SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 3:16:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-65 Bill C-64 Bill C-61 Bill C-40 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, my daily attempts to reach out to opposition members and improve the efficiency of the business of the House are always rebuffed out of hand. The Conservatives would rather filibuster, raise totally fake questions of privilege, and use all sorts of delay tactics in the House to prevent the government from passing measures that are going to help Canadians in their daily lives. Despite it all, I will continue to reach out to opposition members to make sure that the business of the House takes place efficiently. This evening, we will deal with report stage of Bill C-64 respecting pharmacare. Tomorrow, we will commence second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. On Monday, we will call Bill C-64 again, this time at third reading stage. I would also like to inform the House that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Wednesday, we will consider second reading of Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands. Next week, we will also give priority to Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C‑40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

226 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

May/30/24 3:18:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier today in question period, one of my Alberta colleagues, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, in asking a question, used the phrase “anti-Alberta minister” in reference to the environment minister. You asked him to rephrase his question. A simple Google search shows that, over the years, members of all four recognized parties in the House have used the phrase “anti-Alberta” or “anti-Quebec” in standing up for their constituents in ways that their constituents would expect them to stand up. I think we are not better off in the House when the list of words we cannot use gets longer and longer. I think we suffer from a lack of clarity right now as we make efforts, as members of Parliament, to stand up for our constituents. I would like some clarification on what language we can and cannot use because it seems to have changed significantly over the past several months.

163 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 3:19:19 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin for raising this issue. What was going through the Chair's mind on this issue is that people can have policies or they can have ideas they might characterize as one thing or the other. The thing that caught me, and I will get back to the member on this, is whether or not members should attribute that to another hon. member. That is something I will review. I thank the hon. member for raising it, and I will come back to the House on this point. We have another point of order. I am going to ask for a very short intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands on this point, because we are going to come back to the House on it.

138 words

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

May/30/24 3:20:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do agree with the member and what he said. In particular, I would bring to the attention of the Chair that there is still a member of Parliament on this side of the House who has not spoken in about a month and a half because he accused Conservatives of being pro-Russia. As a result, your deputy asked him to withdraw his comment. He did not want to withdraw because he believed what he was saying was correct. As a result, he has not been able to speak for about six weeks. In your consideration about this issue, I would ask that you also consider whether or not it is appropriate to make a statement like that, because I would agree with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin that this would be limiting the words we can use in this House.

151 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 3:20:51 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I will consider that and come back to the House.

18 words

Intervention

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/30/24 3:21:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, my office submitted to you the necessary letter pursuant to Standing Order 48(2) to give notice to you of my intention to rise now and to speak to what I believe to be a potential question of privilege. The document that I will be referring to was just recently brought to my attention and I am bringing this forward at my first opportunity, as is required. It has come to my attention that on October 31, 2023, the member of Parliament for West Nova and our esteemed Deputy Speaker appeared in his Speaker robes in a Conservative Party advertisement. At first sight, this constitutes an improper use of the Speaker's robes, which of course are meant to be above the partisan fray. It is also worth noting that the ad specifically mentions him as the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and not just as an MP. As outlined in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the role of Deputy Speaker is an important one, with the Deputy Speaker's authority being comparable to that of Speaker. Page 359 reads, “Every action of the Deputy Speaker when acting in the Speaker’s place has the same effect and validity as if the Speaker had acted,....” We do have some previous examples in recent months of discussions in the chamber around the principles of impartiality and of the use of House of Commons resources, namely the Speaker's robes. On December 4, 2023, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was commenting on the appearance of the Speaker in a partisan ad while wearing his robes and when being referred to as “Speaker”. As the member pointed out: [The Speaker] made these remarks from the Speaker's office in the West Block while dressed in his Speaker's robes. As bad as it would have been to appear at a party convention at all, it might have at least been a little different if he had been introduced as the member for Hull—Aylmer, and worn a suit or a sweater, while standing in front of a scenic backdrop in his riding, but he was not. On the following day, the same member said: When somebody enters this place and decides to run for Speaker, they usually go to some length to assure members that they do have a non-partisan side, that they can put aside their partisanship and partisan affiliations, and that they can take the Speaker's chair, put on the Speaker's robe and be impartial. Again, the critical detail here is the use of the robes, which the member contends are meant to represent the impartiality of the office. Ultimately, the procedure and House affairs committee found that in using the Speaker's robes, the Speaker had effectively used House of Commons resources. On that basis, the Speaker was ordered to pay a fine. Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this week, there was also a debate over the Liberal Party of Canada's posting of an inappropriate ad featuring the Speaker, as well as partisan messaging. The party—

529 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 3:24:05 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon member. I am going to come back to the hon. member. There is a conversation between the government House leader and members on this side of the House. I am going to ask them to please take their conversation behind the curtains, so that I can hear the intervention from the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, uninterrupted. The hon. member.

68 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

May/30/24 3:24:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start back at the point where I was interrupted. As you know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week there was debate about the Liberal Party of Canada's posting of an inappropriate ad featuring the Speaker, as well as partisan messaging. That party took responsibility and the matter was concluded. I suspect that in the case of the member for West Nova and the ad I have raised today, the same is true. I believe an opportunity should be afforded to the member and to the Conservative Party of Canada to clarify who was responsible. Should the party prove to have made this decision without the knowledge or consent of the Deputy Speaker, then the member is owed an apology from the party and I would consider the matter closed. However, I would think that if the Deputy Speaker did approve or direct this ad wherein he is clearly using the office of Speaker for partisanship gain, then I believe, Mr. Speaker, you would have to find a prima facie case for a question of privilege. If so, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.

202 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 3:25:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for London—Fanshawe for rising on this question of privilege. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

27 words

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

May/30/24 3:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we would like to take a few moments before responding with our comments on this question of privilege at a later time.

24 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 3:26:00 p.m.
Watch

I also see the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rising on his feet. I am assuming it is in a manner similar to the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

40 words

Secretary

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

May/30/24 3:26:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, you are correct. I would like to be able to review the comments that have been put on the record. We do take it seriously, and we would like to provide comment back at some point in time in the near future.

44 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

May/30/24 3:26:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Conservative Party's “axe the tax for summer” motion, which seeks to make life more affordable for Canadians and, in particular, help them with their summer road trip. I have related the story of my fond memories of taking road trips as a child. This motion comes in the context of a cost of living crisis that Canada finds itself in the middle of. What is the NDP-Liberal coalition going to do? If members can believe it, they have decided to actually hike the carbon tax by yet another 23%. This is just one step in their plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years, making everything more expensive at the worst possible time. Now, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been clear that most families will pay more in the carbon tax than they receive in the rebate. This year, the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family $1,963. I know that members on the other side of the aisle will jump up and say that we have it all wrong, that 80% of households are actually better off being taxed until it hurts; then the government can come to the rescue, give them some of their money back and look like heroes. However, we are saying that people should not be fooled by that sleight of hand. What the Liberals and the NDP are not telling us is that the carbon tax adds inflationary cost to everything we buy, and that has a negative impact on our economy, on our businesses and on our families. Here is a really good example of how that works out. Last weekend, my wife, Inga, and I took a road trip down to southern Ontario. We visited with our friends Ken and Julie Wall, who are vegetable farmers and owners of Sandy Shore Farms, on the beautiful shores of Lake Erie. They related to us how it is becoming more and more difficult to compete with farmers from jurisdictions with lower taxes, such as California, Mexico, and even Central and South America, which are competing for the national North American market. This is what Ken sent to me in an email: “I'm an Ontario producer, and because of the Canadian carbon tax designed to reduce emissions, I get priced out of the market by competitors in non-carbon tax jurisdictions. The end result? The Canadian ag sector collapses and the carbon footprint of asparagus, which Canadians consume, grows dramatically. It is utter insanity.” That's what they do; they're specialists in asparagus. Now, if Ken is listening, I agree with that. It is utter insanity. This does not make economic sense at all. What is the solution? Conservatives want a carbon tax election, and the sooner the better, for entrepreneurs and farmers such as Ken, for other businesses across the country, for all consumers and for all Canadians. After we win the carbon tax election, we will axe the carbon tax as soon as possible. However, in the meantime, for the here and now, we are calling on the NDP-Liberal coalition to give Canadians a summer break by axing the carbon tax, the federal fuel tax, and the GST on gasoline and diesel fuel between Victoria Day and Labour Day. In that way, families could afford a simple summer vacation again. To pay for this, Conservatives are calling on the government to cut back on the spending on overpriced outside consultants, which is to the tune of $21 billion and has gone up by more than 100% since the Liberals took office in 2015. We are told that we have an excellent civil service, so why do we need outside consultants? After nine years of mismanagement of our economy by the current occupant of the Prime Minister's Office, life has become difficult for many Canadians. While the Prime Minister is off on his government-funded vacation, ordinary Canadians are having trouble funding even a simple road trip. Canadians deserve relief, not more taxes; they should be able to afford a simple road trip like the ones I took when I was a child. Let us do it for them.

707 words

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

May/30/24 3:31:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives say the average Canadian will save $670. Many of the constituents I represent might drive 10 or 15 kilometres a day, and a good percentage of them do not even drive. They take buses. Sometimes, unfortunately, they even have to take taxis. This policy would cut the tax, but it would also take away the rebate, I assume. How does the member square that with supporting people who quite often need support from government?

78 words

Taxis
Rebate

Mr. Tako Van Popta

May/30/24 3:32:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fact remains that the government does not have money to rebate until it first collects the money. I am calling it a sleight of hand. Citizens are going to be taxed until they hurt, and then the government will give some of the money back and look like a hero, look as though it is doing something. The government members say they have Canadians' backs, but it is only after the government has taken the money out of people's pockets in the first place. When they stick-handle around this very difficult question, the Liberals and the NDP always try to avoid the fact that carbon tax is inflationary. I gave the example of my friend Ken Wall, who is a farmer. It is hurting his business. It is not reducing the carbon footprint of the vegetables that he produces or that Canadians are consuming. It is time to axe the tax. It does not make sense.

161 words

Inflationary

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/30/24 3:33:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is my colleague aware that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec? I wish someone would recognize that at some point. He is therefore asking the government to create a major imbalance between people in Quebec and people in the rest of Canada. If the Conservatives suspend the carbon tax and the gas tax for the entire summer, without suspending the rebates that the federal government pays to families, because we know that money is returned to lower-income people, that is the equivalent of a $3-billion subsidy that could go straight into the pockets of the oil companies, which will absorb the rest of the price, as they usually do.

115 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

May/30/24 3:34:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to the fact that different provinces want to handle their tax regimes differently, and I respect Quebec for wanting to do that. British Columbia has its own carbon tax as well, so it is not even caught by this federal government backstop. However, I can say that the carbon tax is becoming as unpopular in British Columbia as it is in the rest of the country, particularly after the federal government started to force British Columbia to raise the carbon tax beyond what the provincial government has done. We are in interesting times in B.C. There is an election coming up, and I would encourage my fellow British Columbians to vote for a political party that promises to axe the tax, as the federal Conservatives are going to do.

136 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 3:35:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a relief to finally hear a B.C. MP stand and acknowledge facts. The federal carbon tax does not apply to British Columbia. I will remind my colleague that it was actually members of the B.C. Liberal Party, now B.C. United, and the B.C. Conservative Party, Kevin Falcon and John Rustad, who were in government and brought it in. In fact, until just a couple of years ago, they were patting themselves on the back for bringing in one of the biggest carbon tax initiatives in the world. Today, we have members such as my colleague, who are saying we should axe the tax. The member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party, is going to British Columbia and saying he would get rid of the carbon tax; in fact, no prime minister has authority to get rid of the carbon tax in B.C. It was brought in by the right-of-centre party. Could the member tell me when he is finally going to talk to his leader and help his leader understand that he does not have the authority to remove the carbon tax in British Columbia?

198 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

May/30/24 3:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member says the federal tax does not apply in British Columbia. It actually does. The federal government forced the British Columbia government to increase the carbon tax to beyond what the provincial government had ever planned to do, to match the federal level. I would just reassert that the carbon tax has become as unpopular in British Columbia as it has in other places in Canada. Again, I would urge my fellow British Columbians to vote for a party that says it will axe that tax. It is not working. We do not need it. It is inflationary.

101 words

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

May/30/24 3:37:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address yet another opposition day motion. Those who are following the debate will find that, more often than not, virtually all the time, the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, better known as the Reformers, continue to bring the one bumper sticker campaign to the floor of the House of Commons on their opposition days. The bumper sticker says, “Cut the tax.” It is interesting to hear some of the Conservative members talk about other issues. However, the leadership of the Conservative Party, which comes out of the current leader, is so focused on this one aspect. This is not only in terms of what is consistently being discussed on an opposition day but also the manner in which it is portrayed to Canadians as a whole. We talk a great deal about AI and social media, and how we get a lot of fake news and misinformation being spread, as well as the role that social media plays in that. I sincerely and genuinely believe that this issue really amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party of Canada believes it can fool Canadians. Conservatives have adopted the bumper sticker saying “axe the tax”, they travel around the country, and they talk about that. The Conservatives continually espouse false information, whether it is through the leader of the Conservative Party talking to a group of people in any area of the country or through social media. I will give some very specific examples. The Conservatives say they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, but how often do we hear their leader saying we are going to get rid of the carbon rebate? He does not draw that connection. People need to appreciate and understand that, when the leader says we are going to get rid of the carbon tax, that also means the carbon rebate. We should be concerned about that. Eighty per cent of the constituents I represent actually get more money back from the rebate than they pay in tax. The concept and the sound policy of having a price on pollution benefits everyone. We all get to participate in reducing emissions. There is an incentive through the price on pollution to reduce emissions. For example, if Canadians upgrade the windows in their house, when they have an older home; add a little more insulation; or buy a car that does not consume as much in fossil fuels, then they will have more disposable income. The percentage of their rebate will be that much higher than they would pay in terms of the carbon tax. Everyone benefits. We can take a look at everyone in that 80%-plus. I represent many people who actually just ride a bus. They do not have a vehicle. Those individuals are actually benefiting. I would suggest that the individuals who are riding the bus are often not high-income individuals. This not exclusively true, but it refers to a very high percentage of them. We are giving a rebate to the middle- and lower-income individuals who are actually riding the bus. We are also providing an incentive for those who want to fix up their homes or make them more energy-efficient. In return, they will get more money back from the rebate than they pay in the tax. It is sound public policy, so whenever the leader of the Conservative Party and his minions go around saying they are going to axe the tax and giving the impression that Canadians will benefit from that, it is false information, because 80% of Canadians will actually receive more money back than they will pay in. They do not have to believe me—

629 words