44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/2/23 10:03:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 10:42:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos. 1697, 1700, 1701 and 1708.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 10:43:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1694 to 1696, 1698, 1699, 1702 to 1707 and 1709 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 10:43:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 10:49:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party has been told on many occasions that he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I would ask that the member recognize that members on all sides of the House, at times, cannot be in the House for a multitude of different reasons.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 10:54:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting hearing the leader of the Conservative Party. One can ultimately say he has done a flip-flop. It was not that long ago that the NDP brought forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating. One would think, based on everything he has been blabbing about for the last week or so, that the Conservatives would have voted in favour of getting rid of the GST on home heating. Canadians would be surprised to find out that their leader did not. He looks to his colleagues and wonders if he really did that. Yes, he really did vote against an amendment that would have removed the GST on home heating oil. Why has there been this change? I think it is a fair assessment. I agreed with him. I too voted against it, but I am curious why the leader of the Conservative Party flip-flopped on this issue.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 12:27:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from my perspective, the way I look at it is that the government has focused on getting and encouraging people to change from oil to heat pumps. Given that oil costs are so much higher compared with other sources, it is a good way to encourage that transition. In the longer run, people will save more money, and the environment will be better for it.
The member highlights the issue of bureaucracy. The program that is there is a coast-to-coast program. Manitoba has thousands of people who heat their homes with oil. Would he not agree that it will be very helpful to move forward and get provincial jurisdictions, in particular, involved in this?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier today, when the leader of the Conservative Party addressed the House, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party, when its members voted no for an NDP motion that would have removed the GST on home heating. I thought that was somewhat contradictory to what he was saying. There was no answer. Now the NDP have moved another proposal that would see the GST once again dropped.
What is more ironic is the fact that, in a reckless fashion, when I posed the question for the member, ultimately he said that they would get rid of that too. It is like policy on the fly, that he would get rid of the GST. However, when Conservatives were now provided the opportunity to do it again, what did the member for Battle River—Crowfoot do? He said no, that they did not want the amendment to the resolution.
Why is the Conservative Party recklessly flip-flopping all over the bloody place on this issue? It does not seem to have a direction regarding the environment.
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:21:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have witnessed this again today. Am I correct in my assumption that if a member is rising and asking for unanimous consent after question period, that the member seek consultation. Could you just provide some clarity on that?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 3:53:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, but using the acronym “BS” is definitely not parliamentary.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 4:35:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member, right at his conclusion, said that the Conservative Party would axe the carbon tax for Canadians. Conservatives have made that very clear. No doubt it will be part of their campaign platform.
The issue I have with the simplicity of the message the member just gave is that he does not talk about the rebates being given to the people of Canada. For example, in Winnipeg North, over 80% of the residents I represent will get more money back through the rebate than they will pay in carbon tax. That comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, so it is not just me saying that.
The member is telling Canadians that you are going to axe the tax, but would you still be providing the rebates? If you do not still provide the rebates, you are taking money out of the pockets of more than 80% of the residents I represent.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 4:51:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we think of oil heating and compare that to the impact on the environment of natural gas, or home heat pumps, I think we would probably agree that the oil heating system does hurt the environment a whole lot more, and it is a lot more costly.
Does the Conservative Party have any policy, direction or thoughts regarding that, or do they feel they should leave it out there and let it evolve in society in a way Conservatives would be happy to see with regards to climate change in general.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 4:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.
It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this opposition day motion. I want to break it into two parts. One is the issue of affordability and the other is the issue of oil-generated heat.
When I think of the issue of affordability, it is important to recognize that the Government of Canada, over the last number of years, in the many different programs that we have brought forward, has very much demonstrated its support for Canadians, whether they are in the middle class, those aspiring to be part of it or those who are disadvantaged.
We can take a look at some of those programs. We can talk about the grocery rebate program. We can talk about the dental program for seniors and children, people with disabilities, or we can talk about the rental support program. Now, I would like to suggest we can also talk about the home heating pump program and, in fact, the pause that is being put on for heating homes with oil. These are all programs that have been very supportive in making sure that Canadians can get through a time when they are experiencing inflation, among other issues.
When I think of the affordability issue, we have been a government that has been very much focused on supporting Canadians. All those programs I just listed, the Conservative Party actually voted against every one of them.
It is somewhat disheartening and disappointing. Conservatives seem to want to focus on one issue, and we see that time and time again, when it comes to the carbon tax.
They are just taking a piece of their policy and saying that they want to add on to the pause that we have put on with regard to home heating oil.
When they talk about the price on pollution, I think that Canadians need to be reminded of two things. When Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party and campaigned in the last election, along with 337 other Conservative candidates, they all campaigned in favour of a price on pollution.
Whether we like it or not, or try to figure out why it is, the Conservatives changed their minds. They no longer support a price on pollution. They say they are going to get rid of that price, and they classify it as the carbon tax. They say they are going to “axe the tax”. It is a great bumper sticker, I must say, even though, I would suggest that it is very deceiving.
It is deceiving, because I put forward a question earlier to a member about why it is the Conservatives are being very one-sided in their messaging. Conservatives are trying to give an impression, for the more than 95,000 people who I represent in Winnipeg North, that if they form government, they are going to get rid of the carbon tax.
A vast majority of the constituents that I represent, over 80%, actually get a net benefit from the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as the Conservatives refer to it.
What the Conservatives have been quiet on is the question of what they are going to do with the rebate portion. That rebate portion is put into place as a result of the carbon tax being collected. If they get rid of the carbon tax, they are getting rid of the rebate also.
The member opposite, when I posed the question to him, said that if one does not collect the tax, then one does not have to worry about giving money back.
The Conservatives do not understand that the price on pollution, which was something that was adopted in the Paris conference back in 2015, was to provide incentive for people to think of the environment in terms of the choices they make. It is based on a rebate. Most Canadians will actually receive more money back than they paid for the carbon tax. When the Conservatives put on their bumper stickers that they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, what they are really saying is that for more than 80% of the constituents, some of whom I represent, they want to take more money out of their pockets. That is the reality, but they do not talk about that. That idea has been amplified.
Earlier today, the leader of the Conservative Party, who raised the issue we are debating today, said the Conservatives are going to get rid of the carbon tax for all Canadians on all home fuels. That is what he said. I asked him why the Conservatives opposed a motion that the NDP proposed which would get rid of all the GST on home heating.
We have heard a leader recklessly make a policy statement on the floor of the chamber. He proclaimed that the Conservatives are going to get rid of all taxes on home heating. He actually said that, even though a couple of hours later, his party denied the opportunity to actually say yes to what it was he had just finished saying.
Talk about reckless. Canadians need to know and understand just how risky it is to consider the Conservative Party of Canada, because it does flip-flop all over the place. Conservatives are more focused on bumper-sticker politics, the far right and populist attitudes than they are on the general welfare and well-being of Canadians. We see that in the debate.
Let us think about it. Coal used to warm up homes during wartime. They would put coal in little steel boxes in many wartime houses. That coal would be used to heat homes. It was not very good for the environment. A lot of that coal was converted into natural gas. Some of it was converted into heating oil. It is good to transition out of coal.
What we are talking about today, and what the government is talking about, is a policy for all Canadians, even though the Conservatives will try to say that it is divisive. It is not divisive. In their own minds, possibly it is, but I have news for them. Canadians from coast to coast to coast use oil to heat their homes. Canadians in all regions will benefit. What we will see with this policy is a greater emphasis for people to convert, with incentives, to home heat pumps. By doing that they will save thousands of dollars every year. We do not hear people saying that is not the case.
A simple search on Google or Yahoo will show there are significant cost savings in converting from oil to a heat pump. It is a good policy idea, but the Conservatives are not concerned about that. They are concerned about bumper stickers. For them, it is about the simplicity of the message, even if it means they have to flip-flop and turn into pretzels here, based on voting patterns and what they have told people at the polls.
The Conservatives will continue to do the twisting and turning. We will continue to be there to ensure affordability for Canadians and to be there for the environment.
1218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 5:08:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to fish in the Red River. I could have used the analogy of the Conservative Party being like a fish on the dock at The Forks flipping and flopping all over the place. That is what I mean by risky and reckless policy.
We do not hear an environmental policy coming from the Conservative Party. We just do not see it. It is more interested in trying to fool Canadians on issues by simply saying it is going to axe the tax because that sure does sound good.
The member wants to go by polls. If we were to canvass a poll asking if we should decrease the pay of members of Parliament by 30%, I guarantee that 95% of Canadians, or a very high majority, would say yes. Does that mean we are going to see the Conservative Party say it would slash MPs' salaries by 50%? After all, that might make for a good bumper sticker too.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 5:10:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is just wrong on so many accounts.
Does she not realize that the Canada child benefit program generated, in Winnipeg North alone, over $9 million a month to support children? Thousands of children, hundreds from Winnipeg North, were lifted out of poverty because of that one measure.
Does the member not realize we now have $10-a-day child care across Canada? This federal Liberal government ensured we could lower the price of child care, which provides many benefits to women and many others, as a direct result of this policy.
We have made affordability an issue on many different fronts. I would hope the NDP would see through the Conservative con job on this motion and do the right thing, which is to stand up for the environment and ensure that we continue with affordability for Canadians.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 5:12:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has made it very clear that it is 80%, and the biggest benefactors are seniors, many children and those in smaller homes.
However, this is something that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to take away. It is something they do not talk about, but that is the reality. Whenever we hear a member from the Conservative Party say that they are going to axe the tax, we need to realize that they would be taking money out of the pockets of 80% of homes, and I can guarantee that in the riding of Winnipeg North.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 5:44:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:58 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is interesting subject matter. I do not believe it would be in our best interest, ultimately, to see Bill S-242 pass. I understand that the Bloc in particular came up with an alternative idea of having the matter brought forward to a standing committee. I do believe there is a great deal of merit in that.
What we are talking about is an issue that I think there would be a great deal of sympathy toward. I care deeply about rural Manitoba, and at the end of the day, whether one is north of Dauphin or in any region in the province of Manitoba, we would like to deliver a modern spectrum that would incorporate rural connectivity. I think that is really important, and it is very admirable to see what we can do as a House to better facilitate that maximum connection. I do not believe that the bill itself would achieve that. I think it could add a great many complications and there could be some side effects that members would not necessarily want to see, like the billions of dollars in licences that have already been given out over the last decade and how that could potentially be jeopardizing. There are some very well-defined timelines that are being incorporated into the legislation.
I do not think that would be the intent of what the mover was suggesting. I think the intent is wanting to see more rural connectivity, like I do. That is why I think the INDU standing committee is well positioned. I believe it might actually be initiating a study on it now. I would like to allow that standing committee to continue to do the study, and hopefully we can come up with some good ideas as to how we can achieve two things: dealing with spectrum deployment and meeting the needs of rural connectivity. To me, a big part of it is about the infrastructure. We need to recognize that we need more infrastructure in our rural communities. I had the good fortune of being able to acquire a relatively modest cottage in Sandy Hook, between Winnipeg Beach and Gimli. Even though it is only 45 minutes away from the city of Winnipeg, there are some connectivity problems there. We now see fibre optics being brought into more rural communities in Manitoba.
Interestingly enough, the other day I was talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. One of the projects through the Canada Infrastructure Bank is rural connectivity. The point is that whether it is the private sector or government working and encouraging this through the possible spectrum auctions that take place, we should be doing what we can to encourage connectivity. That is why I was glad to see the Canada Infrastructure Bank had that as a project. Manitoba is not alone; it is one province that is actually dealing with some of the infrastructure through that particular bank. I am hoping the Conservatives might change their opinions on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, especially if they take a look at all the different projects out there.
Why is connectivity so important? I believe it is one of the ways in which we can ensure ongoing rural economic diversity. We can look at what is on the web today. There are a number of small businesses. We often hear about small businesses being the backbone of Canada's economy. I go to some smaller workshops and community gatherings where there are small business entrepreneurs getting their businesses up and running.
One of the things we will always find on their business cards is a QR code, which we can take a picture of to go to their website, where we will find amazing products being sold through the Internet. The nice thing about this is that we can live anywhere and do not have to be in the big cities, whether it be Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto, Vancouver or wherever. The Internet can play an important role in levelling the field, providing opportunities for people in rural communities that were never there before. I see that as a positive thing.
When we talk about the issue of spectrum deployment and going forward, I think that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, or INDU, is doing its job in coming up with some ideas and recommendations of how we can incorporate these ideas when we do auction off spectrum so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. People would be surprised by the number of communities where a dial tone is virtually the best they are going to get in terms of speed, it would seem, at times.
The need to move on this is important, but I do not believe that Bill S-242 is going to advance the cause to the degree some might imply. In fact, it could be the opposite and could cause more damage. For that reason, I will not be supporting the bill. I would encourage members to go to the INDU committee and let us see it do some wonderful work and come up with some recommendations, because I am sure that it will.
865 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
