- 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
- May/21/24 11:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it goes to what I was saying during my speech, which is that Conservatives are taking people's anxieties, turning them into a weapon and then using it against them. They are trying to convince Canadians that inflation is completely driven by the government and that spending more money on people through budget measures is going to drive up inflation even further, but only the opposite in both of those regards has proven to be true.
Conservatives are really good with their slogans, but they are not so good when they switch from having to rhyme off three things to four things because inevitably one of them misses at least one of them, except for a few key ones that are really good. They have been practising a lot, but the rest of them keep missing one. Although they are good with their slogans, it is not doing anything for Canadians.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 10:59:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the very important piece of legislation before us. It is what we call the fall economic statement, which was, yes, introduced in the fall. Unfortunately, because of Conservative delay tactics and their continuing to put forward amendments and having multiple people speak to it, we still have not even gotten to the place where we can pass the fall economic statement. However, I will say that a lot has happened since then, particularly with respect to inflation.
Members may recall that this particular piece of legislation came in at a time when inflation was still working its way downward but had not yet gotten into the range that the Bank of Canada dictates in its policy, which is within a range of 2% to 3%. We were seeing higher inflation. When I think back to when we were having these discussions in the fall, one of the things I think about is what Conservatives were saying about our budgetary measures at the time. They were saying that they were inflationary budgets. The Conservatives were saying to stop spending money because when the government spends money it is just adding to inflation. They said it over and over.
All the experts came out and said that actually the particular programs that the government was running in order to support Canadians were providing money to some of the most vulnerable people, the people who would be utilizing the money for basic necessities, and this was not going to contribute to impacting inflation. However, that did not matter to Conservatives because it was not feeding their narrative, so they continued on, marching along and talking about the supports that we were making for Canadians as something that was going to affect inflation and continue to drive it up.
We see today that the year-over-year inflationary rate is at 2.7%. This is the lowest it has been in three years. It has been within the range of 2% to 3% despite the fact that I know Conservatives were rooting for inflation to continue to rise because that would fit their political narrative, and they do not worry about the impact it has on Canadians. The Conservatives always just want the government to fail in any possible way it can, just so they can get a little political gain out of it, even if it means it comes at the expense of Canadians. We have seen inflation now, for four straight months in a row, within the target that the Bank of Canada sets, which is between 2% and 3%.
Conservatives were wrong. They were wrong when they said that investing in Canadians contributed to inflation, and they were wrong in predicting an outcome where those investments would actually drive inflation up. We knew that was going to be the case, because all the experts were saying it at the time, but what the Conservatives were doing is something that the member for Fredericton was talking about earlier. The Conservatives intentionally used and continue to use against Canadians the anxieties that Canadians feel. The Conservatives use those anxieties and turn them into a weapon against the very people that they are impacting, and they are doing it just for political gain. That is the only reason. It is the exact same reason that Conservatives say over and over that inflation is caused by the Prime Minister and the current government.
An hon. member: Yes, you got it.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, in reality, we know that inflation is something that is going on throughout the entire globe.
I know that the member for Saskatoon—University just ran back in here and sat down so he could heckle me. I challenge him to ask me a question, to actually think about a question that he can ask me when it comes time to do so, because I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say about what I am saying right now. I will, of course, respond to that question. What we heard is not only Conservatives being wrong—
689 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/21/24 7:42:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's entire speech, and the one thing I just cannot wrap my head around is how she can accuse government spending and government investing in Canadians through our budget of being inflationary.
Conservatives have been saying for months now that by the investments we are putting into Canadians and the money that we are putting into the budget, we are just going to fuel inflation. However, the opposite is true; this is the lowest that inflation has been in three years. Over the last four months, inflation has been in the target range that the Bank of Canada sets, which is between 2% and 3%. In reality, there is no rise in inflation as a result of the budget.
Does the member not recognize that what she is purporting and what the Conservatives are purporting was never actually a reality?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 5:18:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the Conservatives were laughing when the member said that we are investing while they are spending. They laugh as though it is some kind of joke. Let us not forget that Tony Clement had money to spend on the G8 and used it to build gazebos in his backyard. Conservatives' memory is so short-term.
The reality is that the member is absolutely correct. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in the future. We are asking those who make the most to pay a little bit more in order to keep those investments going. Would the member agree with me on that?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:06:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they put in. Yes, some Canadians who have very large homes and multiple vehicles probably end up spending more than they get back. In particular, individuals who are on the lower end of the economic spectrum are certainly getting much more back than they are paying.
I find it really interesting that he accuses me of all this rhetoric. Conservatives continually miss the point of explaining to Canadians that they are going to get back more than they are paying. They would rather seek an opportunity to capitalize from a political narrative that suits them right now because it will benefit them politically. However, it will do nothing for the environment and nothing for our country.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/23 1:02:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I actually feel sorry for the member. I genuinely believe that he is one of the more progressive ones in his party, yet somehow he seems to have been sucked down the rabbit hole of the member for Carleton and his talking points.
I genuinely do not believe that the member thinks that the inflationary impact has to do with government spending. He must know that it has more to do with global issues such as the war in Ukraine and the fact that every other country in the developed world is also experiencing inflation. Can he not, perhaps, at least agree that there are other factors that contribute to inflation?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:08:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion that has been put before the House.
I will start by saying that I am concerned about the rhetoric in the preamble. However, the motion and the result clause is fairly short. It talks about a balanced budget and committing to a balanced budget immediately.
I found this very interesting because I asked the member for Bay of Quinte how many times Conservatives introduced balanced budgets in the House, and I even gave him the answer. It was three times in the last 30 years that Conservatives have introduced balanced budgets in the House, under Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. There was a grand total of 20 budgets introduced, and three were balanced.
Do members know when they came? The first came in 2006-07. This was on the heels of Paul Martin's surplus, which was a $13-billion surplus. Stephen Harper axed that the next year, and in 2007-08, the surplus was only $9.6 billion. After that, he started to run deficits immediately. He blew away that surplus that Paul Martin had left for him and started running deficits immediately. Then, of course, there is the famous balancing of the budget in 2014-15, when Stephen Harper slashed veterans services and sold off GM shares at bargain prices just so that he get himself in a position on paper that he was bringing in a surplus because he felt he needed to do that to solidify his base that was demanding it.
However, rather than dwell on the fact that Conservatives have done this historically, at least in recent history, I think we have to ask ourselves something: Why do governments run deficits?
There are two reasons. A government can run a deficit, one, because it is expecting the taxpayer to pay more to make up that deficit and plans to charge or tax them more or, two, because it is investing. The whole idea behind investing is assuming that a government will get something in return for that investment. When governments are running deficits to invest in Canadians, they are doing it with the expectation that something is going to come out on other end to grow our economy. When we grow our economy, people are better off and there is more wealth in our economy.
What about population growth? We are growing at historic rates. We are just past 40 million people in Canada. When we continue to grow in such a fashion, we need to make new investments, and we are seeing it on the other side through the growth, which is why Canada is continually rated to have one of the best credit ratings in the developed world. That is why we have such a low debt-to-GDP ratio, which is what people really need to focus on. However, I know that it is not intuitive for people to want to focus on that, especially when Canadians are managing a household budget, and they cannot look at it the same way, but the reality is that we have to look at our debt in relation to our GDP.
As our GDP continues to grow, if we are spending less than that growth, we have a net benefit at the end of the day, which is essentially what we see when we bring forward these budgets that are investing in Canadians. Quite frankly, that is something that Brian Mulroney understood. It is something that Stephen Harper understood, and it is something that former Liberals, such as Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, understood.
They understood that, if we invest in Canadians and actually use the money to invest in Canadians when running those deficits, we will get to a place eventually where Paul Martin got to, which was a $13-billion surplus, and a surplus the year after that as well. We will get to those places naturally. The point is that we can get to that place by investing in Canadians because we see the economic growth, see the opportunities, see people being better off and see the debt-to-GDP ratio. We see the debt specifically as it relates per capita to the lowest among the G7, as we are hearing.
There is one thing we should be concerned about, and I rightfully share it with so many other people. It is the debt level each household is experiencing right now in Canada, but we have to ask ourselves why. Why is that? Is there something unique about Canada and our spending habits that puts us in that position? It has a lot to do, I would suggest, with the age of our population.
In the G7, Canada has one of the youngest populations. These are people who are buying new homes and investing for the first time. These are people who do not have the retirement savings that other G7 countries have. Am I excusing anything? I am not. I am saying that we have to be mindful of this and we have to be vigilant in the approach and ensure Canadians do not put themselves into situations they do not want to be in.
I stress that there is a reason for the circumstances we are in, but regardless of all of this, Canada still puts itself in a position of being among the best in the G7, as it relates to the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio, and I think it is very important that, as we reflect on this, we consider that.
I have brought these up on a number of occasions recently, and I want to talk about them again. They are the recent comments made by former prime minister Brian Mulroney on the job this government has been doing. I mean no disrespect to any living Liberal prime ministers, but I have not even heard a former Liberal prime minister speak this highly of the current government.
Brian Mulroney said, “I have learned over the years that history is unconcerned with the trivia and the trash of rumours and gossip floating around Parliament Hill. History is only concerned with the big ticket items that have shaped the future of Canada”. The article continues, “He said [the current Prime Minister] and the premiers 'conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world' in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called 'the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with...in 156 years.'”
We have heard Conservatives tell us many times in the past how we failed the country on NAFTA, but here is what the architect of NAFTA, the Prime Minister who was the lead at the time and negotiated the original NAFTA deal, had to say about the job this government did. The article describes, “On NAFTA, Mulroney said that he saw first-hand how the current Prime Minister made 'big decisions at crucial moments' and won 'a significant victory for Canada'. He said, 'It's due to the leadership that we saw from the government of Canada'”. That is Brian Mulroney, a former Conservative prime minister, absolutely praising the work this government did in relation to keeping our economy in a good position when we had to renegotiate NAFTA.
I remember the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle at the time standing up in question period demanding the government capitulate to Donald Trump's demands, but we did not. The government stood firm. Our finance minister negotiated this, and we got a better deal at the end of the day. Brian Mulroney will even tell us that. Also, we can look at the various other things that have occurred.
I know that my time is running to an end. I think that once again we have an opposition motion in front of us that is troubling. I am getting tired of challenging the Conservatives day in and day out, but here we are. It is the last one. Hopefully when we return in the fall, we will have motions with perhaps a little more substantive measures to them than what we are seeing now.
1367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:05:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
It is an honour to rise today to speak to this budget bill, which is a very important budget. I have been sitting here for quite some time listening to Conservatives routinely talk about the government spending too much money, but then the same speakers in the same speeches talk about all the places where we should be spending more money. I am getting mixed statements coming from the other side of the House on what we should be doing. Nonetheless, I would like to address some of the points I have heard today.
First, I am going to start with the issue of the debt and deficit we have in Canada. There is no doubt that we are still coming down off of the debt and deficits that were taken on during the pandemic to support Canadians. It is a public policy that we decided on in this country, as most OECD countries did, if not all to at least some degree, to take care of Canadians, our constituents and residents, during the pandemic. That is exactly what we did. We ensured they had the supports they needed.
We are obviously coming down off of that. The deficits are getting smaller as we move away from and put the pandemic behind us, but it should be said that, in comparison to other countries, when we compare the inflationary impacts of Canada to the United States, for example, the United States is seeing much steeper inflation, especially as it relates to items such as groceries, which the Conservatives always want to bring up.
I am not saying all of this because I am trying to say we should not be worried about inflation. We should, and it something that we do need to tackle. What I am saying is that inflation has been happening globally. It is something that the world is experiencing. Yes, there is a lot of credit to the argument that it had to do with the supports that went out. It is not due exclusively to that, but, globally speaking, when we look at that, we can draw a correlation to it. However, we should not suggest that inflation in Canada is happening in isolation from the rest of the world or, more importantly, that we would have had the ability to control inflation in isolation from the rest of the world, especially when we consider how globalized our economy is.
We have more trade agreements with other countries than any other country in the world. What does that mean? That means that, when we build things, things are flying across the border. I will give a perfect example. I do not know if members know this, but 80% of the nylon that goes into airbags comes from the Invista plant in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It makes the nylon, and that nylon will probably travel somewhere to the United States where it is made into the fabric. It then maybe goes somewhere in Mexico through the NAFTA agreement to be fabricated into the airbag, then it probably passes to another country to create the airbag that goes into the steering wheel, and from there the process continues.
My point is that we are a globalized country that has significant trade with many different countries. The unfortunate reality of that is that inflationary impacts are not something we can control in isolation from the rest of the world. If we tried to take an inverted approach and only focused within Canada, saying we will do things without the rest of the world, we would be left behind. As a matter of fact, if we look at the United States and Donald Trump's approach when he was president, we see that he took that approach, and he was unsuccessful in doing it because of that globalization, and it still saw more inflation than Canada did.
I respect the argument because it is a great talking point. It points the blame at somebody, but the reality is that, when Conservatives point the finger at this government to say it has caused all of the inflation in this country, it is ludicrous. It just does not make sense, and it is unfair.
Having said all of that, it is also worth pointing out that, despite the challenging times that the world is seeing right now, Canada continues to have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Why is that important?
It means that, as our economy is growing, and as we are seeing new industries and we are expanding, we are able to keep that deficit in check, relatively speaking, against other countries. Also, very important is the fact that Canada continues to maintain a AAA credit rating.
We should all be concerned about the inflation we are seeing throughout the world. We should certainly be concerned about how it is impacting Canadians here in Canada, but to suggest, for a second, that it is something that we could control while also, at the same time, engaging in the globalization and the global trade that we do, is just wrong. It does not make sense, and any economist would tell us that. It is extremely disingenuous when we hear from the opposition that that is the case.
I also find it absolutely remarkable, and I have said this a number of times, that if people believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, whom the official opposition is very critical of on a daily basis, is responsible for inflation in our country, then they would somehow have to also accept the fact that he is responsible for inflation throughout the world.
To my Conservative colleagues, I would say that, for somebody they do not have a lot of faith in to do anything, to suddenly be giving that individual credit for affecting global inflation is truly a remarkable feat. They cannot have it both ways, despite the fact that Conservatives would like to do that.
The other falsehood or talking point we continually hear from Conservatives, and I would like to take the opportunity to try to once again set the record straight, as I am broken record, and I have been saying this for five or six years, respects the carbon tax, or what we, and I, like to call a price on pollution. I will explain why that is in a second. If the term of the day is “carbon tax”, I am happy to entertain the discussion.
What Conservatives always leave out when they are talking about that, every single time, is the fact that there is a rebate. Although the price on pollution might triple by 2030, and not a couple of days ago, as the Conservative rhetoric would like people to believe, although that may be increasing, and it does increase every year, so too does the rebate. The rebate is reflective of how much people are paying and what they are paying on that price on pollution, or that carbon tax.
That is important because of my reason why I prefer to call it a price on pollution as opposed to a carbon tax. A tax is something that is intended to be collected into general revenues and then used for supports, income redistribution to support those in particular hardships who need it at various times, and that is not what this levy does. It takes the money and then returns that money to Canadians. It is the exact same amount. Whether one made $1 million dollars last year or $10,000, we all got the same amount based on the number of people in our family, in our households.
Now, a very valid question would be why we would even bother doing that if we are giving the money back. I think it is actually a good question, and a lot of people ask that. There is a very simple explanation for it. Economists throughout the world resoundingly agree that, when a price is put on something, it changes the behaviour in the marketplace. It incentivizes people to make different choices.
If people are making very environmentally friendly choices and they are paying just a little into that price on pollution, they stand to gain more back than they put in. That is an incentive to incentivize people to make different decisions as it relates to the choices they are making when they are making purchases.
Those are two very important things that I wanted to bring up in this debate, because I think they are germane based on the discussion I have heard thus far. I will certainly be supporting this budget. This is a budget that respects the circumstances we are in and that we have just come out of, and it is a budget that looks towards the future to invest in people and in businesses throughout our country.
1514 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 10:42:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for two things in particular. The first is for acknowledging the fact that Conservatives voted in favour of a lot of that spending. The second is for not invoking The Notorious B.I.G. in the House, like the member for Calgary Forest Lawn did. That reminds me of the time that Paul Ryan, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, tried to suggest that he listened to Rage Against the Machine because it was a really cool band, and he did not fully realize the irony that he was the machine.
Is it the belief, based on the rhetoric that we hear from Conservatives, that inflation is 100% a domestic issue? Can the member comment on whether Conservatives believe that other elements, like the war in Ukraine and other things that are going on globally, can contribute to the inflation Canadians are seeing? If they do not believe it as much as we do, then do they believe it at least to some degree, or are they just hell-bent on the idea it is—
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion today. We have been anxiously trying to get a position from the Conservative Party on whether it supports this or not. When we imply that it does not, the Conservatives heckle from across the way, saying, “How do you know what our position is?” If the Conservatives do end up supporting this, it will be a complete about-face.
Let us listen to how the Leader of the Opposition responded when he was asked, “when you say about cutting the supplementary spending, in your view does that include the newly signed child care agreements with most of the provinces?” The Leader of the Opposition said, “We've said we do not believe in a $100-billion slush fund”. He literally referred to the child care money as a slush fund.
He further went on to tweet on November 30, 2020, “Why should Justin Trudeau”, sorry, the Prime Minister, “get to force parents to pay through taxes for his government daycare scheme, instead of letting them choose what's best for their own kids?”
Therefore, if the Conservatives do support this, it will be a complete about-face. I wonder if the member could enlighten the House on what the Conservative Party's position is.
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will focus on the first half of that speech, and in particular the member's criticism of spending.
The reality is that the member is absolutely right when she talks about the fact that there are hard times now, and she is probably right that there are going to be more hard times before things get better. At times it will get harder.
Why are the Conservatives opposed to things that would genuinely help those who need it the most, like dental care for kids under 12 whose family income falls under a certain threshold, like GST top-ups, like one-time rental assistance? These are the kinds of measures that economists say will not have an inflationary impact. I am curious as to why the member and Conservatives are against those kinds of measures, when she, by her own words, recognizes the hardships people are going through.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 10:56:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing I find most fascinating about the Conservative motion today is that it about ArriveCAN. The minister responsible for this is here and the Conservatives let their first question go by. They were entitled to the first question and they let it go to the Bloc. They did not even bother asking the minister a question. Meanwhile, the member for Abbotsford was chirping away in the back row over there, heckling him the entire time.
I will go back to the opening comments of the minister today. He mentioned specifically the Conservatives' willingness to support programs that supported Canadians during the pandemic, but they did not only do that. The Conservatives actually fought to spend more.
Let us look at the Canada emergency wage subsidy. Originally what was introduced by the government versus what ended up being passed by the House was considerably more because the Conservatives wanted to spend more money.
Would the minister not agree that it is slightly hypocritical for the Conservatives to suddenly be so critical of the spending for which they voted in favour?
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the concern, again, similar to what we have heard from the Conservatives, is that there is not enough information or details in the bill in terms of who is going to be eligible or how much they are going to get. These are the things that I talked about in my speech.
I talked about why this is framework legislation. Those details need to come out after engaging in that consultation process to determine exactly what it should be. When it comes to spending money, we will still have a budget every year that would have to be approved. That money would presumably be inside that budget envelope and be approved by the House.
The member's last comment, specifically, with respect to how we make sure other jurisdictions do not end up clawing back is one of the most important things here. ODSP in Ontario, the Ontario disability support program, on its own barely lets people get by. What I would hate to see is the Ontario government utilize the fact that there is this new federal program to claw back from the provincial side. Ontario might be different from Quebec, and it might be different from other provinces and territories. That is why we need to make sure that, whatever we do, we respect those jurisdictions but ensure that this is going to be additional to what people are already receiving.
235 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is so much incredible misinformation in that speech that I just do not even know where to begin.
I would point out for the member that at the beginning of his speech he said that spending government money, in particular in this program, would have an inflationary impact. He then later went on to talk about how giving people $500 would not affect the economy, and he said it twice. Which one is it? Is it going to have an inflationary impact or is it not? That is what he said. He should review the tape. Maybe he misspoke.
More importantly, the member talked about housing and said that the federal government should work with municipalities to cut red tape. I worked at the municipal level. I know the way that it works. He knows the way that it works. Every member in this House knows the way that it works. Municipality planning acts and their ability to change zoning and so on and so forth are 100% under the jurisdiction of provinces. He knows that. Why does he come to this place and say that the federal government should work with municipalities to remove red tape? It makes no sense.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can weigh in with his thoughts on what is causing inflation. The Conservatives are railing on about inflation being caused by government spending. Ironically, this is government spending they voted in favour of, but I will park that for a second.
An hon. member: No, they didn't.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: They did. It was 400 billion dollars' worth.
Can this member give us his insight into what he thinks is causing inflation? Does he agree with the Conservatives' principal argument that we should not be spending money on this very important piece of legislation because it is just going to add to inflation, despite the fact that economists resoundingly say it will not?
122 words
All Topics
- 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, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, a very important piece of legislation that attempts to relieve some of the pressure being put on individuals right now in our country, in particular those who are struggling the most. The individuals who will receive this GST credit will, no doubt, be people who immediately use this money for very important needs that they have. It is money that will go directly back into our economy. Despite some of the things we have heard about contributing to inflation, the economists have pretty much resoundingly asserted that such a measure is not going to lead to inflation or, at least, is so marginal that it will be unnoticeable.
I want to focus my comments today on addressing some of what I have heard said in the House. In particular, I want to talk a bit about what I heard the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South talk about a few minutes ago and then go to some comments that I heard from the member for Simcoe North even earlier.
First of all, I think it is very interesting that all of the conversations or all of the discussion that has been happening today regarding Bill C-30, from the Conservatives anyhow, spent very little time actually talking about the bill. Instead, they want to use the slogans they have recently come up with, such as “triple, triple, triple”. I am still trying to wrap my head around why that is supposed to be so funny. I do not understand how that works, but perhaps that line was given to everybody by the leader's office and it is their responsibility to deliver it repeatedly in this place.
The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South was not talking about the bill. He went on a long tangent from the discussion about why it is so important that the government not spend money right now, because it is leading to inflation. He was basically saying that when the government spends more, it leads to more inflation, and so on and so forth.
Just putting aside for a second his argument on that, I would remind him that my understanding, at least, is that Conservatives are voting in favour of this bill. They are voting in favour of this spending. For the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South to stand there for 10 minutes and talk about government spending leading to inflation and how the government should not be spending while on the topic of a bill about spending that he supports is extremely rich and, I think, underscores the hypocrisy that we hear over and over from Conservatives in this House. It is just on constant repeat, the way that they come out and say one thing but do another. I do not know if this is due to the new leadership of the crypto king from Carleton or what it is exactly, but it is certainly—
502 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will not insist on anything. I will let the committee do its work and look at the question the member is raising. Am I open to it? I am, especially when we talk about health care, which is so complex and is done between the federal and provincial governments. I am certainly open to letting those discussions take place and seeing where they land.
The reality of the situation is this. We want to ensure the money we give to provinces to help with this kind of thing, whether given to them directly or through the CRA, which this is proposing to do, actually gets into the hands of those who need it, helps with affordability, and does not allow provinces to take it and not use it for that intended purpose but rather for subsidizing what they are already spending.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start with a couple of things. First, I heard the member say that no other trading partner has a price on pollution or a “carbon tax” as he referred to it, which is not true. Fourteen out of 31 of the OECD countries do tax pollution, including Japan, the United Kingdom and France.
The member also talked at great length about the price on pollution or a carbon tax in B.C. However, my understanding is that B.C. has its own carbon tax. Indeed, B.C. is not utilizing the carbon tax that is imposed, because it chose to do its own model, which was the premise of this entire exercise of pricing pollution, so the member is slightly perhaps misleading by making that comment.
Finally, at the beginning of the member's speech, he talked about the supports that would be put in place as a result of the bill, but that perhaps spending this money would add further to inflation. I do not reject the economic theory behind that. I recognize that he said he is going to be supporting the bill, but is he suggesting that we just abandon people because if we spend any new money on them we are just adding to inflation? Is his suggestion that, because it will contribute to inflation, we should just not spend money on people?
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did hear the minister, in her comments earlier, talk about the consultations with those primarily affected by this, the disabled community. I think that she even indicated that this would be an ongoing thing and would continue to happen. That is to respond to one of the member's last points.
With regard to the issue of trying to hone in on the exact amount, does the member not respect the fact that there are already services provided by the provinces and that one of the things we want to ensure we do not end up seeing is that we just end up transferring money to the provinces and they end up decreasing what they are spending?
We have to ensure that money the federal government puts into this is genuinely redirected to those in need in addition to what they might already be receiving. Would she not agree this is a critical element?
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
