these Conservative caucus members is that they are among those who joined forces to ensure carbon taxes did not apply in Quebec. They were players. They were Jean Charest’s gang. With one exception, they were his cronies. The member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis supported Quebec's emissions trading system and Quebec's environmental sovereignty in cabinet in Quebec City.

She's a friend of Jean Charest, a good friend. She was part of that. When the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was in Quebec City, he said he was in favour of Quebec's autonomy in the realm of environmental policy. That is what the Bloc Québécois is fighting for. Once he landed in Ottawa, his values evaporated. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable was one of Jean Charest's underlings in Quebec City. He was part of that gang. As one of Jean Charest's minions, he worked to defend our environmental sovereignty, but now it is radio silence.

The member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord campaigned in support of Jean Charest's leadership bid. They were so joined at the hip, it was a wonder Mr. Charest did not have to get bigger pants so the member could fit in there with him. Now, there is nothing. Nobody is standing up for Quebec. There is no more defending Quebec because with the Conservatives, under the current Conservative leader, it is a purity test for a Quebecker to deny the interests of Quebec, to lie to Quebec and defend the Conservative lines which are deeply flawed. Some days I tell myself I am happy there is a gym in Parliament.

Members of Quebec's Conservative caucus do not get in their squats and their exercise by standing up for Quebeckers in the House. If they want to firm their thighs here, they do not do so by standing up for Quebec, because they never stand up for Quebec. They are going to get bedsores remaining seated for Quebec. They do not even ask for health transfers for them, which is what the provinces and Quebec are asking. This worries me because there are Quebeckers who, at one time, trusted these people. They were wrong.

On Bloc opposition days, which are focused on the needs of Quebec, these same Conservatives have the nerve to tell us what we should have done. They tell us we should have chosen topics that matter to Quebeckers. Yesterday, Parliament voted unanimously in favour of a motion from the Bloc Québécois asking the federal government to consult Quebec before announcing its new immigration targets.

(1150) During the vote, all Quebec members, Conservatives and Liberals alike, voted in favour of consulting Quebec. That same day, the federal government adopted and announced targets unilaterally. It did so without consulting Quebec, as was confi