SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:37:29 a.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members to be careful with the words they are using. If it is causing disorder in the House, then it becomes a problem. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

34 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/7/23 11:37:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree that giving the finger is unparliamentary, but it was caught on tape. While the Liberals were voting to quadruple the tax on home heating, they were literally giving the finger to Canadians. It was to the same Canadians who will choose between eating and heating. It was to the single mother who is skipping meals so her children do not have to and to the two million Canadians who are going to a food bank, which is a record-smashing number of people. The Liberals gave the finger to the working-class people in Nova Scotia who are now living in campgrounds after eight years of the Prime Minister because they cannot afford housing. They gave the finger to the countless young people who are stuck living in their parents' basement because housing—

138 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:38:43 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on another point of order.

11 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 11:38:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, maybe I am explaining it wrong. I do not believe it is appropriate for a member to be able to stand in their place and talk about giving the finger to someone. It is the context. If you look at Beauchesne, 6th edition, you will find what matters is the context in which one says something. Telling the Parliament of Canada that so-and-so is giving the finger to Canadians on this point and on that point would be the equivalent of my saying that the Leader of the Conservative Party is giving Canadians the finger—

100 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:39:21 a.m.
Watch

Again, this is becoming a point of debate. I want to remind the members that there was an issue raised yesterday. The Speaker at the time indicated that he would come back to the House if need be. I would just ask the hon. leader of the official opposition to please continue. As he has seen that there is some disorder happening in the House, I would ask him to be careful in how he words his speech. The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

87 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 11:39:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am seeking clarification on this because I will be addressing the opposition motion. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:40:06 a.m.
Watch

One moment, please. I am hearing some comments that are not very respectful. I have the floor right now, and when I give the floor to somebody else, it is their right to speak without being disrupted. I will tell someone when their time is up. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

50 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 11:40:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, purely for clarification purposes, if I am speaking in the chamber and I say that so-and-so across the way is giving the finger toward Canadians about the environment, would it be parliamentary for me to say that?

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:40:42 a.m.
Watch

Again, I just want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. leader of the official opposition that this issue was raised yesterday. There was not a determination as to whether that was substantiated. As I have indicated, the Speaker did indicate that he would come back to the House if need be. I am not sure where that work is at this point, but I would just ask everyone to please be respectful in the House. The hon. leader of the official opposition.

85 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/7/23 11:41:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we agree that it is absolutely unparliamentary for someone to give the finger on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why we have called on the entire Liberal caucus to apologize for the conduct of one of its MPs. By the way, the Speaker did not say we were not allowed to address the incident. He did say he would come back, but we are free to speak, and we will not be censured. We know that the Prime Minister now has a carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois. We know that he did this because he could not maintain his existing coalition. The pressure the Conservatives mounted on the NDP forced the NDP to collapse and admit that it had been wrong all along. I remind the House that there has been only one party that has been consistent throughout and will be consistent forever. We are the only common-sense party that would axe the tax for everything, for everybody and everywhere, forever. I note that the NDP today has now performed yet another flip-flop. Originally, the New Democrats wanted to quadruple the tax. Yesterday, they said they wanted to pause the tax. Today, they will not take a position, because they have omitted mention of the Prime Minister's quadrupling of the carbon tax in the motion. They do not want to stick by their position. They think they will quietly sneak back into the carbon tax coalition and have nobody notice. Well, their constituents are noticing, and that is why working-class people across the country are abandoning the NDP in droves. Even the NDP Premier of Manitoba has now said that the carbon tax represents an attack on working-class people and therefore cannot work as climate change policy. I will note that we are getting all pain and no gain from the Prime Minister on the carbon tax, because his own environment commissioner came out just today and confirmed that under the current policies, including the carbon tax, he will miss his 2030 climate targets. He has missed his Paris accord climate targets again and again. Emissions continue to rise under his leadership, which proves that the carbon tax was never an environmental policy. It was a tax policy designed to pick the pockets of people and put more money in the hands of politicians to spend. This is political and governmental greed at its worst. It is no wonder Canadians have never been worse off than they are after eight years of the Prime Minister. What I find interesting is that the Bloc Québécois has announced a costly coalition with the Prime Minister. This was confirmed in an article in La Presse, where the Liberal ministers said they had an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to keep this Prime Minister in power for another two years. Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois saved the Prime Minister. We were going to adopt a motion to reduce the cost of heating for everyone, but the Bloc Québécois was there to prevent the motion from being adopted, to vote against working-class people who want to heat their homes, to vote against seniors, to vote against people who cannot pay their bills, and to prop up the Prime Minister. The funny thing is that the Bloc Québécois is going against Quebec's position. The Quebec government joined the other provinces in opposing a federal carbon tax as part of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-69 and as part of the lawsuit against the carbon tax. The Quebec government wanted to curb federal taxation powers, but the Bloc Québécois is on the federal government's side. This is a centralizing Bloc Québécois. Each time the federal government decides to impose a tax on Quebeckers, we can expect the Bloc Québécois to say yes. It said yes to bigger government in Ottawa, and no to Quebeckers. That is the Bloc Québécois's real record. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is afraid of an election. He wants to hang onto his position as leader so he can go on big trips to Europe. He wants to fly there on a plane that burns fuel so he can talk about the sovereignty of various overseas groups that are far removed from with the concerns of Quebeckers. I doubt the people of Beloeil—Chambly who are struggling to pay the bills are all that interested in the European separatist causes that the Bloc Québécois is obsessed with. The Bloc Québécois has no common sense. It is not working for Quebeckers. Only the Conservative Party has the common sense to take the second carbon tax off the backs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers do not want to pay the taxes that the Bloc and Liberals are imposing on their gas and food anymore. Quebeckers want lower taxes so that work pays again. Quebeckers want the federal government to encourage municipalities to cut the red tape so more affordable housing can be built. Only the Conservative Party can get those things done. In the next election, Quebeckers will have two choices. The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc coalition that raises taxes, takes their money, sets criminals free and doubles the cost of housing. The second is the common-sense Conservative Party, which will bring home lower taxes and bigger paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and housing in safe communities. The choice is between either the costly coalition that takes one's money, taxes one's food, doubles one's housing cost, punishes one's work and frees criminals into the street or the common-sense Conservatives who free one to bring home powerful paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and groceries in affordable communities. That is why I move the following amendment to the motion, which would add section (d): “Extend the temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil to all forms of home heating.”

1056 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:48:44 a.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. The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

73 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Nov/7/23 11:49:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we do not accept it.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:49:23 a.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

18 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Nov/7/23 11:49:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the corporate champion of Carleton for his comments. The Conservative government in the U.K. has put in place a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Will the Leader of the Opposition support our plan for a windfall tax so that we can invest that money to give working people a break on their energy bills, or is he too afraid to axe the profits of his oil and gas buddies, and CEOs?

81 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/7/23 11:50:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, let us just acknowledge what happened here. The NDP has flip-flopped again. For the last eight years, its members have supported the Prime Minister's plan to quadruple the tax on home heating and then, under relentless pressure from common-sense Conservatives, yesterday, they flip-flopped and admitted they were wrong all along. Then today, they flip-flopped again and said that they now support a carbon tax on home heating for some. The coalition is reunited, and all three of them are together now: the separatists, the socialists and the Prime Minister. The costly coalition is bankrupting the people. The only solution is a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax.

120 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 11:51:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to flip-flopping in the House, the Leader of the Opposition should feel right at home. He has been here since God knows when, but in 2008, he ran under Stephen Harper and promised to put a price on pollution. In 2019 and 2021, he ran under Erin O'Toole and swore to his constituents that he would put a price on carbon. All the Conservatives did. Say what we like about flip-flopping, but the opposition leader has done his share. When did he change his mind? Was he misleading people back then, or is he misleading them now?

105 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/7/23 11:52:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have always opposed the carbon tax. When I began my career, Liberal lobbyists were all over Parliament Hill, asking for more taxes and other benefits for Liberal friends. That member is an example of the lobbying industry that exists on the Hill, one that favours the Prime Minister's pals and is costly to ordinary Canadians. After eight years of this Prime Minister, he is not worth the cost. He acknowledged this by giving some people a break on the carbon tax, in ridings where he is slumping in the polls and where Liberal members were rebelling. Now we are simply saying that everyone should get a break. It is just until the next election at which time we can have a carbon tax election to choose between the Liberal-NDP-Bloc plan to quadruple the tax and my common-sense plan to axe the tax and bring home lower prices.

154 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/7/23 11:53:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the member for Gatineau as a former lobbyist. He has never been a lobbyist. Maybe the member wants to retract that.

37 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/7/23 11:53:54 a.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. Questions and comments, the member for Trois-Rivières.

16 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Nov/7/23 11:54:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his insults. I do not know what he read in La Presse recently. He and I must have read different things. Earlier I heard all kinds of falsehoods, jokes, smears, deceptions, hypocrisies, fantasies, inventions, fabrications and trickery. In all of this, I heard nothing about what was in the La Presse article he referred to. I wonder if he could enlighten me on that first. Second, I would like him to define “common sense” for me. Rather than turning it into an empty slogan, I would like him to explain what he really means, philosophically, when he says “common sense”.

114 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248