House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2025, with 63% of the vote.
National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act November 6th, 2023
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am struggling to find any kind of link between what the member is talking about and the bill that is before the House right now. We have had a number of opportunities to discuss the subject that he is trying to discuss but, right now, we are talking about this bill.
Perhaps you could encourage him to get back to the subject at hand.
Petitions November 6th, 2023
Madam Speaker, once again, I have another petition on the same subject. They keep coming into my office. This petition has to do with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Petitioners identify what is well known in terms of the impacts of climate change in Canada, including flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures. They are quite aware of the Government of Canada's commitment to reducing global warming to 1.5°C. They specifically call on the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.
Public Safety November 6th, 2023
Mr. Speaker, on that same point, I just want to confirm that at no time when the mace has been on the table have I ever taken a video in the House. I am fully aware of the rules.
Points of Order November 3rd, 2023
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, my understanding is that it is entirely appropriate to say that what someone is saying is false. What is not permitted is to call somebody a liar in the House.
Madam Speaker, if you are not prepared to rule on this right now, perhaps you should reflect on that and come back at a later time. The comments the member from the Bloc brought up are extremely germane to this, and I would hate to see us rush into making a ruling right now without proper reflection because it is very important.
Points of Order November 3rd, 2023
Mr. Speaker, I have another supplemental to the decision that you will ultimately be ruling on.
I listened with great interest to the comments made my colleague from my neighbouring riding. I would draw to your attention that what he is saying is not entirely true. I would encourage you, in your ruling on this, to review the question from the member for South Shore—St. Margarets because he specifically asked a question of a Liberal member. He did not ask a question of the government. He did not ask a question specifically about policy. He was asking a Liberal member.
I hope you will take this, along with all of the other information that you have received, to properly review it and provide a response to this House in due course.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2023
Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can help the member understand, because she thinks that EV batteries will spontaneously explode and does not think that electric cars work in the winter. If that is where I am starting from when trying to help somebody understand something about environmental impact, I do not think I am in a good place, and I probably will not be successful.
What I will say is this. When we talk about why we are doing this specifically, despite the fact she probably will not understand, it is because we know that oil is the dirtiest form of energy and we need to get off of it. What we are trying to do is give relief to Canadians so they have the ability to move toward a heat pump, which is astronomically cleaner than oil. That is the objective here.
Conservatives always like to talk about half of the equation. They like to completely leave out the other half, and the other half is helping people transition to heat pumps.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2023
Madam Speaker, if only I had more time. I could go on about this for a while.
What I will say is this. When we look at the rising costs at the pumps right now, 2¢ a litre over the last year is attributed to a price on pollution and 18¢ a litre is attributed to the wholesale margins, in other words, the profits for the wholesalers. Conservatives should be nine times as outraged by the profits being made by oil companies right now as opposed to the price on pollution, but where are they? They are absolutely silent, never once getting up to talk about the extreme price gouging that is going on. I think it is shameful because they are making an intentional, deliberate attempt to look for political ammunition.
The member said something very good at the beginning of his question, which was that Conservatives like to talk. I would say, yes, they do like to talk, and that is where it ends.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2023
Madam Speaker, I hit a nerve.
The member for Kings—Hants spoke earlier to this issue. He is from Atlantic Canada.
I can guarantee one thing. We will fill all of our spots, unlike when we had a debate earlier about India potentially being involved in the assassination of a Canadian. Do members remember that? Not a single Conservative stood up to speak. Every single Liberal spot today will be filled with a Liberal speaking.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2023
Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will be speaking shortly. He is from the Prairies.
The member makes this suggestion that only a chosen few are speaking on this measure, and then he says—
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2023
Madam Speaker, despite the fact that it may have been heckling, the member's contribution was so good that I think we should have made an exception on this one occasion.
I find it interesting that the member for Saskatoon West said, “Let us call a spade a spade”, right after he did not answer a single question he was asked. He just pivoted and went to a completely different place. I asked him about something in his speech, and rather than address the question, he totally went off and started talking about heat pumps, which I did not even hear him talk about in his speech.
This just goes to the point that I will be making in my comments, which is the fact that this is all about Conservative hypocrisy. Before I go any further, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.
I find it very fascinating. At the heart of this is the issue of the price on pollution, and the reason I find it so difficult is that I feel as though, once again, it is Groundhog Day. I have given a similar speech many times before. I am talking about the same hypocrisy that comes from Conservatives in the House. What we repeatedly see is Conservative after Conservative standing up against a policy that they all ran on; some of them did so not once, but twice. Some members in here, 19 members, who ran and were elected in the 2008 election and are still here today, ran cap and trade.
Cap and trade is just another form of pricing pollution; it is just done slightly differently. However, the Conservatives ran on it. Again, of course, just in the most recent election, they ran under Erin O'Toole as their leader with their signature platform titled “The Man with the Plan”. They talked about how they were going to put a price on pollution, but rather than just giving the money back to Canadians, which is what we are doing, they would put the money into a special carbon savings account. Then, depending on how much a person grew that account, they could go out and qualify for different rewards. I imagine there would be some form of catalogue, and people would look through it, just as one would with Air Miles. Depending on how much they had built up in that carbon fund, they could get some really good prizes. Maybe they could get a really nice bicycle or something. However, if they had not spent a lot and had not built up a lot in that carbon account, they might get a smaller prize as a result.
Despite the fact that it would have been pricing pollution, the problem with that plan is that it actually incentivized people to use carbon and have a larger carbon footprint. The larger the carbon footprint a person had, the more credits they would build into this carbon account, so they could get even better prizes at the end. Their plan was immensely flawed, and our party, and all parties in this House, would never support something like that.
That is what they ran on most recently, in 2021. In 2008, 18 of them also ran on “The True North Strong and Free: Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians”. In that, as I previously mentioned, Stephen Harper outlined how his newly formed government, if elected, would bring in cap and trade. It was revolutionary at the time, at least for North America, because it was just a handful of states in the United States; Ontario, which came along a bit after that; and Quebec, which had also signed on, that were part of this North American version of cap and trade among a number of jurisdictions.
Did Stephen Harper actually implement that and put in that price on pollution? No, he did not. He completely abandoned it once he had the opportunity. However, the point is that 19 Conservatives who currently sit on that side of the House ran on that in 2008.
The hypocrisy is even better than that, because a number of the Conservative members sitting in the House right now actually sat previously in legislatures that had adopted pricing pollution. To take it a step further, they have comments in the official records of those legislatures, where they actually commit to pricing pollution.
There are many options, but I will start with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, now a Conservative member of Parliament in this federal House. He said, while sitting in the provincial legislature in B.C.:
In 2008, our government made the decision to implement a tax on carbon. It was designed to help British Columbia reduce greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time be fair to hard-working families.
A Conservative member said that, which is literally what we are saying.
We did not even come up with that material; the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge did. He ran on it. He said that in the provincial legislature. He also went on to say:
I know that the member for Vancouver-Kensington made a comment about it and tried to blame it on the federal government, as far as revenue neutrality. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have the option of how we wanted to bring this about, as far as a carbon tax. Our policy—it's law—is to put it back into the pockets of taxpayers.
This is not a Liberal saying this; it is a current sitting member of the House in the Conservative Party who said this. Now, suddenly, he can just blindly abandon his values and principles, in terms of how he at least felt while in the provincial legislature, to follow the lead of the alt-right leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of what is going on.
I am always really amazed when Conservatives try to suggest that Liberals are gagged in terms of their ability to speak, when example after example comes from that side of the House.
It does not end there. There were two other members who were in the Quebec legislature and voted in favour of pricing pollution: the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. Both of them sat in the provincial legislature and voted in favour and helped adopt pricing pollution in Quebec.
Now they suddenly show up here at the federal level and act as though pricing pollution is the absolute worst thing one could do. How is it possible that they can be so hypocritical? A lot of people can say things about me, but I am very consistent as it relates to my position on pricing pollution; I have been from the beginning.
I want to raise something else, and this is my final point about Conservative hypocrisy. It actually involves you, Madam Speaker, and I would like to tell members what happened in this House back on October 20, 2022. You were presiding, Madam Speaker, and there was an opposition day motion from the Conservatives.
Our NDP colleagues tried to put forward a motion to build on to the motion the Conservatives had on the floor; it would basically have eliminated the GST from home heating sources. It did not even require a vote or anything. All the mover of the motion needed to do was accept it, and then it would have carried.
Madam Speaker, you said:
It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party.
The hon. member does not have the support of the opposition; therefore, the amendment cannot be accepted.
Conservatives are just playing games with this. They did not want that to be adopted, because if it did get adopted, they would not get the political ammunition they are looking for to hold over the NDP and everybody else.
This hypocrisy was pointed out by both the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the NDP, who have been rising on it all day long. To make matters even worse, today, the member for Timmins—James Bay again tried to amend this motion to add “and to eliminate the GST on home heating in provinces where no federal carbon tax is in place.”
The member for Battle River—Crowfoot said no; basically, it was rejected once again. One is left wondering why. Why are Conservatives acting this way? Are they really interested in the best interests of Canadians, or is this all just for political gain?