SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

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

Mr. Damien Kurek

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/7/23 4:43:28 p.m.
Watch

We have to suspend until quorum is met. And the bells having rung:

13 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/7/23 4:45:00 p.m.
Watch

We now have quorum. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

13 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/7/23 4:45:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion in regard to the positioning that the NDP had taken in regard to the vote from yesterday. When we take a look at the move towards trying to reduce the reliance on oil in order to heat homes, the national program that was announced by the federal government would, in fact, incentivize people to move away from oil to heat their homes. I am wondering if the member could explain why the NDP does not seem to recognize the true value of encouraging people to convert to home heating pumps.

98 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/7/23 4:46:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would just like to say in respect to the quorum call that it is not the first time Conservatives have gone scurrying under their desks when I rise to speak, and I am sure it will not be the last. In respect to the question— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Some Conservatives may not fit under their desk, but it does not stop them from trying—

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/7/23 4:46:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

18 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/7/23 4:46:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby late last week seeking to constrain the Conservative Party from holding the NDP-Liberal government to account. As the Speaker will recall, Conservatives asked a number of questions about the opposition motion to provide relief from the carbon tax for all Canadians' home heating regardless of the source of heat, which was debated on Thursday and voted upon yesterday afternoon. Canadians are struggling with the cost of living. They are looking to their Parliament to address this concern and provide the relief they need to get through the winter, especially with the skyrocketing cost of heat, which is driven by the Prime Minister's unaffordable carbon tax. Canadians who are looking to their politicians to take action and axe the tax want to know whether the government will, or whether the government will use its immense powers and tools to protect itself. This is unquestionably a concern of the administration of the government. Indeed, the Speaker's initial reaction Thursday afternoon provides a pretty good answer here. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries rose to answer each and every one of the questions of concern of the NDP. If the government itself did not feel obliged to answer, surely it would not have. The NDP House leader centred much of his argument around the January 2014 ruling by the Speaker's predecessor, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. When the Speaker reflects on that ruling, it is important to understand the context that precipitated it. There had been a number of questions from both sides of the House concerning senators as well as the internal operations of the other place, political parties and MPs' offices. Furthermore, there was one key passage the NDP House leader omitted from the January 2014 ruling, which he otherwise quoted extensively: “The principle of responsible government is that the government has to provide an accounting for where the money goes and to provide reasons for why decisions are made.” As I pointed out in my initial comments, we have a right to understand how the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberal and New Democratic parties will apply to key budget decisions and to important parliamentary decisions. The agreement itself reads, “The agreement will mean that the NDP agrees to support the government on confidence and budgetary matters – notably on budgetary policy”. The carbon tax represents a huge chunk of money taken out of taxpayers' pockets. It is indisputably a question of budgetary policy, and one where the government is starkly offside the views and needs of Canadians whom it governs. That is why the official opposition, through its questioning, was looking for the government to explain the reasons the decision has been made. As for the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, I would submit they were sidetracked by the description of the NDP-Liberal coalition. Just yesterday, in fact, we saw the New Democrats vote in support of Liberal time allocation or closure for a 37th time under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South. Throughout the CCF and NDP's history prior to its current leader, I believe they had only supported time allocation or closure a total of 14 other times. It has been 37 times now, and only 14 times before. At the start of this week, I understand the New Democrats voted with the Liberals 296 times during the past 306 votes. That is 97% support. In fact, I would not be surprised if the chief government whip actually considers the NDP caucus to be more reliable in their votes than the member for Beaches—East York. On the narrowest point about cabinet seats, which the deputy government House leader and the member for Elmwood—Transcona made, it is true that the NDP clearly failed in its negotiation to secure caucus representation at the cabinet table. However, all of the signs point to a cohesive team acting in concert for chamber and committee business. The facts are quite clear that the confidence and supply agreement amounts to a parliamentary coalition, complete with obligations to consult, to discuss voting intention, to provide parliamentary support to the government and is complete with various mechanics like leaders meetings, House leaders meetings, whips meetings and a special stock-taking committee, which also meets regularly. I believe the member for Elmwood—Transcona might actually be a member of the last group. Seeing how spectactularly the Liberals and the Prime Minister have been tumbling in public opinion lately, it is little surprise that the New Democrats bristle at the coalition label. The concerns about what label to apply to this relationship between the Liberal and New Democratic parties amount to a question of debate. We have a lot of those during question period. I am sure you would agree with that. No matter how you cut it or which term from the dictionary you prefer, we are talking about two entities coming together to collaborate in pursuit of common goals. Whether you prefer to call that a joint endeavour, a common venture, a partnership or a coalition, that choice is ultimately a question of debate. It should not be for the Speaker to police debate in the House with a dictionary to enforce the preferred message discipline of any given side. Debate itself has always been useful in shedding light on the truth, and it should continue to be so. In closing, the questions which Conservatives have been raising are important and fall squarely within the administration and conduct of the government. These are the questions that many Canadians, including the constituents of Liberal and NDP members, have long been asking. When will the government take the tax off so Canadians can keep the heat on?

995 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/7/23 4:55:06 p.m.
Watch

That is duly noted. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona still has four minutes for questions and comments and was answering a question from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

29 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/7/23 4:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before we start the clock again, I would like to make a brief comment to the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I will do so in French to make sure he understands. Usually, when a member rises on a point of order regarding an issue that was raised a few days or weeks earlier, he or she waits until the member who has the floor has finished speaking. It is a matter of etiquette and a courtesy that we usually extend to our colleagues in the House. I find it disappointing that he did not wait for me to finish my speech—that is, about 30 seconds—before rising on this point of order. On the question itself, the issue that the member for Winnipeg North raised is fair in the sense that we do absolutely support and, in fact, the motion here today supports helping people transition off of home heating oil. His colleague in the Liberal cabinet made it very clear on CTV News that what they were doing had everything to do with partisan Liberal politics in a particular region of the country and very little to do with good policy. Better policy on the affordability front would be to remove the GST, to make sure that we do not introduce regional schism to the carbon pricing program and that it applies equally to all the people, including people who do not create any emissions to heat their home but nevertheless are struggling in a time of affordability. That is the answer to the question.

267 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Nov/7/23 4:57:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting and somewhat tragic, actually. The Liberals have admitted their carbon tax simply does not work. The New Democrats are now scrambling to try to differentiate themselves from their coalition partners. The implications that this has for Canadians are truly the most tragic part of all. In the last couple of years in this Parliament, dating back to February 2022, we saw the member and all the members of the coalition vote against a Conservative motion that would have, in part, removed GST from home heating fuels. They voted against it at that point in time. They did not care about affordability there. That was a great tragedy for Canadians. The same thing took place on April 4, 2022, when the NDP voted with its coalition partners in the Liberal Party against an affordability measure put forward by common-sense Conservatives. Again, on June 7, 2022, the NDP voted against a Conservative measure that would have addressed some of these affordability challenges. On October 24, 2022, the New Democrats and the Liberals voted against a Conservative measure. On December—

186 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/7/23 4:58:29 p.m.
Watch

Can I ask if there is a question? We have to give time to other members to ask questions.

19 words

Ask

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/7/23 4:58:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are numerous other examples, and it is unfortunate that I cannot get through them all. That is how great the hypocrisy of that member is, so—

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/7/23 4:58:42 p.m.
Watch

I will let the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona comment on the comment.

14 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/7/23 4:58:49 p.m.
Watch

What is tragic, Madam Speaker, is that any time we have reached out to work with Conservatives to reduce the tax on home heating in a way that is actually fair, they have said no. Why is that? It is because they have built a political campaign around the carbon tax. The importance of that campaign to them and their own electoral fortunes trumps doing anything for Canadians in a tangible sense; otherwise, the Conservatives could have worked with us on any of those votes to eliminate the GST from home heating. As I said, that is a position they know the New Democrats have held for close to 20 years now and one that we actually tried to introduce into their motions, with amendments that they refused. Therefore, if we want to talk about tragedy and who is really committed to trying to make life more affordable for Canadians, the tragic thing is that Conservatives refuse to have a working partner. They want to go to Canadians and tell them that everything is broken. To the extent that things are broken around here, the Conservatives are breaking them. It is dishonest to break things here and then go to Canadians and tell them that somehow the people with the answers are the ones who are breaking them.

218 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Nov/7/23 5:00:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every time the member stands up in the House, I learn so much from him and so much about the ways that the New Democrats are working very hard to make sure the affordability crisis and the climate crisis are both dealt with. We talk a lot about how the Conservatives are in the pockets of big oil and gas. One thing that I find very shocking in Alberta is that we lost 1,500 jobs at the same time as these oil and gas companies were raking in massive profits. Could the member talk about why the Conservatives never want to talk about the jobs that we lost in Alberta because of oil and gas?

118 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Nov/7/23 5:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is true: As oil and gas profits have skyrocketed over the last number of years, employment in the oil and gas sector has gone down. We see Conservatives say they want more business investment in Canada, but Conservative premiers such as Danielle Smith have been turning down billions of dollars of investment in renewable energy that could also create a lot of employment for Canadians. That is why the Conservatives are not who they say they are and their leader is not who he says he is.

90 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 248