- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Regina—Lewvan
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,656.05
- Government Page
- May/9/24 8:43:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am proud to talk about what we have contributed to the world.
What the member fails to understand is that we also produce a lot that helps feed the world. We produce the wheat, barley, peas, lentils and other crops that feed millions of people around the world, and we have to export them around the world. The fact that the member cannot comprehend that we are an exporting economy and thus that our emissions would be a little higher is, quite frankly, not surprising.
Second, we have the natural gas that could displace Russian gas for our partners so they would not continue to feed a war machine. That would also increase our emissions a bit, but it would lower global emissions. Third, if he wants to find out about our environmental plan, call an election and we will run on it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 8:41:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of people continuously talk about the inaction on climate, but that is not the point I was talking about. I was talking about all the innovations we have made in agriculture and in our energy sector to lower our emissions. We should be a guiding light for innovation and technology in those sectors. The last barrel of oil on earth should be drilled in Canada because we have environmental standards, labour standards and human rights standards that are better than those of other oil-producing countries.
Canada produces 1.5% of the world's emissions, and of Canada's 1.5% of emissions, agriculture accounts for 10%. We are leading the world. There is a great study by the Global Institute for Food Security that I wish all of my colleagues would read because, compared to all other jurisdictions that produce what we do, we have the lowest emissions per bushel on earth.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:35:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today we got an Order Paper answer for the Conservative member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, which said that the Liberal government is not even tracking how much the carbon tax is reducing emissions. It really is mind-blowing that the Liberals have a flagship policy but are not tracking it to see whether it is successful or not.
What I am hearing from people on the ground is that they believe that the fact of food price increases because of the carbon tax is not a flaw but a feature of the Liberal-NDP carbon tax. They believe this is what it was intended to do, because they do not realize what the policies are that actually affect farmers, and how much they do so. I do not believe that the NDP and Liberal members thought the carbon tax would go up to $15,000 for a 5,000-acre farm in Saskatchewan, but that is the effect it has had. Just imagine when the carbon tax goes to $170 a tonne. What is that going to do to consumers across Canada when they go to buy groceries?
Farmers are price-takers. Input costs are going up and up, and they see a government that wants to keep kicking out their feet, instead of giving them the opportunity to be successful, by putting policies in place.
I am so proud of our agriculture producers. There is a study by from the Global Institute for Food Security, out of Saskatchewan, that said our producers create fewer emissions than any other comparable jurisdiction in the world. Agriculture in Canada produces 8% of our total emissions. We should be trumpeting that at every international event we go to and showing how proud we are of our farmers. They are producing more and doing it with fewer emissions than farmers in any other country. That is what we should be talking about on the world stage to make sure that more countries are following Canada's leadership when it comes to agriculture and agriculture emissions.
346 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/6/24 7:21:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate today around the price of food inflation; the report that came from the agriculture committee, which I am proud to sit on; and some of the ideas we have heard over the last little while about how increases in the cost of food have affected Canadians in their day-to-day lives.
My friend from Battle River—Crowfoot just had a great point that he asked my colleague from Kenora about, and I asked this of Tyler McCann in committee today. I asked whether the point of a carbon tax, which the Liberals and NDP opine is the great resource they are going to use to lower emissions, was to change consumers' behaviour. Mr. McCann said yes, it is. We can go on Environment and Climate Change Canada's website, and see that the point of a carbon tax is to change people's behaviour based on an increasing price of a product.
It just so happens to be a product we are talking about today, which is food. I said in committee that it is amazing that a government is now fighting its own policy. Liberals and New Democrats are scrambling over each other to say that the carbon tax has not worked, because it did not increase the price of food. It was really one of the first times in my life in public service that I have seen a government arguing that a policy did not work when it did.
I see this in other areas of people's lives too. We see it in transportation, where mothers are having a harder time filling up a tank of gas to take their kids to hockey games, to ballet classes or to music lessons. In rural Canada, we have to drive. There is not public transportation service like there is in downtown Toronto, so people are making a choice about how many extra shifts they have to pick up to cover the next tank of gas. We see it with seniors, who are still in their homes, asking how many sweaters they are going to have to put on because they cannot afford to keep the heat up.
We see it time and time again. The Liberal-NDP carbon tax is making people change their behaviours in Canada, because it has made everything so much more expensive across our country.
We know it is working, because there was a little caucus revolt in the Liberal Party recently; Atlantic Canadian members, along with the Conservatives, who have called for a long time to axe the tax as part of our plan, said they had to exempt home heating. The proof is in the pudding. Why would the Liberal members in the Maritimes fight tooth and nail? It is because they are having political issues to get a carve-out from the carbon tax, since home heating is costing too much. It is almost like it is working, but the people within the Liberal Party and the NDP did not realize how much pain they were going to inflict on Canadians.
There is no other solution to heat a 100,000-square-foot barn. Today, in Ottawa, I met with a dairy farmer from just outside Regina. He said his heating bill for the barn has increased and increased. I have a SaskEnergy bill from another farmer, a chicken farmer. For one month, their gas supply cost is $1,092. Their carbon tax, with the GST on top of it, is $1,071. They are almost paying more in taxes on a monthly bill, $20 less, than they are for the gas they are supplying to heat their building. Maybe I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I do not think the Liberals and the New Democrats realized how much this was going to hurt.
From APAS, in Saskatchewan, Mr. Boxall was at our committee when we were talking about food prices. He said that, on the average farm in Saskatchewan, the carbon tax cost will be between $14,000 and $25,000. However, when it goes to $170 a tonne by 2030, Canada's Food Price Report for 2023 stated that a farm could pay $150,000 in carbon tax per year.
We asked Mr. Boxall in committee how that was going to affect farms. He said that:
It will have a huge impact—$150,000 on a 5,000-acre farm. It's unfathomable that we will get there on a carbon tax alone. It makes my skin crawl to think that's where we'll be, and then to be turned around and not recognized for the work that is done, ensuring that we have proper grasslands and that we have proper management of our farm soil. Farmers are the biggest stewards of the land in this country, and we care more about the environment than we ever get credit for. It really is going to be detrimental to Saskatchewan farmers.
That says it all. This Liberal government continues to punish our farmers, the people who put food on our plate, without a second thought of what the effect is going to be.
We talked to some witnesses today in the agriculture committee and one witness laid out three things that this government has done and wants to do that will affect food prices. Number one, he said, was the carbon tax. Number two was P2 packaging where the government wants to make sure that, in Canada, we cannot use plastics to ship fruit and vegetables, which the U.S.A. has already said it is not going to do, and so it is going to cut the supply of fruit and vegetables in our country. Number three is the fertilizer reduction targets. Those three things are what this witness said is going to inflate the cost of food exponentially year after year. This is from people who are on the ground from the fruit and vegetable growers in Ontario.
So, are we not going to believe a carbon tax bill that we saw from Saskatchewan where they were paying almost as much in taxes as in gas supply? Are we not going to believe members from the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, APAS, who are on the ground tilling the soil and planting the seeds who have said that $150,000 for a 5,000-acre farm will destroy farms in Saskatchewan, because it will make them unsustainable, which will lower supplies again? Are we not going to believe a dairy farmer who says that it is going to cost more and more each year to heat their barn with this carbon tax?
The PBO said that, by 2030, farmers will be paying $1 billion a year in carbon tax. My friend for Huron—Bruce, who has put this through on a private member's bill, talked about the GST and HST that we pay on the carbon tax, which is about $490 million a year. So, combined, the carbon tax and then the tax on the tax is going to be $1.5 billion automatically out of farmers' pockets, and people do not think that is going to have an effect on food prices. That is irrational. It is taking $1.5 billion out of farmers' pockets.
How are we going to make that up? Two things will happen: one, consumers will see that on the till at the grocery store, and prices will increase because farmers have to make that up; or two, farmers go out of business, and no farms, no food. If we lower the food supply in Canada, that will also increase the food cost. Members can see, and I agree with my friend from Winnipeg, that either way, consumers in rural or urban Saskatchewan are going to have to pay more for food.
At this point in time I would like to move an amendment, which will be seconded by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Tuesday, June 13, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with instruction that it amend the same so as to: (a) take into consideration that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, has been amended by the Senate in a way that will prevent farmers from getting a carbon tax carve-out for grain drying, barn heating and other farm operations, and that since the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made clear that this bill, in its original form, would save Canadian farmers $1 billion by 2030, reducing the cost of food for Canadian families currently struggling to afford groceries; and (b) recommend that the House adopt the motion rejecting the Senate amendments as soon as possible.
1516 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:20:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member brought up the rebate. I talk about our climate policies all the time because in Saskatchewan, we have lowered our per capita emissions more than any other province in Canada has over the last five years, with carbon capture and sequestration and new technologies. The new technologies in farming have sequestered more carbon, and we are doing a wonderful job of ensuring that we have climate sustainability in the province of Saskatchewan. With respect to a smog day in Saskatchewan, that is how out of touch the member is. What a ridiculous comment that is. We are the land of blue skies, and we have a beautiful province.
I would just like to say that the member is so incompetent. He says that people get $1,200 back, but with carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, the people of Saskatchewan pay $2,600 a year in carbon tax. Therefore, if he can tell me how $1,200 is more than $2,600, I would love it. I would love it if he could tell me how that math works out, but he is not very good at telling the truth in the chamber.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 7:12:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in and try to get some answers for the question I asked the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources last week. I am happy that the parliamentary secretary is here because he has said a few things tonight that I would really like to delve into. We will do just the facts if he is okay with that, and if he can manage to answer some things straightforwardly.
One is that they have always said that the carbon tax, after eight long years of this NDP-Liberal government, was an environmental plan. They have also said that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. They have also said that eight out of 10 Canadians get more money back, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not true. He said that 60% of Canadians get less money back after they pay the carbon tax. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said about their carbon tax plan.
If the carbon tax was revenue-neutral and was an environmental plan, why was there the flip-flop last week? Why do they now say that they had to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax as an affordability measure?
Both of those statements cannot be true. It is impossible. The carbon tax cannot be revenue-neutral and eight of out of 10 Canadians, as they falsely claim, get more money back if they have to flip-flop with what they say is a nationwide program to say, with their NDP colleagues, that they need to do this as an affordability measure. I would love to hear from the parliamentary secretary if he can square the circle that this is an affordability measure now. It is actually impossible. Everyone across Canada knows this, and 3% of Canadians now get an exemption from the carbon tax, while 97% do not.
They have said, all week, that this is a nationwide exemption. It is not true. Most of these exemptions are where the Prime Minister was getting decimated in the polls, in Atlantic Canada, and the Liberals are desperate to stop the bleeding in their polling numbers. This flip-flop had nothing to do with environmental science and everything to do with political science. I am excited to hear the answers to a few of these questions.
While I am on the topic, he is talking about the carbon tax being an environmental policy, which we all know is not true, as it is a tax policy, because, today, the environment commissioner said that, with their carbon tax as their flagship policy, they will not meet one environmental target they have made. They will not make their emissions target by 2030.
His good friend, the member for Whitby, said that Canadians will feel pain because of this carbon tax. They were exactly right. They felt the pain with zero environmental gain, and two million people in this country line up at a food bank every month. That is their record. I would love to see how the carbon tax can be an environmental plan when it is actually a tax plan, which is revenue-neutral, but they had to flip-flop to make sure it is now an affordability measure. Could he please explain that to Canadians because I cannot?
554 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 1:31:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today. In Saskatchewan, in 2021, total GHG emissions were 67.1 million tonnes. Saskatchewan's GHG emission intensity dropped 18% from 2005 to 2021 because of innovations like carbon capture and sequestration. We have stored over five million tonnes of carbon in carbon capture over the last five years.
My question for the hon. member is this. Seeing that Premier Moe has come out and said that Saskatchewan residents are not being treated fairly, obviously the expression “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” is not true for the Liberals anymore. What is her response to Premier Moe's statement that he will not collect carbon tax anymore, and to the fact that Saskatchewan has lowered emissions per capita more than any other province over the last five years?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister must have been a heck of a dodge ball player in his day, because he totally dodged that question about time allocation and his deep NDP roots.
I wonder if the member would advise former premier Romanow to actually do time allocation 35 times in one Parliament, if he was still the premier in Saskatchewan. However, that is beside the point.
When the member talks about “no plan for the environment”, I would invite him to come to the PTRC in Regina, where they have a number that says that Saskatchewan has lowered the emissions, per capita, more than any other province in the country, and has the highest GDP increase over the last year. That is combining the environment and economic growth. Why can the Liberals not do that?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/23 12:54:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I join with my colleague, whom I work with on the agriculture committee, in wishing everyone a happy Filipino Heritage Month. We have a large Filipino community in Regina, and I say hi to all my friends back home.
I have a simple question for my hon. colleague. Could she tell me how much carbon taxes 1 and 2 will reduce emissions in Canada? Is there a number that the Liberals have? They have not met many emissions reduction targets yet, so what will carbon taxes 1 and 2 do? What is the number in terms of how much emissions will be reduced?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 7:23:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish the member had read from his prepared notes, because everything he said was untrue.
First, I wish he would find a piece of literature that said I ran on a carbon tax in my riding. That would be interesting to see.
Second, if the member agrees with his environment minister, then he agrees that people are going to pay more in the carbon tax than they are going to get back, because that is what the environment minister said. It is nice that he finally agrees with the Conservatives.
Third, most people understand that we have to do something about climate change, but the hilarious part is the Liberals have never met a target they have made. They are 58th in the world in reducing emissions. That is a fact. That is from the recent COP. The fact that they think this carbon tax scam is actually going to lower emissions is false, and they should stop spreading misinformation to Canadians.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about carbon capture and sequestration. That is something very close to my heart. In Saskatchewan we had one of the largest scale working facilities in the world. It has taken the equivalent of millions of cars off the road over the years it has been functioning. It was a large investment by the Government of Saskatchewan and has done a lot to clean up the environment in Saskatchewan. The Petroleum Technology Research Centre said Saskatchewan has had the highest reduction in emissions in the country, and a lot of that is because of the carbon capture and sequestration technology.
In my colleague's earlier comments he said that was not true. I am wondering, in the spirit of not sharing misinformation, if he could come to the realization, as my NDP colleague should as well, that carbon capture and sequestration is a good way to keep our environment clean and still produce much-needed fertilizer and fuel that we need to feed the world.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 3:10:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, talking about just the facts, here are some facts. For seven years, taxes have gone up on all Canadians. For seven years, emissions have gone up. We had a better record on emissions than the Liberal government ever has had. Those are the facts.
Here are some more facts. Some 1.5 million Canadians rely on food banks to put food on their tables. Universities are sending out fundraising letters so that kids at our universities in Canada can eat before they go to bed.
This is the Canada these Liberals have made, so when will they get it together and stop forcing their failed carbon tax on all Canadians?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/22 5:17:19 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate this afternoon.
I thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his remarks. I do appreciate them.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway talked about a socialist plot. I think there are some socialist plots, but I do not think they involve the environment. They are more or less about wealth redistribution than anything else. The members are quite cagey on the NDP side, so I look forward to answering questions from them after this speech.
A member from Vancouver on the Liberal side asked what the Conservatives' plan is when it comes to the environment. I would put this to him.
Several private members' bills were put forward last session before an unnecessary election was called. One of them was to ban the dumping of raw sewage into the lakes, rivers and oceans, to make sure we could clean up the St. Lawrence River. That private member's bill was put forward by my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and only God knows why, but the Liberals voted against it. They voted against the ban on dumping raw sewage into our pristine lakes, rivers and oceans in Canada.
When they talk about the environment and what would be the Conservatives' plan, one would think a very good start would be to ensure that we do not put pollutants into our water systems. That would be a rational conversation and something that any government should do. We have the capacity. We have the Liberals' failed Infrastructure Bank, which could have put money into making sure the municipalities had the money to upgrade their infrastructure so we would not be putting raw sewage into our water systems in this country. That would be a start. If the member asks the question again, I may have tripped on the answer to it already.
A bill that was brought forward by the member for York—Simcoe in the last Parliament, and which was part of the Conservative campaign plan, was to make sure that we stop dumping plastics in other countries and to make sure we look after our own waste. Once again, unknown to many in this chamber, the Liberals voted against that private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to make sure we have a cleaner and greener environment to be passed on to the next generation.
A couple of those private members' bills we put forward in the last session before the election of 2021 would have definitely been concrete measures to make sure the environment is cleaner. I would like to have that conversation and put on the record that there have been several measures we have looked at as a party to ensure our environment stays clean.
As my friend from Edmonton West said, we will be supporting the bill going to committee for amendments. Because the CEPA has not been amended since 1999, I think there are some things that need to be changed. We look forward to having that conversation at committee.
Another thing we have asked our Liberal counterparts is what their environmental plan is. The bill proposes to change CEPA, but what is their plan to ensure that emissions go down? They have a carbon tax, but that definitely is not an environmental plan. It is a tax scheme. Under the current government, emissions have continued to increase.
The Liberal government has brought forward policies recently, such as, the reduction in fertilizer use on farms across the country, which is not an environmental plan either. That is just a plan to hamstring our producers, ranchers and farmers even more when they are trying to feed the world. That is not a climate plan. We would ask our Liberal colleagues across the way that same question. When I talk to residents in Saskatchewan and around the country, they want to know what the benefit of the fertilizer reduction plan is. One of the biggest things I am asked is if it will result in less food in Canada.
On the flip side, if the Liberals want our farmers and producers to continue to produce the same amount of food with less fertilizer, they are going to have to use more arable land. This would result in more machinery being used and higher fuel consumption because more land has to be used to produce the same amount of food. A lot of the time when we hear about the environmental policies and actions of the Liberals, they have some unintended consequences, because they either have not done their homework or they do not understand what it takes to produce food.
When I see the environment being impacted in different ways when the Liberals bring forward these policies, that is what I like to bring to the table. Maybe they do not understand what it takes to actually produce the food that ends up in grocery stores across the country.
Another thing I would say about our environmental plan is the Conservatives also put forward a policy called the clean air act. For all of these things, we have taken steps to try to ensure we have a cleaner environment for the next generation. I have three young children, and I think everyone in this chamber wants to ensure they have the opportunity to enjoy a clean environment, just as we did growing up as children.
I grew up on a family farm, and we took the sustainability of our farm very seriously. If we did not have grassland, our cattle could not be fed. If we did not have the proper soil and nutrients in our hay lands to produce hay, we did not have feed to feed the dairy cows. I grew up on a dairy farm, so we had to make sure there were nutrients in the soil, that we conserved water and that we had runoff. Tree rows would collect the snow so there would be runoff.
Producers have been environmental stewards for generations, and it is not because of any government policy—
1014 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:56:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc is very concerned about the environment and believes that the carbon tax actually cuts emissions, but I read this in the Toronto Sun: “The Americans, without a national carbon tax, reduced [their emissions] by 21%. Canada, with a national carbon tax, reduced [their emissions] by 9%.” When we are talking about this, we are talking about making sure the carbon tax does not triple, because we are worried about the affordability crisis that Canadians are facing.
Could the hon. member explain to me how supporting a national carbon tax, which does not cut emissions but increases the price of food, is a good policy going forward for Canadians in all provinces?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 6:39:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to take to my feet tonight to try to get some answers regarding the carbon tax that the NDP-Liberal government is going to force upon the people of Canada. Not only was a commitment made in the 2019 campaign that the Liberals would never increase the carbon tax by more than $30 per tonne, but now we are going to see it go to $150 per tonne.
The question that I asked the Minister of Agriculture a couple of months ago was this: What are people supposed to do on the farms?
I have a friend now who is paying $90,000 a week in fuel, and a big chunk of that is from the carbon tax. I have another friend who runs a restaurant in Regina. His name is Raul. He said that if he did not have to pay a carbon tax on the heating and utilities to operate his restaurants, he could hire one new employee in each restaurant. He could give someone else a living wage so they could support their family, go to work, earn a paycheque and do better. It would make sure they do well in society.
These are a couple of things that I would like to have answered.
Another burning question I have right now is this: When is the carbon tax going to kick in enough that it actually lowers emissions? I also hope my friend from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell can answer this question: How much has the carbon tax lowered emissions across the country? I believe that in their seven years of being in government, the Liberals have never actually hit an environmental target. They have not planted their billion trees. They have not lowered CO2 emissions. Really, they have just been punishing everyday families, punishing ordinary Canadians and making it harder for them to get by.
We see the rising cost of inflation, and no one believes that the carbon tax has not had a negative effect on it. We have to pay more to truck fruits and vegetables and other groceries into different areas, especially rural and remote Canada. The carbon tax affects the price at the grocery store. I would like to know from my friend as well whether he believes that the carbon tax has not negatively affected the price of groceries. Does he think the carbon tax might actually make the price of groceries go down once it hits $150 a tonne?
These are a few things that I hope he can answer in his response.
Finally, the government has had some trials and tribulations, obviously of its own making, and I would ask him about the commitment the Liberals made to Canadians that they would not increase the carbon tax past $30 a tonne. I think that is very important, and people across Saskatchewan and Canada want to hear the answer to this: Why did they break that promise? Why did they feel it was okay for the Liberal government to make a promise in that campaign and then not follow through? It is not doing anything for the environment. If they are not lowering emissions and this carbon tax is still making everything less affordable for Canadians, what is the point?
I know he is going to answer with this: “Oh, we are just going to give it back in a rebate.” No one in Saskatchewan believes that, because the Liberals are making life less affordable and the rebate does not cover the price at the pumps or the price we are paying at the grocery stores.
605 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/27/22 4:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the statement put forward by my colleague from Nunavut, and I agree with her. The federal government should do more for housing. I think it is failing communities in northern Canada.
I have a question for her about her leader's comments that were made just previous to her speech and the fact that he is basically a carbon capture denier. He does not agree with the science of carbon capture, although it is out there already. I would like to know the member's opinion. Does she agree with her NDP leader about carbon capture not being a way to help clean up the environment?
I invite all New Democrats to come to my riding in Saskatchewan and tour Boundary Dam 3, which is one of the largest working carbon capture facilities in the world. It is the equivalent of taking millions of cars off the streets, millions of cars' worth of emissions, and it has been working for five years. The NDP in Saskatchewan actually started this project.
Are New Democrats against their provincial cousins and are they actually carbon capture deniers?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
