Mark Gerretsen
Kingston and the Islands, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Kingston icon and one of the most celebrated town criers in the world: our very own Chris Whyman. This year marks more than four decades since Chris first donned the regalia and stepped into the role of Kingston's official town crier in 1984.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Moments ago, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South issued a social media post that included the results of a vote that occurred earlier this afternoon in the House. He indicated in his post that the Prime Minister voted against a motion. However, the Prime Minister did not even vote at all.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent among the parties to agree to switch the first two speaking spots between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the understanding that all regular rules, including allotted time allocations for those spots, be provided accordingly with that switch.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by my colleague, respecting the effect of the programming motion related to Bill C‑22 in the context of our collective and individual privileges.”
“The programming motion that would govern the consideration of Bill C‑22 seeks to achieve to set a procedural process for the disposal of the bill. The House is no stranger to innovative and constructive ways to dispose of business before the House and in committees.”
“I submit that the exercise of these powers is central to the matter before the House. The House can give direction to committees, which are creatures of the House. The House can decide, by a majority of the voices, to structure the legislative process for any given bill. This is precisely the case with the proposal before the House.”
The complete record
Every one of 398 lines we hold for Mark Gerretsen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“Mr. Speaker, for a year Conservatives said nothing. I would like to go back in Hansard and see how many times the member said “tariffs” before today. Conservatives said nothing. Then, suddenly, a year into the problem, they decided their solution would be to come up with the same plan that existed in 1965. That is literally what they did. Can the member explain to me why the Conservative Party, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition , would not have gone out and consulted some of the unions who have had this to say? John D'Agnolo, the Unifor Local 200 president and auto council chair, said, “So, there's some work that needs to be done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question. The reality is that what she is saying does not exist. She asked why rejected applicants continue to get health care. They do not. The problem is that that member and the Conservative Party consider somebody rejected before they have gone through the entire due process they are entitled to. What that member should have done was bring a motion here saying that they want to get rid of the appeal process altogether, because had they actually done that, they would have been doing something they believe in, rather than just—”
“Mr. Speaker, just like this member, I have seen this happening for years now. The Conservatives just rage bait and look for opportunities to get people amped up so they can then say, “Don't worry. We can fix the problem. All you have to do is donate $10 now.” I have seen it so many times. I have been the subject of those emails throughout the years after I have spoken in the House. The Leader of the Opposition is the absolute worst at it. It should surprise my colleagues, who are heckling or laughing or who have said stuff during my speech today, that they are still sitting on that side of the House. They had a 25-point lead, and as soon as somebody else came along, Canadians could say that they prefer this guy rather than that guy. Can the Conservatives not just rip the band-aid off and get rid of him?”
“Mr. Speaker, I told the story at the beginning of my speech about Syrian refugees. The thing is, a lot of them have been here long enough that we can see what they have become and what they have accomplished. I am so incredibly proud to have Syrian refugees, or former refugees who are now Canadian citizens, living in my community. They contribute to my community in a way that genuinely has an economic impact, a social impact and a cultural impact. That is what we are talking about here. Conservatives are more than happy to paint all asylum seekers as illegitimate because they do not care about due process or protecting vulnerable individuals.”
“It is because that would not have generated the same kind of fundraising that they plan to generate off this. I am extremely disappointed to, once again, have to stand in the House and call out Conservative tactics, the games that they play, to intentionally divide Canadians. That is what they are doing now, and that is what I have seen them do for years. I think it is absolutely shameful to do it in this regard.”
“I asked the Conservative member who spoke previously a very pointed question. The Conservatives will claim that, once a claimant has been rejected, they should no longer get health care. Well, once a claimant has been rejected, they do not get health care. What they are leaving out of this, and it is a nuance that is very important to point out, is that, just like in all of our justice processes, there is an opportunity to appeal. The Conservatives are saying that, once the first decision has come down that a claimant is not going to be given asylum, they should not be given any health care through the appeal process. Well, if that is how they feel, if their issue is really about the appeal process, why did they not come in here today to put forward a motion that says we should get rid of the appeal process?”
“In other words, it is political messaging that seems harmless but carries a hidden meaning for a specific group, and the hidden meaning in the motion before us is, “refugees are stealing your health care”. That is the message they are giving. They will take their videos and clips, feed them to their base and say, “The leader of the opposition can stop this. All we need is $25 from you. Donate now.” We have been watching this for the better part of 10 years, and certainly since this Leader of the Opposition came along, it has gotten a lot worse, but that is what we are experiencing right now. We are experiencing and watching, once again, Conservatives trying to say that refugees are horrible because they are taking everything away from our Canadian identity. Why do they have to phrase it like that?”
“(1725) Conservatives are focused on saying that we are trying to paint a picture of them setting up a false dichotomy of us versus them, and that is not true. It is right in their motion. The fourth item says, “Canadians that have paid into the healthcare system their whole lives”, obviously talking about seniors, “are unable to get the healthcare they deserve in part because resources are going to false asylum claimants”. They are intentionally setting up a dichotomy of us versus them because they know that is dog whistle politics. What is dog whistle politics? We use this term a lot, and I will define it for members. Dog whistle politics is when a human hears nothing unusual, but dogs hear a loud, clear signal.”
“Again, their country was destroyed. My grandparents decided that they wanted to pick up and go to another country to start a new life for their families. As a result, they came here. My Italian uncles set up construction companies and contributed to this country. My grandfather worked as a janitor in a hospital so that his son could go to law school and one day become a member of provincial parliament, and his grandson is standing before the House right now. That is the result of our embracing culture and identity in Canada. Somebody mentioned it earlier today. They said, “Unless someone is of indigenous descent, we have all come to this country over the last couple of hundred years.” That is the reality of the situation.”
“When that individual made his comment to me and he said that I had forgotten to thank the refugees for picking Canada, this dawned on me: Who could we possibly want more than people who are willing to fight? These are not people who want to milk the system. These are not people who want to just lie back and do nothing. They put everything on the line to get here. They want to fight for their survival most times. I cannot think of anybody whom we would want more to build our country and contribute to our country. It actually made me think of my grandparents, albeit they were not refugees by the definition that we use today. Like so many other immigrants who came to this country after the Second World War, my grandfather on my mother's side was from Italy. Their country was destroyed. My father was from Holland.”
“When the individual said that, he made me realize something that is so incredibly true to the Canadian identity. Thinking about it, a refugee, an asylum seeker, is somebody who has chosen to leave everything behind in their home country, pick up their family and leave property, assets and valuable connections to their history and their culture behind. They go and probably stay in a refugee camp for several months before struggling and fighting their way to get to Canada to start a brand new life for their family, in an area they have never been to before that has a cultural identity they have never been a part of. When we stop to think about it, who could we possibly want more in our community, to build our community, than fighters like that?”
“At the request of the organizers to say something to the group, I got up and talked about the incredible generosity of our community and of those who had extended their hands and opened the doors of their homes to let refugees in. I thanked them profusely for doing that and for being so Canadian in a moment of need for people around the world. I concluded my remarks, and I sat down. At the end of the event, there was a reception, and an individual came up to me and said, “I really liked what you said, and I thought that it was great that you thanked all of the local families for being so incredibly generous, but you forgot to thank the refugees.” I asked what he meant. He said, “You forgot to thank them for picking Canada.” I do not think I have ever forgotten that moment, and I have thought a lot about it over the last 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, during this debate, I have been thinking back to 2016. A new government had been formed in the fall of 2015, and it had committed itself to accepting Syrian refugees into Canada out of necessity because of what had been going on at that time in Syria. I remember this vividly: In the late winter, after a lot of the refugees had come into Canada, we had a number living with host families in Kingston. A local organization that had been coordinating all of this put on an event to thank everybody who had gone out of their way to be so generous in accepting and bringing new refugees into their home so that they could start a new life. I remember being at this event. I was a newly elected member of Parliament at the time and very proud of the work that our government had done.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives could have accomplished the same thing and would not have even had to talk about health care and set up this dichotomy of us versus them, if they had just made their motion say to get rid of the appeal process. That effectively would have accomplished the same thing. By getting rid of the appeal process, once a claimant is rejected, it is over. Once a claimant goes through the appeal process, they are required to leave the country. Why did Conservatives have to set up this whole thing pitting seniors against other people and this and that about health care? Why not just say to get rid of the appeal process?”
“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives say they just want to make the system better, but they set up false dichotomies. They make it an “us versus them” issue, saying that our health care sucks because of refugees. That is what they do. This is what we have heard, not just in this debate but in so many debates with the Conservatives. If they were genuinely interested in fixing a problem and making a system better, they would not set up a false dichotomy like that, but they routinely do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find the narrative that the Conservatives have been using today, and in this discussion generally speaking, extremely alarming, because what they are basically saying to Canadians is that their health care system is not working because of refugees. They are using dog whistle politics to attack a subgroup of our population intentionally because they have, in my opinion, the same motive as we are seeing in neighbouring countries of ours right now with the way their administration is approaching this. I am wondering if the member can provide some insight into what he thinks the Conservatives' motive is behind this. Is it just a coincidence that there happens to be a big development, or there has been over the last number of months, to the south with respect to immigration?”
“Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to just accept that compliment and sit down. I do not think I have received one like that from the Bloc before. I genuinely appreciate it. If the member is looking for an ally to always push the government to do more in terms of subsidies, he will find one in me. I will always encourage our government, or any government for that matter, even the provincial Conservative government, to do more for the EV industry, whether that is through subsidies or through different forms of incentives for people to buy EVs. Personally, that is certainly my position.”
“When we are at a place where one in five cars being sold is an EV, it is pretty clear to me where we are going to end up.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is being disingenuous when he starts off by criticizing me personally. The way I read it is that he does not have anything concrete to bring to this debate, but I will answer his question. If the member listened to my speech and everything I said, he would have heard me make it very clear that we are in a transition. We are all going to be building only electric cars eventually. That is the reality, whether that member wants to pontificate about what is happening right now and try to conserve everything that exists in the auto industry, or whether he is willing to look towards the future. In my opinion, the real question is, where is the future? I would encourage the member to start looking to where the future is.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is extremely rare that, when a government member speaks, the first question goes to the Green Party. That, I think, is a symbol of the Conservatives being afraid to ask me a question. Nonetheless, I will address the member's point. She is absolutely correct about the transition. As a matter of fact, my wife did not want to go fully electric for the same reason of range anxiety. What did she do? She got a hybrid plug-in, and now she is at the point where she is ready to trade it in to get a full electric vehicle because she realizes that the range anxiety, by and large, is something that is driven by the oil industry, which is trying to prevent people from buying EVs.”
“It may not be five years from now, but I guarantee that eventually every Conservative will drive one. I have been driving electric vehicles since 2011. I drive a Ford F-150 Lightning, and I park it here. I have put 112,000 kilometres on it, and I have never once brought it in for servicing. The electromagnetic motors drive the vehicle. I do not have an engine. I do not have fuel. I do not have explosions happening to move the vehicle. This is all the stuff I talked about earlier, and this is the reality. I really hope that we can get to a point when Conservatives can finally start to realize that the world around them is changing, and whether or not they want to participate in it is quite irrelevant because it is going to change. Our perspective is that we want to be at the forefront of that. We invite Conservatives to join us.”
“They are going to come up with all these red herrings, like they always do, as though they are trying to somehow conserve, as in the name of their political party, this idea that it is impossible to evolve and it is impossible for things to change. We have the opportunity to be able to do this, to be at the forefront and participate in the change of vehicle that is inevitably coming. We are well past the tipping point. This is not a matter of if; this is a matter of when. Electric vehicles are soon going to be the norm— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear the members laughing right now. Whether or not they want to get on board and drive one of those vehicles does not matter because at the end of the day, they will be in one. It may not be tomorrow. It may not be a year from now.”
“We are well past the tipping point, and we will not come back from this. Do we want to be at the forefront of what is going on, or do we want to be laggards like the Conservatives? Do we want to just wait until we have absolutely no choice but to embrace the technology the rest of the world has already concluded is the only path forward? My position on this is that we have the opportunity to be at that forefront. We have the opportunity to have some of that investment happening right in our country, so that we can be outputting that to the rest of the world, exporting it instead of just importing it. I know that the argument from the Conservatives is going to be that there are very few cars, and only one or two in Canada are EVs.”
“The late majority are the people who reluctantly buy on, realizing, “Okay, yes, this is going to be more affordable, so I'm going to buy it.” They do not really want the technology, but they do accept that the rest of the world is embracing it. At the end of that, when we finally get to market penetration of 70% to 100%, there are what are called the laggards. These are the people who would still be using a rotary phone today if they could, but they have to use a touch-tone phone because the world evolved around them and there is no choice. The laggards are the Conservatives. These are the people who absolutely refuse to embrace the technological change. Right now, one in five cars sold in the world is an electric vehicle. That means that, along the innovation curve, we are currently at 20%, which is well into the early majority.”
“(1310) Next to them, in the 2% to 10% range, are the early adopters. These are the people who do not have quite the same resources the innovators have, but they are still very interested in the technology. They might be motivated from not only an economic perspective, but also a social perspective. After that, on the innovation curve, we get to the early majority. This is when that new technology has penetrated the market between 10% and 40%. This is when things start to really kick off. The actual chasm point is about 7.5%, which is considered the tipping point. At that point, it is just a matter of going through the innovation curve. After that, in the range of 40% to 70%, we have the late majority.”
“We find ourselves in a place where we have a political party that, for most measures, used to be fairly progressive as it related to the environment and embracing change and that seems to have only adopted one thing from that former party, and that is the word “Conservative”. All the Conservatives want to do is conserve and make sure that we cannot evolve or transition at all. There is something called the innovation curve, which is basically a bell curve that will tell us at what point in various different technologies we are currently at. At the beginning of the curve is the 0% to 2% range. People who buy into a new innovation at the bottom of that curve are called innovators. These are the people who have the resources to buy certain technologies because they enjoy it and they like the technologies. They are the innovators.”
“In addition to this, the vehicles are louder and make more noise on our streets. By the way, there is going to be this pipe at the back of the vehicle that spews out toxic gases for all of us to breathe in. This is my pitch to move away from EVs. There is also the cost argument of the fuel. Rather than that stable, predictable cost of electricity, we are going to have to pay for our fuel based on global prices that are set by global influences. In addition to that, we are going to spend thousands of dollars in repairs and changes. The budgets are going to be completely unpredictable. My point is that, if I were to stand here to try to pitch to members why we should move away from EVs to gas vehicles, it would be absolutely absurd, yet this is the place we find ourselves in.”
“We might wake up and the car is empty, so we have to find a gas station somewhere to fill it up, where we are pulling a hose out of a gas tank and pumping flammable fuel into our vehicle. Also, I want members to think about the maintenance involved. Instead of an EV, which has literally no maintenance, we suddenly have a vehicle that has hundreds of moving parts. There is an engine that, thousands of times a minute, is having little miniature explosions in it to drive the engine. This is my pitch to members. In addition to that, every once in a while, every 5,000 kilometres or 10,000 kilometres, we are going to need to get an oil change. We are going to have to periodically get a new spark plug. We are going to need to have belts, pumps and filters changed. Everything is going to have to be changed.”
“When they drive around, there is no noise, no fumes and no rumbling traffic. The streets and the air are cleaner, and kids walking to school can breathe cleaner air as a result of this. Members can think about it for a second. Everybody is driving EVs, and there is very little maintenance required. We are not getting oil changes, changing or adjusting timing belts, or dealing with transmission failures. We also have an energy source that is stable and affordable. This is the world we are living in, my imaginary world, for a second. I now want members to imagine that I am going to pitch why we should transition from EVs to gas vehicles. This is my pitch: For starters, there would be no charging when we wake up in the morning.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I am only at the part about sharing my time, and they are already heckling me. I will be sharing my time today with the member for Oakville West . I cannot help but wonder what is going on in the political party over there with its members being so hell-bent on disassociating themselves from the reality of the world we are in and the fact that our car industries are converting, changing and evolving. I want to propose something to members. I want them to imagine for a second that EVs are already the norm. I want them to pretend for a second that gas vehicles do not exist and that there are only EVs. I ask members to picture this: Every morning they wake up, their car has been plugged in and it has a full battery.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member can talk about where he sees the future of vehicles going. Right now, one in every five vehicles sold in the world is an electric vehicle. It is continuing to only increase and will continue to only increase, moving into the future. I wonder if he accepts that fact and if he would share his thoughts on where he sees Canada's role in the electric vehicle manufacturing process.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to hear why, the member thinks, the Conservative Party has changed so much. I say that because the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada used to be at the forefront of environmental issues. It was Brian Mulroney who brought countries throughout the world together in Montreal to develop the Montreal Protocol to deal with the ozone layer. It was Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who went to see George Bush Sr. to deal with acid rain and came up with protocols respecting how to deal with it. Why, does the member think, have the Conservatives swung so far away from wanting to do anything with respect to protecting the environment?”
“They obstruct Parliament from being able to pass very important pieces of legislation, and then they come in here and try to profess that they have the solutions in opposition motions like this, which serve as nothing more than to act as dog-whistle politics on immigrants. I think it is absolutely shameful that the member and Conservatives would operate in this manner. If he does not know, he should educate himself. Everything they are looking for in the motion has already been passed by the House in this Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, that would be a great speech if it were not for the fact that Bill C-12 , which was already passed by the House, deals with just about everything that is in the opposition motion. I heard the member stand up and talk about everything that the Liberals are not doing right. What about the fact that the Conservatives have held up Bill C-2 , on lawful access, and prevented components of that bill from going forward? What about Bill C-9 , a bill on hate speech, Bill C-14 , on bail reform, or Bill C-16 , which reinstates mandatory minimums? The Conservatives have routinely held up these bills.”
“Madam Speaker, it is refreshing to hear that a new member of the House of Commons is aware of what was going on in here before. I remember listening to speeches from Conservatives who had sat in the B.C. legislature that brought in that carbon tax. They then stood right on the other side of the aisle here and talked it down. The member for Winnipeg North and I would get up time after time to challenge them on it. We would say that they had been in the B.C. legislature, had brought this in, and they would completely ignore the question as if we were making stuff up. The reality is that, if members want to be honest about it, they need to be fair. I will defend everything I have previously said in the House relating to pricing pollution, and any market mechanisms for that matter.”
“The hard work is going out into other parts of the world to find new trade relationships so we can become a more diversified economy that trades globally and never again put ourselves in a position where all of our eggs in one basket with one trading partner.”
“Madam Speaker, if all the member has been doing is paying attention to infrastructure projects, he has missed everything that the Prime Minister has been doing, or at least 99% of it. The Prime Minister is going out into other parts of the world, creating new opportunities and new trade relationships for Canada in the world. That is what we need to do right now. Conservatives want to live in that nostalgia, in the days of great opportunity with the United States, as though it would somehow magically come back if the Leader of the Opposition were to become prime minister. The reality is that the world has changed. Right now, our responsibility, if we are being honest about this, is to do the hard work. The hard work is not to capitulate to everything that the U.S. demands of us.”
“The member is just trying to paint it as Liberals creating this problem writ large and wants to just forget about what is going on in the rest of the world because none of it matters. That is being disingenuous.”
“Madam Speaker, there is a key difference between that member and me. I am standing here right now, and I will say, as somebody who studied economics and believes in market-driven solutions, I believe, as others have also said on this side of the House, that we can drive market behaviour through government intervention. I still believe that, and I stand by everything that I previously said. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, to the member's question about who is being disingenuous, if he is unwilling to talk about the global climate and weather, global supply chains and geopolitical events in this context, then he is being disingenuous to the argument.”
“It basically said to everybody that, no matter what their income was, they would all get the exact same amount of money. Our approach is different. Our approach is that we support the people who need it the most because these are the people who will genuinely benefit from those measures.”
“I appreciate my colleagues who have been standing up on this side of the House today to try their best to put forward what is really going on and offer genuine solutions. On this side of the House, we recognize the problem. We look for long-term solutions, and then we also look for short-term solutions. Those short-term solutions to help people get through difficult times are some of the things we did recently, such as reducing the GST to put more money back in the pockets of the people who need it the most, which is really important to highlight. We have spent a lot of time today highlighting Prime Minister Harper's contributions and him being in Ottawa, but let us not forget that it was Prime Minister Harper who brought in the universal child care benefit, which gave cheques to millionaires.”
“At one point, they may have said that the Conservative Party looked like an option they might choose, but as soon as a more credible option came along, Canadians changed their mind, saying, “Actually, we want people who know what they are talking about and who are being honest with Canadians.” That is my argument here today. We can have this discussion, and if members want to talk about the economic impacts of the market-driven effects of what the government does, I am happy to have an open and honest conversation about that. However, if they try to do it in the void of talking about every other tangible variable that goes into what is going on, they are being disingenuous at best and intentionally trying to mislead people at worst.”
“It is becoming an ongoing joke on this side of the House every time they say, “According to the food professor...”. The reality is that, if we want to have an informed debate about this, they are going to have to start to take a different approach and be honest about what is really going on. The approach the Conservatives took for years, and I will argue that it was effective, was with the carbon tax. They effectively created enough distraction by pushing the issue, but it did not serve them one bit. They ended up right back on that side of the House, after litigating that argument for years, because they were not actually being honest with Canadians or putting forward a sincere argument as to what is going on in this country. The vast majority of Canadians, as demonstrated in April of last year, were able to see through that.”
“If a member's objective is to come here and not talk about what is really happening in the world, and their objective here is to, at any opportunity, try to seize power through, whether deliberate or not, misinformation, then they would be taking the approach the Conservatives have been taking. They try to paint this, as they have for years, as the Liberals creating the problem. They say that the Liberals are the only ones who can possibly be responsible, and therefore, it is all their fault, but it just does not jive with what is going on in the rest of the world. It does not jive with what economists are saying or what anybody who has any kind of expertise is saying. I hear the food professor quoted in here by Conservatives, and it is because that is their only source of information to try to back their claims.”
“Shipping delays, rail bottlenecks, port inefficiencies and higher international freight costs are adding to the expenses because it is even harder for product to reach Canada. The third cause, which I have talked about many times in the House when we have talked about the rising cost of food, is geopolitical events. The war in Ukraine disrupted global grain and fertilizer markets, raising the input costs for Canadian farmers and food processors. All of these things matter, and they matter if members come here from a genuine place of trying to make the situation better for Canadians. This matters because, if we want to have an informed, intelligent debate on this issue, we need to be able to accept some of the reality of what is actually going on.”
“It did not fit their objective years ago either, and it did not stop them then, so I do not expect it to stop them now. For the purposes of having a debate, after years of doing the same thing over and over, I will once again attempt to put forward my position, which, by the way, is supported by economists throughout the world. “Heaven forbid we would have to listen to those elites, those experts,” I am sure the Conservatives are saying right now. The first main cause is climate and weather impacts. Extreme weather, heat waves, droughts and climate-driven crop failures remain one of the biggest contributors to rising food costs. That is just a fact. That is being reported by economists of all political stripes from throughout the world. (1530) The second leading cause is global supply chain distribution.”
“That is what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. Then he comes in here, along with all of his members, saying, "This is my theory.” His theory is that it has to do with more taxes, hidden taxes, made-up taxes, taxes that do not even exist when one actually tries to break them down. He comes in here with such pomp and circumstance, such conviction, and he stands there and tries to lecture the Prime Minister on how to solve the problems because, again, it can only be due to the federal government and its supposed imaginary taxes. However, the reality of the situation is that it has to do with so much more than that. The three main causes that drive prices up have to do with global impacts. That does not fit the Conservative narrative. They will certainly never talk about any of them, because it does not fit their objective.”
“As a matter of fact, if we listen to their argument today, Conservatives are telling us food prices have gone up exponentially higher since that carbon tax was eliminated. That is effectively what they are saying. However, they promised us. The Leader of the Opposition put forward his theory on how to reduce the cost of food, for years, and then as soon as the carbon tax was gone, it did not change anything. Who repeatedly got up on this side of the House to say economists were telling us there is virtually no impact from the carbon tax on food? Who said that all along? The Governor of the Bank of Canada made a comment that it was 0.25%, or something like that. What did the Conservatives do? They just attacked the Governor of the Bank of Canada, said he had no idea what he was talking about and that he should be fired.”
“He said if we got rid of the carbon tax, food prices were going to come down instantly. They were going to drop. All of the world's problems, all of Canadians' problems, would be cured if we just got rid of the carbon tax. What ultimately ended up happening? I would argue that the Leader of the Opposition was to some degree successful in that. He always pictured that he would be the one to finally get rid of the carbon tax, although he was not, but in reality, that carbon tax was eliminated. It was eliminated last spring, in 2025. I will be sharing my time with the member for Bourassa . What happened when we eliminated that carbon tax was that there was effectively no impact at all with respect to food prices. There was no deflation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. I cannot help but think as I listen to the debate, including the last speech as well as those I listened to earlier this morning and prior to question period, how maybe, just maybe, the Conservatives would have a leg to stand on with this argument had it not been for the fact that the last time they made this argument, it came to no fruition whatsoever. I think back to question period when the Leader of the Opposition was telling a world-renowned economist, the Prime Minister , about his theory, why he believes we have high costs of food in Canada. I listened to him, and he said, “This is my theory. This is my theory,” and it is this and that, all these reasons why. Well, I remember the Leader of the Opposition's theory that went on for years about the carbon tax.”