SoVote

Mark Gerretsen

Member of Parliament
Member of the Board of Internal Economy Deputy House leader of the government
Liberal

Kingston and the Islands
Ontario
Voting Attendance: 68%
Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/21/24 6:41:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states: ...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)? There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment. The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

494 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

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

Context: House Hansard - 203 - Jun/1/23

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/1/23 12:18:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, he is right. We are giving it back. He asks why, and I actually just told him when I was answering the initial question he posed. The answer is that this has never been about trying to collect revenue for the government. This has always been about incentivizing choice in the marketplace. When a price is put on something, it changes people's behaviour in terms of how they make their decisions on purchases. In terms of his point that people are just getting a little money back, that is not true. The majority of Canadians get back more than they end up paying. If someone is extremely wealthy, has many vehicles and a very large home that takes a lot of natural gas to heat in the winter, perhaps in that case, they will end up paying a little more than they get back. However, the vast majority of Canadians, in particular the middle class, will get more back than they are putting into it.

168 words

SoVote

Member of the Board of Internal Economy Deputy House leader of the government

Mark Gerretsen