SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 1:17:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope that the member does not go anywhere, because I want to hear his question. He will have an opportunity to ask me, and I would love to hear his math. The truth is, at least he is attempting to answer it. I asked the question of the Leader of the Opposition after his speech today. I said, “I just want to understand the math; explain the math to me.” Of course, the Leader of the Opposition would not even remotely come close to answering my question. He just skated around and said that the Prime Minister does this and that I travel here. He did not answer my question. I just want to understand who did the math and how they calculated it. The reality is that it is just not true. This is the problem: Conservatives get so outraged when we say that they are providing misinformation, which they are, but they should at least be able to substantiate the claims that they are making. The motion specifically says that $670 for this summer would be saved by the average Canadian family between now and, presumably, Labour Day, when the summer unofficially comes to an end. I could go on about the data around this, but I think I have made the point in that there is a ton of misinformation coming from the other side. Why are the Conservatives providing this misinformation? Why do they continually and repeatedly do this? It is because the Leader of the Opposition wants to fundraise. He is using this venue, the democratic centre of our country and the chamber where we have debates over policy, as an opportunity to fundraise. He wants to give a speech, talk about these things and then go and send out an email blast, saying, “Donate to me and we are going to make life more affordable.” Does it sound like anybody familiar? It sounds a lot like that guy with the red tie in the United States, Donald Trump. He seems to do a lot of that, does he not? It is the same outrage, the same— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

365 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 1:19:18 p.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind members, if they have comments or questions, that they should wait until the appropriate time and not be interrupting members who have the floor. When the Speaker is speaking, again, it is inappropriate for members to still be making comments. The hon. deputy government House Leader.

51 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/24 1:19:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this happens a lot. Whenever I talk about the Conservatives and compare them to the MAGA Republicans in the south, they get outraged like this. The Conservatives do not like it.

33 words

Mr. Dan Mazier

May/30/24 1:20:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The member is supposed to be talking about Canadian politics. He referred to the Speaker—

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 1:20:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member knows full well that, when it comes to speeches, there is some flexibility. I would ask members to please allow the member to make his speech, and I am sure that they will see that it is very relevant. The hon. deputy government House leader.

48 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/24 1:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is why he must have voted against Ukraine. He thinks we should only be talking about Canadian politics in this room. What an outrageous statement to make, on a point of order no less. The reality is that the Conservative Party is the equivalent of the Republican alt-right in the United States. It is a reality. It comes from the neoliberal concept of having absolutely no involvement in making life better for Canadians and, more importantly, using faux outrage whenever they can find an opportunity to use it. Let us look at who the Leader of the Opposition hangs out with. He goes to camps set up by members of Diagolon, an organization in Canada that has ties to some pretty shady activity. It is the reality. The Conservatives keep heckling because they are upset about it, and maybe some of them even ask why he did that, why he participated in this. Those are good, fair questions. However, this is what the member for Carleton has transformed Brian Mulroney's Conservative Party into. They have the same colour, the same shade of blue, and they call themselves Conservatives, but they are not. They are the former Reform Party of Canada. Why they are ashamed to call themselves what they are is beyond me. They should just change their name to accurately reflect what they are. They are following the same playbook as Donald Trump. They do the exact same thing. They try to find ways to outrage people. They try to tap into people's anxieties. They try to tap into the fears that people are experiencing right now and the anxieties they are experiencing in their lives. That is what they are doing with this motion. Once again, we have a motion before us on the issue of the carbon tax. I have a whole binder here from every single time they have brought it up. Of course, they never talk about the fact that people get more money back. They will never even talk about the fact that people get money back, never mind how much. The Conservatives treat the carbon tax as though they know they can rage farm more if they just talk about it. This is what we continually see from Conservatives, over and over. I pointed that out when I started my speech by talking about the math and about how they came to the conclusion that the average Canadian is going to save $670 per month. I want to know how they came to that conclusion. By my calculations, someone would have to drive 272 kilometres every day between today and Labour Day in order to realize the savings they are talking about. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

460 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 1:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Order. I know some members were in the chamber a while ago when I indicated that there will be an opportunity for questions and comments, but some may not have been. Again, all of these points of order and interruptions that I have to rise on mean that hon. members may end up losing a spot because it is taking too much time for them to do their speeches. Members should hold on to their thoughts. There is still a little under 10 minutes for the hon. member to finish his speech. Members will have 10 minutes of questions and comments, so they should jot down their thoughts. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

116 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/24 1:24:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just talked about the average Canadian. However, Alberta MPs, presuming they are purchasing their gas in Alberta, would get 37,000 kilometres of driving out of the potential savings that their leader is talking about. All that is to say that it is absolutely ludicrous what the Conservatives are suggesting and trying to sell to Canadians. I am sure an email will go out later today to their base saying they would save Canadians $670, so please donate $1,000. I am sure that will happen later today, because that is what they do. However, the reality is that they are misleading Canadians by suggesting that the average Canadian would save $670. It is an outright falsehood. There is absolutely nothing true about it, unless the member for Dufferin—Caledon plans to drive from the North Pole to the South Pole, and then still have over 5,000 kilometres left afterwards to continue driving around. That is the only way he would ever save the kind of money they are talking about. I find it incredibly concerning when we see, time after time, the Conservatives get up with their fake outrage and try to mislead Canadians and sell them something that is not true. In reality, if we stop and think about it, if we were to remove the price on pollution, the carbon tax, we would also have to remove the rebate. Even if what they are saying is true and we could somehow come to the conclusion that we would be saving $670 at the point of sale, even if we could wrap our heads around all that and accept it, their math still would not work because people would not be getting the rebates. The whole point of the rebates, the whole point to pricing pollution, is to incentivize people to make different decisions when it comes to their purchasing power, what they are buying and how they are going about their days. For some people that will be easier than for other people. That is why we have set up various programs to help people transition to cleaner options, transition to doing things differently that do not have a large carbon footprint. That is what this is all about. For somebody who studied economics in university, I understand this. However, what baffles me the most is how Conservatives do not understand it. Conservatives are the ones who will tell us they know everything about how an economy works. They know how to save people money and know what is in the best interests of growing our economy while saving money. They sell people a fake bill of goods all the time on that narrative. However, for some reason, recently, they have lost the ability to look at things from a macroeconomic perspective to understand what the implications are on the micro level. That is exactly what is happening. It is exactly what we have seen time and time again from Conservatives. It was not always this way. This is a new-found passion. To the Conservatives who continue to heckle me right now as I speak, guess what. They ran on pricing pollution. They ran on the concept of pricing pollution and a carbon tax. It was not even Liberals who first floated the idea of pricing carbon. It was Stephen Harper, in 2008, who said that he wanted to price pollution, because as an economist, he understood that changing market behaviour is easily accomplished by putting a price on something. We just took it one step further by saying that not only will we change behaviour, but we will also give all the money back through rebates. I know that Conservatives are going to say the PBO said this and that, but my colleague just raised the point that the PBO recently issued a retraction on the numbers that it had done previously, which are the basis for all the Conservative misinformation. The reality is that eight out of 10 Canadians get back more than they put in. More importantly, 94% of Canadians who have a household income of less than $50,000 a year absolutely get back more. The people who are not in favour of this program are the wealthiest, and surprise, surprise, it is the Conservative base, the people who Conservatives go after all the time for fundraising, the people they will fundraise off of later on today. These are the people who Conservatives are insistent on trying to please because they know the more they appease their rich friends, the better off they will be as a party and, in particular, the better off the party's coffers will be. I will conclude with that. I am looking forward to taking questions from my colleagues, but I really hope that the member for Provencher or the member for Dufferin—Caledon, when they stand up, address specifically where they are getting $670 from. I want to understand who did the math and how they got there. I am willing to be proven wrong. I just want to understand the facts. Every time I have asked so far today, I have not been given an answer, including from the Leader of the Opposition, who completely avoided my question. I would like Conservatives to explain to me how they conclude that people will save $670 between now and Labour Day. Based on the way that I have calculated it, in the best case scenario with the lowest amount, it would be around 25,000 kilometres, which would allow a person to drive from the North Pole to the South Pole and get a significant way back home as well.

950 words

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC)

May/30/24 1:31:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for wanting to speak in facts. Given his speech, we can all agree that we know the shopping cart is the most expensive vehicle in Canada to operate for all Canadians. Speaking in facts, my riding of York—Simcoe does not qualify for the 20% rural top-up. I cannot even see the CN Tower from my riding. The Chippewas of Georgina Island, in the middle of Lake Simcoe, are 70 miles from Toronto, and they are classified as rural and remote by the federal government. We know, based on facts, that the government has rolled back the CMAs for certain ridings. It knows there is a problem. Houston, there is a problem. It even said so in the budget, but it has done nothing to address this.

140 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/24 1:32:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not going to avoid the member's question. I am not going to do what the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Oxford did earlier when they were asked a question. I am going to answer the question directly. I think the member has a really good point. When I think of his riding, I do not think of downtown Toronto. It genuinely makes me question why his riding does not have the rural top-up as well. It is a good question. I do not have the answer to it specifically, but I certainly think it is should be looked at. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I am trying to agree with their colleague and the Conservatives are heckling me. It is unreal. I think there should be a good assessment of this to understand why the government came to this conclusion. I am very happy that the government doubled the rural top-up to continue to help more rural Canadians, who are experiencing the impacts even more. Why it is not impacting his riding, to be honest, is something that I have questioned as well.

196 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

May/30/24 1:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech and for his efforts to deliver a speech that makes sense, relatively speaking, while ignoring all the attempts to distract him. I wanted to point that out. There could be a little more decorum in this chamber. In Quebec, for every litre of gas, the carbon tax is estimated to add—

62 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 1:33:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for York—Simcoe on a point of order.

12 words

Simcoe
York

Mr. Scot Davidson

May/30/24 1:33:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member for Kingston and the Islands if he would sign my petition.

19 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/30/24 1:34:02 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. The hon. member got some direction from someone in his party a while ago addressing points of order. The hon. member for Drummond.

30 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

May/30/24 1:34:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was just talking about decorum in the House. These rather ridiculous interjections do nothing to lend credibility to our work. As I was saying, with the carbon exchange in Quebec, gasoline costs 9.9¢ more per litre, while in the other provinces, gas costs an estimated 14.3¢ more per litre because of the federal carbon tax. Obviously, when we see that, it seems much more advantageous to have a carbon exchange like Quebec and British Columbia. Not only does it encourage people to pollute less, but we are always hearing good things about it. However, Canadians in other provinces seem to prefer the carbon tax approach because of the rebates. Could my colleague tell me the average rebate that Canadians in the backstop provinces get? That way, we can see whether the Conservatives' proposal makes sense in terms of the rebates that are paid out.

151 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC)

May/30/24 1:36:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the last comments by the member for Kingston and the Islands. He talked about the fact that he got more money back. That is great for him, but unfortunately that is not the reality for the vast majority of Canadians, particularly those in rural and northern areas across the country where they are paying the carbon tax. They are using more fuel for essential things. People in northwestern Ontario, as members well know, need to travel great distances for essential travel for things like health care, which is not available in their community. It is not a luxury to drive; it is essential. Why is the government so determined to tax Canadians just for living their lives?

125 words

Fuel
Travel

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/30/24 1:37:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, how is it possible for the hon. member to have listened to the first half of my sentence and not the second half of it? The second half of my sentence, after I said that I knew I was better off, I said that I had no problem believing the PBO when he said that that eight out of 10 Canadians were better off. To member's point, that is why we have a rural top-up. It is why the rural top-up was doubled in the last fall economic statement. The reality is that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. More important, as I indicated at the conclusion of my speech, 94% of households that make $50,000 or less are better off. The member is on a crusade to fight a price on pollution and to fight the carbon rebates that come along with them. He should know that his crusade is not with the least fortunate in our country. His crusade is with the best and the most well-off in our country.

181 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/30/24 1:38:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I asked the Leader of the Opposition about industrial carbon pricing, he said that the industrial carbon price did not exist, which is a new level of misinformation. However, I am critical of the Liberal government's loopholes that have been left in the federal backstop that allow companies like Suncor to pay 14 times less than average Canadians. The government could close the loopholes in industrial carbon pricing, strengthen our emissions reduction plan, get greater emissions reduction and also hold the biggest polluters to account. It could also enshrine industrial carbon pricing in law so that if, in the future, there were another government that wanted to scrap it, it would be much more difficult to take away this vital policy, which is doing the bulk of our emissions reduction. I am curious if the member is pushing his government to close the loopholes and enshrine industrial carbon pricing in legislation?

155 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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