Debates of Sept. 26th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised my hon. colleague mentioned the investment tax credits. We know that Biden used them in his first year and they created hundreds of thousands of jobs. There were billions of dollars of investment. There is a complete clean-energy revolution taking place in California, Texas and across the United States, yet the investment tax credits that were promised two years ago by the Liberal government are nowhere to be seen.

Europe is taking off, and others in the G7 are taking off, yet the government is still talking about investment tax credits when they are nowhere to be seen. The government literally moved mountains to get $34 billion into the hands of Suncor and Imperial for the TMX pipeline, yet clean-energy tax credits are still nowhere to be seen. Why have the Liberals failed on this simple task?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I continue to support and will always support energy workers in Canada while we continue to grow non-renewable energy supply. We need to move energy to markets, and that is what we should and will do in Canada.

Second, the ITCs are in place in legislation. There was a $10-billion investment by Dow and a $2-billion investment by Linde in Alberta, in hydrogen. I visited the first hydrogen facility in Ontario, and it was remarkable to see the technological transformation that is and will be taking place within our transportation system across this country.

Canada is uniquely positioned for the green economy of today and the future. I am excited. We are the best country in the world.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the motion. I did not have the opportunity to speak on Tuesday to a very similar motion, and I am really glad to be able to do it today because I think that a lot of my comments will be the same.

My speech today will definitely focus on the issue through which the Conservatives are requesting no confidence in the government. Then I would also like to talk a little bit about the NDP and where I see some hypocrisy, unfortunately, that has been coming out of our former colleagues in a supply and confidence agreement.

Conservatives have set up a narrative, and we have heard it many times today already, based on the price on pollution and trying to blame everything on that. I know why they did it. It is easy to do it, and, quite honestly, they have been effective at doing it. They are trying to sell Canadians on the idea that the reason we have higher inflation and have cost of living issues is that they are a direct result of the carbon tax. That has been their objective.

However, I will just point out very quickly that inflation is back where it should be, at 2%, yet we still have the price on pollution, the carbon tax. Therefore the whole narrative has lost a lot of steam, particularly in the last few weeks and months since inflation numbers have been coming down. That does not stop the continual narrative. We heard it again this morning from Conservative members.

The reality is that more people get back more than they pay. This is the way the system is set up. For people in a backstop province, all the money is collected and then equally distributed back to households based on household size. Eight out of 10 households in backstop jurisdictions get back more than they pay. That is a given fact.

What is even more important is that 94% of households that have an income of less than $50,000 a year, which for a whole household is not a lot, get back more than they pay. Again, this is just a fact. When Conservatives try to argue to axe the tax because then suddenly people are going to be instantly better off, it is just not true. A majority of people are better off with the Canada carbon rebate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know I am touching on the truth and hitting a nerve when Conservatives heckle me on this point, because they always do that. However, it is a fact.

I have said to the House before, and I will say it again to those who might be listening at home and to those who are in the House, that I did the math myself for my own family. I looked at our Enbridge gas bill, which is the only thing we pay a carbon tax on. I added up all the carbon taxes for 2023. My wife and I drive electric hybrid vehicles, but I asked what the average Canadian uses in gas per year. I assumed we were using gas, as I did not want to throw off the equation by not having to pay the carbon tax on electricity that we are powering our cars with.

When I did that, I came to the conclusion that in 2023, I paid about $805 or $810, if I remember my calculations correctly, on the carbon tax. My rebate, not what the government told me I was going to get but what I saw when I actually looked at my bank statement, the four deposits in 2023, added up to about $865. Right off the bat I knew that my household was better off. We got back more than we paid.

A lot of people will ask how that is possible. How can the majority get back more than they pay? It is because the two out of 10 households, which might have many more vehicles, boats or other luxury items, are definitely going to be paying more than they get back. That is who the Conservatives are protecting. That is who they are really looking out for. They are looking out for the two out of 10 Canadians who are getting back more. The Conservatives will sell it as though who they are really looking out for are the lowest-income Canadians, but that is simply not the truth.

I really started to feel a sense of disbelief, but not when the leader of the NDP decided that he wanted to get out of the supply and confidence agreement, because I think that we all knew that would happen at one time or another, although I thought it was premature. I thought we still had a good year left to solidify a lot of these social programs that we had to make sure that they were there for a long time. What really bothered me was when, a few days later, he started to backtrack on the price on pollution, the carbon tax, basically saying that it was hurting Canadians.

What it showed me in that moment, and what I think it showed a lot of Canadians, is that the leader of the NDP does not have the ability to stand up to the Leader of the Opposition. He did a great job standing up to a protester outside of these doors just last week. I just wish he could stand up to the Leader of the Opposition like that. I know that the leader of the NDP believes in a price on pollution. I will prove in a moment that he and his colleagues definitely do not believe that the price on pollution has contributed to inflation and the hardships of Canadians, even though the leader of the NDP said that. Why can he not stand up to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, the same way that he was able to stand up to a protester outside, to stand up for what is right?

I will tell members what I recall. I went around and did some digging as soon as I saw the NDP start to flip-flop on the price on pollution. On June 13 of this year, just before the House left for the summer break, the member for Edmonton Strathcona said, “the carbon tax does not impact the price of food to nearly the extent the member is saying. It is minuscule.” She goes on to say, “economists, journalists and members of Parliament have made it very clear that the carbon tax is not what is responsible for the cost of food increasing so much.” My question to the member from Edmonton Strathcona, and I hope she asks me a question after I am finished, is this: How did she respond when the NDP leader suddenly said the price on pollution is negatively impacting Canadians?

I have pages and pages of examples, but since I am talking about the member for Edmonton Strathcona, I will tell the members something else that she said. On May 30, she quoted an economics professor who said, “‘A clear majority of households do receive rebates that are larger than the carbon taxes they pay for.... If we got rid of the carbon tax and the rebate, then this would harm a much larger fraction of lower- and middle-income households than it would higher-income households.’” That is right. She basically said, on May 30, what I just said the Conservatives are doing.

They are trying to appease the two out of 10. They are selling it as though they are appeasing the eight out of 10, but they are really trying to put more money back in the pockets of the two out of 10. The member for Edmonton Strathcona knows that. She agreed with it and spoke to it. Then she had to watch her party's leader go out and say that he came to the conclusion that the carbon tax and the rebates are not actually helping Canadians more than they are hurting them. This is position that we find ourselves in. I am very glad to see that the NDP and the Bloc are continuing to be the adults in the room, recognizing the stunt that the Leader of the Opposition did.

Did members notice the fanfare that existed on Tuesday when the Conservatives had their opposition motion? It is so dead now. It is totally deflated because of what happened yesterday with the vote. They do not have nearly the energy as they did then. We have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition on this motion yet. I do not even know if he will speak to it at some point today. The point is, it is all a game for them. I know the NDP knows it was a game for them, yet somehow they caved to the pressure. I want to understand how the NDP got to that point.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way commented on how much carbon tax an individual is getting back, and some are getting more back than they are actually paying. However, what about the hospitals? What about the municipalities? What about the schools? The government has charged all of those publicly funded entities a carbon tax.

The government started this all through COVID, and then had a program that was supposed to retrofit, but it cancelled that program at the end of COVID. Could the member please explain that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can explain that.

Obviously, the member does not know how it works because individuals do not get money back. Households get money back, so the money back is for a household. However, the member asked a good question, and I think his question deserves an answer.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should stop talking to listen to me because I will directly answer his question.

The answer to his question is that, when we put a price on something, it incentivizes people to make different choices in the marketplace. The member talked about institutions, schools, etc. As an example, CHEO ended up getting a million-dollar grant, which it used to install heat pumps. Does the member understand what is going on here? This is how we shape and change market behaviour.

I always find it remarkable that I have to explain to Conservatives how market mechanisms work and how we have to put a price on something to change behaviour, as though it is the first time they have ever heard of it in their entire lives. We have countless examples. CHEO is just one. People and organizations are going to use these opportunities to find other ways. CHEO did it by installing heat pumps, and now its carbon footprint is much less than it was before.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member was quoting me quite a bit in his speech, and I am flattered that he pays so much attention to what I think are very smart interventions in the House. I am pleased to have him acknowledge that to some degree.

I think everyone here understands what has happened with the carbon tax, which is that it has not only been weaponized with huge amounts of misinformation being spread by the Conservative Party, but also that it has been ultimately broken by the government, the Liberal Party, because it chose who were winners and who were losers. It chose to pick people and decide on who got it waived and who did not. That is a terrible thing for a government of a country to do for political reasons.

More importantly, New Democrats are coming forward with a meaningful environmental plan that would address the climate crisis, and which would not miss every single target, like the Liberal government has. We have a climate plan that would not subsidize the oil and gas industry and that would not continue to put climate change on the back burner.

I wanted to respond to the member because he did bring forward some of my quotes. However, I think that all of us should be having a very rigorous debate in this place on how we deal with the fundamental crisis facing every single Canadian, every single human being, which is the climate crisis.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member. I know that she cares a lot about the environment. It must be a very difficult position for the member to be in given what her leader has done, and I empathize with her.

However, when she suggests that this is because there was an exemption on everybody throughout the country who uses oil, well, my response to the member would be this: Where was her voice when it happened? That was in the middle of the winter, and I did not hear any member from any NDP say, “Hold on, don't give them that exemption.” They waited until September, after their leader had made a position on the supply and confidence agreement and, honestly, caved to the pressure of the Conservatives.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

Today, we are debating the following motion:

That, given that, after nine years, the government has doubled housing costs, taxed food, punished work, unleashed crime, and is the most centralizing government in Canadian history, the House has lost confidence in the government and offers Canadians the option to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Here is a motion that is asking the House to say it does not have confidence in the government. On behalf of my constituents, I do not have confidence in the government. The easiest way to describe why I do not have confidence in the government is that it is very clear that the government has broken the promise that it has provided to people from around the world to our citizens of Canada. There is a promise of Canada that the government is honour-bound and duty-bound to uphold, and the government has broken it. More importantly, the Liberals have no plan to unbreak that promise. They really do not. I have been listening to the debate, and as the member for Edmonton Strathcona said today, the government also lacks moral clarity on many issues. Therefore, at this point, it is case closed. The House should not have confidence in the government, and here is why. I want to go back to the broken promise of Canada.

One of the things that has really impacted me and how I look at things in this place is that, in my time here, I became a mom. I am a stepmom to three kids, and I am a grandmother as well, which ages me a little bit. I am now Meemaw. Here is the thing: Much like many other people across Canada, I married somebody from a different country, from the U.S. I love my kids so much. I have watched them grow up. I have watched them go through college and trade school. I am so proud of my oldest stepdaughter. She just graduated and is an emergency room nurse now. My middle stepdaughter graduated from the University of Oklahoma. She is part of the reserve corps in the army, and she is brilliant. My youngest stepson pursued a trade and is essentially running the shop floor of a big manufacturing company in the city where he lives, and he is young.

Because my kids have been able to watch me stand up for my constituents in this place and be part of my work, the one thing that we always talk about as a family is that they have seen first-hand the promise that Canada offers. I can say to them as Americans, and this might get a little testy at Christmas dinner sometimes, that I do believe Canada is the best country in the world. When I look through my community, I see the diversity and our pluralism. What I have always seen is the promise that, if people come to Canada or are in Canada, they can do anything.

Frankly, for me right now, one of the most heartbreaking realizations I have had to come to understand is that my children cannot afford to come to this country, and I am in a position of privilege. That is just the reality. I do not say that to be partisan. I say that with absolute reality. My kids cannot afford to buy a house or rent in Canada. They just cannot. We have always talked about it. I have wanted to lure them, especially one of them who is thinking about grad school, to come here to live with us. The reality is that they just cannot afford it. For me, I am living that broken promise in a very deep way.

It is not just my family. It is so many other people in my community who have moved into Calgary Nose Hill from around the world. I had a heartbreaking conversation. I will not say exactly where, just so as not to blow her cover, but an employee from Air Canada came to me in tears, and this conversation absolutely broke my heart.

Her husband had recently passed away, and she has two children and cannot afford her rent. She is in a good job, and she said she does not know what to do. She asked me, “Where do I go?” I do not have an easy answer for that. The reality is that government members do not have an easy answer for that, in spite of doubling the national debt and increasing taxes. They do not have a plan going forward.

We all know that the government does not have a plan. We all know that the Prime Minister's head is not in the game of trying to fix the promise of Canada that he broke. He is trying to figure out what his next gig is. Is he going to lead his party through defeat or is he going to have some sort of other job? It is not me saying that. It is virtually every columnist across the country. I am just putting on the record here what the reality is in every newspaper.

The House cannot have confidence in somebody who cannot even be bothered to think about how he is going to fix the promise that he broke. It is the reason that my children do not have a clear line of sight on how they can live here, and why millions of other Canadians who are already here cannot afford to live. Is that not enough to say it is over for the government and we should not have confidence in it?

As the member for Edmonton Strathcona said, the government does not have moral clarity. I do not have a lot of time in my speech, but let us just go through some of the top scandals.

For the billionaire trip to the Aga Khan's island, the Prime Minister was found in breach of the rules by the Ethics Commissioner, found guilty, in 2017. Former finance minister Bill Morneau did not disclose his French villa. Would it not be nice to have a French villa? He also did not declare a conflict with Morneau Shepell. The former defence minister apologized for exaggerating his military record. The Prime Minister, as we all remember, had a disastrous trip to India in 2018, where he invited a convicted attempted murderer to a reception. The former fisheries minister broke the conflict of interest rules with the clam scam issue.

Then we can fast-forward to 2019, when we had the preposterous SNC-Lavalin and Jody Wilson-Raybould issue. The former environment minister gave $12 million to Loblaws for fridges in direct cash subsidies. The Prime Minister in 2019 made a sarcastic comment to a first nations woman at a fundraiser. In 2019, in the middle of the campaign, he could not tell reporters how many times he had worn blackface. He appointed a governor general who eventually resigned because of such poor vetting.

Then we had the WE Charity scandal of a billion dollars, a massive scandal and massive waste. There was a man implicated in a multi-million dollar illegal casino bust in Markham, Ontario, who had rubbed shoulders with the Prime Minister on two occasions before being arrested by police. The former defence minister was censured by MPs over a sexual harassment case in the military. The former public safety minister was unaware of the transfer of notorious murderer Paul Bernardo. The former public safety minister spent $62 million on a firearms buyback program that bought back exactly zero firearms.

I have pages more, but I only have a minute left. I will just say this. The government has lost its “why”. It has lost its ability to communicate why it is functioning outside of holding onto power, and it does not have the “how” of how it is going to fix the broken promise that was made to Canadians.

I implore colleagues to see that it is time. The House environment is deteriorating rapidly. We need an election. We need an election now.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am a mom too; I have two children. I came to this place to fight for a clean environment for them and for generations to come. Because of the work of our government, we have lowered emissions to the lowest they have been in 25 years, getting the equivalent of 62 million cars off the road. We prevented an increase of 41%, which we would have had if we had done nothing.

When will there be a plan from the member's side of the House that can address the same concerns that we have for our children, a plan for the climate crisis that impacts all of us? By the way, it is the biggest factor in the price of food right now.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the record. According to Environment Canada reports, the lowest emissions in recent Canadian history occurred under the Harper government.

Second, the Liberal government's dogmatic adherence to the carbon tax does not function in Canada because of the lack of substitute goods. Carbon is price-inelastic in Canada. Because the government has been so focused on increasing the price of everything for everybody, it has stopped innovation in technologies and other types of programs that could reduce emissions, like, for example, having more public transit, as in the Green Line debacle in my riding, which the federal government has absolutely failed on as well. Because it has been so dogmatically attached to the carbon tax, it has made the climate crisis worse in Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk about people who need help. She said that we need to help the most vulnerable. Does she include oil companies among the people or companies that really need help? Money from the Liberal government or previous Conservative governments—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I am going to speak. The member may continue her intervention during questions and comments.

Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on September 18 by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and September 19 by the member for New Westminster─Burnaby concerning disrespectful or offensive remarks. At the same time, the Chair will offer some comments on certain actions taken during the second of these sittings, as promised on Monday.

Referring to statements made during question period on September 18, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked the Chair to review the use of what she termed offensive nicknames for Canadians who are not members of the House. She suggested that this name-calling may have breached Standing Order 11(2). The member for New Westminster─Burnaby called the Chair’s attention to the enforcement of Standing Order 18, arguing that the leader of the official opposition had broken the rules by making disrespectful and offensive remarks about the members for Beloeil—Chambly and Burnaby South, as well as other members.

I will begin with the point of order raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. In this case, I must point out that Standing Orders 11 and 18 do not apply to comments directed at members of the public, but this fact should not be taken as permission to say whatever one wants about Canadians who are not elected officials—quite the contrary. In exercising their freedom of speech, members must show restraint in order to maintain a degree of civility in our debates.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 622, and I quote:

Members are discouraged from referring by name to persons who are not Members of Parliament and who do not enjoy parliamentary immunity, except in extraordinary circumstances when the national interest calls for this. The Speaker has ruled that Members have a responsibility to protect the innocent not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has suggested that Members avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply in their own defence.

However, in practice, members quite often refer to ordinary individuals in their statements, not always to praise them. For example, the names of provincial politicians, prominent persons and other public figures are regularly mentioned without causing controversy. Furthermore, members are always required to choose their words carefully when they are discussing matters pertaining to individuals who do not have an opportunity to respond to their criticisms.

As for the individual the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced in her point of order, he is quite plainly a public figure engaged in political and partisan debates. We should not be surprised that he is the subject of comment or criticism regarding past decisions or positions. So long as the tone and wording of members’ comments remain sufficiently respectful, the Chair will refrain from intervening.

While Standing Order 18 does not apply to ordinary individuals, it is quite relevant when members comment on their colleagues. Standing Order 18 states, and I quote: “No member shall...use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof”.

The Chair rose on September 19 to remind members of the purpose of question period. The Chair remains very concerned about the sequence of events that took place at that time, as well as the tendency in recent days to use overly personal criticism and insults. This tendency has been seen on both sides of the House.

As indicated on page 624 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day.... Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.

The remarks made that day by the Leader of the Opposition spawned disorder. They targeted one individual in particular, and they were excessively scornful and personal. It seems to me equally clear that, in response to such criticisms, it is unacceptable for a member to leave their seat and move toward another member. In the House, we resolve our disagreements with words, not with physical acts of this nature.

On Monday, the House unanimously took the same stance by urging “all its members to behave with civic-mindedness and respect towards their colleagues, in order to allow a truly constructive debate, in the interests of democracy and the common good.”

After last Thursday's sitting, the Chair reached out to the leader of the official opposition and the member for Burnaby South. The Chair offered them the opportunity to make amends. The member for Burnaby South did so, and he informed the Chair that he will act differently in the future. I am grateful for his commitment.

The Chair has yet to receive such an indication from the leader of the official opposition. I indicated that, failing to hear from him, I would request a formal withdrawal of his comments; otherwise the Chair would remove some questions during question period today. Party leaders have a heightened responsibility to be role models. Vigorous debate and even profound disagreement are possible without resorting to such comments or actions.

The Chair therefore invites members to be more judicious in their choice of words and behaviour. If they are not, the Chair will have no choice but to discipline those members who persist in their unparliamentary behaviour.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to briefly say that I deeply appreciate the thoughtful response to my last point of order. However, when referring to Standing Order 11(2), I was cut off by heckling and not able to direct the Speaker to the section that I thought might be relevant in the future, which is on avoiding irrelevant and repetitious speech. That seemed to be the case in the attacks on the individual we referenced.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member. I still believe the Chair's response stands.

The member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before you rose to speak to the chamber, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill still had about three minutes left of questions. We just want to know what is happening with that time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to the hon. member for Shefford to finish her question, and then we will go to the member for Calgary Nose Hill for a response.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the government

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my question shorter.

My colleague from Calgary Nose Hill talked a lot about the help that needs to be given to people who are finding the current climate a bit tough.

Does she think that the oil companies need as many credits and as much financial support as they are currently getting from this government and got from the previous government?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada needs a bright and vibrant economy in every sector, including the natural resource sector. I do not agree with the assertion of the Liberal government. The way the Liberals have addressed this issue, but completely failed, is by giving countless untold billions of dollars in waste to their corporate friends. This is, I think, what they are doing now with Mark Carney as well.

Today, in the industry committee, we tried to pass a motion to just look at the government's EV strategy, given that it has committed billions of dollars to that industry. We are seeing these companies essentially say they not going to set up shop here. So many jobs are lost, and that is such a big issue in terms of meeting Canada's climate objectives and there is no scrutiny of that.

Overall, this is why I think my colleagues should support this motion. We need to have an election so every political party can set out its vision for the country and so we can move away from the reckless Liberal government's waste.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that my hon. colleague is a grandmother. I am not accepting that this is a possibility.

She listed a number of ways we can identify that the Liberal government has lost its moral authority. However, I have to say that most Canadians must be listening to this and thinking, “Liberal, Tory, same old story”.

I can also go through an incredible list of scandals that we saw under the government she was part of, the Harper government. I think of the Senate scandals with Mike Duffy. I think of election activities where they had to plead guilty to overspending. I think of Maxime Bernier, who is a scandal all in his own right. I think of the Afghan detainees, proroguing Parliament, the contempt rulings we saw with that government and the G8 funding in Huntsville. I could go on.

How does the member expect Canadians to believe the Conservatives would be any less corrupt than the Liberals have been?