SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 3:43:35 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. An hon. member: Nay.

19 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:43:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan. We need to start today with a bit of history. There is an expression that says those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. That appears to be true of the government, which has never met a tax it did not want to increase. The Liberal government first introduced its clean fuel standard in 2016. The effect on Canadians was noticeable. Some lower- and middle-income homeowners found it difficult to heat their homes due to the price increases associated with this standard. In effect, it was a tax on those who could least afford to pay it. Three years ago, the Department of the Environment put the direct costs of the clean fuel standard on Canadian households at $2.4 billion, and I am sure it is way more now. The Liberal-NDP plan for the environment is not designed to combat climate change. It is a plan to increase taxes. The clean fuel regulations require liquid fossil fuel producers to gradually reduce the carbon intensity of the gasoline and diesel they produce and sell for use in Canada. That is a worthy goal, but what happens to producers that do not meet that standard? They will be taxed. What will they do when they are taxed? They will pass the tax on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, which the Liberals do not mind because then they can add more taxes to the higher prices. With inflation already at historic levels, this new clean fuel regulations tax is a tax that Canadians do not need. Giving more money to the Liberals to help them mismanage the Canadian economy and the federal budget is not the way to fight climate change. After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians have seen their lives become more unaffordable thanks to the inflationary carbon tax. Now the Liberals are bringing in a second carbon tax. Do they not understand that they are making life unaffordable? Do they not understand that people are struggling to make ends meet and that adding to that tax burden makes things worse, not better? I can see the looks on the faces of the Liberals. It is not hard to tell what they are thinking as I say this. I know what their questions will be when I finish speaking. They are going to ask me why I did not mention that their government is offering Canadians a carbon tax rebate, and whether I understand that the carbon tax does not really cost anyone any more. If that is the case, why have it at all? The truth is that the carbon tax is not offset by carbon tax rebates. It is a source of government revenue, just like any other tax. My Liberal friends do not want to admit that they find it better to live in a dream world than admit their taxes are hurting the people they are supposed to serve. They do not want to hear about the numbers the Parliamentary Budget Officer has given us. They do not want to talk about how their first carbon tax is going to cost the average Canadian family $710 this year after taking their rebate into account. They would prefer that I did not mention that once the second carbon tax is fully implemented, the cost to the average Canadian family after rebates will increase to $1,160 annually. Let us talk about the true cost of carbon taxes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the second carbon tax will cost the average Canadian household an extra $573 per year without any rebate, with families in some provinces facing costs as high as $1,157. Both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000 for each family depending on the province in which they live. The combined impact of the two Liberal carbon taxes will be an extra 61¢ for every litre of gasoline at the pumps. If the government was interested in economic growth, it would scrap the new tax and the existing carbon tax. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says the effect of the clean fuel regulations and the existing carbon tax will not help grow the economy but rather will shrink it. That is not what Canadians want from the government's policies. I have heard the Liberals' argument. They whine that the Parliamentary Budget officer was not being fair to them and that the PBO only took the numbers into account when making his calculations. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change has complained that the PBO has not taken into account the technological change the clean fuel regulations will help promote. I would love to hear about those changes from the minister. What new technologies have been developed as a direct result of this tax? My guess is the minister does not understand that taxes do not stimulate invention. If he wants new technologies, perhaps his government should try to encourage a climate where businesses and individuals are free to innovate. However, do not ask the PBO to calculate the benefits to the economy of some imaginary technology. That makes no sense. Perhaps in some Liberal fantasyland carbon rebates and carbon taxes balance themselves, just as budgets do. In the real world, these taxes hurt Canadians and provide no benefit to the economy or ecology of the country. Simply put, a tax is a compulsory contribution to state revenue imposed on taxpayers in order to fund government spending. That is what the clean fuel regulations are for. They are to fund government spending. They have nothing to do with combatting climate change. Unfortunately, the Liberals and their NDP allies appear to be blinded by ideology and uncaring as to the needs of Canadians. It is ludicrous to continually raise taxes at a time of high inflation and when grocery prices are soaring and Canadians are finding it difficult to make ends meet. The government is apparently determined to push through this tax no matter who it hurts. The reality is that the Liberal government's policies are fuelling inflation and making people poorer, which is why one in five Canadians is skipping meals and food banks are seeing record demand. The Liberals have no plan that will actually help Canada reduce its carbon footprint. The objective is to fund never-ending Liberal deficits. This scheme will only hurt our economy, discourage investment and increase the cost of everything in a Canadian household. As a Conservative, I oppose this tax and the burden it places on Canadian families. This is not the way to fight climate change. The way to fight climate change is through innovative technologies and harnessing Canadian brainpower, not through increased taxes. A Conservative government will govern with fiscal responsibility, axe these taxes and bring home affordability for Canadians.

1162 words

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

Jun/1/23 3:52:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the next federal election, we are going to see Conservatives in British Columbia saying that they are going to get rid of what they call the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, when in fact in reality there is no federal price on pollution in the province of B.C. They are going to intentionally mislead the residents of B.C. Are the Conservatives going to compensate the people of B.C. if they get rid of the price on pollution in Canada? They are not paying for it right now; it is being done through the provincial government. Are they going to take the money away from the province and give it to the people? How are they going to deal with the sense of equity and fairness among the residents to B.C. if they cancel the national price on pollution?

147 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:53:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we believe that we should not impose things on the provinces, as the government is doing to Alberta specifically. We will not interfere with the way British Columbia is doing its business now. As for the calculation the member is speaking about, reason and logic tell us that if something does not work we should not repeat it. This carbon tax does not work. This carbon tax is not reducing emissions. It has clearly become a tax rather than a climate solution. That is why when we bring our own proposal to Canadians, our own platform, it will be based on logic and on solutions that are going to make a difference, reduce emissions and help reduce the effects of climate change.

124 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/1/23 3:54:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, cutting the price on pollution is not a solution that will stop pollution. Oil and gas companies are among the corporations that are showing the greatest profits. Why do the Conservatives prefer stacking the deck for billionaire CEOs over helping working people in Canada?

45 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:54:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the arguments of the NDP always have no relation to the economy or business whatsoever. What we are proposing here today is to get this tax out of the way and save Canadians money and make their life much easier. That is not a climate plan; it is a tax plan when they tax people to make them change behaviour, the way the current government is doing. While that is not doing the job and while this is not really helping to reduce emissions, we have to stop and think again, based on reason and based on logic. When we think that way, we can make a difference; otherwise, we are just having an argument that leads nowhere.

121 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/1/23 3:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting to ask a question, but I have one all the same. My colleague is complaining about the fact that there are regulations on clean fuels. Here, he seems to take offence at the fact that a producer who does not comply with the regulations will be taxed. When I speed or fail to obey the law, I get a ticket. What should be done with producers who breach the standards? Do we give them a pat on the back and tell them to do better next time, or do we tax them?

99 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:55:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it does not seem that Quebec has this problem to begin with, so I am not sure where the Bloc Québécois is coming from on this specific point. I am not suggesting, and I have not suggested ever, that we should really allow corporations or anyone to do whatever they want. We have to work with everyone. That is why I spoke about technologies. That is why I spoke about innovation. Those are going to be done only with businesses that they know better and with us, to make sure we remove any red tape and the gatekeepers from their way so they can do their job. At the end of the day, we are all Canadians and we all have to work with each other to achieve a worthy goal.

137 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/1/23 3:56:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Edmonton Manning knows there is no second carbon tax. I want to ask specifically about what he has been talking about, which is the economics of the climate crisis. We used to talk about the future costs of inaction. Right now in this country, we have 179 wildfires in multiple provinces across the country. Does the member know the cost of climate-induced wildfires and floods from just the last year alone?

79 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif

Jun/1/23 3:57:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while the hon. member is asking me, he should ask the government if the government knows. The government members are not giving any information on anything. They just keep hiding in secrecy.

34 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/1/23 3:57:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on our opposition motion today, calling for the scrapping of the first carbon tax and scrapping the second carbon tax as well to put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. I want to talk about the current state of affairs in our country. I got a disturbing text from someone I have known for a long time about how he sees what is happening in our country right now. He said, “This country is basically parts of the Titanic sliding into the abyss of the Atlantic. Five years ago, we would not recognize the country we have today. I shudder to think what we will think of the country that we will become in 2028.” This is from a hard-working gentleman who has worked his whole life, and created a good life for his friends and family. He sees this country as continuously going in the wrong direction. He wonders when people in this chamber are actually going to stand up for Canadians and talk from a passionate point of view of what hard-working, everyday Canadians see, which is our country going in the direction it is going. I am going to try and do that a bit today in the vein of our motion, and talk about taxes and what the tax is really trying to accomplish. The first carbon tax that was implemented after the 2015 campaign was supposed to reduce emissions across our country. It was supposed to be an environmental policy. The problem with that is it has had no environmental effects on our country. Over the last eight years, the government has never hit an environmental target with its carbon tax or any of its other environmental policies. When the Liberals flew around on a junket to COP and they were all eating caviar, it actually came out that Canada is the 58th country out of 63 countries for environmental targets. The Liberals never talk about that. Let us talk about someone who is a hard-working Saskatchewanian. They are looking at their government that keeps asking them to pay more and more because it is going to be good for the environment eventually. This person sees there are no results. They then start to question whether this actually is an environmental policy at all or if it just a tax-and-grab, and the government just wanted to fill its coffers with more hard-earned dollars. A government has never actually earned a dollar. The only way the government gets money is by taking it from someone who earned it in the first place, like through work or investment. The government gets it through taxing the hard-working people. The government does not earn anything itself. It takes and then it gives back with the other hand. That is the other argument on the carbon tax that our Liberal friends and NDP socialist friends put forward, which is saying it is revenue neutral. They have been saying this for years. The Liberals and the NDP have been saying it is revenue neutral. I have never in my life seen a government program run on a revenue-neutral basis. Canadians never get back what they put in when they give to the government. It goes to the government, it goes to the department, it goes through many different hands and then out the other end comes much less than what Canadians gave to the government in the first place. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said it has been saying this since 2015. Before that, I remember that Premier Wall said there is no such thing as a revenue-neutral government program, and he was right. The Parliamentary Budget Officer came out and said there is no way eight of 10 Canadians are getting back more from the carbon tax than they are paying. It is not revenue neutral. It has had none of the desired environmental effects that it was supposed to have by making Canadians pay more for everything. Then the Liberals say it is a market mechanism. The NDP members are okay. They just want to take more money from people who have earned it. Socialists always believe the government can spend money better than the person who earned it anyway. We will never feel that way. Some Liberals are saying it is a market mechanism and they will put in policies that will make people act differently. In my province, where I come from, it is very hard to act differently when planting in fields or harvesting. There are limited options for harvesters, and many of them will continue to run on fossil fuels. We cannot implement a government policy that would make that process of planting, seeding and harvesting run differently, because we have to use fuel in the machines. Maybe a generation from now, there might be the capacity for electric combines and tractors. I would like to see that technology, if it ever happens, but it is very far away. So for a government to implement a policy, which it knows would adversely affect the agriculture sector, adversely affect the oil and gas sector, because there are no other technological options right now, is, quite frankly, dishonest. The government cannot say that this is going to be a fair tax, because it does hit provinces in our country differently. For example, the carbon tax 2 that we have talked about in the last couple of days is going to cost Saskatchewan people $1,117 net for a family. If we add carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 on what a Saskatchewan family is going to have to pay, it will be $2,840 more this year alone. A lot of people may say, “What's $2,800?”, but to some families that is grocery bills and new shoes for their kids. A lot of families could use that extra $2,800. These are not families who are not trying to be environmentally friendly. In Saskatchewan and Regina—Lewvan, people have to heat their homes when it comes to wintertime as it is pretty cold and in July, it gets pretty hot and so people have to cool off their homes. There are no options. When a government comes forward and says that it is going to change the behaviour of Canadians with this policy, there are just some behaviours that we are going to have to continue to hold onto, such as driving the kids to hockey or school. Rural Saskatchewan is a big place, and there are not many options other than to drive. We cannot get an Uber in rural Saskatchewan. There is no bus service. We need a vehicle and we need to drive. This is why we stand and talk about the carbon tax and lay out some of the arguments, which my fellow Liberals and NDP members will throw back at me. This is why some of the people I represent feel a little jaded when it comes to this government's policies. They feel, over the last eight years, that they have really been left behind in western Canada. It is getting tougher and tougher for people to see anything left from a paycheque at the end of the month; heck, even halfway through the month some people run out of their paycheque. A lot of people have probably been to the lobby day on the Hill when the food banks across Canada were here. I had an opportunity to talk to the food bank CEO from Regina, and some of the numbers are staggering. They call them “points of service” when people come in to get food. In Regina, last year, there were 120,375 points of service, which is a lot of people coming to get food in a city the size of Regina. This year, there were 171,451, which is a number, but these are people and these are families. That is a 42% increase. When we hear about the budget being so good, that we have never had it so good and that Canada is at the top of the G7 in numbers for debt-to-GDP ratio, it does not really sink home. A lot of people are asking: If the country is in such good shape and if the country has so much money, why is there not more money in the pockets of Canadians? Why do they not have more money to make it to the end of the month if the government is doing so well? I think that is a question that my Liberal colleagues and their junior partners in the NDP cannot answer. They stand up day in and day out, such as the finance minister, talking about how good it is in Canada and how everyone should be happy. Except that one in five Canadians are skipping meals. There are 1.5 million people using the food bank every month. Food bank usage in Regina has gone up 42%. There are students who are literally sleeping on couches because they cannot afford rent. That does not sound like a country that is doing very well. So, when we say that we should scrap the carbon tax 1 and the carbon tax 2, it is on behalf of our constituents that we rise up and talk about these issues and why we think they deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. At the end of the day, if the policy is not working, it is literally the definition of insanity to keep on increasing it, doing the same thing and getting the same result.

1631 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/1/23 4:07:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will pay the member the same compliment he paid me, which is that he is very well versed. He knows how to get up, stand on his feet and speak to a topic for an extended period of time, and I appreciated him doing that today. I have heard the member talk a few times in the past about the decrease in GHG emissions in Canada. Between 2019 and 2021, Canada actually decreased more of them, as a percentage, than five out of the other six G7 countries. However, he always comes back to that and says there was a pandemic then. Unfortunately for that argument, since the pandemic, our economy has continued to grow and we are still seeing those reductions. Can he explain how the economy can grow and the pandemic can shrink them at the same time?

143 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Jun/1/23 4:08:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite sad that the Liberals can only brag about lowering emissions during a time when they locked Canadians down and they literally could not drive. Talking about the jobs they have created, they are not even at or near where they were in 2017-18, because before that, they stripped jobs out of the western oil and gas sector. They lost 100,000 jobs in 2017-18 in the oil and gas sector alone. If they want to talk about when the economy was thriving, they should figure out the economy of Canada. All of the provinces should be involved in the economy. They should not just hit one economy over the head again and again with poor policies that lose jobs in that sector and then think they are growing the economy. They should look at it as a whole-of-Canada approach and try to make sure that all Canadians can go to work.

160 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Jun/1/23 4:09:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to listen to my Conservative colleagues talk about carbon taxes and people who are struggling to feed themselves and have to rely on food banks. I find it hard because I have heard the member for Carleton, the leader of the official opposition, say on numerous occasions that some people are going to food banks and asking for medical assistance in dying. To say such ridiculous things reflects poorly on the member and his credibility. It is hard to believe that the Conservatives really want to help people who are struggling. Personally, I do not know anyone who goes to a food bank and asks for medical assistance in dying. This empty rhetoric could be hurtful to people who really are requesting MAID. Can my colleague comment on that?

135 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Jun/1/23 4:10:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe the member does not know all Canadians. Our leader has given examples of when this has happened at food banks. It is an admonishment of the government and its junior partners, which hold it up sometimes. Lots of times the Bloc will vote with the Liberals. It is quite disturbing to me that they vote with the Liberals. It is also disturbing that Bloc members sit in the House and try to break up our country every day, but they get to sit here. We will keep on talking about our policies and platform , which will move all Canadians forward, and they can talk about whatever they want.

112 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/1/23 4:11:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon. member that people are suffering. They are struggling. They are desperately trying to get by. However, there are those in this country earning such incredible profits. A huge group of them is in oil and gas. The NDP has used its opposition day motions to repeatedly call for this House to support a windfall excess profits tax, but this Conservative member has voted against it. I would like him to explain exactly why he would do that when those profits, those taxes, could go to supporting people, the same people who he says are suffering.

104 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Jun/1/23 4:11:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to congratulate Danielle Smith and the UCP on their victory over the NDP in Alberta a couple of nights ago. I do not know what kind of party would have a leader lead them after two devastating losses, but at least the member for Burnaby South has some company now, as Rachel Notley has lost two elections as well. That is what the New Democrats do. They try to divide and separate Canadians. People who are running businesses and making extra money could hire another person to go to work. That is why the NDP continues to fail and is becoming more and more irrelevant across Canada. The party should just stand for “no damn point anymore”.

126 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 4:12:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise in this House to speak to important issues. We are speaking about climate change and how to fight it, how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and how to strengthen our economy while improving our environment. That is a very important conversation for Canadians here in Ottawa and across this blessed country. Before I begin my formal remarks, today the International Energy Agency released its report on the global renewable energy market. One of the comments it made was that the forecasted capacity of solar and wind is going to hit 4,500 gigawatts, which is the amount of power output today produced by China and the United States together. That is where the world is going. Before I continue, it is my pleasure to say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Milton, a wonderful riding just west of mine. He will take the floor after I am done. This renewable energy market report by the IEA goes to show how much and how quickly the world is transitioning to renewable energy sources. We must put that in context, because what we are discussing here today is very relevant to that. We are discussing a price on an externality that we want to reduce, as we say in economics, and it is very important that we continue to put in place policies for that. This is one policy that our government has put in place among a plethora of policies, whether it is tax credits for carbon sequestration, clean fuel regulations or investing in the battery sector in the transition for the auto sector, something I am very familiar with. There is a multitude of different pillars we have put in place that will strengthen our economy and lead to a healthier and cleaner environment. That is the future. That is where the world is going. The United States is going there. China is even going there. Europe is going there too. There will be 440 gigawatts of renewable power added in the world this coming year according to today's report. I will now get to my formal remarks on today's opposition motion. Madam Speaker, today I have the privilege of rising to address my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss this motion on carbon pollution pricing. Pricing carbon pollution is one of the most effective ways to encourage the reduction of emissions and ensure the investment needed to decarbonize the economy. It allows industry, households and companies to choose the best method of lowering their emissions rather than leaving the decision up to the government. Pricing carbon pollution is a pillar of Canada's plan for meeting its 2030 targets and reaching net zero by 2050. Effective and comparable pan-Canadian carbon pollution pricing is vital to meeting these targets. We must meet the objectives of 2030 and then those through to 2050. Pausing the pan-Canadian approach to carbon pollution pricing or changing it midstream would cause significant uncertainty, particularly for the industry and for carbon credit markets. It would also curb much-needed investments in clean technologies such as carbon capture, use and sequestration. The impact that carbon pollution pricing has on the cost of energy can be mitigated by returning revenues to households and businesses and using other types of federal funds and programs. This is the approach our government has taken. It is returning 90% of the proceeds from the federal fuel charge to Canadians in provinces where it applies and where governments have not proposed their own plans that meet the federal model requirements. In the Atlantic provinces, where heating oil will be subject to carbon pollution pricing for the first time next winter, most households in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island that will pay the federal fuel charge will receive more in climate action incentive payments than they will pay for the increased costs associated with the federal fuel charge. For example, a family of four in Newfoundland and Labrador will receive a $328 rebate every four months in 2023 before they incur expenses as a result of the increased federal fuel charge. Our government is well aware of that increase. That is why we made sure from the start that all families that have to pay the federal fuel charge will have the money to do so or to modernize their appliances that use fossil fuels. When they get their quarterly climate action incentive payments, Canadian households can use that money however they want. For example, households could use those payments to amortize the costs of carbon pollution pricing. That is one of the reasons why those payments are being sent to Canadians before they incur any expenses from the federal fuel charge. Other households may take measures to reduce their energy consumption and come out even further ahead, because they will continue to receive the same amount in climate action incentive payments while using less fossil fuels. In addition to the climate action incentive payments, our government announced, in September 2022, half a billion dollars that will be made available to Canadian households to help them abandon costly home heating fuel, with a $250-million contribution to the low-carbon economy fund and with a $250-million investment by the oil to heat pump affordability program, a new component of the Canada greener homes initiative, overseen by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources. Or government is also helping small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can also modernize their equipment and their operations in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of the federal fuel charge when it applies in their province or territory. For example, $2.5 million of federal fuel charge proceeds will be returned by my department through a new program targeting small and medium-sized enterprises in trade-exposed and emissions-intensive sectors in provinces where the charge already applied before 2023, namely Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Through a jointly developed process, our government has also committed to returning 1% of fuel charge proceeds collected in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to indigenous recipients in those provinces under programs co-developed with indigenous organizations. Let me be clear. Our government has demonstrated time and again that a majority of Canadians, over 80%, who pay the federal fuel charge get more money back in climate action incentive payments than they pay in charges in a year, which leaves them better off financially. In the provinces and territories that have created their own carbon pollution pricing systems, the governments of those provinces can use the proceeds of their own carbon pollution pricing as they see fit. For example, they can use them for climate action incentive payments, similar to the federal model, or to reduce taxes for their taxpayers, if they wish. The motion also cites carbon pollution pricing as one of the causes of inflation in Canada. That is simply not the case. For example—

1179 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 4:22:38 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member. I am really sorry, but we have to go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Mirabel.

24 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/1/23 4:22:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in looking at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the cost of the biofuels measure, it is clear that these costs are quite high for households, particularly in provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The provinces with the largest oil and gas industries, and where people rely heavily on oil, are basically paying for this measure. Is it not time we helped these provinces and their governments develop solutions so that, when there are new standards in the future, costs are lower for households? Is that not the solution? Should they not be developing options for transportation, in particular, which uses oil?

108 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204