SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 291

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 19, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24
Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)
  • Mar/19/24 12:39:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been looking back in Hansard. In the last few years, 36 members of the Liberals, which is actually 37 because one member added it today, stated that the carbon tax was revenue neutral. Who says it is not? Public accounts actually said, last year, that $670 million of the carbon tax was used for government programming. Does that sound like the carbon tax is revenue neutral as the Liberals are claiming?
75 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24
Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)
  • Mar/19/24 3:30:53 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, two years ago this week, the member for Davenport stated that the carbon tax was 100% revenue neutral for the government, yet Finance Canada in the public accounts stated that $670 million from last year alone was kept by the government and not redistributed. In fact, the public accounts actually said a couple of years ago that $100 million was kept for government programming. I wonder if the member would like to correct her statement from two years ago and come forward with the real facts on what the carbon tax is, which is not revenue neutral.
99 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24
Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)
  • Mar/19/24 4:45:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague across the way was so adamant for the need to make the carbon tax revenue-neutral because it goes against a comment made by someone else who stated, twice in the House, that the government made a decision to make it revenue-neutral. This member then stood up another time and said that it is revenue-neutral at the federal level. Guess who that other member was? It was the exact same member. Finance Canada told public accounts that, last year, $670 million was not given back in rebates. It was kept by the government. Going back as far as 2019, it started at $100 million, which was kept, per the public accounts, for government programming, not returned in rebates. What is it? Is it revenue-neutral, as the member has stated twice, or is it not revenue-neutral, as public accounts has stated, and as he stated earlier today?
157 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 291 - Mar/19/24
Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith
  • Mar/19/24 4:46:49 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, 90% of the dollars go directly back to households. On the revenue neutrality, 100% of revenues go back to provinces of origin: 90% goes to households directly and the other 10% goes into businesses, municipalities and— An hon. member: It does not. Mr. Nathaniel Erskine-Smith: Mr. Speaker, there is that other 10%, and there is a credible debate to be had as to whether that 10% should be allocated the way it has been allocated. I would argue that, if there were a vote in the House, and members are free to bring forward the motion, I would vote for 100% revenue neutrality, but when they want to axe it entirely, it is a joke of a motion. I will vote that down every time.
135 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border