Evidence of meeting #157 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Go ahead. Perhaps you're going to answer my point of order. You were about to say something, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'm inclined—I'm looking around the room on this—to go through the list that I have and not start another list. People have been waiting, including Madame Sinclair-Desgagné. I am happy to start a third list, if you prefer.
Mr. Drouin, go ahead on your point of order.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Unless Mr. Genuis is amending the amendment of Mr. Nater.... I don't have it in writing, so I don't know if he's doing that.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I just want to clarify. If he wants a carbon tax election, then he doesn't want to meet in January, obviously.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
I'm going to proceed with the list I have.
Mr. Genuis, do you have anything else to say to this?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I do have a number of other things to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Of course, you do.
Mr. Genuis, you have the floor again.
Just to recap, it's Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, Mr. Vis, Mr. McCauley, Mr. Cannings and then Mr. Drouin.
Liberal
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Give me a second.
We're going to take the previous speaking order for the first amendment and transpose it onto the second amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Yes.
Mr. Genuis, you still have the floor, and then after you, it's Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'm sorry. You said the first amendment and the second amendment, and I thought we were in a—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
We're now on your amendment to the amendment, which is the carbon tax election.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It's the subamendment.
All right, it's on the carbon tax election amendment. I was concerned that Mr. Drouin was not accurately citing the Conservative priorities. He had them out of order. Just to clarify, for his benefit, they are axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
He wasn't really listening.
Mr. Drouin, they are axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. I think he has those now.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Those proposals are resonating so much because, in the last nine years, we have a government that has failed to axe the tax—
Liberal
December 9th, 2024 / 12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Drouin is getting it. He's getting it well.
I think there was some discussion about the timing around hearings and a possible election, so I think it's important to clarify that. This subamendment adds a proviso at the end of the first point.
Here's our position very clearly: Conservatives believe that, in the context where rent is up and crime is up, time is up. Time is up for this government. Canadians want a carbon tax election where they can vote for a new government that will axe the tax everywhere—and for good.
Liberals have been desperately resisting putting their proposals to the people of this country. We've seen, in fact, over the fall, from not just the Liberals, by the way, but the NDP. The NDP, with great fanfare in August, said they were ripping up their coalition agreement. I think it came out later that they had recorded that video about six weeks earlier, and they were getting ready to deploy it when they thought it was in their political interest to do it. Of course, they were desperate to deceive people in a Winnipeg by-election, so they claimed that they were tearing up their coalition agreement with the Liberals. After that by-election, they eagerly taped the coalition agreement back together, and we found ourselves in a situation where, despite promising the end of the relationship, they secretly moved back in together and were voting together in lockstep on every significant matter.
It's because they want to avoid a carbon tax election, an election that clearly Canadians want, an election that would allow the people of Canada to express their priorities around axing the tax, building homes, fixing the budget and stopping crime. In the absence of a carbon tax election, Conservatives have continued to do our work in Parliament, but we've also continued to push to have that carbon tax election as soon as possible.
We had my Christmas open house at my constituency office on the weekend, and I went to the Santa Claus parade in Fort Saskatchewan the day before, the Friday night. The question I kept hearing from people is this: When is the election going to come? I think there's a sense in my constituency and across the country that people are fed up with this government. They want to have that election, and they're asking me when it is finally going to come.
In that light, we have, in fact, today, a confidence motion, a motion that takes the words of the NDP leader from that infamous video where he allegedly tore up the coalition agreement. It takes his own words and gives the House of Commons an opportunity to vote non-confidence in the government simply through the application of his own words, yet the NDP leader and his team have sold out again. They've said that they will not vote in favour of the Conservative non-confidence motion.
We will continue to push for a carbon tax election, but it seems that, in light of the sentiments of Canadians at the moment, it's hard to get a group of turkeys to vote for Christmas, as they say. The Liberals and the New Democrats want to avoid a carbon tax election because they are fairly certain what the verdict of the Canadian people would be, so they are trying to put it off as long as they can.
This is why I think that the timeline here needs to specify that, when it comes to determining when the work of this committee could resume, it would be either after January 6 or after a carbon tax election.
Obviously, the committee cannot meet, wouldn't meet, in the middle of an election because the nature of our processes is that, when an election takes place, Parliament dissolves. We are formally no longer members of Parliament during the period of the election. We are candidates for election again, and the Parliament doesn't exist. The government continues to exist. The executive continues to be responsible for matters that may come up from time to time, but the Parliament doesn't exist.
I suspect that, on some of these very serious matters, such as the very devastating “Report 8: Canada Emergency Business Account”, they are the sorts of things where, whatever the shape of the next Parliament, there would be value in our coming back to them at that time. This is why I am proposing this subamendment, which kind of develops on the very good work proposed in the amendment by my colleague.
Chair, I think we need to have a carbon tax election. Canadians need to be able to decide, and the work of the committee should be able to continue.
With that, I'll cede the floor and maybe you can add me to the list again. There are a few more things I want to say, but I do see it's one o'clock now, so I think we're maybe close to time.
Thanks.
