SoVote

Nov/2/23 3:53:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, but using the acronym “BS” is definitely not parliamentary.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 3:53:27 p.m.
Watch

Is the hon. member rising to apologize for saying “BS”?

12 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/2/23 3:53:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do apologize for using that term. I forgot how difficult it can be to call a spade a spade in this place.

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 3:53:45 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members to be careful about the words that they use in the House. We need to be respectful. The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

29 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Nov/2/23 3:53:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, well, let us call a spade a spade. Every single time the Liberal masters ask the NDP members in the House to do something, they do it. They vote with the government every time. We have a strong NDP-Liberal coalition. An hon. member: Motion No. 79. Talk about that one.

53 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 3:54:15 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member has had an opportunity to provide input. If he has more input, he should wait until the proper moment. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

32 words

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

Nov/2/23 3:54:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, despite the fact that it may have been heckling, the member's contribution was so good that I think we should have made an exception on this one occasion. I find it interesting that the member for Saskatoon West said, “Let us call a spade a spade”, right after he did not answer a single question he was asked. He just pivoted and went to a completely different place. I asked him about something in his speech, and rather than address the question, he totally went off and started talking about heat pumps, which I did not even hear him talk about in his speech. This just goes to the point that I will be making in my comments, which is the fact that this is all about Conservative hypocrisy. Before I go any further, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge. I find it very fascinating. At the heart of this is the issue of the price on pollution, and the reason I find it so difficult is that I feel as though, once again, it is Groundhog Day. I have given a similar speech many times before. I am talking about the same hypocrisy that comes from Conservatives in the House. What we repeatedly see is Conservative after Conservative standing up against a policy that they all ran on; some of them did so not once, but twice. Some members in here, 19 members, who ran and were elected in the 2008 election and are still here today, ran cap and trade. Cap and trade is just another form of pricing pollution; it is just done slightly differently. However, the Conservatives ran on it. Again, of course, just in the most recent election, they ran under Erin O'Toole as their leader with their signature platform titled “The Man with the Plan”. They talked about how they were going to put a price on pollution, but rather than just giving the money back to Canadians, which is what we are doing, they would put the money into a special carbon savings account. Then, depending on how much a person grew that account, they could go out and qualify for different rewards. I imagine there would be some form of catalogue, and people would look through it, just as one would with Air Miles. Depending on how much they had built up in that carbon fund, they could get some really good prizes. Maybe they could get a really nice bicycle or something. However, if they had not spent a lot and had not built up a lot in that carbon account, they might get a smaller prize as a result. Despite the fact that it would have been pricing pollution, the problem with that plan is that it actually incentivized people to use carbon and have a larger carbon footprint. The larger the carbon footprint a person had, the more credits they would build into this carbon account, so they could get even better prizes at the end. Their plan was immensely flawed, and our party, and all parties in this House, would never support something like that. That is what they ran on most recently, in 2021. In 2008, 18 of them also ran on “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. In that, as I previously mentioned, Stephen Harper outlined how his newly formed government, if elected, would bring in cap and trade. It was revolutionary at the time, at least for North America, because it was just a handful of states in the United States; Ontario, which came along a bit after that; and Quebec, which had also signed on, that were part of this North American version of cap and trade among a number of jurisdictions. Did Stephen Harper actually implement that and put in that price on pollution? No, he did not. He completely abandoned it once he had the opportunity. However, the point is that 19 Conservatives who currently sit on that side of the House ran on that in 2008. The hypocrisy is even better than that, because a number of the Conservative members sitting in the House right now actually sat previously in legislatures that had adopted pricing pollution. To take it a step further, they have comments in the official records of those legislatures, where they actually commit to pricing pollution. There are many options, but I will start with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, now a Conservative member of Parliament in this federal House. He said, while sitting in the provincial legislature in B.C.: In 2008, our government made the decision to implement a tax on carbon. It was designed to help British Columbia reduce greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time be fair to hard-working families. A Conservative member said that, which is literally what we are saying. We did not even come up with that material; the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge did. He ran on it. He said that in the provincial legislature. He also went on to say: I know that the member for Vancouver-Kensington made a comment about it and tried to blame it on the federal government, as far as revenue neutrality. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have the option of how we wanted to bring this about, as far as a carbon tax. Our policy—it's law—is to put it back into the pockets of taxpayers. This is not a Liberal saying this; it is a current sitting member of the House in the Conservative Party who said this. Now, suddenly, he can just blindly abandon his values and principles, in terms of how he at least felt while in the provincial legislature, to follow the lead of the alt-right leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of what is going on. I am always really amazed when Conservatives try to suggest that Liberals are gagged in terms of their ability to speak, when example after example comes from that side of the House. It does not end there. There were two other members who were in the Quebec legislature and voted in favour of pricing pollution: the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Both of them sat in the provincial legislature and voted in favour and helped adopt pricing pollution in Quebec. Now they suddenly show up here at the federal level and act as though pricing pollution is the absolute worst thing one could do. How is it possible that they can be so hypocritical? A lot of people can say things about me, but I am very consistent as it relates to my position on pricing pollution; I have been from the beginning. I want to raise something else, and this is my final point about Conservative hypocrisy. It actually involves you, Madam Speaker, and I would like to tell members what happened in this House back on October 20, 2022. You were presiding, Madam Speaker, and there was an opposition day motion from the Conservatives. Our NDP colleagues tried to put forward a motion to build on to the motion the Conservatives had on the floor; it would basically have eliminated the GST from home heating sources. It did not even require a vote or anything. All the mover of the motion needed to do was accept it, and then it would have carried. Madam Speaker, you said: It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. The hon. member does not have the support of the opposition; therefore, the amendment cannot be accepted. Conservatives are just playing games with this. They did not want that to be adopted, because if it did get adopted, they would not get the political ammunition they are looking for to hold over the NDP and everybody else. This hypocrisy was pointed out by both the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the NDP, who have been rising on it all day long. To make matters even worse, today, the member for Timmins—James Bay again tried to amend this motion to add “and to eliminate the GST on home heating in provinces where no federal carbon tax is in place.” The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said no; basically, it was rejected once again. One is left wondering why. Why are Conservatives acting this way? Are they really interested in the best interests of Canadians, or is this all just for political gain?

1509 words

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

Nov/2/23 4:04:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why is it that only a chosen few of the Liberal-NDP coalition are up speaking today? It is a very chosen few, much like this movement it has to only choose a few who will benefit from this carbon tax relief. We do not see the member for Calgary Skyview or members from Atlantic Canada and northern Saskatchewan speaking today. Why is it that only a chosen few are getting up to speak?

76 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/23 4:05:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will be speaking shortly. He is from the Prairies. The member makes this suggestion that only a chosen few are speaking on this measure, and then he says— Mr. Dan Mazier: The chosen one.

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/2/23 4:05:40 p.m.
Watch

Order. I just want to remind members that if they have something to contribute to wait until it is time to make that contribution. There will be time for questions and comments again, but the hon. deputy government House leader has the floor right now. The hon. deputy government House leader.

51 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/23 4:05:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hit a nerve. The member for Kings—Hants spoke earlier to this issue. He is from Atlantic Canada. I can guarantee one thing. We will fill all of our spots, unlike when we had a debate earlier about India potentially being involved in the assassination of a Canadian. Do members remember that? Not a single Conservative stood up to speak. Every single Liberal spot today will be filled with a Liberal speaking.

76 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Nov/2/23 4:06:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for showing some of the hypocritical stances that people who used to sit in legislatures and now sit in the House of Commons have. One thing I have noticed over the last number of years during this 44th Parliament is that Conservatives love to talk about carbon pricing and its supposed role with respect to inflation, but they will say almost next to nothing about the oversized corporate profits in the oil and gas sector. Last year alone, it was $38 billion. This year it is another record. Through you, Madam Speaker, given the Conservatives' love for oil and gas corporations, does the member think that it is time for them to register as official lobbyists for that industry?

133 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/23 4:07:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if only I had more time. I could go on about this for a while. What I will say is this. When we look at the rising costs at the pumps right now, 2¢ a litre over the last year is attributed to a price on pollution and 18¢ a litre is attributed to the wholesale margins, in other words, the profits for the wholesalers. Conservatives should be nine times as outraged by the profits being made by oil companies right now as opposed to the price on pollution, but where are they? They are absolutely silent, never once getting up to talk about the extreme price gouging that is going on. I think it is shameful because they are making an intentional, deliberate attempt to look for political ammunition. The member said something very good at the beginning of his question, which was that Conservatives like to talk. I would say, yes, they do like to talk, and that is where it ends.

168 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Nov/2/23 4:08:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a lot of talk about hypocrisy in this debate, but maybe the member opposite could help me understand something. For eight long years, we have been listening to the Liberals try to justify a carbon tax based on driving people to lower their carbon footprint, but then they take the tax off heavy oil and continue to punish people who are using lower-carbon fuels like propane, natural gas or electricity. Could the member help me understand this ridiculous policy the Liberals have come forward with?

90 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/23 4:09:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can help the member understand, because she thinks that EV batteries will spontaneously explode and does not think that electric cars work in the winter. If that is where I am starting from when trying to help somebody understand something about environmental impact, I do not think I am in a good place, and I probably will not be successful. What I will say is this. When we talk about why we are doing this specifically, despite the fact she probably will not understand, it is because we know that oil is the dirtiest form of energy and we need to get off of it. What we are trying to do is give relief to Canadians so they have the ability to move toward a heat pump, which is astronomically cleaner than oil. That is the objective here. Conservatives always like to talk about half of the equation. They like to completely leave out the other half, and the other half is helping people transition to heat pumps.

176 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 4:10:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise in this most honourable House and to be with many of my esteemed and honourable colleagues to debate important legislation. Today, we are obviously debating an opposition day motion. As I was one of those MPs who were elected in 2015, I came here to do the good work that my constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me to do. They sent me here and put their trust and faith in me to bring forth legislation to improve the lives of not just the residents in my riding but residents across the country, to put in place legislation that makes sense but has lasting and tangible benefits for generations, for my children at home and for many of us who are parents here to ensure that we have a bright future for all our children. I will get to my formal notes in a second, but when I think of some of those measures, we have made life more affordable. We have been able to create a strong economy, an inclusive economy, to lift all boats, as we economists say, to lift all individuals. We have been able to provide confidence for investors, for the private sector, to continue to invest in Canada and Canadians, and confidence in governments, I would say, to invest in their citizens and in their country, exactly as our government has been doing since we came into power in 2015. I think about things like the Canada child benefit. Some 653,000 children have been lifted out of poverty. Over two million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since we came into power. I think about the Canada workers benefit, how it is lifting low-income Canadians, hard-working Canadians out of poverty, who need extra dollars at the end of each quarter. We changed it. That is something the Conservatives started, but we strengthened it. I think of the trade deals we have negotiated and put into place that help our businesses grow. I think of the supports we provided businesses and individuals during COVID. They were so important to keep our economy functioning, to keep Canadians in their homes and allow them to be with their families. I think of the benefits we have provided for seniors, with a 10% boost to old age security. Over three million seniors are receiving another $800 annually. There are so many things. Dental care has helped hundreds of thousands of children already and will help hundreds of thousands of seniors in the coming year. I also think of the two major middle-class income tax cuts we brought in. We raised the basic personal amount to $15,000, again taking people off the tax rolls, helping seniors, helping students and helping those folks entering the workforce, and asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. There are a lot of good things. We brought in pricing pollution. We know we have made commitments to be at net zero by 2050. As an economist, I know there are many ways to get there, and this is one of the ways that is really the most effective for individuals and businesses to adopt technology, yes, to change their behaviour, yes, but also to put in place measures, at the end of the day, that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We know that in prior platforms from the party opposite and from members opposite who have also sat in provincial legislatures, they have supported this kind of measure. Those are just a few of my thoughts. Now I will comment on the motion at hand. Our government clearly understands that it has become difficult for many Canadian families to make ends meet. That is why we will continue to put forward measures to help them. The reality is that since 2015, our government has spared no effort to make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. For example, we lightened the financial load on Canadians through the Canada child benefit, the middle-class tax cut, the grocery rebate, the new dental care plan, and affordable early childhood education and child care services across the country, with our goal being $10-a-day child care. We have also helped millions of low- and modest-income Canadians by introducing and enhancing the Canada workers benefit. Our government has also supported the financial security of seniors by enhancing old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. However, the reality is that, at present, there are still people across the country who are having a hard time paying their bills and who are under tremendous financial pressure. It is important to us that we help them. That is why we decided to temporarily pause the fuel charge on heating oil for three years. As we saw this summer across the country, the effects of climate change on Canada are very real and very serious. Our country was hit with floods, forest fires and unprecedented storms. Just as we know that climate change is real, the path to follow is clear. To protect our planet and build a stronger economy, we must make a concerted effort to do even more on climate action. That is what we are doing with the historic investments announced in budget 2023 to build the green economy of tomorrow. Our pollution pricing system is an essential measure in our fight against climate change. Economists like me and experts around the world have known for a long time that putting a price on carbon emissions is the best way to reduce the emissions at the root of climate change. It is the least costly, most effective and most impactful approach, and it works. The scales are beginning to tip. We are leading the way among the G7 nations with our system that encourages people to choose ways to be pollute less at home and at work, while putting money back in the pockets of eight out of 10 households where the federal system applies. In fact, thanks to the climate action incentive payment, a family of four in Ontario will get $244 on a quarterly basis this year. The amount is $264 in Manitoba, $340 in Saskatchewan, $386 in Alberta, $328 in Newfoundland and Labrador, $240 in Prince Edward Island, $248 in Nova Scotia and $184 in New Brunswick. Moreover, residents of rural areas and small communities currently get an extra 10%. Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we are going to double the rural top-up for pollution pricing rebates from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. Our government is well aware that people who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city. We want to do even more to fight climate change by helping Canadians install more energy-efficient heating systems. An upfront $250 payment will be available to low- and median-income households that heat their homes with oil and sign up for a federal-provincial program to install a heat pump. Our goal is really to help Canadians make the transition. What is more, we are working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the oil to heat pump affordability program. The amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump will increase from $10,000 to $15,000, adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via co-delivery arrangements. This would make the average heat pump free for low- and modest-income households as we continue to minimize upfront costs and make federal programs even easier to access for all households.

1309 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Nov/2/23 4:20:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said that the current NDP-Liberal government has spared no effort to make life more affordable for Canadians. Guess what: It is not working. Rent and mortgages have doubled, and there is 40-year-high inflation and 20-year-high interest rates. That is the record of the NDP-Liberal government. Meanwhile, the hon. member's constituents are being penalized by the punitive carbon tax on home heating. They will not benefit from the suspension with respect to home heating oil, which was a desperate effort by a desperate government to save Atlantic MPs. Will the member finally, for once, stand up to his boss, the Prime Minister, and vote in support of our Conservative motion so his constituents can keep the heat on? Will he vote to axe the punitive carbon tax?

138 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/2/23 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I represent the people of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and I always listen to them. I always will stand up for the citizens of my riding, and I have done so ever since I was elected in 2015. They know me quite well. The government has put in place policies that always put the citizens of Canada first, and we have done this again with this measure that we have brought in. The income tax cuts we brought in for 2015; the basic personal expenditure amount; the Canada child benefit; the Canada workers benefit; the dental benefit for kids under 12 and now, going forward, for seniors; and the national early learning and child care program, which, in my riding, is saving residents literally thousands of dollars a year, are measures I am very proud of.

140 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Nov/2/23 4:22:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously there is a lot of concern about the real hardship that Canadians are facing right now. We know that the Conservatives are playing political games, saying that they have the backs of working people. We know that time and time again when it came to taking action to show it, when they were in government, they did the opposite. What are the Liberals doing to reinvest in the programs that Canadians need today? I asked about the $120 billion that Canadian corporations are funnelling offshore to avoid paying taxes here in Canada. The Liberal who responded said that the Liberals care about this, but what are the Liberals doing to crack down on wealthy tax cheats and to reinvest that money into Canadians who are hurting right now?

131 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Nov/2/23 4:23:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, ever since we were first elected in 2015, we have brought into place income tax measures on high-income earners here in Canada. We have also put in place the dividend recovery on banks and financial institutions earning over a certain amount. We have increased resources to the Canada Revenue Agency to make sure we go after Canadian institutions and organizations pursuing measures that try to minimize their taxes in illegal ways and so forth. We know that to have a strong economy, we need a strong social fabric, and we can do that only by ensuring that all Canadians pay their fair share. I know that the hard-working citizens in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, the residents who go to work every day, play by the rules, save for their kids, go to their soccer tournaments on the weekends and bus their kids around, are working hard. They need to know that all 338 of us are working hard to represent not only the residents of my riding but also all the residents across Canada.

180 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 245