SoVote

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

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/7/23 11:54:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, common sense is getting rid of the carbon tax to lower prices. Common sense is lowering taxes to make work pay again. Common sense is cutting red tape to make it possible to build more affordable housing for Canadians. Common sense is balancing the budget to reduce inflation and interest rates. Common sense means that Quebeckers are free to earn large paycheques to be able to buy food, fuel and affordable homes in safe communities. That is common sense.

81 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Nov/7/23 11:55:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a strange atmosphere in here. There are two extremes in the House, both of which are panicking over the polls. In fact, I could even say there are three extremes. The government is starting to make last-minute decisions in a panic. If there is one point on which I could agree with the Conservatives, it is that panic has gripped the government, spurring it to make poor decisions, such as last week's announcement. The parties are caught in what I will call populism, meaning that they propose any old thing and toss slogans around. The Bloc Québécois just saw the proof once again. We asked for an explanation, but we received a string of slogans by way of an answer. No doubt they will make great sound bites, but they ring hollow. I will talk about the absence of truth, the trick that certain political parties have of proposing any old thing to the House, not for the purpose of benefiting the common good or helping the citizens of Quebec and Canada, but for the purpose of scoring points. How do they score these political points? They move a motion that they know the other political parties cannot support because it contains measures that are unreasonable. Then they can reproach the other parties for not adopting the motion. I will therefore continue my speech along this emotional path, especially since it threw me earlier, Madam Speaker, when you confused my riding with that of another member. My colleague from Trois-Rivières is very smart, likeable and charismatic, so I will take this as a compliment. However, I do not think he is quite as handsome as me, so I am a little irked. All joking aside, I should clarify, since I forgot to do it earlier, that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Trois-Rivières, for whom I have the utmost affection, of course. Once again, the motion presented to the House does not make sense. The basic idea is not bad. However, as is often the case with measures proposed by the NDP, either the math does not add up or Quebec's jurisdictions are disrespected. It is always one or the other. One need only consider the pan-Canadian pharmacare plan. The Bloc agrees with it in principle. We are not here to harm Canada. However, when we ask them to put in writing that Quebec would have the right to opt out, they refuse to do so. We are therefore forced to vote against the pharmacare plan, because we want to protect Quebec. Then we are accused of not wanting pharmacare. It is the same thing with the Conservatives. They are accusing us—oh, the irony—of having voted for a second carbon tax. I heard it yesterday and again today from the Leader of the Opposition. That was never put to a vote, however. Their so-called second carbon tax, this falsehood that Conservatives like to repeat all over the media and every other forum, is a regulation that was adopted by the government. We never voted on this regulation which, just like the first carbon tax, does not apply in Quebec because Quebec already has an equivalent regulation in place. Quebec's regulation is actually more stringent. This regulation has no effect on Quebec, but Conservatives repeat all day long that it does and that the Bloc Québécois voted for it. If that is not lying, I do not know what is. I want to come back to the NDP's motion. They are talking about giving people a chance. We are on board with that. However, the Bloc Québécois believes in energy equity, or in other words, we believe that efforts must be made to prevent global warming while helping low-income people. That is what we should be doing, but it is not what the NDP is proposing in its motion. I hope that the NDP's intentions are nobler than the Conservatives'. I hope that the NPD does not intend to simply say tomorrow that the Bloc voted against their motion, because that would be very disappointing. That may happen. We will see. We will then know what to expect in the future. The big problem with the NDP's motion is that it does not look at how much this measure will cost or fully consider where the money for implementing it will come from. Putting a tax on the excessive profits of oil companies seems like a good idea. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, that would generate about $1 billion per year. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie even pointed that out earlier. However, the proposed measures would cost $4.5 billion per year for the GST and even more for the heat pumps. The NPD wants to give everyone a free heat pump. See how sensitive, tricky and also a little dishonest that is? They are nice; they want to help Canadians. They want to give everyone heat pumps, but that is not realistic. I, too, would love to give everyone a heat pump. I would like that. Earlier, my colleague was more reasonable than I was. She tried to temper things by saying that various factors could lower the price tag and it might be about $77 billion. However, according to the figures I have, it could be closer to $100 billion. That is significant. That is a major measure. It is not that we are against heat pumps, but this just does not make sense. That is the sad thing about all this. I dream of a time when MPs will work together, presenting reasonable measures for the common good. We are presented with measures that make no sense, and then, tomorrow, we will be criticized for voting against them. I find it very difficult to deal with this kind of populist dishonesty on a daily basis in the House. It is all about scoring points and making a good impression. The motion we are considering seems to indicate that the NDP is seeing that the polls are changing and they are in a bit of a panic. They want to show that they, too, want to eliminate taxes. That is what we are seeing today. I will go over the proposal briefly, starting with removing the GST from residential heating. I am not saying that is a bad idea or one not worth looking at, but how do we distinguish electricity used for heating from that used for everything else in Quebec when more than 80% of Quebeckers have electric heat? How is that going to be adjusted with respect to people in western Canada and the Atlantic provinces who heat with oil? They use electricity too, but their power bills will not be adjusted, while their heating oil cost will. That means rewarding fossil fuel use. Do people still want to promote fossil fuels? Some things do not work. As I said, this measure would be very expensive. The funniest, most bizarre measure—I am not sure how else to describe it—is giving everyone a free heat pump, including people in the middle class. It looks like they want to give free heat pumps to a whole lot of people. What is the plan for compensating people who are already installing one? What is the plan for making sure that businesses that do this kind of work can keep up with demand? I predict the price of heat pumps will skyrocket in the next two months. That is pretty clear. How is the government going to balance the books then? We often hear people say that we have to balance the budget. A measure that costs about $100 billion is huge. With that kind of measure, how are we helping people living on low and modest incomes? As someone mentioned earlier, does that mean that people whose heating costs are included in their rent get nothing? Will landlords already charging high rents receive a tax credit? Will people living in 28-room luxury homes be exempt from paying tax on the heating for their huge mansions? Parties have to think before proposing measures. I want to stress that I am a moderate and reasonable person. I understand the basic intention. The parties want to do something, but they are coming up with wild solutions knowing full well that almost no one will vote for them because nothing balances at the end of the month. Then they will call us out for refusing to help people. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois is looking for support regarding subsidies for oil companies, for example. We have been talking a lot about how much they are making, because their profits are ridiculous. Not only are they making profits, but by 2035, it is expected that the Canadian government will have given them $83 billion in subsidies. That is a lot of money that could go toward heat pumps. Could those subsidies be eliminated so old age pensions could be increased starting at age 65 for people who need them to buy groceries and pay their bills? Could we be reasonable and sit down to talk about how we could establish credits to help low-income people, people who need support or who need assistance because they have a large family so it is hard to put food on the table? We should be focusing on things like this, in other words, specific, concrete things that affect people's daily lives, without resorting to disgusting populism and creating sound bites to smear other political parties. I am sick of that. I want to work on behalf of Quebeckers.

1653 words

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

Nov/7/23 12:05:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Bloc member brought up a lot of points that are similar to my points. Could the member perhaps explain some of the policies currently existing in Quebec that are really encouraging people to move toward cleaner options? We know that Quebec has a long history of this. Quebec recently announced that it is illegal to install forms of oil heating in homes, and soon it will be illegal to even install any new fossil fuel-burning heating options. Quebec has genuinely been a leader in affordable electricity for the province. What can the member share that the rest of the country could benefit from?

108 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Nov/7/23 12:06:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his generous question and for helping me answer it, because he supplied half the response before giving me the floor. Indeed, Quebec has always been a leader. We saw that with child care. It took 25 years for Canada to get on board. I hope that Canada will get on board when it comes to energy as well. Quebec helps people install more efficient heating systems, such as heat pumps, through the Rénoclimat program. A preliminary assessment is done of the homes. It is all well regulated. The program is geared to people who need help the most. What could Canada recognize about Quebec? It could recognize the way we want to live and run our own affairs. Maybe it should just let us be. It may have better luck that way, if it wants to keep us. For now, what we want is to run our own affairs.

158 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248