SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 272 - Jan/31/24

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jan/31/24 9:16:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, back in November I asked the Minister of Employment if he was going to stand up for his constituents in Edmonton Centre and vote with the opposition on its motion to carve out the carbon tax for home heating for his constituents in Alberta and all other Canadians. The answer I got was very disappointing. It was a bizarre sort of pivot to a defence of their corporate welfare system, wherein it looks like the Government of Canada is being fleeced by profitable companies through its subsidy system. It had nothing to do with my question. My question was not even remotely answered, so here we are tonight with a chance to have a redo on this question. I asked if the member would stand up for Canadians and vote with the opposition to axe the tax and relieve Canadians of the carbon tax on home heating. The same day, or certainly the same week, I do not remember if it was the same day or not, I also raised a question about the member for Calgary Skyview, asking whether or not he would be given a free vote and be permitted to represent his constituents, who so plainly and obviously need relief from the carbon tax. We had a bitter cold snap in Alberta. We had temperatures in Calgary get close to -40. I am told it was even a little colder at one point in Edmonton. People need to heat their homes. The carbon tax makes this more expensive for Canadians. We all know this. The Liberal caucus knows this, and the Atlantic Canadian members know this, so that is why they demanded of their own government that they have a carve-out for home heating for Atlantic Canadians. We know now that the government has explicitly admitted that the exemption for Atlantic Canadians was pure politics. It had nothing to do with the relative cost or carbon efficiency of an oil-heated furnace. It had to do with politics. We know this because the Minister of Rural Economic Development told a national television audience that the government had heard from the Atlantic Liberal caucus, and that if other Canadians, prairie Canadians for example, wanted a carbon tax carve-out, they would have to elect more Liberals. She said the quiet part out loud and told all Canadians that it is all about politics and that, because they have an Atlantic caucus facing the prospect of massive defeat in the next election, which will be fought on issues of affordability, the carbon tax and the extent to which the carbon tax makes life unaffordable for Canadians, they gave Atlantic Canadians this carve-out. As it turned out, the members for Edmonton Centre and Calgary Skyview did not stand up for their constituents. They, in fact, voted against the Conservative opposition motion, which would have given carbon tax relief to all Canadians, regardless of where they live and regardless of what kind of furnace they happen to have in their home. We have been clear on this side, right from the beginning, that the carbon tax is not an environmental plan; it is a tax plan—

530 words

Context: House Hansard - 272 - Jan/31/24

Ms. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.)

Jan/31/24 9:20:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening to be answering a question from the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, who is a former classmate of mine from the University of Calgary. I also very much welcome the opportunity to once again clarify how having a price on carbon and making sure that it is no longer free to pollute is the most effective way of addressing climate change, curtailing its devastating effects on both the health and safety of Canadians, and preserving Canada's natural beauty. Canadians deserve measures that address the significant cost of climate change while making life more affordable for Canadians and that is exactly what our government is putting forward. We know from experts and research that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is to put a price on carbon pollution emissions, which are the chief cause of man-made climate change. It encourages savings across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make changes. It creates incentives for Canadian business to develop and adopt new low-carbon products, processes and services, and it is both effective and affordable for consumers. That is because the bulk of proceeds from the price on carbon pollution goes straight back into the pockets of Canadians in provinces where the fuel charge applies, with eight out of 10 households in these provinces continuing to get more money back through their quarterly climate action incentive payments than they pay as a result of the federal pollution pricing system. In provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can receive up to $1,500 a year under our plan. Our government understands that we need to maintain the price signal that is necessary over the long term for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. However, at the same time, we have also shown that we are willing to be flexible and innovative in supporting options that will go even further to cut down on climate pollution in the long run. We have taken temporary, targeted measures to suspend the tax on home heating oil to encourage consumers to switch from using home heating oil to using a cleaner, much more affordable solution that will allow them to save thousands of dollars and reduce carbon emissions in the long term. Measures such as this will make life more affordable in the right way while supporting the goal of achieving a prosperous, low-carbon future for all Canadians.

421 words

Context: House Hansard - 272 - Jan/31/24

Mr. Pat Kelly

Jan/31/24 9:23:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, this parliamentary secretary and I did go to university together. As a former Calgarian, she is in a unique position to know, if she has any connection left to the city, just how extraordinarily unpopular her government and its carbon tax policy are in that community, which goes to why I asked about the members for Edmonton Centre and Calgary Skyview and their responsibility to represent their constituents. If this carbon tax were so effective and so affordable, and thus acceptable to Canadians, and if the member is correct about the numbers, then why has the PBO completely undermined the arguments she has made about its affordability for Canadians. More so, why the carve-out? The carve-out for Atlantic Canadians was pure politics, and the absence of one for Albertans is also politics.

138 words