SoVote

Mar/22/22 11:48:23 a.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may only be moved with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the whip if he or she consents to this amendment being moved.

87 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Mar/22/22 11:48:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is odd that the NDP-Liberal government member would want to take over an opposition day motion, so there is no consent.

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 11:49:04 a.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

26 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/22/22 11:49:29 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech and say that I sympathize with inability to move his amendment. I would like to start by talking about this amendment. I was a little surprised to hear my NDP colleague propose an amendment that, rather than incentivizing the transition to green energy, proposes to continue encouraging the consumption of petroleum products. My own house is heated by electricity, and I think the same goes for many Quebeckers and Canadians who are going green. I would have expected my colleague to table an amendment proposing incentives to switch to more environmentally friendly home heating methods, rather than once again encouraging the use of petroleum products. Also, putting the financial burden on consumers and citizens rather than oil companies is one of the things we disapprove of about this Conservative motion. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about those two things.

157 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/22 11:50:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the advantages of my suggestion was that it could apply to all home heating methods, including electricity. The goal was to not presume that oil and gas are the only heating methods. We agree that it is important that the world undergo an energy transition, and we acknowledge that this will take more than a couple of days. Right now, people are really struggling with costs, and we see this measure as a way of helping them out in these trying times. We obviously have to make the transition, but not only with respect to oil and gas. I thought my amendment would achieve that result.

113 words

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mar/22/22 11:52:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I listened intently to what he said and there are a number of items we agree with. We were all elected to Parliament to represent our constituents and to work collaboratively through partnership to make lives better for Canadians. As we all know, revenue comes to government from so many different sources, and government needs revenue to provide support for seniors, families and people of different abilities, and to continue the great programs for early childhood education and all others. Can you please comment on increasing sources of revenue? How can government work better on that to provide Canadians with affordable housing and all the services they deserve?

118 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 11:53:02 a.m.
Watch

I cannot comment, but I will ask the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona to respond.

16 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/22 11:53:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to comment on your behalf. I would refer the hon. member to our opposition day motion from yesterday. We proposed a 3% surcharge tax on industries that have done very well in the pandemic, whether it is big banks, box stores or oil and gas companies, which are the beneficiaries of these incredible increases at the pump. That is just one proposal that we managed to table yesterday. However, there are many things we think the Liberal government ought to be doing on the question of tax fairness. We ran on a wealth tax. I think that is a far more fair way to raise revenue, rather than asking the middle class, which is already struggling, to pay more in taxes to fund these things. That is another way we can fund something like temporary relief from the GST on home heating. We should be working to close the agreements we have about tax havens given the PBO has said we are losing $25 billion a year in revenue there. Beyond the 3% surcharge tax that was proposed yesterday, we need to be looking at an excess profit tax for the companies that did extraordinarily well during the pandemic on top of their normal healthy earnings and profits. There are absolutely a lot of ways we could be raising revenue in Canada. There are other jurisdictions that have shown far more leadership on this, both in closing tax loopholes and in ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share. It is high time we did that, and we will continue to be a voice pressuring the government to do those things in the months and years ahead.

282 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Mar/22/22 11:54:53 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the amendment the member wanted to put forward, but I want to really focus on what we are doing today. In his comments, he mention that seniors do not drive and there are a variety of reasons this does not impact each and every Canadian. I fully disagree with him on that. We recognize that many things coming into stores are GST exempt, but we use fuel and gasoline when we are doing shipments. When a person is being driven to a medical appointment, maybe by a taxi, there is going to be an increase. There is that 5% sitting there in taxes. There are so many ways we can look at this, and although it is not cut and dry because there is not a direct link, we know that overall it will have a bearing. A reduction of 5% will reduce the cost of things for people because gas is being used, or fuel. Will the member be supporting the motion?

167 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/22 11:55:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are here to co-operate and negotiate. However, of course it takes two to tango, as I think the phrase goes, and we heard a pretty clear message from the whip that he is not in the mood to dance on behalf of the Conservative Party, so it is difficult. I do not think that precludes us from co-operating in the future on other things, but we were clear that if we were going to go the route of tax relief, we wanted something that would apply more broadly than simply providing tax relief at the pumps. We wanted something that did not principally focus on oil and gas in the future and where there was a better sense of certainty that companies that could raise prices to eat up the price differential of lower taxes would not be able to do so. That is why we felt that home heating was a superior choice, because there are usually public processes for rate increases on public utilities that do not exist for oil and gas companies at the pumps.

186 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/22/22 11:56:58 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his attempt to make this motion a bit better. Unfortunately, it did not turn out that way. Yesterday in the House, I listened to Conservative members discuss our opposition day motion. They were talking about the needs of big corporations. We insisted that there needed to be increases in tax measures and they said that big corporations needed tax decreases and that their profit margins were not really that large. I know it is difficult for the member to get into a Conservative mindset, but perhaps he could try to explain why the Conservatives are so resolute about not moving toward progressive taxation and so convinced that we cannot tax big corporations for excessive profits.

122 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/22 11:57:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I often struggle to put myself in the mindset of my Conservative colleagues. To be charitable, I might hazard an attempt. Too often the Conservatives have a tendency, and in fact a deep kind of driving need, to blame every problem on the government. Government can certainly sometimes be the problem. I believe that. It is why I bothered to get elected and why we work so hard in this place to change the disposition of government and influence government actions. It certainly has a role to play. However, there are other actors in the world that have real power and also contribute to some of the problems that Canadians are facing. Sometimes the Conservatives, because they are so narrowly focused on the problems of the government and trying to blame every problem on it, become apologists for everybody else. To admit there might be a problem somewhere that is not in the halls of government kind of undermines their entire intellectual political framework. It is a difficult thing for them to focus on, and that is why sometimes they might end up apologizing for large companies that are doing very well and are themselves part of the problems Canadians are facing.

205 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

Mar/22/22 11:59:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member just insulted the Conservatives' constituencies and those who voted for us when he made reference to the intellectual framework of our party. We are all elected to the House, and it is very disappointing to hear any type of reference to the intelligence of either the Conservative members or those who voted for us. I am going to give the member an opportunity to apologize for that, because it was uncalled for.

83 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/22/22 12:00:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member just answered her own question. We were talking about the intellectual capacity of the Conservative caucus, and they did not hear anything about ordinary voters. We were talking about the Conservatives, particularly their backbench.

38 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Mar/22/22 12:00:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond, and I have two things to say. First, I note that a comment about the intellectual framework of a political organization is not a comment about people's intelligence. Those are two separate things. Second, I would say that pointing out the shortcomings of certain elected representatives says nothing of the voters. Voters elect people in good faith. People do not always live up to the expectations of voters. Pointing out that this may be the case is no insult to the voter. It might be an insult, but it is not an insult to the voters.

105 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Mar/22/22 12:01:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I took great offence to the member who now questions the intellectual capacity of the Conservative backbench. I am a proud member of the Conservative backbench. For the member who questioned my intellectual capacity, I have enjoyed a 30-year legal career. I have a BA honours in political science. I have a law degree. I have had a distinguished career as a public servant for the Ontario government. Now I am a proud member of the Conservative Party.

86 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 12:02:00 p.m.
Watch

We are descending a bit into debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

15 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Mar/22/22 12:02:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated to see the member read his resumé, but I am not really sure what the point was. It is nice to hear from the member in the backbench once in six months with his resumé, but was there a question pointed at me? I did not hear anything.

55 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/22/22 12:02:20 p.m.
Watch

We have descended far too far and I have let this go on far too long. I believe we have gotten into too much debate on this issue. I do not think that is a point of order, but I do give opportunity to the members to rephrase things if they need to. I do not see anyone standing to try to rephrase, so we will move on to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

76 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Mar/22/22 12:02:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to split my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and I thank him for his work in his constituency. Perhaps people are excited. We should be generous with the other members, and perhaps the member for Timmins—James Bay was just excited about his new cabinet position in the coalition. I look forward to his testimony and discussion of the WE scandal and other things in the coalition. It will be quite riveting testimony from the member. Today, I rise on behalf of the hard-working people of Northumberland—Peterborough South who are struggling every day just to get by. Across our country, we are facing a cost of living crisis from coast to coast. The number of Canadians who are struggling to fill the gas tanks in their cars, who are struggling to finish off this heating season in a cold spring, and who are struggling to put food on their tables is getting larger and larger. More Canadians are struggling and unfortunately, in my beautiful riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, we are not immune to this crisis. What is the government's suggestion or solution to this? It may very well be, with coalition partners, to foist one of the largest tax increases in history on Canadians. Let me explain. When a government prints money to spend, prices increase. The more that the government has to print money, the more it spends. It just keeps going. It is a cycle. The government keeps spending money and printing money. That drives down the value of money. Everything costs more, from our houses to our cars to buying groceries. It is driving down money. Inflation has a real effect, just as taxes do. That $10 we had in our jeans is now worth $8. It is exactly the same as if taxes were increased by 20% when we have inflation that has increased over the last couple of years to 20%. It is the same impact. This is indeed an inflation tax. We see the evidence everywhere. Not since 1991 have we seen inflation at this rate of 5.7%. Everyone's paycheque is going down 5% per year. People have been given a pay decrease of 5%, and that is shocking. Things were not good before. The last seven years have been tough on Canadians. Just last year, over 53% of Canadians said they were within $200 of insolvency. The government's solution is more inflation, or “Justinflation”. We have, year over year, increasing grocery bills of an additional $1,000. The members of the House can probably all afford that. The many productive, upper-middle-class and wealthy individuals can afford it, but it hurts the single mother in Orono who is working every day to pay for her children's future education and put food on the table. She has gone to work every day on the front line during the pandemic making minimum wage and now is struggling to fill up her car. She would probably love an electric vehicle, as many Canadians would, but increasingly now many more do not have $100,000 for an electric vehicle. We can take the approach of “let them eat cake” and ask why do they not just buy an electric vehicle. It is unreasonable. The modern incarnation of “let them eat cake” is to say, “Go and buy that EV,” to someone who cannot afford $100 to put in their gas tank. When we add the inflation tax to the carbon tax, we get a particularly nefarious combination. I had the opportunity to ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada about the impact of the carbon tax. It was strange to me that the Governor of the Bank of Canada did not know the answer to a relatively simple question when I asked what the inflationary impact was of the carbon tax. He did not have an answer, but he was kind enough to write a response. In that, he ascribed nearly 10% of the inflation we are experiencing to the carbon tax. Once again, the government is tone-deaf to the needs of the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South. Its response is not to maybe pause the carbon tax or even pause the increase on the carbon tax, because the goal of the carbon tax is to make gasoline more expensive so that we look at other solutions. That goal is accomplished, guys. People cannot afford gasoline and they cannot afford an EV, so the government is driving people into poverty. Why not just pause the increase to the carbon tax? The prices of gasoline and diesel have already increased. That goal has been accomplished. At this point it is just punitive. There are many, including those in rural Canada, who just do not have that alternative, including in my riding and elsewhere in rural parts of Canada. I invite those in urban ridings to come to my riding and meet the great folks of Northumberland—Peterborough South. I invite them to come and meet the soccer mom who puts gas in her SUV to take her kids to soccer practice, and tell her “No, you cannot do that.” They could meet the factory workers who are making a reasonable dollar but are still struggling to get by because of the carbon tax and the inflation tax. I invite them to come and tell them that they cannot put gas in their cars and cannot go to work, because that is what the government is saying to them. I want the government to think hard about that and the impact it is having on rural Canada. I want it to think about the farmers out there who are paying tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax every single year. We will be more reliant on Canadian farmers, not just in this country but around the world, given what is going on in Ukraine. We will be dependent on them, and what are we doing to them? We are making them pay tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax. It is not because farmers do not want to fight climate change. They do, but there just are not alternatives. We heard testimony in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that there just are not alternatives to things such as drying grain and heating barns, so farmers are reliant on fossil fuels. The government is not driving people to fight climate change. In fact, it is driving them away from fighting climate change because they cannot invest in the innovation and the technology they need. The exact opposite of what it wants to happen is happening. Let me talk about what the opposition motion is. The opposition motion starts by acknowledging that we are in an affordability a crisis: We are in a financial challenge as a country and Canadians are struggling to get by. Then it says that Canadians should be given a bit of a break. They are going through a lot with the opioid crisis, the housing crisis and now an affordability crisis. It says that we should reach out our hands and give them a 5% break on the gasoline and diesel they need to put in their cars to drive their kids to school, to go to work and to build our country. To me, this is entirely reasonable and it is a break Canadians need. In conclusion, Canadians have had a tough go over the last two years. It has become increasingly challenging for people to buy a home. There are 20-year-olds and 30-year-olds who have good jobs and did everything they were told to do. They went to school, got a trade and worked hard. They have done everything asked of them, but they still cannot afford a house. The pensioners, the seniors, who gave their lives building this country can now barely afford to buy groceries. Their prosperity and the prosperity of our country is being undermined by this coalition's dedication to the inflation tax and the carbon tax. We need to return to making Canada affordable again. We need to return to prosperity. Right now, we need to give Canadians a break, and that is why I am proud to vote for the opposition motion.

1409 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 43