SoVote

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Nov/2/23 12:30:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for York—Simcoe rose on that, because I was in the House when the member for Kings—Hants said that. I know the hon. member for York—Simcoe, and I know how he feels about this carbon tax and that he wants to see it scrapped across the country. I sat in the House, as I said, for the debate this morning. I listened to the NDP and the Liberals. For lack of a better term, there is a falsehood that is being spread in the House. The NDP is saying that they had a motion to remove the GST off home heating, when in fact it was a Conservative motion to scrap the carbon tax. The NDP actually tried to amend the motion. That is really where this misrepresentation is being spread. My question to the hon. member is this: Is that not factually what happened in the House a year ago?

164 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:31:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems that my hon. colleague wants to split hairs. If there was an amendment, it was an amendment that his party rejected, which means that Conservatives do not support it. The idea of taking the GST off all forms of home heat has been around since Jack Layton's time. New Democrats have consistently called for the GST to be taken off home heating as an affordability measure for all Canadians, and we are going to continue to do so until we get the support of the House.

91 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Nov/2/23 12:32:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about the facts. One fact is that the motion the Conservatives have put forward today would help four provinces and three territories; it would not help people who live in British Columbia. Another fact is that removing the GST on all home heating would help all Canadians in all 10 provinces and three territories. Could my colleague talk about the fact that the Conservatives have not supported removing the GST on home heating, something that was in their 2019 platform?

85 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:32:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a fact. My hon. colleague made the point very clearly. What is really concerning with the inherent mendacity of the motion before us is that the Conservatives are claiming to help all Canadians when, indeed, this motion would only help Canadians in provinces covered by the federal price on carbon. The plan that New Democrats have put forward would help people in all parts of the country with all forms of home heating. We need to do that; at the same time, we need to fix the broken programs that the Liberal government has put forward, particularly to help low-income homeowners transition from fossil fuel heat to renewable alternatives. We could then finally tackle the climate crisis with the seriousness it deserves.

127 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Nov/2/23 12:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened intently to the hon. colleague's intervention from the lobby. In his intervention, he named me, said I was heckling him and then went on to say that I was feeling the pressure. I would ask for the member to stand and apologize for that. I was not in the House, nor did I heckle him or would I have done so.

73 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Nov/2/23 12:34:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to my friend from Cariboo—Prince George, I apologize. I am a lifelong resident of northern British Columbia, and I know the difference between Cariboo—Prince George and Cariboo—Peace River. I hope he will accept my humble and sincere apology.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:34:35 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member mixed up a couple of the riding names. I appreciate the apology; I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George appreciates it as well. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

42 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Nov/2/23 12:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise here in the House on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay at a time when public confidence in public institutions and democracy is at an all-time low. We certainly know that trust in democracy is under very frightening pressures all over the world. In Canada, recent polls show that over 75% of the Canadian people believe that Parliament and the behaviour of parliamentarians have become “dishonest” and “useless.” At a time of growing difficulty in our country and growing difficulty and very dark times around the world, it is incumbent upon us to be able to show that democracy can work and that parliamentarians can work together. That is why I am very concerned about today's debate, which seems to be one between an absolute failure of vision on the one hand and an absolute failure of leadership on the other. What we are debating really reflects a political race to the bottom that is leading and feeding this growing public alienation and rage farming. As elected representatives, we all have a sacred duty to adjudicate the very difficult economic, environmental, political and international issues that confront us as a nation. This means that we must occasionally climb out of our partisan trenches and put forward a bigger vision for the nation. Doing this means that sometimes we are going to need to stand up on unpopular issues. If we are going to build a long-term future for our children, sometimes it is incumbent upon the leadership of this generation to say that tough choices have to be made. However, that is not what we are debating here. We are debating the realm of gotcha politics and rage-farm politics in response to a very desperate and cynical gerrymandering of public policy that was clearly seen, in the public's eyes, as a desperate attempt to shore up Liberal MPs in certain parts of the country. The result was to pit region against region and to raise fundamental questions about a signature piece of the government's climate action plan, which is carbon pricing. It has now been thrown into doubt. We need to find a way, as Canadians, to address this. It would have been very fair in the fall economic statement, for example, for the Prime Minister to step forward and say that we are dealing with two very major crises in our country right now. We have an unprecedented climate catastrophe unfolding, which is something the Conservatives pretend does not exist. This climate catastrophe dislocated over 200,000 people this summer alone. It is a climate catastrophe that has now impacted over 60% of Canadian small businesses. People are frightened about what the future holds, and they want to know that a burning planet can be addressed through policies that force down the use of fossil fuel emissions. They expect that from us. Instead, from the Conservatives, they get a party platform of climate denial. They are told not to worry that the planet is burning; Conservatives are going to make fossil fuel burning free for everybody. As the city of Kelowna was burning, we had the MP for that region not standing up for the people but standing up for this myth that burning carbon fuels was somehow going to be good for everybody. That is a failure of leadership and of our responsibility to tell people the truth of what we are facing right now in an unprecedented climate catastrophe. It is also a failure to the planet. It could have been perfectly fair, in the fall economic statement, for the Prime Minister to say that we are dealing with an unprecedented climate catastrophe, and we need to make sure the policies we have in place work. One of the policies Liberals sold the country is carbon pricing. It would have been equally fair for the Prime Minister to say that we are dealing with an unprecedented crisis. Liberals call it “affordability”, but as my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out, it is a much deeper and more troubling crisis, a crisis of people unable to heat their homes and feed their families. The Prime Minister could have said that we are going to find a way across this country to take some pressure off. To do that, it would have been a reasonable suggestion to say that we are going to take the GST-HST off home heating. Why? It is not a luxury to heat one's home in Canada, particularly in regions like mine that go to -45°C and sometimes -50°C. It is not a luxury. This is not wasteful spending on behalf of citizens. This is about keeping families alive. To take the GST off would have affected people across the country and it would have been fair, but the Liberal government did not do that. It opted to focus on home heating oil, which certainly is a very problematic fuel that we need to address. It also is a fuel that tends to be used by people in more rural and poor regions who cannot afford to switch. The way it was laid out was so cynical. It was about defending beleaguered Liberal MPs in Atlantic Canada. It sent a very clear message that the Prime Minister's focus was on keeping his MPs above the water line and not responding to the needs of Canadians, so it was not a credible plan. It has pitted region against region. It has raised serious questions about whether the Prime Minister has an environmental plan to deal with the climate crisis. It also raises questions about the whole pitch of carbon pricing. Canadians were told that this was going to be a fundamental feature. New Democrats have argued with the government on carbon pricing over the years. We have said that we need to make the big polluters pay, the people who are actually damaging the planet and destroying our kids' future. They are the ones who should be paying. Senior citizens who have to heat their homes in rural northern Ontario are not responsible for the climate crisis. There needs to be a balance. The across-the-board imposition raised real questions about fairness. What we ended up having in this situation is that one group of people is being exempted. We are hearing all kinds of positive reasons for it, but the fundamental issue it is coming down to is they were being exempted because they are in regions represented by Liberals who are afraid about their future. That is not good enough. We have said all along that it should have been the GST from the get-go. We know the Conservatives voted against our attempt to take off the GST from heating because that would have covered people across the country. What the Conservatives have brought to us today is another way of dividing region against region, because they know that if we just take the carbon tax off, it is not going to mean anything for people in British Columbia who are still paying heating bills. They are not covered by the carbon tax because they are under cap and trade, and neither are people in Quebec because Quebec is under cap and trade. One part of the country will have taxes taken off their heating and another part of the country will not. If we are going to talk about the climate crisis and affordability, we have to put in place measures that are not ad hoc or gotcha moments, but measures that address the difficulties we are facing across the board. To that, New Democrats have said time and time again that the people who are making the pollution have to be the ones paying. Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, said there is a sense of urgency right now, as our planet is burning, for the big oil industry to make as much money as possible, as they are firing workers, as they are moving to automation and as they are doing stock buybacks. They could be paying the greater share for carbon pricing. We can take efforts to make sure that this is across the board and fair. If we are going to stop pitting region against region, I would like to move the following amendment: “That, the motion be amended by adding after the words 'all forms of home heating', the following: 'and to eliminate the GST on home heating in provinces where no federal carbon tax is in place'.” That would be fair across the board.

1455 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:44:29 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the acting opposition whip if he consents to this amendment being moved.

87 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/2/23 12:45:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no.

3 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:45:09 p.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Halifax.

26 words

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Halifax, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 12:45:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my friend from Timmins—James Bay and I agree on many things, but not on everything. We do not agree, for example, that this was a reactive change in Atlantic Canada. I want to come to the point of my question. We agree on the fact, I believe, that home heating oil is four times the cost to homeowners as natural gas. It is twice as polluting as natural gas. It is disproportionately used by the lowest-income Canadian households. Therefore, one of the biggest wins we can pursue is to have those households convert to electric heat pumps. Of the many things we can do in our arsenal of climate actions, this is a very important thing. It accelerates our journey to our targets and does so in a way that makes life more affordable. Natural gas users in the rest of Canada, who Conservatives claim are so aggrieved, heat their homes at a quarter of the cost, with half the amount of pollution and still get the climate action incentive rebate so that eight out of 10 households are better off. I wonder if the member would care to provide an opinion on why it is Conservatives are so concerned about helping the people who least need the help right now?

216 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Nov/2/23 12:46:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue of home heating fuel is something I know a great deal about, as I represent rural northern Ontario. People are not able to afford it. I can also say that for the people who are living on a northern reserve and paying over $2,000 a month for electric heat because they are isolated and then are having to pay a tax on top of that, it is punitive. We have senior citizens across the board who simply cannot pay for heat, so we need to be fair, which is what the Liberals have failed to do, When the Liberals had their MPs from Atlantic Canada backing them, it gave the impression they were defending people who were in a region who had more home oil. However, everywhere in the country should have the same opportunities, and we just saw Conservatives vote down an opportunity to bring fairness to British Columbia. They did not want that to happen. Again, we are seeing region being pitted against region by both Conservatives and Liberals.

176 words

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

Nov/2/23 12:47:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is tragically ironic, quite frankly, that the member, the members of the NDP and all other political parties are bent on punishing Canadians who are facing out-of-control increases to their home heating. They are pitting region against region. Even in the amendment the member just tried to move, it would have been so simple to simply say that the GST should be eliminated on all home heating. Is that what the member did? No. He wanted to once again pit region against region. He wants people to be divided in this country, just like his coalition partners in the Liberals. My question for the member is simple. What does he say to those in his constituency who heat with propane or natural gas who are desperate for a break? What would he say to those in other parts of the country, who likewise are reaching out to their members of Parliament from coast to coast to coast, where both the federal backstop applies and others, who are desperate for a break? Why would the member, instead of choosing to work toward common-sense policies, choose politics and division over practical change to bring home lower prices for Canadians?

203 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Nov/2/23 12:49:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is the guy who just turned down an amendment that would have included the parts of the country that Conservatives deliberately excluded. The Conservatives are playing games here. The member stood up and voted against taking the GST off home heating last year on October 22. Then he comes in and asks why the NDP did not offer to take GST off home heating. We did, and the Conservatives voted against it. Now they are going to get up, whine and bring points of order about being mean to them. These—

95 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:49:47 p.m.
Watch

I will allow the hon. member to finish in a second. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

26 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/2/23 12:49:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to table the Hansard from exactly what happened on the day that supposedly the member, in his imaginary world, thinks somehow Conservatives voted against it, when it was the NDP who refused to vote to eliminate the carbon tax. I would ask for unanimous consent to table the Hansard showing what actually happened on that day of debate in the House of Commons to put the facts on the record when it comes to what the member is insinuating, which is truly a fantasy—

93 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:50:29 p.m.
Watch

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

14 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Nov/2/23 12:50:31 p.m.
Watch

Well, it is in the Hansard, Madam Speaker. I can show him where it is. We would agree if they would agree to table, for unanimous consent—

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 12:50:40 p.m.
Watch

It is becoming a point of debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

15 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245