SoVote

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Jun/1/23 4:37:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I want to extend my appreciation to all the hard-working firefighters and folks who are out there in harm's way, protecting themselves. I appreciate the member's comments. He said that families in Saskatchewan are getting roughly $1,360 back a year. However, they are paying out $2,840 every year, so where is the difference going? He talks about this being revenue-neutral; if it is, then why are they not getting back the full $2,840? There is roughly around $1,480 that is coming out of Saskatchewan and going somewhere else. Can he tell me where that is going?

111 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague opposite is doing exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer expressed dismay about in an article in the Toronto Sun just recently. My colleague can look it up. It is picking and choosing bits and pieces of the report and not seeing the big picture. The point is this: There are costs to doing nothing, and there are costs associated with every type of regulation or procedure we put in place in order to combat these types of things. The cost of doing nothing is extraordinary. We would see far more impacts of climate change across this country, and that is what we would like to try to avoid. I would also like to say that we need to be an example for countries around the world, to demonstrate that, if we build up a clean and green economy, we are protecting the environment and the economy at the same time.

156 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/1/23 4:39:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the House we often hear the Conservatives argue against carbon pollution pricing by saying that the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions is proof it does not work. I have explained to my Conservative colleagues on several occasions, in the lobbies, that emissions could have risen even more if not for the carbon tax, but that does not seem to have worked. I know that my colleague is a talented educator. He knows that I hold him in high regard because we have worked together in committee for a long time. I think that if he explained it in his own words, the message might get across.

110 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/1/23 4:39:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question. I think my colleague from Mirabel and I are friends. I think it is fair to say that the only questions worth discussing in this conversation are those of the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Greens, because they also believe in climate change and in carbon pricing, and we have the same goal. I recognize that Quebec is way ahead of the rest of Canada. However, facts are facts, and climate change is a reality. Canada does not have much time to catch up with Quebec. We are on the right path.

108 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/1/23 4:41:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Milton would agree with me that we cannot let motions like this one distract us from the real goal, which is acting on the climate crisis with the urgency it requires. One way that the governing party is slowing us down in this effort, though, is by directly funding the oil and gas industry, which is the very industry most responsible for the crisis we are in. In last year's budget alone, we added $3 billion more in subsidies to that industry. Could the member for Milton talk about what he can do to move the governing party away from subsidizing the oil and gas industry and toward investing in the real climate solutions we need?

124 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Jun/1/23 4:41:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Kitchener Centre's sentiment. I would just quote Jean Chrétien. He is so many people's favourite historical figure, although I do not call him a historical figure, because he is in good health. I hope he is having a good day. Jean Chrétien is an incredible voice for Canadians. He said that, when a person is in the House, if the Conservatives are saying they are being too socialist and the Greens and the NDP are saying that they are being too Conservative, they might just be getting it right. That is why I am a Liberal. I think there are great ideas on both the left and the right, and I appreciate the great ideas from my colleague from Kitchener. One thing we can keep doing is listening to each other in the House. I agree that we should not let nasty distractions like this motion take away from the fact that we are in a climate emergency.

171 words

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Jun/1/23 4:43:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert. The rising inflation costs, housing costs, grocery costs and the additional carbon tax are adding costs that have a direct effect on Canadians, especially in rural Canada. The first carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 41¢ a litre. The second carbon tax, including sales tax, will add 20¢ to a litre of gas. The combination of carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2 will mean that Canadians will pay an extra 61¢ a litre for gas. Making life more expensive for Canadians in a cost of living crisis by implementing a second carbon tax demonstrates how out of touch the Liberal Prime Minister is. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that both carbon taxes will have a net cost of up to $4,000, depending on the province in which people live. The House recognizes the failure of carbon tax 1 and calls on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax 2. Not only are groceries more expensive in rural communities, but there is also a distance to essential services, such as medical treatment. For example, a resident of Creston would have to drive to Cranbrook for a medical appointment, for a 250-kilometre return trip. If a specialist were needed, that would be a drive of 850 kilometres to Kelowna. That is a lot of fuel, and we can add to the complexity a senior who is on a very limited budget. Living in a rural area also requires our food security to be delivered from Vancouver. With diesel trucks transporting the product on a 2,000-kilometre return trip, the new cost per litre skyrockets. Can we guess who pays for the fuel increase? It is the rural residents, many of whom are on limited budgets. Let us start from the beginning of our food security. We can take farming as an example. The carbon tax increase will have a direct impact on the price of goods being produced. The higher the carbon tax, the higher the price of vegetables, for example. Of course, adding to the complexity and the price is a 30% reduction in fertilizer. The farmer produces 30% less profit, and the cost increases accordingly. For dairy farmers, the carbon tax to heat barns and drive all the farm machinery adds significantly to the price of the products. The price increase is then given to the store purchasing the products. Let us talk about the stores. Our grocery stores receive the products from the trucks. They pay the farmers for the products, the trucks for the transportation and, just to add to the cost, the store has to pay for the heat to maintain the operation of the store, including, of course, the carbon tax that they pay directly. Lastly, consumers come by. We must remember that it is rural Canada. Many times, they have to drive several hundred kilometres, and they pay the price of the products. This includes the farm carbon tax increase, for example, for heating barns and running farm machinery; the transportation carbon tax increase, which is the distance between the urban distribution centres and the rural grocery stores; the grocery store carbon tax increase; and, of course, the carbon tax for the fuel for the person to get to the store. It is no wonder that rural Canadians are hurting so much with the carbon tax increases, with additional costs on top of inflation. Again, many seniors are on fixed incomes. As an example, Mary in Creston had to decide to go to a grocery store to buy food or drive to a medical appointment 240 kilometres away, because she did not have enough money to do both. It is very sad. Mary asked me if it is all because she lives in rural Canada. Then there are Tara and Bill in Yahk, who drive their children to school and recreation events throughout the Kootenays; some of these events are in larger centres, such as Kelowna and Vancouver. The carbon tax increases have put an end to many of those trips, as they do not have the income to put fuel in their vehicle. Many of the businesses in Cranbrook are trying to weather the carbon tax increases to barely stay open. Of course, there has been significant damage as a result of the opioid issue in Cranbrook, and the groups this affects are non-profit organizations and businesses that have always supported them. However, the carbon tax increases, along with inflation and the damage from criminal behaviour, are making it difficult for our small businesses. The donations to non-profits are getting smaller and smaller; in some cases, there are no donations. Another challenge we face is in transit in rural and urban centres. In urban centres, there are trains, light rail transit, the SkyTrain, the TTC subway, the OC Transpo light rail transit, the Montreal Metro subway, extensive bus service, taxi and Uber-type personal transportation, and compact metro vehicles, even scooters, for point-to-point rentals. I know, having lived in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver for many years, that transit is not only affordable but also convenient. From talking with my daughter, who lives in metro Vancouver, I know that many of her friends who are 30 to 40 years old do not own vehicles. In fact, they do not have a driver's licence, and, in many cases, have no plans to apply for one. When I talk with her friends, I hear that many have lived in metro urban centres all of their lives. Until I talked with them, they had not really understood why rural areas are so different. This is a real challenge. The way of life in rural Canada is a bit different than in our cities. In urban centres, we do not have bus service. We do not have light rail transit. We do not have sky trains and we do not have subways. In fact, in many remote areas, there is no taxi service. Again, it is really challenging for residents. The answer for rural Canada is a vehicle: a gas car or a diesel truck, especially in adverse weather conditions, like travelling through the Kootenays. People are going through the Rocky Mountains, the Purcell Mountains, the Selkirk Mountains and the Monashee Mountains all in one day. The additional carbon tax will have the effect of residents not being able to attend medical appointments, or they will have to pay extra to try to get groceries delivered. Students will not be able to attend school events, or children will not be going to figure skating and hockey tournaments as a result of the carbon tax increase. I am a bit disappointed and, actually, surprised. I have had no response from the government with respect to assistance in funding. I am working with a non-profit group on the feasibility of an electric train from Cranbook to Yahk, Creston, Procter, Nelson, Castlegar and Trail. It is a small, 24-passenger electric train to transport individuals, for example from Nelson to Cranbrook for medical appointments, because, many days, the highways close as a result of avalanches, and many residents are elderly. It would also transport tourists from the Cranbrook international airport throughout the Kootenays, and the Nelson-Castlegar corridor is extremely busy, with significant traffic increases. The end result would be to try to reduce the carbon footprint. All I asked for from the federal government, four times, was enough funding to be able to make a comprehensive business case. The Kootenay Rail Service Society has completed some background research to support the electric train, with funding dedicated to helping reduce carbon footprint. It is a fantastic opportunity for the federal government to show leadership and provide funding to complete the business case. The safety benefits are significant. Here is a really positive project to reduce our carbon footprint, with no support from the government, yet the government is spending billions of dollars on buying legal guns from legal gun owners and spending billions on getting a handle on our addictions and opioid crisis, which is truly an emergency. The 300% increase in opioid overdose deaths is truly evidence that we, as a government and elected officials, need to step up and provide solutions and not band-aids. The government spends billions on housing strategies, yet the price of housing has skyrocketed. Even after spending billions, there has been zero impact from those billions of dollars of spending in Kootenay—Columbia. The carbon tax is having a devastating effect in rural Canada and on all Canadians. The proposed carbon tax increase will impose a significant cost on rural residents.

1456 words

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

Jun/1/23 4:51:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing the member talk about government investments dealing with the environment, when we get the Conservatives constantly voting against it. They have ridiculed, for example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does invest in large projects. That is why it is there, and we have significant amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars, invested in things such as electric buses and so forth. Has the member's group, or the group that he is referring to, approached the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Does the member have some sense of what the actual cost would be? I am encouraged that we have a member of the Conservative Party who is actually talking about how the government can assist in electrifying our transportation industry.

124 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Jun/1/23 4:52:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I have reached out, and the actual cost, surprisingly, is about $400,000 to $500,000. That is all the ask was, for doing the business case to show what the carbon footprint would look like after we got the train installed. It is a CPKC, formerly CP Railway, train, so we would have to work with CPKC of course. That is quite a distance, if members know the Kootenays. It needs to go from Cranbrook all the way to Nelson and farther on. There has been a lot of work done by the Kootenay Rail Service Society. The members have been talking with different residents about how much support there would be, and there is support throughout the Kootenays to run with this electric train. Maybe now that it is out here the member across the way can give me a hand in getting some funding forward so we can go forward with that. I would appreciate that.

162 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/1/23 4:53:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when the biofuel regulations came out, parliamentarians asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to assess the cost of that measure. When the Conservatives read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, they decided that there were indeed costs involved and that they should oppose the measure. Now I am trying to figure out whether they are spreading misinformation or whether they simply do not understand the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Have they ever known a situation where, when asked for a program costing analysis, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated something other than costs? Also, based on their logic, should we oppose all measures whenever the Parliamentary Budget Officer does his job?

113 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Jun/1/23 4:54:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we do listen to the PBO actually, because the PBO has come forward with some cost analysis. I think I would rather listen to the PBO a lot of times than listen to the government. So, yes, I do actually have some faith in the PBO, and that is where we are taking some direction from. We do research, and we want to make sure that what we are looking at is fair and honest, and we are open to finding out what the costs are.

88 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/1/23 4:55:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about what is fair, open and honest. What is fair is making sure that big oil pays its fair share. We can look to Britain where they have an excess profit tax of 25% on oil and gas. Here in Canada, we cannot get the Liberals or Conservatives to charge a tax on excess profit on oil and gas, which is having record profits and at the same time is increasing prices for consumers, as the member alluded to in how that is impacting the cost of goods. What I find amazing are B.C. MPs who come here to the House and they know that the carbon tax in Canada does not apply in British Columbia, because we have our own carbon tax that was created by the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. United, however we want to call it. I think about the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge who actually sat in the B.C. legislature that brought in the carbon tax in B.C., but he comes here, sits in the House and rails against it. It is quite unbelievable to see this. The Conservatives always say that they are fighting for working people, but eight out of 10 Canadians on the federal carbon tax will get it back. The two out of 10 who will not get it back, they will not tell us, but that is actually who they are fighting for: the two out of 10. Will my colleague have the courage to push the government to charge an excess profit tax on oil and gas and return it to Canadians? Does he understand—

281 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/1/23 4:56:29 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the member for Kootenay—Columbia the time to answer. He has 20 seconds.

18 words

Mr. Rob Morrison

Jun/1/23 4:56:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the comment. It is kind of ironic though that the Province of British Columbia has to meet the federally mandated carbon tax increases by 2030. So, yes, there is a lot of pressure put on B.C. to meet the federal carbon tax. To the second question on asking about taxing producers of energy, we are not in government. I wish we were, because if we were I would be glad to solve all of these problems. Unfortunately, we are opposition. That would be a great question for the members in government, not for the opposition.

103 words

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Jun/1/23 4:57:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was such a great presentation from my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia. I was going to ask him a question, but I will get up and speak on the carbon tax, and I am glad we are getting a chance to talk about that here today. I come from Saskatchewan. It is an agriculture province; it is a forestry province; it is an oil and gas province; it is a province with rare earth minerals; it is a province with uranium; it has a lot of things going for it, yet with carbon tax 2.0, the province's GDP would drop by almost 1%. There would be a 1% hit right off the top with that tax coming into effect. The average family in Saskatchewan, which has a rural population by majority, would pay $2,840 in carbon tax. We heard our Liberal colleague talk today about how Saskatchewan families are going to get $1,360 back every year. They are going to pay out $2,800 to get $1,300 back. How can that be right? How can that be revenue-neutral? It is not revenue neutral, and that is what people have been complaining about and saying all along. I think of talking to my friend, Leonard, about the carbon tax. I just need to sit down and say, “Leonard, what do you think of the carbon tax?” and it is a 20-minute conversation going on to a two-hour conversation. He lives in rural Saskatchewan. He has to drive wherever he goes. He has no options to take a bus. He had no options for electric vehicles, because he goes beyond 200 or 400 kilometres. There is no infrastructure for electric vehicles. He has no options to take a train. What does he do? He has to drive. He looks for the most fuel-efficient vehicle he can buy. He has already done that, because it makes economic sense to do that. He looks for other ways to save costs, so he tries to reduce the number of trips he goes on. That is good, but the reality is that he has no choice. The reality for farmers across Saskatchewan is that they have no choice. If I look at an agricultural producer, he is going to pay carbon tax on the fertilizer coming into his farm; he is going to pay carbon tax on the diesel used to plant his crop; he is going to pay carbon tax to take off that crop; he is going to pay the carbon tax to ship out his crop; and if he has to dry it, he is going to pay the carbon tax on drying his crop. Hopefully, the Senate will put forward the bill that would actually give those costs back to farmers. I hope to see the day this House approves that. That would be a step in the right direction to help farmers, and indirectly would help Canadians with their food costs. The reality is that when we look at these costs on a 5,000-acre farm, it is going to be about $150,000 a year that farmers are going to bear, which their competitors just across the line in the U.S. will not bear, nor their competitor in Australia, nor their competitor in Europe. Those areas do not have a tax as punitive as we do here in Canada, so there has to be a better way. Why do we need a taxing system to improve the environment to the detriment of families? Can we not do both? Can we not have an affordable economy, still attack issues in the environment and make sure we do what we need to do to improve the environment? We have seen the carbon tax have limited results and limited success. Going to carbon tax 2.0 would not do anything more except make it worse. The Liberals are going to make it more expensive for people do things. They are going to make it more expensive for people to do things they have to do. They do not have a choice. They do not have an alternative. Is there not a better way? I look at the U.S. They are attacking climate change. They are looking at ways to do it, but not with a carbon tax, because they understand that a carbon tax is so hard on families and small businesses, that it is not an economical way to get the results we need to get for our country. There are different ways of doing it, yet the current government doubles down, and instead of actually looking at it in a very serious manner and saying that they really look at the environment and make improvements to the environment, they are just going to take the money away from our farmers, small businesses and families, and leave them with nothing. How are people supposed to make the changes that need to be made to meet the environmental requirements that are going to asked of them going forward? If we pull $150,000 a year out of a farm, how does that farmer go and make an improvement on his machinery? How does he make an improvement on his yard, like putting in more solar panels? How does he do the things he needs to do to become net zero by 2050? He cannot; he has just given all that money to Ottawa. Where does it come from? There is no help coming back the other way. It is a one-way street, and it is not help that is going to make a farmer more profitable going forward. There is no reinvestment in the industry, the rail system or the ports. We have seen nothing to assist farmers along the way. It has just been a clear cash grab, and that is really sad, because farmers could actually do a lot of things with that $150,000. Farmers in Saskatchewan were the first to do no-till. In fact, I was with Flexicoil and Case New Holland, and they introduced the technology. We were embedding carbon before carbon was really even talked about. We were reducing fuel costs before reducing fuel costs was being talked about. We were doing those things in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, before it was even popular in the House of Commons. Farmers take care of the environment. They recognize climate change. My dad, in the 1970s and 1980s, talked about climate change. He talked about how the weather has been changing and how things are different now than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago and 50 years ago. Climate change, to farmers, is nothing new. Weather change is nothing new. The reality is they want to do their part, but if we drain all of the revenue out of their bank accounts, how can they? How can they participate? How can they raise their families? What will the future be like for food production and food security in Canada if they cannot operate and run a successful farm and if they cannot transfer that asset down to their kids because it is not profitable? That is what is happening with the carbon tax 1 and the carbon tax 2.0. Can we not do something different? Can we not find different ways to meet environmental requirements that actually do that? Can we not put together an environmental and climate change plan that does not penalize families, that does not hurt the mom and dad who live in rural Saskatchewan when they want to take their kid to the doctor or just go to town and buy groceries? Why are they the target? The reality is that there is some $1,480 difference in what they get versus what they pay, so we are already hitting them there, and then we have increased the cost of food and increased the cost of everything else. The doubling down's impact on them is substantial. If I lived in downtown Toronto, and I have no issue with people in downtown Toronto, I would have all the options. I could take the bus. I could take the subway. I could walk. I would have that ability. I do not in rural Saskatchewan. That is what the government fails to comprehend. We do not have the options in place. I want to pivot a little to electric vehicles. I have nothing against electric vehicles, but I live in rural Saskatchewan. We do not have the infrastructure yet, although I believe that someday we will. When I look at what the U.S. is doing in regard to emissions, the U.S. did not prescribe what type of vehicle we need to drive to hit emissions targets. It just set the targets. It went to the industry and said, “Here are the targets and this is what you have to do.” What did the government do? It should have done the same but it did not. It said, no, it has to be electric vehicles. There is a problem with that. What about hydrogen? What about new technologies we have not even dreamt of yet? What about new ways of doing things that actually meet those goals and solve the issues that the electric vehicle does not solve? How does somebody who lives 200 kilometres north of Prince Albert charge their vehicle, get it to Prince Albert and get it home in the same day? How do they do it when it is -40°C? These are questions my constituents are asking. They are asking where the charging stations are, where they will be and what will be involved. If they get to a charging station, will they be able to plug in right away or will they have to wait for 45 minutes before the guy in front of them finishes charging? These are questions that should be answered and talked about as we go down this path. If we look at the U.S., it said to those in the industry to figure it out. They are smarter than the government. They can figure it out and tell us the best way. It may be hydrogen. It may be electric vehicles in certain areas. It may be something else. That is fine as long as we hit the goals. That comes back to the carbon tax. Why do we care about how we do this as long as we hit the goals? When we see that something is not working, why would we not change course? Why would we not actually look at it in a different way and say this is not as good a way of doing it as we thought it was going to be? In theory, it sounds really great. In reality, it is killing our small businesses. In reality, it is doing a lot of harm to our families. Can we not do something different instead of doubling down on it? That is the frustration Canadians have right now. We should be listening to Canadians at the doorsteps and talking to them. Why are the Liberals not looking for other alternatives to hit the environmental targets they put out, instead of just doubling down on something that has not worked? That is why we are here today. We are just telling them over and over again that the process they put in place is not working. Look for something different. Can they not do an environmental program without hurting Canadian small businesses and families? Surely they can do that.

1947 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Jun/1/23 5:06:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a brief question, but first I have a comment. The member mentioned electric cars. I do not think electric cars are the solution for climate change. I think they are one of them. I live close to a big city, so I drive an electric car. I enjoy it very much. Madam Speaker and I were talking about an electric car purchase and I hope hers is going well. That is not the point. The point is that there are ways that all of us can participate in this. By the way, I looked it up, and Prince Albert has quite a few car charging stations already, so the next time I come through Saskatchewan, I will stop and charge, we will have a coffee and he will realize it is not all that bad. My question is around what I was saying before about picking and choosing. He has referenced a certain number, some $1,000 amount. I looked at the fiscal and economic impact for Saskatchewan in all five economic quintiles. That is how much people earn. In the first three quintiles, it is net-positive or net-neutral. When I ask my colleague who he is standing up for when he is saying this is going to cost people in Saskatchewan a lot more money, I want him to acknowledge that this is in the top two quintiles. The top 40% of earners are the ones he is saying should pay no or less price on pollution. The money is going to people who really need it. Will he acknowledge that he is really only standing up for the highest 40% of income earners?

281 words

Mr. Randy Hoback

Jun/1/23 5:08:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what the member is saying is that it is not actually revenue-neutral. What he is saying is it is turning revenue to somebody else. My numbers come from the Parliamentary Budget Officer for an average family in Saskatchewan. That is where my numbers come from. If he wants to parse them differently he can go ahead and do that. The reality is that the average family in Saskatchewan is going to receive some $1,480 less than what they pay. That is the reality. When he talks about charging stations in Prince Albert, he is right. I have nothing against electric vehicles. I think it is something I am going to own somewhere down the road too. However, the reality is that in Nipawin, Shellbrook, Tisdale, Melfort, Smeaton, Kinistino and Carrot River, there is very little charging capacity. These people all have to drive an hour and a half to two hours to get groceries in some cases, so this does not work. Let us put some thought into that before we mandate it.

177 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/1/23 5:09:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today, during a Conservative opposition day, I heard and carefully listened to many unreasonable arguments. I have to say that, like my colleague, I represent an agricultural riding, and even though I do not share his conclusions, there are several interesting elements in his speech. However, he told us that the carbon tax was a bad thing for our farmers because our international competitors do not have a carbon tax. He gave the example of Europe, which has an emission permits trading system. His argument, therefore, does not really hold water. Moreover, he is making up a second carbon tax based on the biofuels regulations. In that regard, in addition to the California standard, there is a U.S. federal standard, and both Great Britain and Europe have a standard. Everyone has standards. Based on his arguments and his logic, I conclude that he approves of the biofuels standard.

151 words

Mr. Randy Hoback

Jun/1/23 5:09:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no problem with standards provided that standards are equipped right across the world and are not set in such a way that they create an unlevel playing field for our producers. That is what this has done. We have done it to ourselves. Nobody has imposed this on us. The reality is that there is nothing wrong with standards, but let us have the same standards as the U.S., the same as Europe and the same as our competitors. We do not have that. We pay more. We compete in a marketplace with our hands tied behind our backs because we get charged more by the government than anybody else does around the world.

119 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/1/23 5:10:34 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, as I said earlier, oil and gas companies are showing record profits. As an example, Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the full carbon price in the scheme. I agree that carbon pricing is not the only solution. There have to be many potential solutions, and we need to do better to help protect the environment. I wonder if the member agrees that protecting the pockets of billion-dollar corporations is not the right approach for addressing this issue.

80 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 204