SoVote

Nov/2/23 3:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have witnessed this again today. Am I correct in my assumption that if a member is rising and asking for unanimous consent after question period, that the member seek consultation. Could you just provide some clarity on that?

48 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:21:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for raising this point. As all members are now experienced members, they would know that the Chair has asked many times, that when they do rise to seek unanimous consent, that they make every effort to please consult with colleagues in other parties, certainly the whips or the House leaders, so we can ensure we do not the waste the time of the House and of all hon. members.

75 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Nov/2/23 3:22:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to respond to what my colleague from Winnipeg North said. It is the custom and tradition of the House that, after question period, members raise points of order on topics mentioned during question period. That is the proper time for that. My colleague did exactly that. He mentioned an aspect of question period. He wanted to seek the unanimous consent of the House to support what was said during question period. That is the tradition. That is what we have been doing since I have been here and, I assume, for many years before that.

106 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:22:44 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. He is right. However, I encourage members not to waste members' time. I am very patient. I can stay here a long time, but I do not want to waste members' time. I encourage members to always seek unanimous consent before rising in the House.

58 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/2/23 3:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise for this very exciting time of the week, when I get to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the Thursday question. I have a burning question that I cannot wait to ask. In addition to knowing the government's schedule for tomorrow and next week, I would like to know whether oral question period on Wednesday will be held as it has been for the past few years, at least since the Prime Minister was elected, with the Prime Minister answering all the questions.

98 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 3:24:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9 Bill C-57 Bill C-52 Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the Thursday question. Tomorrow, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement implementation act. Next week, our priority will be given to Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act; Bill S-9, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52 to enact the air transportation accountability act. Finally, next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/2/23 3:25:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On October 18, you took the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make quite a detailed statement on the matter of order and decorum in the House. In that statement you indicated that “order and decorum are signs of respect for each other and for the institution”. You further stated that the lack of order and decorum were most prominent during daily question period. On that day, Mr. Speaker, you raised a number of concerns, from incendiary language to reference to the absence of members to heckling and personal attacks. One matter that was not discussed was the need to maintain question period for what it is: a tool for opposition parties and for individual members to hold the government to account. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: ...time is set aside almost exclusively for the opposition parties to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions, and to highlight the perceived inadequacies of the government. Speaker Bosley, in 1986, outlined a number of principles, including stating that: While there may be other purposes and ambitions involved in Question Period, its primary purpose must be the seeking of information from the government and calling the government to account for its actions. The book continues in stating that when recognized in question period, a member should, “ask a question, be brief, seek information and ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual Minister addressed.” This is a key point, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will understand. Clearly, the primary purpose of question period is to hold the government to account. However, we have seen question period used in recent days and weeks, not to hold the government to account but to ask questions of individual members, in some cases government backbenchers and in other cases members from other opposition parties. As was previously the case, I would submit that such tactics should be considered out of order and not allowed. I will quote extensively from some of the decisions that have been rendered by a previous Speaker who is now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. In that regard, here is what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when he was the Speaker, had to say in his January 28, 2014, ruling, and I quote: It is for similar reasons that questions that concern...the actions...of other members, risk being ruled out of order....[A]s Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on June 14, 2010, found in Debates at page 3778, “...the use of [...] preambles to questions to attack other members does not provide those targeted with an opportunity to respond or deal directly with such attacks.” Thus, unless a link to the administrative responsibilities of the government can be established early in the question to justify them, such questions can be and indeed have been ruled out of order by successive Speakers. In the same ruling, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who knows the House well, also said: ...we have witnessed a growing trend: we hear preambles to questions that go on at some length to criticize the position, statements, or actions of other parties, Members from other parties, and in some cases even private citizens before concluding with a brief question about the Government’s policies. What we have, therefore, is an example of a hybrid question, one in which the preamble is on a subject that has nothing to do with the administrative responsibility of the Government but which concludes in the final five or ten seconds with a query that in a technical sense manages to relate to the Government’s administrative responsibilities. ...since members have very little time to pose their questions and the Chair has even less time to make decisions about their admissibility, it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible. Accordingly, these kinds of questions will continue to risk being ruled out of order and members should take care to establish the link to government responsibility as quickly as possible. That was said by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker of the House. The MP for Regina—Qu'Appelle, as Speaker, concluded with this: In conclusion, I will continue to rule questions out of order that do not establish a direct link to the administrative responsibilities of the government. In the same sense, so-called hybrid questions will also continue to risk being ruled out of order when this link is not quickly demonstrated. Members should take care when formulating their questions and establish this link as soon as possible in posing their questions to ensure that the Chair does not rule what may be a legitimate question out of order. On March 24, 2014, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle cut off two questions by the official opposition. I was in the House at the time. In response to a point of order raised by myself as House leader of the official opposition, he ruled: ...I raised the concern about questions that had no obvious link to government business, and informed members that they would run the risk of having their questions cut off unless that link was established early on in the question. At the time I stood up to stop the members, I had not heard that link. If they feel they have a link to government business, I look forward with eagerness to their attempt to establish that, but as I heard it, there was no such link to the direct administrative responsibility of government. As relevant as it might be to public interest or to members, there has to be that established link to the administrative role of government. Mr. Speaker, I do want to take this opportunity to commend you for your efforts to address matters of order and decorum. New Democrats are pledged to work together with you on this matter. We would, however, like to implore you, as part of this work, to ensure that question period remains a tool for keeping the government accountable. Parliamentarians, and Parliament as a whole, are not well served if that mandate expands, as we have seen this week, to matters that are definitely not within the administrative purview of the government. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this point of order and to use the tools the House has equipped you with to ensure that the kinds of questions we have heard this week, which are clearly out of order, are ruled as such before the question is finished. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your attention.

1137 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:32:54 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for raising this point of order. The member brought up a nuanced argument, one that I will consider and come back to the House on. I would like to note that the member did note that although the question would start off as a hybrid question that would not refer to the administrative matters of the House, near the end of the question it would come back to it. There were, of course, members of the government who were willing to stand to answer those questions. I do appreciate the carefulness of the member in bringing up this issue and I will come back to the House with a ruling on that.

122 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/2/23 3:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to help you in your deliberations, I would like to remind you that all the questions asked by an opposition member were addressed to a government member or a member of the government coalition, given that we know that the Liberals and the NDP have signed an agreement of mutual understanding and support. It is entirely reasonable for us to refer to this agreement and to potential joint decisions when we ask the government questions, given that we know that the NDP will ultimately have to support the government under this agreement. It is only right that, when we ask our questions, we refer to the party that has formed a coalition with the government. I would like to advise you that we will surely have more to add on this point over the next few days.

139 words

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

Nov/2/23 3:35:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that notwithstanding the last comment by my Conservative colleague, there is not a single Westminster parliamentary system that follows what he outlined.

30 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/2/23 3:35:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important pedagogical opportunity, because the Conservatives do not seem to understand what a coalition is in a Westminster parliamentary system. It has come to the point where it is causing a considerable amount of disorder, including interfering with the proper terms of question period. A coalition government is where more than one party is represented in cabinet. That would mean that a member of the New Democratic Party would be eligible in question period to answer for the actions of the NDP. There is no universe in which any Liberal gives answers on behalf of New Democrats. It is why we are up asking questions in question period every day of the government and not mincing words. The idea that we are in a governing coalition and somehow Liberals get to answer for our actions is completely unacceptable. It has come to the point that it is making a mockery of question period, which Conservatives get up and say is a sanctity in this place. While I am inclined to agree that question period is one of the more important moments in the parliamentary day, the fact of the matter is that if they are going to talk about the sanctity of Parliament, they should bother to learn the rules.

217 words

The Speaker

Nov/2/23 3:36:44 p.m.
Watch

I am hoping that we can close this matter. I have heard from all members of the House, and I think I have a pretty full understanding of the issues raised. I would like to thank all members who participated. I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and I will get back to the House. Unless there is a pressing and novel point, I suggest that we close this subject. The member for Kingston and the Islands.

79 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/23 3:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments that were just made by my NDP colleague, I note there is a distinct difference between a supply and confidence agreement and a coalition. We just have to look at some of the parliamentary systems that take place in Europe, for example, where genuine coalitions are formed. To the member's point, they end up with a government that is representative of various parties. That is not the case here, and I want to support my NDP colleague's comments with that.

89 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Nov/2/23 3:38:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously an honour to speak here today. After eight years of this costly NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians are facing the worst affordability crisis in decades. This crisis is driven by out-of-control government spending, which has caused the highest inflation in 40 years. That is why the Leader of the Conservative Party has proposed the common-sense motion we are debating here today. Here is the 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.” This is a reasonable, common-sense and fair-minded motion. It is what we will be voting on in this House on Monday. The Prime Minister gave to some and now he needs to give to all. Let us be clear about this. The Conservatives are proposing a national common-sense solution that, if adopted today, will provide a real cost reduction for all Canadians. This is actually a very easy fix. A simple majority of MPs is all that is needed, and the home heating carbon tax would be removed. Unfortunately for all Canadians, we know that the NDP and the Liberals in this chamber have it in their minds to make life as unaffordable for Canadians as possible. I think it is fair to say that everybody understands that the carbon tax is making life more expensive. It is especially making food more expensive. The NDP-Liberal government is taxing the farmer who grows the food, the trucker who brings the food to us and the processor and any other business that touches that food. The end result is that food costs more, 6% more in just September. Members should not just trust my math. Last week, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, confirmed this. He said that if the carbon tax were eliminated, it would lower inflation by 0.6%. Let us think about that. The latest inflation rate was 3.8%. If the carbon tax were eliminated, it would get us one-third of the way to the target rate of 2%, and interest rates could start coming down. Instead, this cold-hearted NDP-Liberal government wants to keep prices high for all Canadians. Before I get into how the NDP-Liberals pit one region of Canada against another, perhaps I should spell out for everyone just how harmful the carbon tax actually is. In Saskatchewan, two-fifths of our electricity comes from natural gas, two-fifths from coal and the balance from other sources, so 80% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels extracted from the ground. Our home heating comes from that same natural gas extracted from the ground. Very few people use oil to heat homes in Saskatchewan. Those are the facts. Now here is the rub, or should I say the great political shell game that the NDP-Liberals are pulling on Canadians, specifically the good folks of Saskatchewan. It is called the carbon tax, and it is not just one carbon tax; no, that would be too easy. It is not just the second carbon tax, which came into effect on April Fool's Day of this year. There is also a third carbon tax called the clean energy regulations, specifically aimed at Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Minister of Environment unveiled it this past summer to force the shutdown of our natural gas and coal electrical power plants. As I said, 80% of our energy is generated by those two forms of energy, and the NDP-Liberal Minister of Environment has ordered that our power plants be shut down. All of this, of course, is supported by the NDP. Let me make this clear. Here is the NDP plan for the people of Saskatoon West. The original carbon tax was strike one. The second carbon tax was strike two. The shutdown of 80% of electrical generation in Saskatchewan is strike three. Today's debate is not about electricity. It is about heating our homes and how we do that. How will the carbon tax affect that? First off, last week, the Prime Minister made an announcement that his NDP-Liberal coalition will be removing the carbon tax from home heating oil. He did this for the explicit purpose of winning votes in Atlantic Canada. How do we know that? First, at his announcement, he was surrounded by every single Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament. Second, one of his cabinet ministers from Newfoundland said as much to CTV on the weekend, when she chastised Alberta and Saskatchewan for not electing Liberal MPs. Her claim was that if a riding did not vote Liberal, the Prime Minister does not care about them. Therefore, no carbon tax break for natural gas home heating in Saskatchewan. It is mostly Atlantic Canadians who use oil to heat their homes. Back on the Prairies, we use much greener natural gas to heat our homes. This is how the Liberals are using the carbon tax to pit one region of the country against another for political advantage. In Saskatchewan, we do not take this lying down. Saskatchewan has repeatedly been treated as a poor cousin when it comes to environmental policy, which is ludicrous because we care more than anyone about our environment. Our farmers depend on a healthy environment to make a living. They have been adopting green practices for decades, long before the government even cared, and do not need government handouts to accomplish this. They did this on their own because it makes sense, and they continue to make the best decisions for their farms and, by extension, for the environment. Let us not forget about the vast amounts of carbon stored in Saskatchewan, on our farms, in our forests or in our carbon capture and storage projects. This mistreatment and unfairness is very frustrating and only adds costs to the industries and people of Saskatchewan. My Saskatchewan colleagues and I have been working hard to fight against this inequity from Ottawa, and so has the premier. This NDP-Liberal carbon tax plan that rewards Atlantic Canada and penalizes Saskatchewan definitely needed a response. Let me tell the House what the premier has said in response to all of this. He has promised to have our natural gas supplier, SaskEnergy, stop collecting the carbon tax on home heating in my province. This will level the playing field with Atlantic Canada. Here is what he said said about this: As premier, it's my job to ensure Saskatchewan residents are treated fairly and equally with our fellow Canadians in other parts of the country.... [I]t's the federal government that has created two classes of taxpayers by providing an exemption for heating oil, an exemption that really only applies in one part of the country and effectively excludes Saskatchewan. Lest anyone thinks this is just a bluff, I can report that only a few hours ago in the Saskatchewan legislature, the following motion passed. Let me read it: That this Assembly calls on all Members of Parliament to support the Opposition Motion being debated November 2nd, 2023 in the House of Commons that reads as follows: “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.” Not only did this motion pass, but it passed unanimously. Let me break that down. That means Saskatchewan Party MLAs voted in favour of this. It also means that NDP MLAs voted unanimously in favour. Will the NDP in this House rise to the challenge and choose common sense over political games? I am not optimistic. Here in Ottawa, the spineless and directionless NDP supports the Liberals every single time. The Liberals say to jump and the NDP asks how high. I encourage them to take a cue from their provincial brothers and sisters and support our motion to pause the carbon tax on all forms of home heating. After eight years of the Liberal government, we know that one of its favourite tools is division, and this carbon tax policy change is a great example. When the going gets tough, the Prime Minister divides. Why does he do this? It is to distract and to pit one person against the other. He divides by race, by sexuality, by vaccine status and now by region because he knows that when Canadians are arguing with each other, they do not notice what the government is doing. He does not care if it tears the country apart because this gives the NDP-Liberal coalition the ability to get away with so many things: corruption, giving money to their friends and bad legislation. This list goes on and on of all the scandals that have happened. This “gift” to Atlantic Canada is a clear attempt to buy votes, but Atlantic Canadians are not fooled by these tricks. They know that, heaven forbid, if the Liberal government were to be re-elected, it would quickly end the temporary pause and continue on its path to quadruple the carbon tax. The Prime Minister may have fooled Canadians once or twice, but we will not be fooled anymore. I know what I have said today is hard for MPs of the NDP-Liberal coalition government to hear. The truth is that after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, it has, first, spiralled government spending out of control; second, borrowed ridiculous amounts of money that has doubled our national debt in only three years; third, endlessly printed money, which causes inflation, as clearly confirmed by the Bank of Canada; fourth, drastically raised interest rates, causing mortgage payments and rent to soar uncontrollably; and fifth, to top that off, told us to eat cake as it raises taxes in the form of multiple carbon taxes. We cannot afford this costly coalition. We need a government that will scrap the carbon tax and balance the budget to ease inflation and lower interest rates. It is time for Canadians to elect a common-sense Conservative government. Let us bring it home.

1721 words

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

Nov/2/23 3:48:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am curious. The member is from Saskatchewan, so when his constituents call him to ask about home heating oil and why Atlantic Canada will have the price on pollution removed from it, and solely Atlantic Canada because that is the way Conservatives are portraying it, I am wondering if he corrects them and says, no, it is for all people in Canada who use oil to heat their homes. As a matter of fact, he said the majority were in Atlantic Canada. That is not true. There are twice as many people in the province of Ontario heating with oil who will benefit from this than there are in Atlantic Canada. The question is very simple: Does he try to correct the policy and tell people the reality of it, or does he perpetuate the falsehoods that Conservatives are trying to distribute among the population?

148 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Nov/2/23 3:49:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, rather than perpetuating falsehoods, in reality, I just want to do a bit of math for the hon. member. The government has said that it is going to give $10,000 to provide heat pumps. I am not sure if it has actually done this math. By my calculations, there are probably 400,000 homes in Atlantic Canada that will need heat pumps, and 400,000 times 10,000 is $4 billion. That is just in Atlantic Canada. There are needs across the country as well. One thing that has not been talked about in this whole proposal by the government is the actual cost of this heat pump subsidy. It is potentially billions of dollars, and nobody has talked about that. I am not sure if they even know that. I just wanted to get that on the record and maybe invite them to do a little bit of homework on that side of the page.

159 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/2/23 3:50:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was wrong to introduce regional divisiveness into Canada's carbon pricing system, but he was not the first person to do that. Actually, the Conservatives have been talking about taking off the carbon tax as though it would save every Canadian money, when it surely would not. All sorts of provinces have their own carbon pricing scheme, and the federal backstop does not apply there. He talks about an NDP plan, but he did not mention anything to do with our plan, which was to take GST off home heating. Why would we do that? We have an established tradition of not charging GST on essentials. GST applies everywhere in the country, which means every Canadian would get a break. Moreover, it would apply to all forms of home heating, including when people heat their homes with electricity. When we presented an amendment last year to one of their carbon tax motions, they said no. When we presented a motion today to take the GST off in parts of the country where the federal carbon tax does not apply, they said no. Who is practising regional divisions, and why did he fail to mention the actual NDP plan, which has nothing to do with what the Liberals have proposed?

214 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Nov/2/23 3:51:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, his NDP brothers and sisters in Saskatchewan voted unanimously to support this measure in the House when we vote on it on Monday. I am curious to know if the NDP in Ottawa will actually listen and take the advice of their very good brothers and sisters in Saskatchewan. They are very close, yet I am not convinced that they are going to listen to them. This is something that NDP members in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are all saying needs to change. I just want to put a bug in his ear and that of the whole NDP here. Will they support this motion, as their brothers and sisters have in Saskatchewan? An hon. member: B.C. has its own carbon tax. You know that. Say it out loud.

134 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 3:52:25 p.m.
Watch

If an hon. member has questions, they can wait for questions and comments. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

20 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/2/23 3:52:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned B.C. He knows full well that B.C. has its own carbon tax. It was introduced by the Liberal-cum-Conservative government in B.C., just as there have been carbon taxes imposed by Conservative governments elsewhere in the world. What a bunch of BS that is, just as talking about an NDP-Liberal coalition is BS. We just had a point of order before he got up to give his speech. He sat through the whole bloody thing. If he wants to talk about the truth, he could start by telling some.

99 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245