44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 7, 2023 10:00AM
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:28:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to try to find common ground. I think the leader of the NDP and I would both agree that the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural Canadians more than urban Canadians.
My riding of York—Simcoe is now classified as urban. I think the leader of the NDP knows my riding as the soup and salad bowl of Canada, the ice fishing capital of Canada and the home of the Chippewas of Georgina Island. According to the Liberals, we are now classified as part of the city of Toronto, being 70 miles outside of Toronto. We have no streetcars. We have no subways. We have no Uber. As unbelievable as this is, we have no hospital. We have to drive 40 minutes to get to a hospital.
How does the leader of the NDP think it is fair that we do not get the rural top-up or the doubling of the rural top-up, as meagre as it is? It is helpful to some, but we do not get it.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:29:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very problematic that the hon. member's riding does not have access to health care or a hospital. I wonder who the provincial government is in the riding the member represents. I am pretty sure that government is in power for a second term, and it has continued to neglect the good people of York—Simcoe.
I hope the people of York—Simcoe remember that they have been let down by the provincial government when it comes to what the member is raising as a serious concern, which is not having a hospital. It is in power with a majority for a second term and it still has not addressed the problem the hon. member raised. The provincial Conservative government has a lot to answer for, but this points out what people get when they vote Conservative.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:30:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the NDP leader's attention to a certain aspect of today's motion. This weekend, I met someone in Quebec who is originally from France and who is well versed in environmental issues in Europe. He told me that we cannot keep thinking that everything will be fine with the environment if we do not take drastic action.
Let me explain. We cannot continue to fund the oil companies. He told me that the countries that have seen a real drop in greenhouse gas emissions are the ones that have invested in transition technologies and not in their oil industry.
I would like my colleague to say a few words about funding change by implementing a tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas companies. That would be a way of quietly saying that we are taxing them and trying to phase them out, not giving them billions of dollars in subsidies.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:31:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more.
It is really problematic, what our country is doing. We continue to subsidize oil and gas companies with public money. That is unacceptable. What we need to do is use that money to invest more in clean energy, in opportunities to create the economy of the future in order to create good jobs and reduce our emissions.
That is why today's motion includes the idea of making oil companies pay their fair share to fund measures that help people reduce their emissions—
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:31:54 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 36 minutes.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Carbon Pricing.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:32:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to contribute to what I think has become a really convoluted debate about the carbon tax, and I hope to offer a little clarity.
To start, I want to be very clear about what today's motion is about, which is to remove the GST from all forms of home heating, to make eco-energy retrofits and heat pumps free and easy to access for low-income and middle-class Canadians regardless of their initial home heating energy source, and to finance these changes by putting in place a tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas corporations. We have heard a lot about the carbon tax so far, and it is important to say that carbon pricing is an important tool in combatting climate change. It is something the New Democrats have long supported and continue to support.
However, serious damage was done to the majority consensus on carbon pricing in Canada when the Liberals decided to introduce regional division into the program. That is not fair, and it does not pass the smell test for Canadians across the country. For people who care about the long-term future of carbon pricing in Canada, it is important to maintain majority consensus, which we cannot do with regional schism baked right into the program. That is why New Democrats were willing to vote for the Conservative motion the other day that said the pause that applied on home heating oil should apply to all forms of home heating, including natural gas. We think it is important that we maintain a majority consensus and not introduce a sense of regional grievance. The Liberals said it was inconsistent of us to do, but that is not true. In fact, as I say, I believe it is a critical part of maintaining a majority consensus for carbon pricing.
It was wrong of the Liberals to introduce that level of regional division. How do we know? If anyone had any doubt, when a Liberal cabinet minister from Newfoundland went on CTV News and said that the reason they were doing it was to cover their own political rear in the Atlantic region, and that people who wanted a break on the carbon tax should be voting Liberal, it was very clear that this was a regional policy motivated by the partisan political interests of the Liberal Party. Did New Democrats support that? Absolutely not, and that is why we did not vote to support the Conservative motion to extend the pause to other forms of heating.
Do the Conservatives have it right? No, because they want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether, and that is the wrong response. Do they have it right when it comes to the New Democratic motion on the GST? No, because if they were concerned about getting it right from an affordability point of view, they would be supporting our proposal on the GST instead of harping on the carbon tax as they have been doing. Why is that? It is because a break on the GST for home heating would be consistent with the long-standing policy of not charging GST on essentials.
It would be better because it would apply to Canadians across the country. The federal backstop on the carbon tax applies only in provinces that do not have their own provincial price on carbon. B.C. does and Quebec does, and a number of other provinces do. They will not see any relief as far as they are concerned, but what they do pay, even if they have a provincial carbon tax, is the GST. If the Conservatives were really interested in lowering taxes for all Canadians, they would support our proposal on the GST. This is not a new proposal of the NDP on the GST; it goes back to early days of the leadership of Jack Layton, who was elected leader of the NDP almost 20 years ago.
Furthermore, Conservatives should be interested in supporting our proposal because the GST is charged on the carbon tax. Any other day of the week, Conservatives would be upset about a tax on the tax, but when New Democrats say we should remove the tax that makes sense because it would get rid of that tax for all Canadians and would no longer be a tax on the carbon tax, they say, "No, no, the NDP is flip-flopping and we will not support it”, even though it is an opportunity to do something for Canadians.
The other important reason for supporting the removal of the GST instead of the carbon tax is that it applies to all forms of home heating. We know there are cash-strapped Canadians who are already doing the right thing by using methods of heating their homes that do not burn carbon and do not contribute to emissions. There are a lot of Canadians who would like to be in that boat but do not have the resources to be. That is why we are talking about the government's expanding the program in order to make heat pumps available to low- and middle-class Canadians, but the people who have already managed to make that transition should not be punished as they would be under the Conservative proposal to simply get rid of the carbon tax. If the Conservatives would agree to eliminate the GST instead, Canadians who already have low- or no-emission heating sources in their home would likewise get a break, and they too are deserving of assistance in a time of economic hardship.
Of course, we know that we can pay for increased access to heat pumps for low- and middle-income Canadians because we can levy a tax on the excess profits of oil and gas companies. Why would we do that? Profits in the oil and gas industry in Canada, between 2019 and 2022, a simple three-year period, increased by 1,000%. That is billions of dollars that could be reinvested in lowering emissions and reducing home heating bills for Canadians by transitioning to more efficient forms of heating. Is it some kind of red-eyed socialist idea to go around taxing oil and gas companies? I do not think so. Boris Johnson and the Conservatives in the U.K. implemented a windfall tax on the oil and gas industry there. This is not about whether one is on the right wing of the spectrum or the left wing of the spectrum; it is about whether one is motivated by a fundamental sense of fairness.
I must say that the Conservative leader, who goes around the country saying he has the backs of working people, should be explaining to them why he does not support the removal of GST on home heating, because that is what it would mean to have the back of every working Canadian in this country, whether they heat their homes with electricity, natural gas or home heating oil, and whether they do it in Newfoundland, Manitoba, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories. However, he is not who he says he is. He is not the champion of working-class people in Canada. He is an oil and gas lobbyist working in the House of Commons. That is who the leader of the Conservative Party is, and it is why he will not get behind a very common-sense proposal to help Canadians with their affordability challenge to reduce emissions. The oil and gas companies have really been putting the squeeze on Canadians. They did not get a 1,000% increase in profits over a few years without unfairly gouging their customers. That is exactly what oil and gas companies have been doing.
Looking at the extent to which increases in prices for oil and gas, versus the carbon tax, are responsible for inflation, I have to say that oil and gas prices are a much higher driver of inflation than the carbon tax is, despite the Conservatives saying in here that the Bank of Canada said it contributes to inflation. Yes, it is 0.6% one time. We could get a one-time, one-year reduction of inflation by 0.6% if we were to remove the carbon tax. After that, it would continue to go up. I also had the opportunity to question the Governor of the Bank of Canada about that at committee. I think it is important to note that the one-time 0.6% reduction in the carbon tax assumes that oil and gas companies are not going to raise their prices.
Any Canadian who has been observing the oil and gas market knows full well that if it thinks there is any room to increase prices, it is going to do it. I humbly submit that although we do not know how much the oil and gas companies would raise their prices, I think we know they would. That means we know that the one-time saving on inflation is a lot less than 0.6%. We should wonder why we were concerned about it at all when there is a perfectly good, and better, proposal to eliminate the GST from home heating that would actually do more for all Canadians.
I think what members can see is that the NDP has a perfectly consistent position. We are advocating a measure that we have been advocating for a long time. Why are we? We are advocating it because it is the fairest way to do it and because it is consistent with a tradition of not charging sales tax on essential items. In the context of the carbon tax, it is the fairest way to do it because it applies to people no matter where they live in the country. We have been consistently advocating that.
I remember when the Conservatives had carbon tax motions. They named some of them as examples of our voting against their motion to axe the tax. For sure, I think there should be a carbon price, absolutely. I just think it has to be applied fairly across the country and that the Liberals screwed it up by enacting a policy that meant that it is not. Yes, I support carbon pricing. I remember when we proposed amendments to their carbon price motions and said that if they really wanted to get rid of a tax on home heating, they should work with us to get rid of the GST. Do members know what they said when we proposed that amendment? They said no. Did members know that in the House, if there is an opposition day motion, a member cannot move an amendment without the permission of the mover? That meant we never did get to have a vote on that. We did not get to have a vote because the Conservatives vetoed a vote on getting rid of the GST on home heating.
The so-called champions of tax reduction for Canadians would not know a working partner if they came up and slapped them in the face. Some of us have had the idea to do that, but we have not, because we would prefer to preserve a good working relationship to get something done for Canadians. That is why we are here. It is what we are going to do every day of the week, and it is why we have made another attempt today with this motion. I urge them to finally support it.
1924 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:43:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure the NDP House leader in particular and certainly all parliamentarians would be very interested to ensure that there is quorum in this place on what is their opposition day, and so I would ask for a quorum call.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:43:28 p.m.
- Watch
We have to suspend until quorum is met.
And the bells having rung:
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:00 p.m.
- Watch
We now have quorum.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does there have to be a Conservative member in the House to have quorum?
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
There is a Conservative member in the House.
We are resuming with questions and comments for the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
