Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
“How would you like me to change?” was the common reflection we heard from constituents this summer on the doorsteps when talking about pollution pricing. It is the central question underpinning the entire rationale for a pollution price. As we know, the signal created by a price on pollution gives people an economic incentive to change behaviour towards more environmentally friendly practices, but not all Canadians are on equal footing to make those changes.
Our constituents, like most rural Canadians, commute to work, take their kids to sports, or access services, and generally must drive longer distances without public transit. Yes, the quarterly pollution price rebate helps, but we heard more was needed.
That’s why the doubling of the rural supplement for Canadians living outside of a census metropolitan area from an extra 10 per cent to 20 per cent is a meaningful change that seeks to ensure better equity in the program so Canadians are not disadvantaged simply based on where they live.
That same logic to adjust policies in the name of equity is what drove the government’s decisions on home heating oil. Relatively few Canadians still use heating oil to heat their homes. Statistics Canada estimates that just over one million homes use oil, with a disproportionately higher number being in rural Canada and Atlantic Canada, where energy poverty is among the highest in the country. Across Canada, most people using heating oil are below the median income.
Heating oil is extremely expensive, on average costing up to four times what alternatives such as natural gas or electric sources cost. Prices have been volatile and have increased 73 per cent over the past two years. It is also the worst form of heating from an environmental perspective.
Anyone who can change behaviour has likely already done so because there is a clear economic case to transition. Therein lies the challenge: Many Canadians using heating oil simply do not have the money to make the switch. This is exactly why the government launched the national oil to heat pump program in fall 2022, a program which will now offer up to $15,000 in federal grants to help people switch.
This strengthened program is open to all provincial and territorial governments willing to come to the table with the federal government. The goal? Breaking the cycle of vulnerable households that are using the most expensive and most polluting sources of energy to heat their homes.
Much ink has been spilled and commentary made on the exemption.
In 2018, the minister of environment and climate change recognized reasonable exemptions could be made. As an example, that’s why on-farm fuels were exempted. From where we sit, ask yourself the rationale for a price signal when the cost of the fuel is already exorbitant and rising and people don’t have the cash upfront to switch. Maintaining the price signal in this situation would have simply been punitive. Therefore, a temporary pause tied directly to the national program to help people make the switch was the right call.
The national conversation has turned to the question of fairness, with premiers, the NDP and the Conservative Party suggesting the decision to focus on heating oil is not fair. That assessment misses the fact that while affordability is a concern across the country, those heating their homes with a source other than heating oil are getting more money back than what they pay in under the federal backstop system.
The logic advanced by the NDP and the CPC on Monday’s Opposition Day motion is akin to saying that the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors should be extended to all seniors on the premise of equality, because the GIS has a higher proportion of beneficiaries in rural Canada and Atlantic Canada.
We won’t apologize for fighting for vulnerable Canadians across the country, including the many who live in rural Canada and Atlantic Canada. To the pundits who say the decision was a step back on climate, come see our reality in rural Canada, maybe you’ll see the decision differently.
Kody Blois is the member of Parliament for Kings-Hants and the chair of the Atlantic Liberal Caucus. Francis Drouin is the member of Parliament for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and is the former chair of the Rural Liberal Caucus. Marc Serré is the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt in northern Ontario.
Comments
Very good points. When we lived in NL we heated with oil for many years which was incredibly expensive, as are oil tanks that periodically have to be replaced. We now live in Ontario and heat the same size house with fossil gas and the cost is less than half what we were paying with oil in NL. Further, heat pumps are a great alternative in Atlantic Canada where most regions rarely see sustained temperatures below -15C.
This was my first thought exactly. Larger proportion of poorer people using THE most expensive fuel for heating and unable to break out of that because of poverty. And living on the west coast I know I have no need of this, due to our use of mostly hydro electric power and our heat pump, which is far cheaper that any fossil fuel.
Why on earth the other politicians including the leader of the party I most follow, could not see this I don’t know.
And my next question was “why”. Why does every Canadian need to get this break? I already know that I pay to BC for our Carbon tax is about $75 per year and I already get back $150 from them, so why does every Canadian need this. Do we not as a country care when natural disasters hit somewhere in Canada, pull out all the stops and help those people who were affected by it? Do we then turn around and give every other Canadian the same care, time and funds just to keep it equal? No we don’t. We care for those we they need it.
To demand that every Canadian regardless as to the method of heating they use, their economic status, or where they live should all get the same benefit, makes that benefit useless. Don’t the Conservatives rail against welfare bums living off the government teat? Wouldn’t this make all of us welfare bums living off the government teat?
"That same logic to adjust policies in the name of equity is what drove the government’s decisions on home heating oil."
If equity is the goal, the better option is to leave the carbon levy in place and provide extra transition supports for modest-income households regardless of their current home heating system. Funded by a tax on excess profits in the O&G industry.
Making swiss cheese of your signature climate policy with exemptions that apply to some and not others is a recipe for political failure.
*
"Many Canadians using heating oil simply do not have the money to make the switch. … those heating their homes with a source other than heating oil are getting more money back than what they pay in under the federal backstop system.
Many Canadians using natural gas simply do not have the money to make the switch either. Just because you have an extra $100 or $500 in your pocket thanks to the rebate does not mean that you can now afford to buy a $15,000 heat pump plus insulation retrofits.
*
By granting an exemption, the Liberals have effectively conceded that the carbon levy is onerous and punitive, thus confirming the affordability arguments from across the aisle.
Rightly or wrongly, the Liberals are seen to be treating regions unequally and playing favorites — in a desperate attempt to shore up their sagging political fortunes in Atlantic Canada. A gift to the opposition.
This opens the door to provinces like Alberta demanding special treatment, exemptions, and delays for other climate measures like the Clean Electricity Regulation (CER).
The heating oil exemption is just the latest example of political bungling and ineptitude from the Trudeau Liberals. They have utterly failed to sell their key climate policy to Canadians. Chalk up the widespread confusion and ignorance over rebates to the Liberals' woeful communication and failure to counter false narratives.
Worse, the Liberals have allowed the opposition to define the policy for Canadians. The Liberals need to be out front on this issue, instead of reacting, too late, to the opposition's falsehoods and misrepresentations.
"That’s why the doubling of the rural supplement for Canadians living outside of a census metropolitan area from an extra 10 per cent to 20 per cent is a meaningful change"
The doubling amounts to an extra $50-$75 dollars a year for an individual living in rural AB, SK, MB, or ON.
Meaningful or symbolic?
I know that Catherine McKenna did a world of harm as Minister of Climate Change when she said things such as that the TMX expansion was in the national interest. Yesterday, on The Current, she was better:
"The reason we have skyrocketing prices of heating oil and gas, by the way, is the skyrocketing prices charged by oil and gas companies for for heating oil and gas. Well, and let's also be clear that they are making massive profits. They don't care about affordability for people. They're returning those profits to shareholders, largely non Canadian Americans, while Canadians pay more. And then they love the goal to demand subsidy. Let's go back to that. We clean up their pollution. "
Far better to put a windfall tax on oil and gas profits and to use that to subsidize heat pumps.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/tuesday-november-7-2023-full-transc…