- 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 1:35:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that comment. I always feel as though it is a bit of a set up when Quebec MPs ask me about pricing mechanisms in Quebec, because I think they know how I feel about it. I believe it is among the best in the world. Ontario, my province, used to be involved in that pricing mechanism as well, but unfortunately our premier was short-sighted and got out of it. At the same time, he started pulling charging stations out of locations, only to start reinstalling them five years later, but I digress.
The member made a really important point when he questioned how much the average Canadian would get back. It is different between each province, as he would know, depending on the jurisdiction and how it is being impacted. What I can tell him is that the last time the Conservatives brought up this issue in the House in an opposition day motion, I stood up. This was after I went through the math of my own personal finances, looking at what I was paying on heating and what I would be paying if I was driving a gas vehicle. Then I looked at what was actually deposited back into my bank account, and I ended up ahead.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off, then I have no problem believing that because I know the math worked for me.
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 3:57:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what Danielle Smith said, “Let's begin with talking about when carbon pricing at the federal level was first introduced. We talked about it being $50 per tonne, and then recently we heard it's actually going to be $170 per tonne over the next nine years. That seems like somebody sat down and done some number crunching and they've come up with [the] optimal value, as well as the optimal period of time to phase it in, and from the work you've done on this, you've even said that they're suggesting that this is going to have no impact on the gross domestic product...this almost seems like the perfect policy.”
Danielle Smith had all the trust in the experts in 2021 to develop the pricing mechanism on their own, but now, suddenly, there is an issue with those experts. Members can judge this for themselves. What has happened between 2021 and now? She became the leader of the far right party in Alberta.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 12:15:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a new champion of carbon pricing just recently emerged. It is none other than Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta, in a video from 2021 that recently resurfaced.
She said, “I do my family's taxes, so I know we got $808.50.... When I go back and look at what I spent...in carbon taxes, because I was working from home, I wasn't commuting, my gas bills were way down, and even the amount...that I paid on my home heating, because we're principally natural gas where I live, I would say that I probably ended up better off with that transfer. I think a lot of people would be of the view that, if you're going to implement some kind of carbon or revenue-neutral carbon pricing, that is probably not a bad way of doing it.”
Those are not my words. Those are Danielle Smith's words from 2021.
Can the member for Timmins—James Bay explain to the House why he thinks Danielle Smith has done a complete about-face on this issue?
185 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
- 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
- Feb/7/23 3:34:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope the member appreciates that I will directly answer his question. I will not try to avoid answering it, as the Conservatives do every time I ask a question about changing their position on their platform.
At the time, I thought that was the right solution and now I do not. I realized that pricing something actually impacts choice in the marketplace, and I have changed my mind on it.
Do members see how easy that was? When someone changes their mind on something, as the Conservatives clearly did since the last election, it is okay to get up and talk about it and explain to people that they once had one position on something and now have a different position on it.
I would encourage the Conservatives to recognize my ability to do that, and I would encourage them to do the same thing as it relates to their platform commitment in the last election to put a price on pollution.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 10:17:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read from the Conservative platform that the member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, ran on in the last election. It says, “Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account. This will put a price on carbon”.
The leader of the opposition at the time, the member for Durham, said, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” The Conservative member for Calgary Centre, when commenting on that platform, said, “I think it's an evolution for parts of our party”.
We have now seen seven or eight motions similar to this one that have come forward in the House since the Conservatives ousted the previous leader. It has actually been 150 days to the day since this member became the leader of the official opposition, so congratulations to him.
My question—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:44:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, it is easy to talk about Conservatives for so long when they give me so much material. Second of all, I will answer that question. Clearly, at some point along the way, it was determined that it would be most effective to raise the rate again, and that is why they did it.
Did members see how easy that was? I answered the question. A decision was made after the fact that we actually needed to increase it again.
Now, I would love for a member from the Conservative Party to stand up and show me exactly how easy it is to answer the question of why they have done a complete 180 on this issue of pricing pollution.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:32:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.
Seven times since this Parliament was formed, Conservatives have brought in motions regarding pricing pollution like the one we have here today: March 23, 2022; April 4, 2022; June 7, 2022; September 28, 2022; October 3, 2022; October 4, 2022; and today. Seven times they have brought this in. Six times it has been defeated. In all likelihood it will again be defeated today, and they are absolutely relentless about this issue.
To make it even more confusing, they ran on this in the last election. On election day, September 20, 2021, when the Conservatives had their constituents go to the polls to vote for them, their constituents voted thinking that they agreed with pricing pollution.
This is from their election platform, which says, “Conservatives will work with the provinces to implement an innovative, national, Personal Low Carbon Savings Account. This will put a price on carbon”. The plan goes on to compare it to the current plan that the government has, saying, “our plan is just as effective in emission reduction”.
This is what they ran on, and since the election, they have brought forward seven motions against pricing pollution.
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 4:27:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have asked my question for the member a number of times and I hope he will answer it, because nobody else seems to want to.
Conservatives ran on pricing pollution. The member was elected in September of 2021. When his constituents went to the ballot boxes to cast their votes for him, they were under the impression that he and his party were in favour of pricing pollution. Now, time after time, Conservatives bring forward motions to the contrary.
Can the member please try to explain to the House and Canadians why Conservatives are suddenly taking a different position on this than the one that they ran on?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 1:21:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read something for the member. It says, “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.” This is from the platform that the member ran on and was elected on in his riding on September 20, 2021. He ran on a platform of pricing pollution, and now the Conservatives stand before the House and suggest they are dead set against it. The people who voted for him thought he believed in this. How can the Conservatives be so hypocritical as to now come and demand everything but this option of pricing pollution?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question. It is a question that has been asked of a lot of Conservatives and one that never gets answered. I hope the member can address the question, as opposed to just rambling on about something else, which is what every other Conservative does.
When the member ran in the last election, he ran on a price on pollution. His leader at the time, the member for Durham, put in the Conservative platform that they would have a price on pollution. How can the Conservatives, just a year later, be so critical of pricing pollution? Can he please shed some light on this question and not completely disregard it?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/19/22 6:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, that is absolutely right, including the member on the Conservative bench who is heckling me, who is a climate denier. Yes, they ran on it. They ran on a platform of putting a price on pollution.
It is not the same way that we are pricing pollution. It was done in a different way. It was proposed by their former leader, the member for Durham, in a different way, but they ran on it. They ran on the idea of pricing pollution.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 5:13:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is great to hear about believing in the market system and the free enterprise system. One would think, then, that the Conservatives would understand why pricing pollution is the right thing to do, because it builds into the equation of putting a cost on pollution. The member would know from this free market enterprise system, the system he speaks so highly of, that by doing that we then incentivize companies to look for solutions, to find alternative ways of doing business to reduce their costs. That is the whole point of putting a price on pollution, making it part of the economic model of pricing something and building the inputs into that product.
Can the member at least not reflect on why he would be against something like this, since he believes in that model?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
