SoVote

Nov/7/23 3:27:48 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre. As a matter of fact, this issue was raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby last week. The Chair is currently considering this matter, and I will be coming back to members in the days to follow. I am going to recognize the member for Lakeland, but I would ask her to try to make her point of order very brief so that we can move on to the business of the House.

85 words

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)

Nov/7/23 3:28:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will try to do this efficiently. As you deliberate on what we can and cannot say here, and on what kind of topics we can or cannot ask about, I just have a question about if, in the process of all of that, you could also consider questions that are clearly on provincial policies or provincial governments, or that are partisan and are clearly about topics that are not government policy. I assume all of that will be going into your deliberations and that you will get back to all of us on that too. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

103 words

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:29:26 p.m.
Watch

Would the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay please take a seat? I will recognize him in due order. I would like to thank the member for Lakeland for raising this issue. That is part of my reflections, but I can mention that it is a long tradition in the House that sometimes questions might take the form of a hybrid method. From time to time, Speakers have tried to curtail this. I know that my predecessor from Regina—Qu'Appelle tried to do this as well, to get people to not ask questions that start off in one direction and then, at the last minute, switch into a matter of government administration. This is something that is being considered. I will get back to all members, as I have promised to get back to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

159 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Nov/7/23 3:30:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your reflection on that. In question period, if you check Hansard, the minister for environment claimed he was a Liberal and a socialist. I would like to ask him to withdraw those comments as they are deeply offensive.

42 words

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:31:12 p.m.
Watch

It is always good to have a bit of levity, but that is not a point of order.

18 words

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:31:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

It being 3:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, November 6, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motion at report stage of Bill C-34. Call in the members. And the bells having rung:

46 words

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:32:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

20 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:45:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

I declare Motion No. 1 carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 carried. The next question is on Motion No. 3. The question is as follows. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House]

43 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:58:03 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

49 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/7/23 3:58:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 3:58:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

6 words

All Topics

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 3:58:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.

15 words

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 4:10:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 4:13:58 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. Chief Government Whip for his intervention. I would also like to thank everyone who participated and added their comments on this matter. I will take all of that under advisement and come back to the House with my comments.

46 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 4:13:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add my voice to the point of order raised on Thursday, November 2, and Friday, November 3, by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, respecting our rules and practices, that questions posed by members during Oral Questions must be within the administrative responsibilities of the government or of the individual minister addressed in the question. Let me start by stating that I agree with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on this point. The member has raised excellent precedents to support his argument and I would like to summarize these precedents and add my own perspective to the matter before the House. The member raised rulings from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle when he was Speaker. I will submit that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been consistent in his approach on this matter when he was in the Chair and more recently. On January 28, 2014, the Speaker ruled with respect to this matter: ...as Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on June 14, 2010...“...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.... ...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.... 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.... ..it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible. I would now like to address the question of consistency on the matter by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, raised earlier in my submission. I draw the attention of the House to the question raised during Oral Questions on Wednesday, June 21, at 3:10 p.m., by the member for Kings—Hants, respecting the Conservative Party. As you and all members of the House can see from the video of this question at 3:11 p.m., the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was standing beside the Speaker in heightened agitation, pointing his finger and admonishing the Speaker that this was an inadmissible question. I agree with the member on the facts but certainly not on the approach. In this case, the Speaker did rule that the question from the member for Kings—Hants did not qualify as a question. Following Oral Questions that day, the Speaker ruled at 3:28 p.m. and stated: This is not to explain my answers but so everyone here will know why I said it was not a valid question. The point I was looking at is on page 509 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states, “ask a question that is within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the individual Minister addressed.”... The reason I did that is there was a long preamble that really had nothing to do with administration.... That is the reason I said it was not a valid question. When members are putting their questions together, I ask both sides to put something together that has to do with administration and, if they can, to make my life easier, to make it clear that it has to do with administration right from the beginning. In conclusion, there are many clear precedents to support that questions during Oral Questions must be within the administrative responsibilities of government. There is no doubt on this matter. We must all abide by these rules if we have any hope of restoring the dignity of this place and better comport ourselves in this august House of Commons.

704 words

Mr. John Nater

Nov/7/23 4:14:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a different point of order. I am being a bit of a stickler today. I would not normally point this out on behalf of my own colleagues, but during the recent votes, a colleague walked out before the vote announcement, therefore negating his vote. This was done on purpose because the member was to be paired with a minister and was not supposed to vote. Therefore, I would ask that the vote of the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier not count for Motions Nos. 1 and 2 in Group No. 1 at the report stage of Bill C-34.

106 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Nov/7/23 4:15:02 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for bringing this to the attention of the House. It was very honourably done. Because the vote has already been tabulated and reported to the House, we would require the unanimous consent of the House to remove that vote. Does the member have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed.

58 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

Nov/7/23 4:15:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona. I am very happy and proud to debate our plan to save all Canadians money this winter and to fight the climate crisis. Heating our homes in Canada is essential. Canadians are already faced with the high cost of living, and looking at a cold winter, they are deeply concerned about increased costs. For the Liberals, it seems like home heating is only an issue if their seats are at stake. For the Conservatives, it is all a political game. They are not serious about helping people. If they were, they would be supporting our plan, but the reality is they are not going to support our motion to take GST off home heating for all Canadians to help Canadians find more affordable and cleaner ways to heat their homes. We want to take on big oil and gas, and corporate Conservatives will not stand up to big oil and gas. Establishment Liberals are so out of touch that they think they need to divide the country, and corporate Conservatives are so beholden to the big oil and gas lobby that they will not stand up for all Canadians. If we want to take on the climate crisis, it is going to require everyone coming together. It is going to require everybody working together to make life more affordable, to create good jobs and to fight the climate crisis. However, climate-delay Liberals and climate-denying Conservatives both want to divide the country. We have climate-delay Liberals dividing the country based on who voted for them, and climate-deny Conservatives do not even believe we have a problem in the first place. Our plan is to stand up for all Canadians. Our plan is to take the GST off home heating for all Canadians, help everyone have heating that is clean and affordable and make the big oil and gas companies pay for it. That is our plan. The challenge is this: Will the corporate Conservatives finally stand up to their CEO and big oil and gas lobbyists, or will they continue to cave in and do their bidding? Will the establishment Liberals stop dividing Canada and support our plan, which helps everyone? If the Conservatives really want to help people instead of reciting cute little slogans, they will support our motion. That is because our plan, unlike theirs, will lower all Quebeckers' bills. It will make it easier to get heat pumps installed, especially for those most in need. It will also make the big oil companies pay for it. Unfortunately, we know that the Conservatives are just here to play games. It is too bad because Quebeckers deserve help too. The leader of the Conservative Party loves his slogans, but today he has a chance to axe the GST tax on home heating. What is he going to do? He is not going to support this motion because corporate Conservatives are beholden to the big oil and gas lobby. It is very informative that the reason they are going to vote against it is that we want to help all Canadians have access to cleaner and more affordable ways to heat their homes and want big oil and gas companies to pay for it by taxing their excess record profits. The corporate Conservatives do not have the guts to stand up to their corporate masters. Why is it the case that the corporate Conservatives are so beholden to the oil and gas lobby? It is not hard to figure out why. Half of the governing body of the Conservative Party is made up of oil and gas and other lobbyists for greedy CEOs. The governing body is made up of lobbyists who want to continue to defend the billions of dollars in profits of oil and gas and other corporate sectors rather than stand up for Canadians. That is why the Conservatives will not be voting for this motion today. The Conservatives are very quick to cut services for Canadians and take away the services they need but are so reluctant to make the big corporations finally start paying what they owe to put money back into the pockets of Canadians and pay for the services they need. It is not surprising, because corporate Conservatives will always side with big lobbyists, big CEOs and big corporations. Last year alone, the biggest oil and gas companies in Canada brought in $38 billion in revenue. People are struggling to heat their homes and fuel their cars while those companies rake in record profits. How is that fair? It should not be a surprise, as our system has been designed by establishment Liberals and corporate Conservatives to continue to benefit those at the very top, to the detriment and harm of working Canadians. They are going to do everything they can to protect the status quo. Last year, the establishment Liberals and the corporate Conservatives teamed up to defeat a motion we had that would have made the big oil companies pay what they owe. The New Democrats have the backs of people. We are not backing down. We believe Ottawa should work for them, not for CEOs and not for corporate Canada. That is why today we are calling for the elimination of GST from home heating, a measure that would help all Canadians in all regions. We want to make it easier for families to have access to clean and affordable ways to heat their home, and we want to tax the excess profits of big oil and gas companies to pay for it. This plan is fair, saves all Canadians money when it comes to heating their homes and helps us continue the fight against the climate crisis. The Speaker will find this amusing but very sad. This summer, the leader of the climate-denial Conservatives had to cancel his climate-denial tour because of climate disasters. After all the scientific evidence and the concrete and devastating impacts of the climate crisis here in Canada, how is it possible that Conservatives continue to deny this reality? It is because climate action hurts the pockets of big oil companies. It hurts their profits. As we all know, 50% of the Conservative party's governing body is made up lobbyists for these big oil and gas companies and other corporations. The Conservatives do not want to take action on the climate crisis because it is going to hurt the profits of their corporate masters. They are not interested in helping all Canadians save money, which is what our motion would do, because it would take on their big oil and gas masters. They are just here to continue to support the oil and gas sector and other corporate sectors. While Canadians are squeezed between Mr. Climate Delay and Mr. Climate Deny, the New Democrats are showing another option, one that unites the country, makes life more affordable and continues our fight against the climate crisis together. Now that they are worried about losing seats, the Liberals have decided to help some Canadians deal with the cost of heating. Unfortunately, the help is going only to the seats the Liberals want to save. Climate action works when it is fair, not when it is divisive, not when the government plays favourites. During these tough times, all Canadians deserve help paying their heating bill. If the government wants better environmental results, it needs to do even more to help people make choices that are good for their wallets and good for the planet by providing better subsidies. That is the NDP plan: help people pay their heating bill, support them so that they make better choices for the planet, and make the big oil companies pay.

1300 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 4:26:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the leader of the NDP that climate change is not some passing fad. It is the crisis of our generation. It is an emergency. I also could not agree more that the Conservative big oil lobby is on display every single day in this House, denying that climate change exists, denying that climate change is human-caused and denying that it is a priority for the government and Canadians. I was disappointed yesterday, to be very frank, that the NDP decided to vote with the Conservatives on a motion to reduce the integrity of carbon pricing in Canada. I was glad to see a few NDP members, I think it was six, abstain from the motion. It was heartening. How can the leader of the NDP justify his efforts to scale back our priority, which is pricing carbon and reducing emissions, while at the same time bringing a very similar motion forward today?

161 words

Mr. Jagmeet Singh

Nov/7/23 4:27:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what the Liberal government did was present a plan that divides our country and creates unfairness. There is no way we can fight the climate crisis and make life better for people if we pit regions against each other. We voted against that unfairness. Let us be clear. While I absolutely agree that the climate denial of the Conservative Party hurts the efforts to protect the future for our kids and our present when we are faced with extreme weather, the climate delay of the Liberals is also harming that effort. I want to say to Canadians that they do not have to choose between climate delay or climate denial. New Democrats have a path for supporting our country together, helping everyone save money when it comes to the cost of heating their homes this winter, helping everyone when it comes to choosing better alternatives that are cleaner and more affordable and continuing the fight to protect our planet.

161 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248