44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2023 11:00AM
- Apr/17/23 1:57:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we hear from families that they are less than $200 a month away from bankruptcy. I constantly, on a daily basis, hear from people in my riding, which is a rural riding, and they talk about the carbon tax and how it is affecting their everyday lives. They share that they feel this is unnecessary and it punishes rural Canadians, especially where we live, in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, where we do not have public transportation available. In fact, one of my constituents, Marilyn, wrote to me with an excellent summary of the carbon tax: “I have noticed on my bills for natural gas home heating that they are charging HST on the federal carbon tax. To me, that seems like usury and I believe that it is also illegal. Adding a tax upon a tax is getting out of hand.”
I fully agree. The Liberals continue to tax Canadians when they hurt the most. The carbon tax unfairly punishes rural Canadians and does nothing. The current government has done nothing and it has not met a single one of its environmental targets with this tax.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 2:33:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals still claim that families would get more back than they paid in the carbon tax. We know that is not true. The Minister of Environment finally admitted the truth. It turns out that they do not get more. They also claimed that the carbon tax works, but we know otherwise. New data says that emissions have increased 12 million times in the last reporting year, and they still plan to triple the tax.
How many more increases will it take before they realize the carbon tax does not work, it does not reduce emissions, it lowers our economic output and it hurts hard-working Canadians who cannot pay their bills?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 2:35:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member opposite does not want to talk about the carbon tax. The proof is in the numbers; the carbon tax does not work. It does not leave Canadian families better off. The average family will pay $710 this year thanks to their new increases. Emissions went up and economic output is down because of it. At a time where every Canadian could use a break, the only ones better off are the Liberals who get more Canadian tax dollars with no actual results. This is not an environmental plan.
When will the minister admit to this House what he already told Canadians on TV?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:16:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since my colleague mentioned the environment a few times in his speech, I want to engage him on that issue.
Much like the Bloc Québécois, many groups recognize that the budget contains some positive measures for the environment. However, everyone sees eye to eye on criticizing the investments in carbon capture and storage, as this only offers a vague hope of a transition to a cleaner economy.
Why, on the one hand, are we investing in greener technologies while, on the other hand, we keep funding a technology that is not well developed and that itself generates greenhouse gases?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:17:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is another great question.
I appreciate it, but I do not think the future is in carbon capture. However, I do know that we have a limited runway in front of us to protect our environment for my children, the member's children and all members' children and grandchildren. We have to throw everything at the problem that we possibly can at this point in my opinion.
So, if investing in carbon capture is not the best solution, I would agree, is it a solution that we can use at least in the interim? Possibly, and I want to see if that will materialize. I want to see if it is a possibility. At the end of the day, of course, I do not want to be capturing carbon forever. I do not want that to be the solution. I want to move away from the problem of even having to capture the carbon in the first place.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:18:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the carbon tax.
That is something that the NDP agrees with. However, his government continues to give subsidies to oil and gas companies. On one hand, the government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but on the other hand, it is using taxpayers' money to continue supporting fossil fuels that produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
Does he not think that is a contradictory position?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 6:03:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent presentation. The parts about carbon capture caught my attention. It seems to me that it has practically become a new religion. It is all we hear about. It is portrayed as a miracle solution. It will be universal, and it will bring happiness to the entire planet.
My colleague explained that the science seems to indicate the opposite, so why is the government still going ahead with this?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 6:04:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to ask ourselves why the government is continuing to move forward with this. I just want to remind the House that 100 of the 149 global carbon capture and storage projects were cancelled and that, in the United States, despite significant industry and government investment in the technology, 80% of the proposed projects failed to become operational because of high costs, low technological readiness, the lack of a credible financial return, and dependence on government incentives.
Public money should go to known solutions. It should not go into the pockets of the oil and gas industry for futile projects they try to sell us on.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
