- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- May/27/24 10:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been struck by in the debate around the government's response to the challenges associated with climate change is the praise of intentions, as if intentions are what matters most. It has been said, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.”
When it comes to offshore energy development, this could be a great opportunity to support European energy security, to displace dirtier forms of fuel in other parts of the world and to allow the development of green projects with less red tape. However, the government is piling red tape upon Canadian projects, the likely effect of which is actually more greenhouse gas emissions, because we are missing an opportunity to displace less secure, dirtier fuel around the world.
Does the member not think that good intentions are not enough, that we have to look at the results? In this case, the development of Canadian energy with less red tape is good for the environment insofar as it displaces less environmentally friendly sources of fuel around the world.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:43:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Conservative priorities are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. When it comes to our plan to axe the tax, let us be clear that increasing the cost of transportation is not a bug associated with the carbon tax, but a designed feature of it. The purpose of a carbon tax policy is to increase the cost of transporting people and goods, supposedly to deter that transportation. The problem is that people still need to eat and to get around, and in the process, they end up paying more without the supposed impacts on emissions.
That is why Conservatives are proposing to axe the tax, and we are opposed to the intentional policy of the NDP-Liberal coalition to increase prices on the transportation of food, people and other goods. Can the member speak to the importance of, and the benefits associated with, our proposal to axe the tax?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 7:02:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising tonight to call out the hypocrisy of the government.
In the way it treats Canadians and the way it treats itself, there is, needless to say, a profound dissonance between those two things. On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who clearly loves to travel. He went to London this year and he or a member of his entourage spent $6,000 a night on a hotel room. We have actually tried to get information from the government about the carbon emissions associated with all the Prime Minister's travel, because he is raising the carbon tax. In fact, he plans to triple the carbon tax on Canadians, while he benefits from a whole bunch of publicly funded travel.
It is part of his job to travel, but the government was not even able to provide to the public accounts committee information about the level of greenhouse gas emissions generated by the Prime Minister. We would think he would be willing to be transparent about the cost and the carbon emissions associated with his own personal travel, but he does not want to do that. Instead, he wants to impose burdens and extra costs on Canadians by tripling the carbon tax that they have to pay when they travel, on their own dime, to visit family members, to go to essential functions or to have some time away. Therefore, we see the hypocrisy already from the government on that.
While the Prime Minister has been travelling all over the world and staying in outrageously expensive hotels, we have the government imposing the ArriveCAN app on Canadians, which was making it very difficult to travel. The ArriveCAN app was full of glitches and, in cases I hear from constituents, people who met all the rules such that they should not have had to quarantine were nonetheless ordered to quarantine by this piece of technology that did not work. This app, despite all of its problems, cost $54 million.
The government spends $54 million on an app that does not work and that forces many Canadians to stay home, including, in certain cases, even Canadians who have complied with what are supposed to be the rules and are still being forced to stay home. Meanwhile, we have the Prime Minister being able to take advantage of all this publicly funded travel, so that is more hypocrisy from the government. The government is grounding Canadians, increasing their taxes and imposing the ArriveCAN app on them, while the government's own largesse is truly out of control.
In response to my questions about the government's outrageous spending, about the ArriveCAN app and other things, we were told by a member of the government that this app saved lives. He claimed the app saved lives, which is particularly bizarre because we have specifically asked the government, in a written question, to show us the data that supports the travel restrictions it put in place. It turns out, according to the government's own responses to questions, that it did not even track the travel-based transmissions of COVID.
Regarding the various restrictions the Liberals imposed on Canadians with respect to being in airports, being in train stations and going back and forth, on which they imposed all sorts of restrictions, we asked how many cases of transmission they had seen in these environments that would justify the restrictions they put in place. It turned out that the Liberals were not even gathering data on the level of transmission in airports, train stations, etc.
In other words, the government is making these outrageous claims that this glitchy $54-million app saves lives, and it does not even have the data. Will the government account for this complete hypocrisy?
630 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 5:32:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here in the House to address the government's bill, Bill S-5, and more broadly to address the environmental policy approach taken by this government.
Sadly, we are seven years into the tenure of this government, and it still does not have an environmental plan. It does not have a plan to address the challenges we face in terms of climate change or various other issues. What it has in reality is a tax plan that it would like to tell us is an environmental plan. Its plan is to continue to increase its carbon tax, to triple its carbon tax, yet it wants to back away from the actual nature of that policy and the mechanism by which it is supposed to work.
Those who favour a carbon tax as a response to the challenges we face associated with climate change believe essentially that raising the price of goods that entail carbon emissions will discourage people from consuming those goods, engender less consumption of those goods and therefore entail fewer emissions overall. That is the logic of a carbon tax. It is not one I agree with, but I can at least understand that is how it is proposed by those who defend it, at least by those who defend it honestly.
However, entailed in that process is the idea that by increasing the price of goods, such as driving, airline flights and heating one's home, people will do it less. When we read in the news that people are suffering because of higher prices, that they are worried about whether they can heat their homes, that they are being forced to cancel vacations or trips in their car to visit or support family members, it is important for people to understand that it is not some accidental by-product of the carbon tax policy. It is actually the purpose of the carbon tax policy. It is to lead people to do fewer of those activities. It is to lead people to heat their homes less, to drive less, to travel less, etc.
The government has put in place a policy that is designed to limit the ability of Canadians to do those various things, yet we have members of this coalition, NDP and Liberal politicians, who act surprised that this is the outcome. They ask why gas prices are higher. I do not know, but maybe it is because they have imposed a tax on gas specifically designed for the purpose of raising the price. That would be one explanation of why gas prices are higher.
Now, let us acknowledge that there are many things that go into the price of gas. There are many things that go into the price of these various goods that are taxed by the carbon tax, but one of those contributing factors to the price is the tax that is put on top of it. Therefore, I wish members of the costly coalition in this place would be willing to own up to the fact that this is the consequence of the policy they have put in place.
We should also note just how grievously unfair that policy is, because the people who are going to be forced to cancel those trips and the people who are going to be forced to sit in the cold are people who are relatively less well off. Many members of the House, people who are in a better position financially, are going to be able to continue to afford to travel. They are going to be able to continue to afford to heat their homes, but many Canadians will not. Those many Canadians bear the brunt of the cost associated with the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very regressive in the way that it hits the population. It is regressive in that it imposes those costs most on those who can least afford to pay them.
This is not an environmental plan. Why do I say that? It is because the independent analyses have shown very clearly that the government's carbon tax will not achieve the environmental objectives that it wants it to. Why is that the case? Why does this logic that imposing costs on people will lead to less consumption not work? It is because many of the goods we are talking about are essentials.
We live in Canada. People need to heat their homes. Of course, there are adaptations people can make. They can make renovations to their homes, but for those who are most affected by the carbon tax, they likely struggle to afford those kinds of adaptations. Therefore, the approach we have emphasized is how we support people with new technology but also with various kinds of deductions that allow them to make those kinds of adaptations.
Our approach has always emphasized technology as opposed to taxes. That is why a previous Conservative government brought in the home renovation tax credit. Some of these changes are aimed at making it easier for people to afford the adaptations they need. It is an environment-oriented tax cut instead of imposing a punitive tax on people. A tax-cut approach helps people have the resources they need to make these kinds of adaptation.
The problem is, when people are barely getting by and we increase costs on them, that is not going to lead them to make adaptations to their lives. That is not going to allow them to afford a new home with better insulation. They are struggling to get by. That is the point and that is the reality. This carbon tax is part of a politically manufactured affordability crisis that we have in this country. The government's out-of-control spending is driving up the cost of everything by driving inflation. The government is responding to that by additional punitive taxes. Of course, we know about its planned payroll taxes, but also its plan with the carbon tax.
It is particularly notable now, in the global context we are in, what a failure the government's approach to energy policy is. More and more countries are recognizing how important energy security is. We are seized with the horrific, genocidal Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we are thinking about what more we can do to support Ukraine. There are many areas the government needs to do more, but one of those areas is to work toward, as quickly as possible, increasing Canadian energy production and support our European allies by supplying them with the vital energy they need to not be dependent on Russian gas.
Canada is one of the only democracies in the world that has an abundance of natural resources. As it happens, many of the world's democracies are geographically small, populous nations that rely on the import of natural resources.
Within the community of democratic nations, because we are rich in natural resources and because we are more sparsely populated, I believe Canada has a special vocation in terms of supplying our like-minded allies with the energy resources they need to not be reliant on dictator oil and not feel forced to contort their foreign policy to access the energy that they need. Canada can play that role in displacing Russian energy in Europe.
It is not just about replacing foreign energy imports into Canada, although that is part of the picture. We should be replacing foreign energy imports into Canada and displacing dictator oil from our European partners. This is an urgent issue in terms of global security and Canada needs to step up. However, the Prime Minister and other ministers continue to throw cold water on proposals for more support to Europe in the form of natural gas production, exports and other things along those lines. It is a huge missed opportunity.
An hon. member: I was choking, too.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP is making jokes about my cough. I will not take it personally, and I wish him well.
The legislation we have in front of us does not respond to—
1359 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:20:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today in the House, the Conservatives put forward a motion with a simple ask of the government: to recognize the harm being done to Canadians by the government's high tax, high borrowing, high spending, high inflation agenda, and to stop the damage by committing to reverse planned tax hikes, which are scheduled to take effect automatically next year. We have been very clear. The Conservatives are calling on the government to stop these automatic tax changes.
In particular, tonight I want to focus on the issue of the carbon tax, because there has been so much, dare I say, misinformation from the government around the carbon tax and around the actual record on the environment.
Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary misstated the record by implying that emissions went up under the previous government. Actually, emissions went down under the previous government. In every single jurisdiction across this country, emissions either went down or went up by less than they had in the previous decade.
A carbon tax is not necessary, and what we are seeing with the government is it is not effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Liberals continue to double down on a failing strategy. They have said that raising taxes is somehow an environmental plan, and when it is shown not to work, when they are missing their environmental targets, their solution is even more taxes.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. On the issue of a so-called environmental plan, the government thinks that if its current taxes have not worked to achieve environmental objectives, it is going to pile more and more taxes on and expect a different result. Projections from various corners are that this carbon tax is going triple under the government, and Canadians simply cannot afford that.
As a basic show of good faith, the government should listen to Canadians. It should listen to premiers, and not only Conservatives premiers. There is even a Liberal premier who is saying that now is not the time for the government's planned carbon tax hikes to go ahead.
I mentioned in my previous questions the way that the carbon tax hike, these scheduled tax increases and the crisis they are causing regarding inflation and affordability are threatening national unity. There are deep divisions in this country, and understandably, because many Canadians have lost their jobs and many Canadians are struggling to pay for basic necessities such as groceries, gas and home heating fuel. Those Canadians are increasingly frustrated by the fact that the government is not listening, does not seem to care and is in fact putting in place automatic tax increases that would make it even harder in the future for them to afford their basic necessities.
This is causing a national unity crisis. This is causing further deepening divisions within our country. The government is simply failing to listen and respond.
The first step the government needs to take is to recognize this reality. We are calling on the government to support our proposal, which is to immediately reverse the planned automatic tax increases, the scheduled tax increases for next year, that the government has said it is going to put forward. We are calling on the government to stop this, to give Canadians the relief they are asking for, to start allowing our country to heal and to start allowing Canadians to see hope and opportunity so they will actually be able to afford their basic necessities.
There is more we need to do, of course, to make life more affordable, but a first step would be for the government to stop the damage and stop increasing taxes.
624 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my riding, carbon capture and storage is very important. It is a technology that is working, that is being supported by the private sector.
The NDP has constantly attacked carbon capture and storage, claiming that it is not working, when we know that, in fact, it already is working. It is an important way of working with industry to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
I wonder if the Bloc could share its perspective on the important role that carbon capture and storage can play as part of our efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, NDP members keep referring to carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage is happening right now. It is happening in my constituency and in other places. There is an existing project that received a substantial amount of public funds, but there is a new project that is being developed, the Polaris project, built entirely with private funds, taking advantage of carbon credits. This is the private sector investing in carbon capture technology, benefiting from carbon credits and doing so in a way that reduces emissions while creating jobs and opportunities.
It is really hard for me to understand politicians in this place who say they care about the environment attacking technology that works, that reduces emissions, and seemingly attacking it only on the basis that the private sector is involved. It is as if the NDP is not so much motivated by concern for the environment as it is by just a general antipathy toward any kind of private sector development or companies involved in the oil and gas sector trying to be part of the solution.
Will NDP members recognize the reality that carbon capture and storage works, that it is working now, and take the opportunity to at least see it in action—
209 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
