SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 114 - Oct/20/22

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/20/22 12:23:20 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Beauce.

10 words

Oct/20/22 12:23:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. I rise today to discuss our party's opposition motion introduced by my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn. Since the Liberal government is so out of touch with reality, our party felt it was essential to present this motion today to give Canadians a break during this very important period, when inflation remains high and interest rates continue to climb. The current government likes to boast about its latest announcements, such as day cares and dental care, but it fails to realize that it will literally leave many Canadians out in the cold this winter. Some of my fellow citizens will need to choose between heating their home this winter and putting food on the table. As we noted in our motion, one in 10 Canadian homes is heated by propane or oil. These Canadians actually do not have the financial means to chose another option, but the government will continue to treat them like second-class citizens, tripling the carbon tax over the winter. What a wonderful Christmas gift from our Prime Minister. The gap between urban and rural areas has only grown under the leadership of this Prime Minister. He does not seem to understand that Canadians in rural areas are not second-class citizens. They want to prosper too, but his government is letting them down every time, whether a lack of cell coverage, defective Internet or this irrational tax that will triple during our country's coldest season. In the regions, there is no choice but to use a vehicle, whether to go to work, do grocery shopping or drive children to various activities. This tax is stifling them even more. When housing prices have never been higher, food prices have not been as high since 1981 with an inflation rate of 11.4%, the government thinks it is the time to increase the carbon tax even more. I suppose these inflationist polices were passed on from generation to generation. Do members know who the prime minister was in 1981? It was Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember it well because my spouse and I were a young couple with three young children. With high interest rates and inflation above 10%, we had to make difficult choices. Luckily, we had our parents to help us make ends meet. They were very difficult times. We can see the cycle repeating itself. We all know that government members will stand up and say that inflation is a global phenomenon, but this made-in-Canada inflation cannot be blamed entirely on Putin and COVID-19. Decisions are being made at the Liberal cabinet table. It is obvious to me that those folks are completely out of touch with reality and what is really going on. I can assure this House that the numbers would be a lot better if a Conservative government were in power. The Conservatives have been proposing solutions all along, but none of our suggestions have been taken seriously, because they do not revolve around taxing Canadians in order to recover funds to pay for the reckless spending and deficits the likes of which we had never seen before the current Prime Minister took office. The costly coalition with the NDP has turned into a nightmare, as the New Democrats continue to prop up the government and try to convince Canadians to support it. A government that stands up for Canadians would never triple a tax in the winter or raise taxes on Canadians' paycheques. Canadians work so hard. Why take away even more purchasing power at a time when they need it so much? In my riding, residents have a hard time making ends meet. In Beauce, like everywhere in Canada, people work hard. They own and operate businesses and help their neighbours. In my riding, the unemployment rate is currently 1.8%. People are exhausted. They are tired of seeing the federal government dig deeper and deeper into their pockets at a time when they need their hard-earned money the most. Surely the government will tell me about its $10-a-day day cares or the dental care they are currently imposing on us. First, I must say that Quebec has had its own day care system for many years now. Second, I can guarantee that a single mother in my riding would prefer to keep the heat on in her home or put food on the table to feed her family than have her children's teeth cleaned right now. All that is part of the agreement of convenience with the NDP. Before the costly coalition was established, I had never heard the Liberal Party talk about dental care. It is all just a scheme to continue undermining democracy with this coalition that no one in Canada asked for. As indicated in the text of our motion, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking for this same exemption, and our party has worked to do the same. This government's carbon tax makes no sense, particularly in relation to home heating. No one will turn down the heat in their home in the winter when it is bitter cold to reduce carbon consumption. I think people instead need to heat their homes to survive. Our party tabled under private members' business a bill similar to Bill C‑206, which was not passed due to the needless election call last year. Bill C‑234, which is currently in committee, will help farmers keep their livestock and animals safe and warm during the winter. That bill has the support of all the parties, except one. We can guess that it is the Liberal Party. In closing, I would like to reiterate my opinion: This winter, Canadians should not have to choose between heat and food. The Liberals must open their eyes and see the damage they are causing. Maybe they should listen to several of their colleagues in the House, and our party, because they are about to commit a serious mistake on January 1, 2023. The leader of the Conservative Party and our united caucus will not stop until the Prime Minister has heard us. We are here for Canadians, and even more importantly, I am here to protect Beauce. I hope that the government will both hear and understand my message today.

1081 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Oct/20/22 12:32:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague from Beauce's speech. I have been asking the Conservatives a question for three years now, but no one is ever able to answer it. Today, that question is even more important. Do members know what has never been so high? The record profits of oil and gas multinationals. However, I have never heard one Conservative rail against these obscene profits in the House. Does my colleague agree that oil and gas multinationals are making obscene profits and that we need to do something about that?

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Oct/20/22 12:33:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We are here today to talk about the effects that inflation is having on the population in general and particularly on people in the regions of Quebec. I think my colleague will agree with me on that. I think that what is important is that we take real action to find an immediate solution to this very serious problem for all citizens.

71 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 12:33:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is in regard to a commitment that he was no doubt a part of in the last federal election. I raised this earlier today with the Leader of the Conservative Party, but the leader chose not to answer the question. As candidates, they campaigned on the principle of supporting a price on pollution. Today, the Conservative Party is sending a message to Canadians that Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. That is emphasized once again with the motion we are debating. Does the member not believe that he and his party made a commitment to Canadians to support the principles? What does he think of that commitment today?

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Oct/20/22 12:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think it is very clear that we made those promises in a specific context. Right now, we are in the middle of a crisis because of the rising inflation rate, which is driving interest rates up. We need rapid, concerted action to support the entire Canadian population, especially in rural areas.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/20/22 12:35:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know Conservatives are ideologically driven in their opposition to the carbon tax. We brought forward an amendment today to remove the GST on home heating because we know people are struggling. We are trying to find ways to work together. If there is a way we could converge and do something to help people right now, removing the GST on home heating would be an incredible opportunity for us. Would the member's party reconsider our proposition so we could provide relief on something we could agree on, something Conservatives had in their platform in the last election, which is removing the GST on home heating so that people could get relief right now?

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Oct/20/22 12:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said earlier, what is important now is to act quickly to fight the inflationary crisis, which is boosting interest rates. Many people in my riding still heat their homes with propane. We need to act quickly for them, and that is the purpose of our motion today.

58 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/20/22 12:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the Conservatives' arguments, I clearly see that their goal is to deal with inflation and help Canadians and Quebeckers fight runaway inflation. At the same time, they do not want their friends, the oil companies, to shoulder the burden. The carbon tax does not affect the revenues of businesses in the oil and gas sector, and the proceeds of this tax are returned to the public and consumers. This is the kind of measure that helps them, because the tax revenues go back into the public's pockets. I would like to hear what my colleague from Beauce has to say about that. I do not think the carbon tax is a bad deal, because it puts money back in the pockets of those who need it.

133 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Oct/20/22 12:37:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. If he has been following the proceedings in the House, which I have no doubt he has, he has heard us mention on a regular basis that it is false to say that all the money is returned to the people. Real examples from my riding show that that is not the case. I believe we should be careful—

69 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/20/22 12:38:00 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

12 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Oct/20/22 12:38:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, in fact, of all Newfoundland and Labrador, and Atlantic Canada, to proudly support our Conservative motion to axe the carbon tax plan on home heating fuel. This initiative is the latest installment of the cult-like plan to triple the carbon tax on Canadians. According to the chair of the Council of Atlantic Premiers, the energy poverty in Atlantic Canada is nearly 40%, which is the highest in the country. Even Newfoundland and Labrador’s Liberal premier is begging the Prime Minister not to put carbon tax on home heating fuel. It will drive up heating cost by 20% this winter. The premier, a very close friend of the Prime Minister, said in early September that ending the current carbon tax exemption would place “undue economic burdens on the people of this province”. The four Atlantic premiers wrote to the federal environment minister around the same time to request an extension on the home heating fuel carbon tax exemption. They were flatly turned down by the Liberal government, whose intent to tax the right to heat one’s home reflects its cult-like beliefs that taxing the essentials of life will lower carbon emissions. The NDP coalition partners are partial to the very same beliefs. The leader of the carbon tax pact, the Prime Minister, brags that Canadians receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon tax. However, it is time for the Prime Minister to get the memo: Atlantic Canadians get zero carbon tax rebate, and now, the carbon tax deficit of homeowners who heat their homes with oil or propane is about to grow even more with the addition of this tax to their fuel. As if that is not enough, they will be charged HST on top of the carbon tax. That is right. It is a tax on a tax. The Liberal carbon tax is thus far a complete failure. Since the government took office in 2015, our emissions have increased, along with the carbon tax, with the exception of 2020 where it dropped, probably because the Prime Minister and his world economic forum buddies were forced to park their private jets. The failure of carbon pricing in Canada is in stark contrast to the success that Americans have had in reducing their emissions. They did not bend to climate activists, but instead, they used technology and did things like converting coal plants to use natural gas. However, the people of my province do not have the option of converting to natural gas, so they will have to continue, for the most part, with diesel heating fuel, and I will speak more about natural gas near the end of my speech. When implemented this winter, the carbon tax, combined with the HST on heating fuel, will be about 17¢ per litre, and according to our Liberal premier, this constitutes a 20% increase on the cost to heat a home. This is with carbon pricing at the current rate of only $50 per tonne. That rate is set to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030, which will drive up the carbon tax on that same litre of fuel to about 55¢ per litre. This is nothing short of a disaster created by a government whose smallest concern is the real lives of Atlantic Canadians. It is a slap in the face to the very people who have put so much faith in the Liberal government since 2015. I hear from nervous constituents all of the time lately. Constituents are already stretched to their breaking points by inflation that is out of control. Yesterday's food inflation numbers told them what they already know, and now winter is coming. The people of Atlantic Canada will need to choose between food on the table or a warm home. Recently, the environment minister bragged about his new program to switch homeowners from heating with fuel to heating by heat pumps. It is a plan that can help, at best, 3% of homeowners. Where does that leave Cory from Gander? Last year, Cory spent $4000 to heat his home. With the intended carbon tax added, he will pay an extra $700 on his annual heating bill. Cory considers himself to be middle class, but with this inflationary tax increase, he is worried about paying his bills. Felicia from Pike's Arm told me that she spent $6,000 in only 10 months last year to heat her home. The carbon tax on just 10 months of fuel will cost Felicia an extra $1,050, if the Prime Minister does not back down from his tax-hiking plan. The people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame simply cannot take more inflationary tax pressure on their lives. Real people with real bills to pay are really fed up. They are much more intelligent than the tax master, our Prime Minister, makes them out to be. They know this tax-and-spend climate plan is not working. Even the Liberal premier of Newfoundland and Labrador knows it is not working, and he says it is completely unnecessary with the price of oil where it is and where it is projected to go. According to most experts, oil is forecasted on average to be about $95 per barrel next year and will rise to $125 per barrel by 2025. With these oil prices where they are and where they are going, there is already enough pressure on consumers to cut their consumption. This is an unnecessary Liberal tax grab. According to the CBC, which by the look of it is abandoning its carbon tax love affair, Nova Scotians alone will pay $1 billion extra on home heating fuel by 2030. That is quite the tax grab. Can members just imagine: $1 billion and no guarantee that a tangible tonne of carbon reduction will occur? The one thing that is guaranteed is that money in people's jeans will be reduced by this inflationary tax pressure. The Prime Minister should listen to his friend in Newfoundland and Labrador. He should stop misleading Canadians while he contradicts the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO, who said in March that the carbon tax will deliver a net financial loss to most households. The Prime Minister should listen to experts like the PBO, but what can we expect from a guy who said the budget would balance itself? He said there was no economic case for shipping natural gas from Newfoundland and Labrador to Europe, because of the distance. We are just 4,000 km from Europe. However, the U.S., with its LNG plants in Texas, more than twice the distance from Europe, exports a billion dollars’ worth of liquefied natural gas per day. Argentina, in a partnership with Petronas, is building a $10-billion LNG facility to export natural gas. The only place further away from Europe than Argentina is the South Pole, but our wise Prime Minister says that the island of Newfoundland is too far from Europe for it to make economic sense to take on such a project. Right now, as we speak, Germany is converting natural gas plants back to burning coal, which has double the emissions. Instead of helping our allies by harvesting the 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the Grand Banks and boosting the prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Liberal government promotes air pollution in Europe and energy poverty in Atlantic Canada. I am proud to support our Conservative motion to exempt home heating from the carbon tax, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the house, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador and the Maritimes, stand with the people who elected them when they stand to vote on this motion.

1319 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 12:47:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here is a bit of a challenging question, and I hope the member chooses to answer it. He makes reference to the Atlantic, and I do not know whether he said Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, and he said the government would receive hundreds of millions, I think he actually said a billion, in terms of a carbon tax. That is what we are going to be receiving. Ottawa is not receiving carbon tax dollars coming from Atlantic Canada. It is the provinces that are receiving that money. If he really believes it is Canada that is receiving it, can he provide us an actual number that he believes the Government of Canada is receiving because of a carbon tax in Atlantic Canada?

126 words

Mr. Clifford Small

Oct/20/22 12:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way knows that his leader and his party support forcing Atlantic Canadian premiers to place a carbon tax on home heating fuel. The carbon tax is a federal government initiative, and my colleague knows who invented the carbon tax. I just cannot wait to hear him say later that Atlantic Canada is going to get so much back. I cannot wait to hear him say later that we get so much back in rebates, like the Prime Minister constantly brags about, when it is completely false. Atlantic Canadians get zero back in rebates on the carbon tax.

104 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/20/22 12:49:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague will agree that, when natural disasters happen, it is natural for governments to help the people who are affected. We saw it with Fiona. The government made investments to help those who had paid the price in their everyday lives. They lost their homes and other possessions. The UN estimates that, over the past 20 years, natural disasters have cost the world $3 trillion. When governments pay, it is the taxpayer who ultimately ends up paying for it in taxes. How can my colleague think that taxpayers will benefit? The cost comes to $3 trillion over the last 20 years. Just imagine what will happen if nothing is done. The carbon tax is not a perfect tool, but experts say that it is not that bad for now. In Quebec, we are better off, since we have a carbon market. Obviously, the bill will come due for taxpayers eventually. How does my colleague think things will go?

165 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small

Oct/20/22 12:50:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what troubles me the most is the Bloc's attack on oil and gas. Renowned financial experts have said that if it were not for our oil and gas industry, Canada's dollar would be worth 35 U.S. cents. I have a little something else. How would my hon. colleague's province do without the transfer payments that arise from the prosperity that comes from our oil and gas industry? They cannot have it both ways.

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Oct/20/22 12:50:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, people are worried about upcoming increases in their home heating bills. Meanwhile, CEOs of big oil and gas are making huge profits on the backs of families. They made $147 billion last year. I never once heard the hon. member talk about the Irving family. The Irving Oil Corporation estimates revenue per employee at over $320,000, so does the member agree with forcing wealthy CEOs and big oil and gas companies to pay what they owe in order to fund the GST exemptions on home heating costs?

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small

Oct/20/22 12:51:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a great question, but it kind of flies in the face of the support that our Liberal-NDP coalition gave to Loblaws. It gave Loblaws billions of dollars for its freezers while Loblaws was making massive profits. I support capitalism and free enterprise, not socialism and Marxism.

51 words

All Topics

Ms. Ya'ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Oct/20/22 12:52:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, It is a privilege to rise today to address this motion concerning carbon pollution pricing, particularly as it affects my constituents in York Centre, in the north end of Toronto. Climate change is real. It is one of the most pressing issues of our time, and carbon pricing is the backbone of our climate plan. In recent years, climate change has had unprecedented effects on Canadians. Impacts from climate change are wide-ranging, affecting our homes, the cost of living, infrastructure, and health and safety. The economic activity in communities across Canada is disrupted time and time again. We hear a lot of talk today about costs. The official opposition never speaks about the cost to our communities and to our health and safety, or about the impacts on the economy from these increasingly frequent severe weather events. The latest science warns that to avoid severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly and urgently to hold the global average temperature rise at 1.5°. In April 2021, the Government of Canada responded to this by submitting a strengthened national emissions target of 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, a key milestone on the pathway to the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and a piece of legislation I am proud to have worked on. On March 29, 2022, the government released the 2030 emissions reduction plan, outlining how Canada will meet its 2030 target. The plan builds on a strong foundation, starting with Canada's first-ever climate change plan in 2016, and then our strengthened plan, released in 2020. Carbon pricing is central to this and to all of our plans, because it is the most efficient and lowest-cost policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There was a time when Conservative economists at least understood this as a market fundamental, but today's Conservatives, honestly, are penny-wise and pound-foolish. They have been fighting climate action for years in Canada, and today they are fighting us on climate action. Today, we face literally billions of dollars in cleanup and adaptation costs from extreme weather events that are stronger and more frequent because of climate change. We just have to look at B.C. Between fires and floods, our residents are struggling. I am sorry that I did not say this in my introduction. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg North. While Conservatives oppose our climate plan, they also vote against every single measure our government brings in to improve affordability for Canadians. Whether it was a child tax benefit, pandemic relief or even, yesterday, on dental care and rental relief, they just keep voting no. I really do not understand why. Now the Conservatives pretend to be on the side of helping those who may be facing energy poverty, but Canadians have been riding this roller coaster of volatile global oil and gas prices for years. It is not new, but Conservatives have said nothing about skyrocketing profit margins for oil and gas producers, nothing. We have heard from stakeholders across the country that consistency and predictability are the key to unlocking investment in a low-carbon economy. We also know that businesses and industries are developing innovative technologies and approaches to reduce emissions. They need clear incentives and supports to commercialize and put those technologies into practice. Carbon pricing creates those incentives without dictating any particular approach. It lets businesses decide how best to cut their emissions. At the same time, this motion emphasizes that Canadians, especially the most vulnerable Canadians, are facing an affordability challenge. The federal approach to carbon pricing was designed to maintain the consistency demanded by industry and investors while prioritizing affordability for Canadians and their families. We know it is not enough to create a cleaner economy. We have to make sure Canadians can actually afford it. It is true that carbon pollution modestly increases fuel costs. The federal fuel charge currently adds about 10¢ to the cost of a cubic metre of natural gas, about 11¢ to a litre of gasoline and about 16¢ to a litre of home heating oil. These impacts will increase as the carbon price increases, and we know that every little bit counts with fuel prices already being high. However, carbon pricing is not and has never been about raising revenues. In fact, most households in jurisdictions where federal fuel charges apply end up with more money in their pocket than they paid. Conservatives should know this. A lot of members from the opposite way from Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba received their quarterly climate action incentive rebate, which was deposited just last week, but we never hear the Conservatives talk about that. Wherever federal fuel charge proceeds are returned directly to households, eight out of 10 families actually get more back through climate action incentive payments than they face with the increase on fuel costs. This is particularly true for low-income households, which come out significantly ahead. Why? Because they get the same climate action incentive payment as every other household of the same size, including higher-income households, which tend to heat larger homes and drive larger vehicles. For example, the average cost on carbon pricing on a household in Alberta is expected to be about $700 in 2022, but this is less than the average climate action incentive payment that will be provided to Alberta households, which is about $1,040. Similarly, in Ontario, the average household cost is estimated to be about $580, but households will receive back, on average, about $710. These estimates take into account direct costs, like paying more for fuel and also indirect costs, like paying a bit more for goods and services. Families in rural and small communities are also eligible to receive an extra 10%, because we know that our rural and remote communities face increasing cost challenges. Households can use these funds however they want. They can use them to absorb the higher cost of gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, and households that take action to reduce their energy use will come out even further ahead, because they will still receive the same climate action incentive payment. Canadians have real options, and the government is providing support for those options. We are not asking people to change their lives overnight. Taking transit or using an electric vehicle will not work for everyone right now, which is why we have the climate action incentive to ensure that the policy is affordable for everyone. Here is the real opportunity. Canadians who do make low-carbon changes benefit even more, and we are helping them make those choices. For example, fuel-efficient vehicles use less gas and therefore incur fewer carbon costs. We are accelerating the rollout of electric vehicles, and the government provides purchase incentives to bring the cost down. We are investing in more charging stations and the technologies keep improving, with longer range, better batteries and lower costs. Canadians are starting to do the math; I wish my colleagues across the way would do it as well. It is a rising carbon price, volatile oil prices and tailpipe pollution versus less maintenance, no oil changes and charging at home. We can look at our homes, and most of them are heated with natural gas, some still with heating oil. Better insulation, plugging leaks, a newer furnace, all of these use less energy, cut pollution and save money, which is why the government is supporting home energy retrofits through the Canada greener homes grant. The only way to eliminate energy poverty, reduce household energy costs in Canada and to have true energy security is by fighting climate change. The Government of Canada has also committed to return proceeds collected from the federal output-based pricing system, or OBPS, to the jurisdictions of origin. Provinces and territories that have voluntarily adopted the OBPS can opt for a direct transfer of proceeds collected. Proceeds collected in other backstop jurisdictions will be returned through OBPS proceeds fund aimed at supporting clean industrial technologies and clean electricity projects. Climate change is a serious challenge, but it is also an opportunity, and a very big economic opportunity. Canadians want to take advantage of the significant economic opportunities in a low-carbon economy. Analysis by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimates that changing to a low-carbon economy will deliver a direct economic gain of $26 trillion U.S. and generate 65 million new jobs. That sounds good to me. Just as we are putting a price on carbon pollution, we are also making historic investments in clean technology, innovation and green infrastructure to drive growth and reduce pollution, including $9.1 billion in new investments to cut pollution and grow the economy, which is part of our 2030 emissions reduction plan. This is the plan for the future, and it reflects the submissions of over 30,000 Canadians, provinces, territories, indigenous partners, industry, civil society and the independent net-zero advisory body. Canadians want this. Canadians know we need to change, and the Conservatives are just going to be left behind.

1535 words

All Topics

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

Oct/20/22 1:02:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I come from Oshawa, which has significant export business. What my colleague may not understand is that carbon taxes affect the expenses for business, which affects our competitiveness. The reality is that the Liberals do not have an environment plan. What they have is a failed tax plan that has done absolutely nothing to decrease emissions. I wonder if the member would acknowledge this and admit that their plan has not worked with respect to lowering emissions and that she should be supporting our motion today.

88 words

All Topics