- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- May/30/24 1:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always pushing my government, whether in the House or in our caucus meetings, to do as much as we possibly can as it relates to reducing GHG emissions. A model that incentivizes people to make different choices, such as pricing pollution, whether it be at the retail or industrial level, will benefit tangible results in the future. This is not just me saying this. A vast majority of economists are saying this.
The joint signed letter of economists throughout Canada has over 400 signatories now. They believe that pricing pollution is an effective way to deal with GHG emissions and reduce them, and that more people are better off under the carbon rebate program.
It is only the Conservatives, with their rhetoric and their misinformation, who are informing people otherwise. If we were to ask the vast majority of people, they would agree that there are certainly benefits to them and, in particular, the least fortunate.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:52:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Danielle from Alberta knows that she gets back more in the Canada carbon rebate than she pays through the federal backstop on pricing pollution. Premier Smith, I mean Danielle, actually did the math herself and came to this conclusion: “I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer.”
Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change please inform Danielle and other Canadians what they should expect to see in their bank accounts today as a result of the Canada carbon rebate? How much is the policy helping Canadians with the cost of living while at the same time protecting the environment for generations to come?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 11:49:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I reflected on as I was listening to the member and his colleague who spoke before him was that the one constituency where the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to gain a lot of traction in terms of his position on a price on pollution is Quebec. I think that is because Quebec has had a price on pollution for many years, understands the importance of it and understands how the mechanics of it work. However, what I cannot understand is how Conservatives, in particular, Conservatives from Quebec, keep talking about this price on pollution and trying to demonize the policy. They must know that Quebeckers believe in pricing pollution, whether it be through a carbon tax or through cap and trade.
What does the member think about this? Can he wrap his head around why Quebec Conservative MPs keep going on about this, even though they know that Quebeckers, by and large, do not support what they are saying?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 12:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, all we are saying is that when we contribute something that is directly impacting climate change, when C02 is produced and it goes into the atmosphere, it is warming our planet whether the Conservative who is heckling me believes it or not. I am sure the member for Dufferin—Caledon is one of the climate deniers. It is a reality.
All we are saying is that we need to put a price on it, just like we put a price on garbage, just like we put a price on any other pollutant. We know that in a market-driven system, pricing something changes behaviour. It baffles me that the only political party in the Canadian House of Commons that does not understand this is the political party that somehow touts itself as being the smartest in the room when it comes to economic models and economic activity, the party that suggests that it knows better than anybody else, but cannot even understand a simple practice like pricing pollution
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:50:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member talked about the leader quite a bit, but I think he is being a little humble. He, too, was a leader. He was the leader of the ADQ, which later became and is now known as the CAQ in Quebec.
When he was the leader, he voted with the National Assembly of Québec, unanimously, to bring in cap and trade, which is another form of a price on pollution. As a matter of fact, the last person to speak in the National Assembly was this member, when he said, “We are satisfied that there will be a register of greenhouse gas emissions, and the fact that all the information will be public confirms the desire for transparency that unites us here in this House.” That is what the member said just before he participated in a unanimous vote to bring in pricing pollution in Quebec.
I am wondering if he could inform the House as to why he has had such a dramatic change of heart, and if he no longer believes in that system that he voted for.
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 5:12:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not misinformation and disinformation. The Conservatives ran on getting rid of the child care program. The Leader of the Opposition has bragged about the fact that they got rid of these programs in the past, but why should Canadians not be skeptical of it, when the Conservatives also ran on a price on pollution and now are suddenly against it?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 5:09:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is the member saying that Conservatives would want to change that back? If I understood her correctly, she is saying that if a family got the money, they were basically taxed on it, so they might need to give it back. In that case, would she not apply the exact same logic to the price on pollution and the carbon rebate? That is not means-tested. That is giving the exact same amount to everybody, so if her logic is correct about the universal child care benefit, she has to apply the same logic to the carbon rebate.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 10:47:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, and that member in particular, want to talk a lot about the price on pollution but do not want to talk about the other things the government is doing, in particular for the agriculture sector.
There is one riding in Ontario that receives $6.8 million through the agriculture sector emissions reductions and clean-tech funding. This is money that is actually given to the agricultural sector to help it reduce its emissions and find clean technology.
Do members know whose riding receives $6.8 million a year from the federal government for that? It is that member's riding. That member's riding receives $6.8 million of federal money to help the agricultural industry move away from emissions and in the direction of clean tech.
I am wondering, in the interest of axing everything, whether the member would comment on whether the Conservative government would axe this clean-tech funding and this $6.8 million to his riding.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:29:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the reality of that member standing up in the House and accusing me of not telling the truth is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that this member will tell people they are paying a price on pollution and will tell people they are paying a carbon tax without bothering to tell them that, oh, by the way, if one makes less than $250,000, one is definitely getting more money back than one is putting in, and if one does make $250,000 or more, one is 55% more likely to get more than one puts in.
Will this member do that? No, of course he will not, because that would be being honest with Canadians. Just—
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:23:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have 16 minutes left because, when I started at 10 minutes to two o'clock, I should have only had 10 minutes left, but Conservatives continued to rise on points of order during my speech. It veered into a place of actually trying to prohibit me from speaking. As you sit there and listen, if they attempt to engage in that same tactic again, perhaps you will have to call them into order. I would greatly appreciate your doing that.
Prior to question period, I was trying to explain to this House, and indeed Canadians, that there are way more people who get more back than they put into the carbon tax. That is a fact. What I was saying just before question period is that one of the persons who gets way more back than he puts in is the Leader of the Opposition. We have an individual here who has a government-paid house and a government-paid car. He literally pays none of the expenses that go into the carbon tax, but he gets that rebate. So my question is, in fairness, when we are having a discussion about the price on pollution and how much people are getting back, does the Leader of the Opposition cash his rebate every three or four months when he gets it? I would really like to know the answer to that question.
My guess is that he is like the vast majority of Canadians who check that box on page 1 when filing their income tax to receive the rebate on behalf of the family, and that he is receiving it directly deposited into his bank account. Meanwhile, he literally pays nothing into it, if we consider the fact that he has government-funded everything when it comes to expenses. However, I do not know that for a fact. I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to table his bank statements here so that we can properly see whether he is receiving that rebate. I am willing to put money on the fact that he or somebody in his family is receiving that rebate.
I am willing to put a lot of money on that because the reality is that, despite the fact that Conservative after Conservative get up to criticize the price on pollution, the carbon tax, they never once mention how much people get back. They do not want to be shown as being glaringly hypocritical. They certainly would be if people actually realized that while Conservatives go on, purporting to be in it for the low-income Canadians and people who are struggling, those are the exact people who actually end up with more than they put in. It is not me who is saying this. This is from our Parliamentary Budget Officer, who Conservatives like to quote so often.
According to Statistics Canada, and the data it has, when overlaid with this program, 94% of households with incomes below $50,000 receive rebates that exceed their carbon tax costs in 2023. Roughly half of households in this income category see a net gain between $20 and $40 per month, and about 4% see a net gain of $70 per month or more. As a matter of fact, 55% of those who are making at least $250,000 a year still receive more than they put in.
Will Conservatives say this? No, of course not. That does not feed properly into their narrative. Conservatives get up in this House and try to suggest they are in it for the folks in our country who are struggling while they completely neglect to tell them this and while they vote against a national food strategy for schools, which they did yesterday. Meanwhile, on the other side, they are trying to suggest that they are the only ones who can help people who are struggling. They are trying to deceive people into thinking that they have the solutions when we know that they do not have the solutions. That is the reality of it.
I get really concerned when I hear Conservative after Conservative come in here and talk about the price on pollution and how it is impacting people. They talk about farmers as well. Effectively, for 97% of farmers, it nets out to them not paying the carbon tax.
How can they get up in here time after time and continue to mislead Canadians in this regard? They do it relentlessly. They do it without any consideration for the fact that they are not even telling Canadians the reality of the situation. That is what we see and it is absolutely shameful.
I believe that it is because Conservatives have gone down this path of just thinking they can fool everybody and they can play off people's emotions and anxieties to the benefit of their political game—
815 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to when the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman stood up and I said, “Would you like me to bring up Ukraine?”, but I was not going to do that until the second half of my speech after question period. I will hold off and I will be judicious in my timing, but if the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman would like to hear that, I invite him to stick around after question period.
The reality is that all the Conservatives ran on pricing pollution. Each and every one of them ran on pricing pollution. Now, if they chose not to, then they should table for this House where in their campaign literature they were going against Mr. O'Toole. I wait with anticipation for that.
However, here is the reality of what Conservatives continually miss. It is the fact that many more people, eight out of 10 people, get back more than they pay in. According to Statistics Canada, 94%—
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 1:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is operating under good instruction from his whip's desk to keep calling out points of order on me. Congratulations to him.
However, in the document, “The True North Strong and Free”, Stephen Harper's plan for Canadians, there is actually reference to pricing pollution in here through the cap-and-trade model that Ontario, Quebec and a number of states in the United States adopted. That member ran in 2021 on Erin O'Toole's plan to price pollution—
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:12:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right that climate change is going to impact farmers, probably more than anybody else. When we think about it, where we used to be able to grow certain crops in the world at one point, we will not be able to; suddenly, in other areas, we will be able to. This is a result of climate change. I strongly believe that the current government has been there for farmers and will continue to be there for farmers, to provide them with the supports that they need, particularly in relation to climate change.
The trumped-up rhetoric coming from the other side about a carbon tax, or a price on pollution, is absolutely just that. Of course, Conservatives always neglect to tell Canadians about the rebate they get out of that, which puts eight out of 10 Canadians in a better position compared to what they spent on the carbon tax.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 3:35:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am unaware of or unfamiliar with exactly what is going on in the member's riding. I understand and appreciate what he has just said. The reality is that 97% of farmers are exempt from the price on pollution. I am not sure whether what he is referring to falls into the 3% or not.
Conservatives need to stop overreacting to the issue and trying to generate more attention out of it. The reality is that they are blowing this up into something it is not.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 5:53:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure the Conservatives will find some rare excuse to link it to the price on pollution, as we have seen with other pieces of legislation.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 4:22:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the reason Ukraine has had that price on pollution since 2011 is that in order to get into the European market, which it had been trying to do for so long, the European market required that it have a price on pollution in order to stay competitive. That is why Ukraine had it. This incredible red herring that we are hearing recently from the Conservatives is nothing more than just that, a red herring.
The reality is that there is a faction within the Conservative Party of Canada. Some of the MPs over there have gone down the rabbit hole of alt-right-wing American politics. Now we are seeing that come out. I kind of always suspected it, because we have been seeing it happen over the last number of years, but I did not realize that this faction actually had a stranglehold on the party.
It is very likely that the Leader of the Opposition is part of that, given everything that he has done. Let us go back to the YouTube meta tags.
If members want to understand the Leader of the Opposition's support for Ukraine, they should just look at his social media posts from when President Zelenskyy visited us in September. He did not tweet about it. He did not put anything on Facebook about it. He did not put anything on Instagram about it. He was completely silent. He never said a word about Zelenskyy's visit.
The irony is that he did say a word about Zelenskyy appearing before this Parliament when he came a year earlier, when he came by video conference. He actually tweeted, at that time, in 2022, how proud he was to see President Zelenskyy appear before Parliament.
Do members know what the member for Calgary Nose Hill did? I do not know if a lot of people caught this, but it was almost a little subtle act of defiance. Do members know what she did? When he came this year in 2023, she quote tweeted his tweet from a year ago, congratulating him on coming. That was clearly a dig at the Leader of the Opposition because she recognized how silent he was on it.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and all Conservatives can stand up and preach to me all they want about how much they support Ukraine, but their actions speak louder than words. They are silent when the president comes here. They are silent when it came to determining what they were going to say on the Ukraine free trade deal, and then they voted against it.
This is a deal that President Zelenskyy asked us to vote in favour of—
453 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/23 10:54:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is true, the Conservative Party is the “block everything” party.
However, the Conservatives are not even consistent. They delayed with respect to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and suddenly, in the 11th hour, with about a week left, they came up with this red herring that it had something to do with a price on pollution.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I hear the heckling from my Conservative colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. As a matter of fact, the only way it could get into the European market was to commit to that. This is nothing more than a red herring.
Is the minister concerned that the delay of this bill is, once again, just another red herring being put out there by Conservatives?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 11:11:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, either the member does not know the policy or the member is providing the wrong information in this House, because I started off my speech by saying that it does not matter what region one lives in. This is the policy. If people live in Canada and heat with oil and they are in a province that is subject to the price on pollution, they will not be paying the carbon tax on that oil, full stop.
Conservatives want us to think that this is a policy just for Atlantic Canada, and I deeply regret that the members from the NDP, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, have indicated the exact same thing. This is not a regional thing.
The member is right, actually, about one thing. Twice as many people in Ontario heat with oil than in Atlantic Canada. I did bring it home for my constituents who heat with home heating oil. We are bringing home reducing the price for home heating oil, so we can help people transition to heat pumps.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 4:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
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.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is right. I am sure he has heard me speak about this many times before, but he is right, Quebec does not have a price on pollution, which many other provinces in the country do, exactly because of that cap-and-trade deal. Ontario was a partner in that cap-and-trade deal until Doug Ford was elected as premier and got out of it. That is the reality of the situation.
We can look at how, in those five or six short years, Quebec has advanced in terms of electrifying its grid, setting up EV charging stations and taking the electrification transition seriously, and compare it to Ontario. Ontario is lagging behind, yet only five or six years ago, both provinces had joined the western initiative with a number of states in the U.S. at the same time: California, Montana and a number of other states. Right now, Ontario, to its detriment, is not doing it.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
