- 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
- Apr/9/24 3:59:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not going to disagree with a lot of what that member said. If he is looking for more opportunities to further tighten money or to talk about rebates that are going back to big oil, I will have an open ear to listen to what he has to say.
I think it is also really important to remember that sometimes, when we subsidize the fossil fuel industry, it is to do important things such as clean up orphan oil wells, which perhaps—
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 12:56:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
The only thing the Conservatives want to axe is the rebates people are getting. They have no interest in helping to provide for Canadians, especially in their time of need, and we have seen that through various votes. We have seen that through the initiatives that the Leader of the Opposition has taken this week, what he has said and what he has directed his members to do, which I will get to in a second. What they really want to axe is the Canada carbon rebate. That is it.
The Canada carbon rebate currently provides, or will provide, in this fiscal year, on average, to each family, the following: Alberta, $1,800; Manitoba, $1,200; Saskatchewan, $1,500; Nova Scotia, $825; P.E.I., $880; Newfoundland and Labrador, $1,192; New Brunswick, $760; and in my province of Ontario, $1,120. That is an average.
I will give members the raw data as to how people are benefiting and how more people are better off through those rebates they are getting than what they are paying.
I took the opportunity to do the exercise myself. I went back to 2023 and dug up all my gas bills from Enbridge for heating my home. I calculated the federal carbon amount that was added to each bill, and after adding up through 2023, it came to $379.93 that was paid in 2023. I drive an electric car, but I wanted to be as fair as I could, so I looked up how much fuel is needed for a car for the average person. The average is 1,667 litres. I then multiplied that by the federal carbon tax for 2023, and it brought me up to $238.
Let us assume that because I live in a household where we have two cars, we have to multiply that by two. After all is said and done, taking into account what I paid to Enbridge for the carbon tax and what I would have paid through purchasing gas at a gas station, the total amount that I paid in 2023 was $855. In my household, I receive the rebate directly into my bank, and when I looked at my bank statement, the amount I received in 2023 was $885. Before even considering any initiatives that I could have taken, and I have taken some, for example, I am driving an electric car, but before even taking any initiatives—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I hear Conservatives heckling me. I will not name names, because that would not be fair, but I have sat in the House and had Conservative members walk up and say, “Hey, Mark, by the way, just so you know, I drive an electric now, and I absolutely love the car.” Of course, they would never actually get up in the House of Commons and say that, because that would go against their entire narrative. In the interest of protecting the identity of the people who have done that, I will not say who they are, but I get a kick out of how they are heckling me now while I am saying this.
Before I even attempt to do anything to improve my carbon footprint, just from the basic math, I am already ahead. The reality is that 94% of households with incomes below $50,000 a year get rebates that exceed their carbon taxes. I have demonstrated to members that in a household of four with two vehicles, it is already very plausible.
When we start to tap into some of the many initiatives that the federal and many provincial governments have to make one's home more efficient, to install heat pumps, for example, to make conversion away from fossil fuels, we can very quickly see that if I put a heat pump in my home, that $379 I paid in 2023 no long exists, and I will be receiving in excess of $380 a month. If we also add into that the various other initiatives I could take and the choices I could make, I would end up even further ahead. It is very clear that the vast majority of Canadians receive more than they pay.
I was very relieved to hear today, and I have heard on a number of occasions, the House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, at least starting to talk about the rebates. Earlier today, I actually heard him concede that, by his information, 40% of households are getting more back. I say that we are at a place where we can work toward educating the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I do not think we are that far off before we can get him from that 40% to the real number of 80%. At least Conservatives are starting to come around.
However, make no mistake about it. Conservatives want to axe the Canada carbon rebate, which is money that is being put into the pockets of Canadians, that is helping to deal with the effects of climate change and that is incentivizing them to make more energy efficient choices in their homes or in what they drive. Even if one only moves from a gasoline-only vehicle to a hybrid vehicle, one will start to see savings. One does not even have to go all-electric. Again, that just further increases the excess amount one receives as opposed to what one pays.
I do not want to leave the impression that Conservatives are interested in any way in helping Canadians. That has been said in the House already. The Leader of the Opposition, on March 14, sent a letter to his MPs saying that Conservatives will stand in the House and will force votes they can oppose on many different items in order to perpetuate and continue the false narrative Conservatives currently have that the vast majority of people are not getting more back more than they are paying.
Let us talk about some of those things. Perhaps Conservatives will be a little smarter this time around when we go through a marathon voting session. Perhaps they will more strategically pick what they might want to vote against, because they are lining themselves up to vote against things that are based on communication from the Leader of the Opposition and that are based on a false narrative; he believes the price on pollution is not actually putting more into the pockets of Canadians.
Conservatives are lining themselves up this week to vote, once again, against three motions that affect Ukraine. These represent over 15 million dollars' worth of equipment to Ukraine, Operation Unifier supports Ukraine with $130 million, and then $285 million goes to Operation Reassurance to assist Ukraine. They are going to vote against RCMP members who have been injured on duty, which is at a cost of $20 million. Over $1 million is for Reaching Home programs to help address homelessness, and $12.5 million is for the collection of banned assault firearms. The very heat pump program I talked about earlier, which provides over $40 million in grants to Canadians, they will be voting against it. There is an anti-racism strategy, a round table on missing and murdered indigenous girls and LGBTQ+ people, which is over $1 million, and of course, there is the Canada housing benefit, which represents over $100 million.
The Leader of the Opposition has set up a false narrative that people do not get back more than they pay into the price on pollution when the vast majority do. He is willing to hedge his bets on that false narrative and, at a cost of doing so, is going to vote against all those items I just listed.
I would strongly encourage the Conservative Party of Canada members to have a good look and self-reflect on where they have come over the last number of years, from Stephen Harper, who spoke in favour of a price on pollution, up to their most recent leader and their most recent election campaign, when they knocked on doors and talked about pricing pollution. It is time to have serious look in the mirror and to reflect on exactly what it is they stand for. The reality is that the only thing they are showing themselves to stand for now is misinformation.
1411 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/23 3:30:47 p.m.
- Watch
Welcome to the show, Madam Speaker.
The Speaker should know, because she is sitting in the chair now for the first time, that this is the eighth point of order Conservatives have brought up on my speech trying to shut me down. We are going to see more of it. My 20-minute speech is probably going to be about 45 minutes. I take pleasure in knowing at least one Conservative will not be able to speak as a result of them continually cutting into my time like this.
To that point, let me read to the member the facts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Some 55% of households with incomes above $250,000 actually end up receiving more in rebates than they pay. That is the fact.
Conservatives stand up in here and routinely, day after day, tell Canadians they are paying a carbon tax and it is contributing to all of the problems they have in their lives without even bothering to suggest they get more back than they put into it. This is unless of course someone is one of their rich friends, and probably somebody going to the $1,700 per person fundraiser that the Leader of the Opposition will be at tonight while all his MPs have to be in here voting. Those are the people they are actually talking to. Those are the people they are actually catering to.
It is really important to reflect, and this is where I was going a few moments ago, on what is going on in the Conservative Party of Canada. Its members seem to be hung up on this narrative of using information and distorting the information in order to suggest to Canadians that what is happening to them is all at the hands of this Prime Minister, all at the feet of this Prime Minister, without actually reflecting on the reality. They use people's anxieties and fears to people's disadvantage. It is straight out of the alt-right Republican playbook of the MAGA Republicans. This is what we are seeing here.
With what went on at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources yesterday and the way Conservatives acted, one would have thought it was Matt Gaetz who was the conductor of that ludicrous show of Conservative filibustering and Conservative antics. At one point, multiple Conservative MPs started filling up the room in an attempt to bully, intimidate, yell, heckle and scream in a committee meeting. This is literally the kind of material we see coming out of the U.S. Congress led by people like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others on the right flank of the Republican Party.
That is what we are seeing coming from the other side of the House. We are seeing MAGA politics, the politics of Donald Trump. We are seeing the politics of division, misinformation and the politics of profiting off anxieties and fears. That is what we see coming from the Conservative Party of Canada.
Nowhere is that more clearly laid out than the manner in which Conservatives conducted themselves when it came to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. In that regard, the Conservatives intentionally voted against that deal, and for what reason? Nobody can really put their finger on it. Everything they seem to come out with is always about four weeks or five weeks after the fact. They never seem to be able to coherently explain to anybody, including the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the President of Ukraine and Canadians, for that matter, why they voted against it. Instead, they linked it to what they have in today's opposition day motion.
They link it to a price on pollution, to a carbon tax, and say they can never support this Ukraine free trade deal, even though the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress want it, because it has a reference to a carbon tax in it. This is notwithstanding the fact that the agreement says environmental policy cannot be imposed in the other jurisdiction. They do not even worry about that.
What about the fact that Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011? It has had a carbon tax since 2011. Ukraine is more progressive than the Conservative Party of Canada.
I am very concerned when I continually hear the narrative and the misinformation coming from the other side of the House that is led with an objective of dividing Canadians based on misinformation and information that is factually not true. They will do it routinely time after time after time. We see it with Conservatives on just about every issue.
Yesterday, there was a very important private member's bill, for the House to establish a national food policy in schools across Canada and to develop the framework for it so we could work with provinces to implement it. We are the only G7 country without one. There are something like 338 million children in developed countries throughout the world who have access to food in schools. We are pretty much the only country in the developed world that does not, yet Conservatives are even against that. They stand up in the House, complain and go on at great lengths about how people are suffering throughout our country, but then routinely, as every opportunity comes before them to do something for people, they have more interest in trying to put a division through the government and into the minds of Canadians to try to influence them into giving it power. I think it is disgraceful that we have seen this time and again.
Once again, there is another opposition day motion before the House. I think this is the 18th or 19th since the last election, when the Conservatives ran on pricing pollution, and here they are, for the 17th, 18th or 19th time, I cannot keep track anymore, bringing in a motion against it. It is ridiculous, when all of them ran on pricing pollution under Erin O'Toole's scheme in the last election, some of whom were even around in 2008 to run under Stephen Harper's government on implementing a price on pollution through a cap-and-trade model that other provinces and U.S. states had adopted. I think it is crazy that they are still coming at it from this perspective. At the end of the day, I think Canadians will hold them to this. Canadians will agree that it is not in the best interests of Canada or of our people to literally turn our back on the environment, on future generations and on what we can do now to make life less dramatic with respect to weather events and the changes that climate change will bring into the future. That is our responsibility. It is something we need to take seriously.
I certainly hope all members of the House will reject the motion, for the 18th or 19th time, so we can finally put to bed the issue of a price on pollution. We have already been through three elections where we have run on this platform and committed to this policy. I do not think that we need any more discussion on it. Canadians have made it very clear where they stand on pricing pollution, especially when we consider that the vast majority of people get back more than they put in. Someone has to be fairly wealthy; have some luxurious goods, a large house and multiple fancy vehicles; and buy a lot of gas and fossil fuels in order to put themself in a position where they are paying more than they are putting in. It is time for Conservatives to start being honest about that and start telling Canadians the truth about the real impact the price of pollution will have on them.
1306 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 1:30:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is so much to unpack there, but let us just talk about a couple of issues.
First of all, at the beginning of his speech the member talked about the grocery rebate being a gimmicky thing the government has come up with. Let us not lose sight of the fact that it is a top-up to the existing GST rebates that are given to Canadians. We know what the Conservatives did last time we introduced that. First they said they would not vote for it. Then maybe there was some pressure, but they backpedalled a bit and said that they would vote for it.
If the member wants to call it a gimmick, that is fine. If Conservatives want to say that we are just trying to package up the GST rebate as a gimmick, that is fine. However, let us not forget, that at the end of the day, what they would be voting against would be giving more of that GST rebate to Canadians.
Could the member explain to the House why he was in favour of it recently, when the Conservatives did their flip-flop, but now, he suddenly does not want to see it? How is the GST rebate this time not as beneficial to Canadians as it was the last time?
220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple question. The member spoke quite a bit about inflation being caused by government spending. Can he explain to the House why he is voting in favour of Bill C-30, which is for spending money to give people more in GST rebates?
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this very important piece of legislation, which, from what I am hearing, all members in the House will be supporting, or at least that seems pretty clear from the NDP and the Conservatives. I think people realize that this is something important. It is something that is critical and it is something that people need right now.
What are we talking about? We are talking about a six-month increase of the GST rebates that are given to individuals. This would have a real, meaningful impact for people, in particular those who are struggling the most and those who really need it. For single individuals who have no children, the total GST rebate would be $467. Married or common-law partnerships would see $612, and then there would be $161 for each child under the age of 19.
This is about trying to help individuals, particularly right now, when we know we are experiencing this inflationary problem that has developed over time as a result of a number of different things that have been going on in the world, a number of things outside of the control of any individual country, and we have landed where we are.
We know that we need to take care of each other, and that is what this really comes down to. It comes down to taking care of each other and supporting each other through programs. That is what government is all about. The government is here to establish programs and policies that can have an impact throughout society.
If we took the approach of “every person for themselves”, which, unfortunately, it appears in retrospect that the Conservatives wish we had taken when it came to the beginning of the pandemic, we really would not need much in terms of government. We would not need government to be there to support Canadians and to support each other.
We have heard a lot, and I want to reflect on a comment that the member for Elmwood—Transcona made a few moments ago in answering a question from our friend from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and he phrased it perfectly. We hear the Conservatives talking about EI and CPP as payroll taxes. They are not payroll taxes.
CPP is a pension plan. It is a plan that is paid into by the employee and the employer. It is a pension plan that many people rely on when they get to the age of retirement. When politicians, in my opinion, start toying with the idea of playing around with that fund or not properly ensuring that it has the resources or funds within it, it means that we are going to have problems, from a societal perspective, later on when we find out that it is underfunded.
Likewise, EI is employment insurance. This is an insurance policy. It is funding a policy that allows people to be able to withdraw when they need it the most, if they become unemployed or other circumstances put them in the position of needing it. I do not agree with the assessment of calling it a payroll tax. It is not a payroll tax. Neither of those programs is, yet we hear that.
I heard the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, the neighbouring riding to mine, pine back to the days of the UCCB, the universal child care benefit that Stephen Harper introduced. They pine about that program as though it is the gold standard for social programs of helping Canadians. The universal child care benefit was a program that literally gave every child, through their parents or guardians, a specific amount of money. It did not matter how much one made. It was not tested based on someone's need whatsoever. How can that be regarded as a social program?
Instead, this government has been focused squarely on putting money into the hands of those who genuinely need it the most. When we look at it, it is not just about supporting individuals. It is smart economic policy. What happens if we give a $100 or $150 payment to a millionaire, somebody who does not need it, quite frankly, through the UCCB? What happens? They will likely put it in a TFSA or they will put it in their bank account and collect interest off of it and it just sits there, because they do not need it.
What happens if we give it to somebody who genuinely needs it? They are going to go out and they are going to spend it. What does that do? That helps, creates and stimulates the economy.
When we pine back to the days of the universal child care benefit, as the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes did, that is not smart policy. It is not smart policy from the societal perspective of supporting each other, and it is not smart policy from an economic perspective. When we invest in people and we take care of each other, we will all be better off. We will see our economy grow in a way that is sustainable and that supports one another.
To that end, one of the arguments that I have heard come up a few times, and I heard it from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, are the concerns over the inflationary impacts of a program like this. I think it is a valid question to be asked, because we know that, when we inject more money into the economy, we run the risk of inflation being attached to that. I think it is a valid question.
However, I would encourage them to go out and talk to some of the individuals, economists, who understand and know this. I will read two quotes from two economists. The first is from Armine Yalnizyan, an economist and Atkinson fellow, and this is what this economist said:
In truth the measures are so modest...that they amount to just over 0.1 per cent of nominal GDP and less than one per cent of current growth, hardly a tail that could wag a dog.
She also said:
Along with the childcare fee rebate, financed by the feds and promised by the Ontario government to start in April (money that has yet to arrive in mailboxes), there’s a lot of talk but not a lot of cash flowing to households. There’s no chance current federal measures will spur inflationary over-spending anytime soon.
Here is another one from David Macdonald, the senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:
These transfers are unlikely to have much impact on inflation as inflation is being driven by external factors like the price of gasoline, supply chain issues and the like. These measures are quite targeted and to get the full value of all three, you'd have to be a family making under C$35,000.
In the best case scenario, you could receive about C$2,300 for that family which only amounts to 6.5 percent of income when inflation is running at 7.0 percent....
These measures aren't boosting incomes well above inflation, they are just helping lower income families afford the price increases that have already happened.
These are two economists who are putting to rest, at least in their professional opinions, the notions about inflation and what this could do to inflation, although I think it is a very valid and genuine question to ask, especially in the current climate. However, I hope that those two members, in particular, take comfort in knowing that these two economists do not agree that it would necessarily have a impact.
I do not want to take up much more time than I absolutely have to. I do not want to speak long enough that I have to come back and speak the next time that this comes up for debate. I want people and I want members to have the genuine opportunity to speak to this. I really hope that this is one of those bills that we can see pass quickly, because it really will have an impact on the lives of those who genuinely need it the most.
We need to assist those who need it the most, and I really hope that the House will not play politics with this issue. I hope we will let people have the opportunity to speak to it, but then, within a reasonable amount of time, get to a point where we can send it to committee, have it studied there and then come back, because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting the individuals who need it the most.
I really hope we can work together, because it appears as though we already all support it anyway.
1506 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
