SoVote

Warren Steinley

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Conservative

Regina—Lewvan
Saskatchewan
Voting Attendance: 67%
Expenses Last Quarter: $123,656.05

Government Page

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

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

Context: House Hansard - 220 - Sep/19/23

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Sep/19/23 4:00:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. I have just a simple question regarding the approval process. Will this help projects like tidal energy be approved faster so we can have more clean energy in the Maritimes and on the east coast? We see right now that it is a bit of a slow walk and it should be approved a bit faster. We are hoping this legislation would help that out.

76 words

Context: House Hansard - 158 - Feb/10/23

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/10/23 11:06:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, energy affordability is a major concern under the NDP-Liberal costly coalition. While the NDP and the Liberals are clinging to their woke climate dogma, many Canadians are struggling with the decision to put food on their tables or to heat their homes, and it is only going to get worse. According to the government’s own documents, there will be a nearly 25% increase in electricity demand by 2050, mainly due to these out-of-touch Liberal mandate policies. What is the plan to increase our electricity production? What energy sources will we use to fuel this increase? When will the Liberals begin to build grid capacity in our electrical system? An upgrade like this is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars and will take decades to build, but, as usual, the Liberals make the announcement, do the photo op and then do nothing, except this time their obsession with wokeism might literally leave Canadians in the dark, bankrupt or both.

167 words

Context: House Hansard - 40 - Mar/3/22

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Mar/3/22 1:57:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the conversation and discussion. I agree that it needs to be had. However, I do not believe that the issue of energy independence and the issue of our ability to use our natural gas to support other good actors in the world and other democratic nations in Europe are separate. I think this is actually key and critical, because the dependence of Europe on natural gas puts Europe in a difficult position. I think these issues are completely intertwined, but I look forward to a further conversation. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.

102 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Warren Steinley