Daniel Blaikie

[Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56, November 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to today's motion. As will come as a surprise to nobody in this place, Canada is facing a housing crisis. It is not a recent housing crisis but, as time passes, it gets worse and worse.

My father used to offer an anecdote regularly, particularly when talking about the environmental crisis we are facing. He would talk about lily ponds. One of the features of the growth of lily pads is that they grow exponentially.

It starts with one and then, the next day, there are two and, the next day, there are four. The lesson, both for the environmental crisis, and I do not want to diminish that in any way, and also for the housing crisis and where we find ourselves in the housing crisis, is that the day before the entire pond is full of lily pads, it is only half full.

To a spectator who does not know anything about exponential rates of growth for lily pads on the lake, they might come by the lake and say, “There is a lot of lake there. There is lots of time. Certainly, the lily pads are coming in but it is not that bad. We still have half the lake.”

As I say, there is an important lesson when it comes to the environment and the climate crisis we are facing and the accelerating rate of change. It is also important to understand the housing crisis. We are now at the point where the lake is full. We do not have any more time to act. We have to start repairing the situation right away.

There is the sense of urgency. It is why, when we came back to the House after summer, we were pleased to see the government had an idea that it wanted to move forward with respect to housing, something new and tangible that New Democrats and many stakeholders have been calling for for a long time, which was to eliminate the GST on purpose-built rentals.

For our side, we wanted to see that done as part of a comprehensive housing strategy. We certainly do not agree that what the Liberals have called a national housing strategy since 2015 is that. It is clear that it is missing many components and that even the components that are there have not been effective in meeting the challenge that we face in Canada.

We were glad to see the government taking some good ideas from stakeholders and, indeed, from the NDP, saying that it is something that it wants to move forward on.

Our problem was that we knew, with respect to the changes to the Competition Act, that they were inadequate. We know this because our own leader, the member for Burnaby South, has done a lot of work on the Competition Act and proposed a suite of changes to the Competition Act right around the same time.

We wanted to see the changes proposed to the Competition Act and Bill C-56 take the stronger tone that our leader has taken. Our leader does not shy away from taking that tone when it comes to talking back to corporate Canada and letting it know that we see the role of government as requiring it to do right by Canadians, not exploiting its market position to gouge Canadians.

That is something we are not shy about and we believe the government should not be shy about it. It is why we run to form a government that is not shy about taking corporate greed to task.

In the meantime, we want to get as much done in that regard as we can, working with the Parliament that Canadians elected.

There was work to do on strengthening the Competition Act provision. When it came to housing, we wanted to see a more comprehensive strategy and more initiatives, particularly to focus on building more non-market units in Canada.

No matter how many market units are created, there are going to be a lot of people who cannot afford or cannot access those market units. When we build non-market units, whether that is in co-op housing or whether that is social housing, where rent is geared to income, or whether it is investing in projects alongside the private market, to ensure that there are at least some suites that have a below-market value, whatever the combination of those things is, we know that this also helps relieve pressure on the housing market.

There are people who are sacrificing their prescription drugs and food in order to pay market rent. When they get an option to be able to rent a home that meets the needs of their family and allows them to have money left over for essentials like food and medicine, that frees up market units for those who can afford them but may, nevertheless, be struggling to access them.

One glaring oversight in Bill C-56 was that it excluded, without any good reason, co-operative housing from getting a break on the GST for purpose-built rentals. That was something we definitely needed to fix, and we have received a commitment from the government to fix it at committee, along with some changes to strengthen the Competition Act.

All we have to do is look at the latest case of the Rogers-Shaw merger to know how frustrating it is for our Competition Bureau to do its job. It could not compel evidence from Rogers or Shaw, which would change here, as the Competition Bureau would be empowered to require certain kinds of evidence from the folks they are investigating. This would also mean that when the commissioner of competition believes a market study is required, the bureau would be able to embark upon it on its own initiative, something we think is very important. We also argued for tougher fines for companies that break the rules, and tougher fines not just generally but also for recidivist corporations that do not learn the lesson the first time. Those penalties would increase to deter companies from continuing to do things they know full well they should not be doing. The government has agreed to this suite of changes, and we will continue to press.

Another thing we think ought to have been included here in respect of the GST exemption were projects that had already received a commitment of some kind of funding through the various programs of the national housing strategy. We know that not enough projects are getting funded under that strategy as it is, but some of the ones that have been funded have been put on hold. Why? It is because of rising interest rates. That means for a project to proceed, people have to find more money. They either have to do that through private fundraising, which is very challenging to do at the best of times, or have to increase the amount from government grants in a project. They could benefit from the GST exemption as well, and we do not think they should be excluded just because a project started before September 14 of this year.

We think extending the GST rebate to non-profit housing projects that the government has already agreed to fund to make projects work, after a year of punishing interest rate increases, is a small thing the government can do to ensure that people out there in our communities, who are already doing great work to build housing that Canadians can afford, do not have work stymied by rising interest rates and can see something in their budget that makes it work. Removing the GST is the simplest way to do that.

The government will collect no GST from these projects if they do not move forward, because the business case is being ruined by rising interest rates. We think waiving the GST for projects that are otherwise not going ahead is a very low-cost way to ensure that the government delivers on promises it has already made by allocating funding to the projects that have stopped because of circumstances beyond their control. That is not a fight we are prepared to give up on. It is something we think should be happening, and we are going to continue to argue for it.

However, we are not insensitive to the fact that a lot of folks have announced that they want to move forward with new purpose-built rentals as a result of the GST rebate the government is offering in Bill C-56. We know that we are already well past the time to contemplate how to act. We know this is a demand that stakeholders in the housing industry, whether they advocate for market-based housing or non-market-based housing, have talked about as a way to pencil out projects, so it is something we need to move forward with.

There was an opportunity to move forward quicker if debate on the bill had collapsed, but of course it is not collapsing because no debate on bills is collapsing in this place. The official opposition sees to that daily, whether it is by moving motions to take time away from dealing with government business or by putting up speakers ad infinitum. It ensures that we need some kind of time allocation or closure just to get to the point of having a vote on a bill.

When we are talking about a crisis that is in full swing and the need to build more market housing and non-market housing, New Democrats are prepared to work with the government to move the bill through far more quickly than it has been. We will use the opportunity here to improve the bill, as we believe it is our duty to do.

We would go further if we could, but there is only so far we can go with the Liberal government, apparently. However, we are willing to test how far we can go every day of the week and are going to keep fighting for the things we think are very important, including fighting for new announcements in the fall economic statement around housing that make more funding available for organizations that want to pursue non-market housing, and offering financing on better terms for those who want to build more rental housing in the market but are struggling to make projects work from a financial point of view because of rising interest rates.

That is a bit about why we think Bill C-56 is important, how New Democrats have worked hard in this place over the last couple of months to improve the bill, what we are going to continue to fight for and why we think, now that we have reached some agreement on improving the bill, it is important to move it forward. The contractors out there waiting to pick up the shovel and put it in the ground need the deal done on the GST and want to see it move ahead. We think it is important that it move ahead. We think it is important those units come to market and Canadians have the opportunity to rent them. We want to see them come to market in sufficient volume so there is a lowering of their price.

We know that is going to take time, but delay will not help. We have been delaying already for too long, certainly for eight years under the current government, which is after 10 years of delay and no meaningful action in the housing market from the previous government, and even longer before then, going back to the mid-nineties, when the national housing strategy was cancelled and we saw the federal government completely walk away from building social housing units in Canada. That is when the first lily pad started hitting the pond, so to speak, and it has taken us 30 years to see the pond fill, with really no more time to wait to enact important solutions.

Is there more the government can do? Absolutely. We want to see it get rid of the special tax treatment that real estate investment trusts enjoy. We want to see it take action to make sure that non-profits with experience and a great track record of delivering non-market housing in our communities have access to capital so that when buildings with low rents come on the market, they have an opportunity to bid on those buildings and have the money to close a deal successfully to make that happen. The term of art for that is a non-profit acquisition fund. It is a fancy term, but all it means is making sure the non-profit housing providers in our communities, which are already doing a great job, have the opportunity to run low-rent apartment blocks when the current owners do not want to do it anymore, instead of having a corporate landlord come in, superficially renovate the building, kick everyone else out and invite tenants with higher incomes to rent suites that were formerly homes for Canadians who cannot afford luxury rent prices.

Those are some of the things we think the government ought to be doing. We are not going to get them all done in one bill, but we managed to improve what is in this bill, and we think it should hurry along so we can bring more units to market.

[Committees of the House, November 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in a previous Parliament, the member for Edmonton West and I did a lot of work on what was at that time called vote 40, which had all the appearances of a Liberal slush fund. We did some good work together to hold them to account for that.

We do not hear this as much in the chamber anymore, but at that time it was common to hear the phrase “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. I wonder if the member for Edmonton West remembers who it was who would so often utter that phrase and what that would mean in this case.

[Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, November 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying a big thanks to the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Electoral reform is an important issue in Canada and it is important we keep it an issue on Parliament Hill. By choosing to move ahead with this motion, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has caused us to be talking about it on the floor of the House and brought it to the attention of all members.

That is something the Prime Minister was hoping would not happen after he crassly broke his promise after throwing out a great set of recommendations by a special committee on parliamentary reform that was set up, notwithstanding the fact it was a majority government at that time, on a proportional basis. Opposition parties at that time came together in a way the government frankly did not expect and did find a path forward for electoral reform, one the government quickly threw in the bin.

I do not want to repeat all the arguments I have made elsewhere on the record and the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith eloquently made today about the nature of representation in Parliament, which is surely a very important argument. She presented some facts and figures about the ways that Canadians are not adequately represented, whether it is women or different racial minorities in Canada. People living with disabilities are not adequately represented in the chamber. She also talked about some of the disillusionment with politics that is occurring and a sense by people that their vote does not really count, or that they have to vote against what they do not want instead of voting for what they do want.

Those are all themes that, as people who knock on doors and talk to people about political engagement, we are very aware of. It is not a limited phenomenon in Canada. It is one of the reasons voter engagement is going down in Canada instead of up, as people feel more alienated from the system. Surely, the Prime Minister breaking what was a very clear promise in the 2015 election was an important moment for many Canadians, and unfortunately, not a positive one. It was not one that drew people to politics. It was not one that caused people to feel that when politicians make promises and rally behind them there is the promised outcome on the other end of that.

That is why it is important now to put the emphasis on a citizens' assembly, because there is a fair amount of broken trust, a trust the Prime Minister himself is responsible for having broken. It was not just once, though. It was not just after the 2015 election and the subsequent report by the special committee and the crass kind of dismissal of that report. He did it again recently after Liberal Party members passed a resolution at their own convention calling for an examination of the electoral process and a move away from the first-past-the-post system.

The Prime Minister came out the very next day to talk about this. The convention was not even over and he was already talking about how that would not proceed and there was no consensus. It is very easy to stand up and say there is no consensus when one is the person who is getting in the way of there being a consensus.

Opposition parties, in the 42nd Parliament, showed that even between parties as disparate and which disagree even on the matter of electoral reform to the extent Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats and Greens sometimes do disagree on these matters, and if we each were able to pick our ideal system it probably would not be the same system, we nevertheless worked together to form a majority consensus on that committee.

Opposition parties in Canada showed very clearly where there is a will there is a way. The person who has been standing in the way of that consensus, and the only reason there is not a consensus on how to move forward, is the Prime Minister. He has refused to accept the consensus other parties have shown that they are able to come to in order to move forward on this most important issue.

Why is it that the Prime Minister says there should be no consensus? Why is it he does not agree? It is because he says that proportional representation is divisive. Let us take a look at what the first-past-the-post system has created in this place. Is it a place of unity? Is it a place of respectful discourse? No, it is a place of incredible division, where we are routinely saturated with misrepresentations like, for instance, that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition.

There is a supply and confidence agreement. It is published online. Anyone who wants the details of that can go online; it is a fully transparent document. We have shown time and time again, whether it is on a public inquiry on foreign interference or just recently on the Conservatives' own carbon tax motion, we are prepared to disagree with the government and not support it on important issues of the day. Why? It is because we are not the government. We are not a part of that government.

We are willing to work with the government on issues like dental care and increasing funding for housing, and a number of other things that are in the supply and confidence agreement, which Canadians right now who are watching can google and read online. That much is true.

Do the Conservatives say in French that there is an NDP-Liberal coalition? Not any more, because it does not suit their political interests. Instead, they say that there is a Liberal-Bloc coalition.

When members are speaking English, they often call it an NDP-Liberal coalition. When they are speaking French, they call it a Bloc-Liberal coalition. Which is it? It has to be one or the other if we are talking about a government made up of two political parties.

However, the truth is that it is neither. The Bloc is not in a coalition with the government, and we are not in a coalition with the government. We just voted with the Conservatives again on an important issue of the day: expanding the pause on the carbon tax to avoid regional division within the carbon pricing system. Is that a Conservative-NDP coalition? It is not, but I suppose we could call it that.

Thus, there is a Liberal-NDP coalition and there is a Conservative-NDP coalition. There is a Bloc-Liberal coalition, and I have seen the Bloc vote with the Conservatives; surely that is a coalition, so I guess there is a Conservative-Bloc coalition. I watched, on an important matter of democracy that had to do with abuses of confidences and prorogation in the House, the Liberals and Conservatives stand up together to maintain the power of the Prime Minister to shut this place down. That was a Liberal-Conservative coalition, I guess. We just call it a coalition any time parties happen to agree on any issue. When I voted in Parliament with the Conservatives on Bill C-2 to disallow the wage subsidy to companies that were paying dividends, perhaps that was a coalition. When I worked with the member for Sarnia—Lambton on important pension reform, and the Bloc was part of that, I suppose that was a coalition. Who is running the country? It depends I guess what vote one decides to use to evaluate who is running the country.

My point in all of this is that the first-past-the-post system sure as heck has not created a more unified body politic. It has not stopped division; in fact, it has encouraged it, because of what motivates the dishonest portrayal of the confidence and supply agreement between the NDP and Liberals, or sometimes the Bloc and the Liberals, as I said, if one is speaking in French. It depends on the day. The Conservative leader, of course, is not who he says he is. He is one guy in French and another guy in English. Never mind; there are other examples but I will not go on, because I want to bring it back to the motion.

The fact of the matter is that Conservatives are misrepresenting the truth on any day of the week, because they are chasing 40% of the vote. It is because we have an electoral system in this country where one can fight tooth and nail, and not to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Canadians, but just to get 40% or even 39% of the vote of Canadians. These are Canadians who, despite being disgusted with the state of political discourse, still show up to vote. However, if one can get 39% of those votes, and if one can use dishonesty and other misrepresentation to drive well-meaning Canadians away from polling stations, then one can get 100% of the power with just 39% of the votes.

The culprit in all of this is the Prime Minister, who refuses to accept that our voting system encourages division. It is simply untrue to say that a proportional system would sow more division and discontent than we see in our current system. We could not pack more into an electoral system in terms of division and nasty politics than we are seeing in Canadian politics today. Yes, the Conservative leader is responsible for his fair share of that, but the motion before us is one of the things that we could do structurally in order to encourage better behaviour and more collaboration between parties despite the fact that they disagree. I am proud of the fact that New Democrats have been modelling collaboration with both the Liberals and the Conservatives, depending on the issue. We want a system that encourages that, rather than one that encourages the opposite.

I think we have a lot of evidence to say that preserving the current voting system is not standing up against divisive, nasty politics. In Canada today, it is precisely the opposite, which is why we should support the motion from the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

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.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

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.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

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.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

Some Conservatives may not fit under their desk, but it does not stop them from trying—

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

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—

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

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.

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, following the question from the member for Winnipeg Centre, you commented on the use of mock titles. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that “NDP-Liberal government” or “Liberal-NDP coalition” are also mocks titles. If you need evidence, we now have the same members referring to a Liberal-separatist coalition. They did not call it a coalition when they voted with the Liberals on Motion No. 79.

They are raising the question of—